Top Climate Adviser To Irish Government Admits Climate Change deniers are "winning the propaganda wa

by Scientist Tue Apr 27, 2010 19:45

"Questioner" shows Edvard Munch's painting "The Scream".

The painting's origin is interesting.

The Indonesian volcano Krakatoa turned Norwegian nights blood red, and frightened everybody in Norway.

See:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/about/pressreleases/3308....html
.

by Hypatia. Mon Apr 26, 2010 19:30

Another study which points to the reality of Global Watming and it affects flora and fauna. More at the url below.

Warming cause of early tree leafing

STUDIES IN Co Kerry have shown climate change is causing leaves to appear on beech trees nearly three weeks earlier than they were appearing 40 years ago.

Research at Valentia Observatory has shown the leaf unfolding date for the beech there has, on average, moved from 125 days into the year (May 5th/6th) to 105 days (April 10th/11th).

The bud-burst projections for the birch are expected to increase by between 15 and 20 days in Dublin in the period between 1950 and 2010 and between four and 17 days in other locations, according to new projections.

Dr Alison Donnelly, a phenologist (studying the timing of natural events) at Trinity College Dublin, told a conference on climate change that while the 0.7 degree rise in temperatures in Ireland did not seem high, it was already having a significant effect on the budding and leafing of trees and the number of bird species making Ireland their home.

by Scientist. Mon Apr 26, 2010 17:36

Napoleon famously asked this question from the most mathematically brilliant man in France:

"Surely Mr Laplace you mention the Solar System without mentionioning its Creator?"

Laplace famously replied:

"I did not need that hypothesis".
.

by Scientist. Mon Apr 26, 2010 15:17

The butterfly effect has an interesting pedigree

It can be argued that Pierre-Simon La Place was the smartest person who ever lived:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace

La Place reasoned that if we knew everything we could predict the future.

Then came a bombshell.

The also fantastically brilliant Henri Poincare pointed out that we must know the position of ever atom IN THE UNIVERSE to perfect precision before we can predict tomorrow's weather.

Thus the "Butterfly Effect" was born.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Then came "Quantum Physics"

Heisenberg and his "Uncertainty Principle."

Oh Dear.

by Climate Scientist Sun Apr 25, 2010 14:47

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/1003181325...0.htm

Butterflies are emerging in spring over 10 days earlier than they did 65 years ago, a shift that has been linked to regional human-induced climate change in a University of Melbourne- led study. The work reveals, for the first time, a causal link between increasing greenhouse gases, regional warming and the change in timing of a natural event.

The study found that over a 65 year period, the mean emergence date for adults of the Common Brown butterfly has shifted 1.6 days earlier per decade in Melbourne, Australia. The findings are unique because the early emergence is causally linked with a simultaneous increase in air temperatures around Melbourne of approximately 0.14°C per decade, and this warming is shown to be human-induced (anthropogenic).

Lead author of the study Dr Michael Kearney from the Dept of Zoology, University of Melbourne says the findings could help our ability to forecast future impacts of climate change on biodiversity.

"Shifts in these seasonal life cycle events represent a challenge to species, altering the food and competition present at the time of hatching. Studies such as ours will allow better forecasting of these shifts and help us understand more about their consequences," says Dr Kearney.

The studywas conducted by Dr Kearney and PhD student Natalie Briscoe. Prof David Karoly from the School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne contributed the climate modeling work. Co-authors include Dr Warren Porter (University of Wisconsin) and Drs Melanie Norgate and Paul Sunnucks from Monash University.

The study will be published in Biology Letters, a journal of the Royal Society.

by HB Fri Apr 23, 2010 00:48

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8637978.stm

from pegasus' article

According to the BBC's Richard Scott, the Civil Aviation Authority has pointed out that military planes fly much faster and suck in far more air than their civilian counterparts.

It says the work done with manufacturers to clear the UK for flying again did not factor in military jets, which are "a whole different world".

The CAA also says conclusions should not be drawn from the RAF's statement about the air-worthiness of civilian aircraft.

It adds that the all-clear for civilian aircraft to return to the skies still stands and there have been no reports of any ash damage.

no one here said there was no ash - it has been clearly stated a number of times that 'zero' was not an rationally acceptable level, before people could begin flying again, and the article clearly supports that point of view

by Pegasus Thu Apr 22, 2010 19:14

The RAF take the ash cloud seriously and suspend Typhoon flights.

RAF Typhoon training halted as ash found in engine

Training flights on RAF Typhoons in Lincolnshire have been suspended after ash deposits were found in one aircraft's engines. The fleet is being checked at its base in Coningsby, Lincolnshire.

An RAF spokesman said the Typhoons were "very high performance jets" so staff were "just being extra cautious".

by Scientist. Thu Apr 22, 2010 08:44

"BUT the actual 'SCIENTIFIC-DATA(!1!!!11!11!!)' contradicts almost everything the media is reporting on the subject - not my data - this is the data produced by the instruments used by scientists."

If you have good scientific data may I suggest that you show that data to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change hb (or is that "HB"?).

They would be very interested.
You can contact them here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/con....html
.

by hb Thu Apr 22, 2010 04:05

University told to hand over tree ring data

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/862...7.stm

Queen's University has been told to hand over research data

Queen's University in Belfast has been told by the Information Commissioner to hand over 40 years of research data on tree rings, used for climate research.

Douglas Keenan, from London, had asked for the information in 2007 under the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr Keenan is well-known for his questioning of scientists who propose a human cause for climate change.

Queen's University refused his request saying it was too expensive, but it is now considering its position.

The university claimed that as the information was unfinished, had intellectual property rights and was commercially confidential information, it did not have to pass it on.

After a series of counter claims from Mr Keenan and the intervention of the Information Commissioner, Queen's have now been told that they could be in contempt of court if they do not hand the data over.

In his legal decision, the commissioner said that Queen's had failed in its procedural requirements and had wrongly used legal exemptions to withhold the requested information.

Mr Keenan, who hopes to use the data to reconstruct temperatures during the Medieval Warm period, said "this has taken three years, but it is worth it.

"It is an important victory for FoI on research data," he said.

Tree ring data is used by climate scientists to study historical climate information.

BBC environment correspondent Richard Black said Mr Keenan's victory has a wider context.

"This is the latest development in an on-going process that has seen 'climate sceptics' attempting to obtain raw data and documentation on methodologies from researchers, especially those working to understand the climate of the past, " he explained.

"The sceptics' contention is that academics have, through error or will, mis-represented Earth's temperature record so as to portray a picture of a warming planet.

by hb Thu Apr 22, 2010 04:02

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7608722/Volcanic-ash-cl....html

[UK] Met Office blamed for unnecessary six-day closure

The government agency was accused of using a scientific model based on “probability” rather than fact to forecast the spread of the volcanic ash cloud that made Europe a no-fly zone and ruined the plans of more than 2.5 million travellers in and out of Britain.

A senior European official said there was no clear scientific evidence behind the model, which air traffic control services used to justify the unprecedented shutdown.

Eleven major British airlines joined forces last night to publicly criticise Nats, the air traffic control centre, over the way it interpreted the Met Office’s “very limited empirical data”[hardly any data at all since in 6 days the 'Sciientists' sent up no aircraft to monitor the situation and gather actual real data preferring to sit at computer and play with their useless models]

by Scientist. Wed Apr 21, 2010 16:45

Getting back to where the discussion started,the so called "Propaganda War".

Science is about facts, and science is about a bit of guesswork about where the facts might lead us in the future.

Science has no way of predicting the future,even in principle.

A runaway train might not provide us with "definitive evidence" about where the train will end up.

We can only guess what might happen.

The laws of physics and chemistry and biology might lead us to a smart conclusion though.

Jump off that train !

As for Ice.
Discussing present day Ice is just a sideline for people who think that everything must happen this minute or it is not happening at all.

Ostriches come to mind.

The inexorable increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is the problem.

We must jump off THAT train..........that train is the train to nowhere.
.

by Pegasus Wed Apr 21, 2010 15:32

Back in the air for now. But for how long. Things could get a lot worse.

Threat of new, larger Icelandic eruption looms

For all the worldwide chaos that Iceland's volcano has already created, it may just be the opening act.

Scientists fear tremors at the Eyjafjallajokull (ay-yah-FYAH-lah-yer-kuhl) volcano could trigger an even more dangerous eruption at the nearby Katla volcano - creating a worst-case scenario for the airline industry and travelers around the globe.

A Katla eruption would be 10 times stronger and shoot higher and larger plumes of ash into the air than its smaller neighbor, which has already brought European air travel to a standstill for five days and promises severe travel delays for days more.

The two volcanos are side by side in southern Iceland, about 12 miles (20 kilometers) apart and thought to be connected by a network of magma channels.

Katla, however, is buried under ice 550 yards (500 meters) thick - the massive Myrdalsjokull glacier, one of Iceland's largest. That means it has more than twice the amount of ice that the current eruption has burned through - threatening a new and possibly longer aviation standstill across Europe.

Katla showed no signs of activity Tuesday, according to scientists who monitor it with seismic sensors, but they were still wary.

Pall Einarsson, professor of geophysics at the Institute of Earth Sciences at the University of Iceland, said one volcanic eruption sometimes causes a nearby volcano to explode, and Katla and Eyjafjallajokull have been active in tandem in the past.

In fact, the last three times that Eyjafjallajokull erupted, Katla did as well.

Katla also typically awakens every 80 years or so, and having last exploded in 1918 is now slightly overdue.

by hb Wed Apr 21, 2010 15:04

All moot now anyway since Irish Airspace opened at 9pm yesterday Tuesday 20 april - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0421/....html

by Loki Wed Apr 21, 2010 14:36

Heres the opinion of a former test pilot who flew through a volcanic cloud. Read what happened to the plane and what he thinks.

Former test pilot recalls flying through volcanic ash

PILOT'S EXPERIENCE: A FORMER US test pilot who witnessed first hand the effects that flying into volcano ash has on jet engines said the aviation authorities had no choice but to shut down European airspace.

Bernie “Topgold” Goldbach, now a lecturer on the multimedia programme at Tipperary Institute, said flying into the volcanic ash cloud left by the giant Mount St Helen’s eruption in 1980 had been a scary experience. Mr Goldbach said he was sitting in the right seat of a giant military cargo plane the C-141 Starlifter on May 20th, 1980, when it approached the leading edge of Mount St Helen’s volcanic ash cloud, and the cloud extended higher than several weather experts had predicted.

“I still remember the uneasy feeling I got when Hal the aircraft commander throttled back at level off because the number four engine burped and shot a 10-ft plume of flame out its front compressor. The whole aircraft shuddered, and our main air conditioning pack started a wild temperature fluctuation.”

Two of the aircraft’s engines had to be repaired at a cost of more than €500,000 in today’s money, and he made a “memo to self” to make sure he avoided volcanic ash when flying in the future.

“The ash attaches to the turbine section of an aircraft engine. It starts to cause all sorts of problems. It changes the airflow characteristics, reduces thrust and causes backblow. It blew a combusting mixture back through the front of the engine. It can lead to engine trouble.”

He said ash could cause a catastrophic engine failure. Alternatively, it could cause huge damage to aircraft engines which are more than a third of the cost of a plane.

“Aircraft are not designed for anything other than air going through the engines,” he said.

The latest ash plume was such that planes flying through it increased the chances of an accident.

“It was a safety decision, not just a commercial decision,” he explained. “It is going to cost airlines a lot of money, but it would have cost them even more money if they crashed.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0420/1....html

by Engineer. Wed Apr 21, 2010 14:01

"It remains a Fact that no one has ever been injured from an aircraft disabled by a volcanic eruption."

True for two reasons:

Reason No 1:
Modern aircraft are superbly well designed.......they can take a heck of a beating and still keep flying.

Reason No. 2:
Pure Luck.

The 747 referred to this Wiki article did not crash for both of the above reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

If you are a bit scared of flying you might not want to read here about that volcanic incident:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-431802/The-stor....html
.

by HB Wed Apr 21, 2010 01:09

The Arctic sea ice extent now exceeds levels recorded since 2002.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

In principle, SIC data could have errors of 10% at most, particularly for the area of thin sea ice seen around the edge of sea-ice cover and melted sea ice seen in summer. Also, SIC along coastal lines could also have errors due to sub-pixel contamination of land cover in an instantaneous field of view of AMSR-E data.

Because of the possible errors in SIC mentioned above, satellite-derived sea-ice concentration can be underestimated, particularly in summer

Arctic Sea Ice extent exceeds 2002 levels

by HB Wed Apr 21, 2010 00:36

NATO is currently conducting what is called a large-scale 'NATO Response Force Air Live Exercise' in the skies over Europe.

It has been on-the-go since April 12th and will continue until April 22nd and the media have, obsessed with all things aviation related at the moment, have not reported much about it

http://www.eucom.mil/english/fullstory.asp?article=USAF...-2010

Sixty aircraft ranging from fighters, attack aircraft, helicopters, tanker and airborne early warning aircraft are operating from air bases located in Germany, the Czech Republic, France, Poland, and the UK.

In addition to air assets, tactical employment of theater missile defense and ground based air defense assets will be extensively exercised.

on the 19th NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said " that the ash cloud was not affecting the alliance's military readiness." - http://www.f-16.net/news_article4065.html

by HB Tue Apr 20, 2010 20:33

below is a screenshot of irish airspace as 20.27 hours Tue april 20, 2010 as shown @ http://www.flightradar24.com/

All flights shown are British Airways

BA testing filghts over Ireland 20 April, 20;29 hours

by HB Tue Apr 20, 2010 16:45

At 16.42 Tues day Apr 20, there is an Aer Lingus flight (origin unknown) probably a test flight, circling at Shannon on a downward trajectory

Real live actual Irish plane in actual real live Irish Airspace

by HB Tue Apr 20, 2010 16:31

As vegetable oils are carbon neutral

far from it -

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/0507052318...1.htm

Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops 'Not Worth The Energy'

Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.

"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."

Not to mention the utter idiocy of turning much needed farmland over to the production of fuel-crops

you AGW-hysterics really need to take the time to actually go and research what the other hysterics are telling you. Just because some true-believer tells you what you wanna hear, it ain't necessarily so, joe

by HB Tue Apr 20, 2010 16:20

No matter what the IAA and the Irish Met office say, the Satellite images have been telling a different story -

http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Basic/Magnify_Image/index....s/ULB

by HB Tue Apr 20, 2010 16:07

you guys can post as many 'news' reports quoting unnamed sources as you like. It's still not going to change the fact that the IAA is demonstrably and verifiably wrong.

the real world is contradicting you guys and the models, every time the models are tested - this is FACT, not news media fiction like you guys have been presenting here.

the radar is not in the pay of Big Oil as far as I know

by Pegasus Tue Apr 20, 2010 14:12

This would suggest that flying into an ash cloud is not good for jet engines. Certainly not to be recomended for commercial flights. But I think the Israeli Air Force should fly into the cloud en masse.

NATO: F-16 fighters damaged by volcanic ash
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_re_eu/eu_volc...maged
By SLOBODAN LEKIC, AP Aviation Writer – Mon Apr 19, 1:53 pm ET

BRUSSELS – A senior Western diplomat said Monday that several NATO F-16 fighters had flown through a cloud of volcanic ash and that that one had suffered engine damage.

The official, who could not be named under standing regulations, declined to provide further details on where or when the incident happened. He said only that glasslike deposits were found inside the plane's engine after a patrol through European airspace.

But Bo Redeborn, an official of the European air traffic agency, said later that the F-16 belonged to the Belgian Air Force.

The incident highlighted the danger of flying through the ash clouds that have paralyzed civilian air traffic over much of Europe over the last five days.

Volcanic ash tends to stick to a jet engine's interior parts, such as the turbines, where it melts to form a glassy coating that restricts air flow. It also can clog the tiny cooling holes on the jet's fan blades, leading to overheating and eventual engine failure.

by Pegasus Tue Apr 20, 2010 14:07

Back in the Real World there are those who beg to differ with HB. Breaking news at 13.46.

Ash may not clear before weekend, agency warns
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0420/....html

ÉANNA Ó CAOLLAÍ

Tue, Apr 20, 2010

Levels of volcanic ash in Ireland's airspace may not clear before the weekend, the Government’s Taskforce on Emergency Planning said this afternoon.

The taskforce met this morning for the sixth time at the National Emergency Co-ordinating Centre to discuss the latest on the ongoing situation regarding the volcanic ash cloud.

While the volcanic activity at Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano is now generating less ash than previously, is said Met Éireann has forecast that the weather over Ireland will remain unchanged for the next few days. This means the plume of smoke might not move away from its current path before the weekend.

Met Éireann said the weekend should bring changes to Ireland’s weather pattern, with easterly winds moving the plume of smoke and ash from Iceland’s volcano away from Irish airspace.

It said such a change should bring the plume, if it still exists, westwards to Greenland and this should enable flight restrictions to be eased over Ireland and Europe.

by HB Tue Apr 20, 2010 14:05

Relying on Models and ignoring or refusing to collect actual data is the new 'scientific method' it seems

This volcano had been steaming for about a month. Why didn’t the Volcano analysis center at the Met and/or the airlines have plans in place to send up drones or scout planes to evaluate the actual ash dispersion? Why didn’t the decision makers start scenario-planning in advance of the event, and consulting with one another? Etc. This isn’t just a scandal about decision making. The quality of the decisions made is arguable. What’s not arguable is the scandalous lack of preparedness and foresight.

When I first heard about the European ash-cloud grounding air traffic I naively assumed that there would be an immediate program of test flights with dust collectors flying transits through the cloud. Given the demonstrated effects of high concentrations of atmospheric volcanic ash on jet engines, I assumed that there would be scores of military propeller powered aircraft mapping the ash concentrations at various altitudes and studying the progression and dispersion of the ash.

Nothing has surprised me more when I found out there were no test flights but that instead a computer model was being used to predict the progress of the ash cloud and to determine when it would be safe to fly. The only way I can characterize such an approach is complete imbecility and one should find out what institutions of “higher’ learning the individuals making these decisions attended so one knows what universities to steer students away from.

The Met Office computer modeled ash cloud does not include any information on concentrations, and are therefore ikely useless for their stated purpose. The actual concentrations within the real cloud is very likely varied. Obviously there is a lower limit below which it is safe to operate.

There have been eruptions going on around the world for years and planes negotiated their way around them. If proper air samples had been collected, instead of looking only at models, this total cessation of air transport over Europe may have been needed only until there was a clear picture of what was up there, rather than a blanket order to stop all travel.
My problem with some of the use of precautionary principles, is that analysis paralysis overwhelms normal decision making. The groundings may have been acceptable initially but the modelling should have been tested real world immediately.

The agencies should have been testing, not sitting behind a computer screen.

Aircraft fly in some of the most extreme weather conditions nature can throw up, day in day out. They fly and divert around major storms and so on.

Conspiracy is yelled when business operators do what the agenicies should do. Test the computer based theory against reality in real time. Then a real life and death decision can be made, scientifically and at arms length to conflict of interest.

Air France/KLM, Lufthansa & BA have all flown tests with no damage.

You want ZERO risk flying? Don’t fly!

The evidence is that there is insufficient ash to be a problem, it’s a matter of detectability Previous incidents have shown sand-blasting of wind-screens & significant leading edge & compressor damage, these are not in evidence.
Practically all the data has shown that there is no ash worth speaking of up to 20,000 ft. Jets are somewhat less efficient at that altitude, and of course to set that as an altitude limit is going to reduce the available airspace, but surely it should be possible to run a ’skeleton’ service up to 20,000ft, or 15,000ft if one wants to play really safe. If all non-essential flights are curtailed, it should still be possible to run at, say, 25% of normal capacity

by HB Tue Apr 20, 2010 13:46

as of tue 20 April @13.21 there were 4 commercial aircraft in the Airspace over Ireland according to http://www.flightradar24.com/

All are Lufthansa Airbus on Long-haul flights to the US and Canada - So obviously the IAA and Irish Met Office decisions have either been ignored or over-ridden by European authorities

“We sent ten Boeing 747 and Airbus 340 jets on transfer flights from Munich to Frankfurt,” Lufthansa spokesman Klaus Walther told the paper. The planes were moved in order to be in the most useful place once the ban is lifted, he explained.

“Our machines flew to a height of 24,000 feet, or around 8,000 metres. In Frankfurt the machines were examined by our technicians. They didn’t find the slightest scratch on the cockpit windscreens, on the outer skin nor in the engines."

“The flight ban, which is completely based on computer calculations,is causing economic damage in the billions. This is why, for the future, we demand that dependable measurements must be available before a flight ban is imposed.”

His frustration was echoed by Air Berlin, Germany’s second largest airline.

“The closure of the airspace has been imposed solely on the basis of data from a computer simulation from the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre in London,” Joachim Hunold, head of Air Berlin, told the paper.

This data was used by the German weather service to work out which areas are covered by the ash cloud, and this is then used by the German DFS air traffic authority to decide on the a flight ban, the paper said.

“Not even a weather balloon has been sent up in Germany to measure how much volcanic ash is actually in the air,” Hunold said.

On Sunday he criticised the government for not having set up a crisis team. He said he had sent two Airbus planes to the current maximum allowed height of 3,000 metres, and that they had shown absolutely no damage on their return.

“We are amazed that the results from the test flights conducted by Lufthansa and Air Berlin on Saturday have had absolutely no effect on the decisions made by the air safety authorities,” he said.

He offered to conduct further test flights to gather further evidence on whether the fears that the ash particles would damage planes.

The Bild am Sonntag said a plane belonging to the German air and space travel centre, DLR, had not been ready for use as the necessary instruments to measure volcanic ash still had to be installed.

A spokesman for the DLR said on Sunday that a flight would go up to 10,000 metres on Monday taking equipment to measure the density of the ash distribution at that height.

Dutch airline KLM has also reported that it sent a jet to 13,000 metres and found nothing unusual, according to Der Spiegel magazine.

A spokesman for the company said the flight from Düsseldorf to Amsterdam had been a test flight on request from the European Union. Further test flights have been taking place in France and Belgium, the magazine said.

The flight ban has been extended to 8 pm on Sunday, with no end in sight. The DFS said on Sunday it was unclear how long planes would have to remain grounded.

so, the scientists have banned flights based solely on computer simulations and NOT on any in-the-field actual observations - just like the Climate models are based completely on computer simulations and have not been backed up by observation in the field, and have been repeatedly proven to be woefully inaccurate

All of this has been based onBritish MET’s computer models

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,68973....html

‘Air Berlin CEO Joachim Hunold criticized the fact that the results of test flights had no influence on the decision of the air traffic control authorities as to whether to reopen airspace in countries across Europe. “In Germany, no one has even sent up a weather balloon to measure if volcanic ash is in the air, and if so, how much,” Hunold told the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.’

The BBC reports that there is ‘zero tolerance’ on ash.

” ‘No tolerance’ rule for volcanic ash”:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8629609.stm

“Over the weekend, [our observations] have detected dust in the atmosphere and on the ground,” the Met Office said on its website.

“A research aircraft has recently encountered dust during its flight, albeit in fairly low concentrations.”

And, no matter how low the concentration, aviation authorities will not reinstate normal control over airspace while the ash cloud is still there.

A spokesperson from from Nats, the UK’s air traffic control authority, told BBC News that there was “no threshold” for concentrations at which volcanic ash was acceptable…Whether to open or close airspace is a decision for national aviation authorities, but all European nations abide by the rules set by ICAO, which recommends implementing a no-fly zone if volcanic ash is detectable in airspace.

Theoretically, therefore, if we have sensitive enough detectors we will always find SOME volcanic ash everywhere in the world. If the only safe threshold is the threshold of detectability, we could soon see all aircraft banned at all times the world over as instrumentation and thus detectability improves. What utter stupidity. There surely has to be an ash density below which the risk to passenger aircraft is acceptable (say, commensurate with other normal hazards), for example 100ug per cubic metre continuously and 1mg per cubic metre for periods not exceeding one hour.

To adopt a ‘zero tolerance’ approach is like the Royal Society’s definition of ‘Dangerous Climate Change’ which is that there is no safe limit for climate change. All climate change , however miniscule is always ‘dangerous’:

“There is no such thing as ‘safe’ climate change…Any level of climate change will be dangerous”

Whilst it may be exceedingly difficult (or philosophically impossible) to define what is ’safe’, i.e. to define the boundary where it becomes ‘dangerous’, the problem is not solved by eliminating the category ’safe’ and therefore defining the whole universe of possibilities as ‘dangerous’. That neatly avoids the problem of having to define limits of acceptability and thresholds, but it is crass stupidity as well. Since climate has changed ever since the world began, by the Royal Society’s definition it will have always been dangerous.

Since aircraft have been flying around volcanoes for decades, not to have threshold levels (say, 100ug per cbm continuous; 1mg per cbm not exceeding one hour; 3 mg per cbm not exceeding 2 minutes etc) is unforgivable. This is therefore simply an ‘own goal’. It is negligence by the regulators (not only financial regulators guilty of this, then).

This is a self-generated problem. There was, after all, an International Symposium on Volcanic Ash and Aircraft Safety, in Seattle in 1991 NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO, see here for Proceedings:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pKY_VLqMTgsC&printse...false

The paper by Przedpelski and Casadevall states:

“The greatest threat to aircraft and engines is presented by “new” clouds (within hours of eruption) that contain large concentrations of ash particles…The ash particle size distribution in volcanic eruption clouds should be documented. In addition, engine and (or) combustor tests should be sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish threshold values for “safe” levels of ash concentration and the “safe” range of combustor temperature. This information, combined with updated dispersion and theoretical fallout models (and with improved cloud tracking) can establish when an ash cloud ceases to be a flight hazard. These efforts will enhance aviation safety and reduce air traffic delays resulting from volcanic activity.”

Let’s face it, the regulatory authorities and the engine manufacturers have had decades to perform actually very simple and controllable experiments, and so enact the recommendations from the international symposium. I have no idea whether they did so – it appears that they focused on detection and avoidance rather than thresholds, and so we have the unacceptable situation we have today.

The same type of thing occurred when London had an unexpected snowfall in 2009: not a single London bus ran that day. Strangely enough, this sort of invocation of the precautionary principle (if in doubt do nothing or shut everything down) is nothing more than a cop-out, and it is interesting to note that the more businesses are required to do ‘risk assessments’ the more the precautionary principle is employed, not the less. Risk assessment today seems to be more a process of risk identification and avoidance, giving more and more excuse to shut activities down rather than properly manage the risks.

If the authorities have not actually performed the relevant experiments to determine what ash density thresholds are commensurate with acceptable aviation risk (say, similar to other risks) – experiments that CAN be done in the lab on multiple engines in controlled conditions – and especially after that International Symposium 19 years ago, then they have saddled the world with the problem we are facing today. The fact that ’scientists’ seem to want to avoid doing properly conducted experiments with copious real world observations with robust physics is a drift back to the Aristotelian method where dogma, theory and dialectic took the place a proper evaluation of the real world. This is where we have arrived at in climate science, to a large degree.

Radar of flights over Irish Airspace

by Pegasus Tue Apr 20, 2010 13:16

There are good reasons for the flight ban. Rad about some of them here.

Volcanic ash: how do you spot the next volcano to disrupt flights? Every one listed

The world's airlines fly over active volcanoes every day. Now a comprehensive list from the Smithsonian gives us a guide to each one

The decision not to fly any aircraft across Europe since last Thursday is based on the latest guidance from the International Civil Aviation Organisation. In turn, the UK's traffic control organisation, Nats, and the Civil Aviation Authority follow the guidance to the letter.

The flight which sparked this system was BA 009 - a 747 from Kuala Lumpur to Perth where all four engines stopped at 37,000 feet in 1982. An international agreement followed - and the bottom line now is that volcanic ash means no flights.

The agreement set up a number of volcanic ash warning centres around the world. VAAC London (actually based at the Met Office in Exeter) covers Iceland - which is why the UK has taken the lead on this volcano.

Behind the agreement sits a mountain of data - in particular a complete list of the world's volcanos from the Smithsonian Institution. ICAO used this to categorise each volcano by its type and its eruption history.

The Eyjafjöll volcano in Iceland (row 1449 on the spreadsheet) is categorised here as S0 - which typically means tall plumes of ash. It's based on historic records - the last time Eyjafjöll erupted was in the 19th century.

This is the full dataset - which includes geographic coordinates and the categorisations. As the map above shows - they straddle the world's main flight routes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/20/vol...-icao

by Loki Mon Apr 19, 2010 14:16

Sorry HB but you probably won't be flying today either. I guess the Aviation Authority and Met Eireann are the ones out od step. You couldn't possibly be wrong.

Irish airspace flight ban extended

IRISH TIMES REPORTERS

The Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) has extended the ban on flying in Irish airspace until 6.00pm and warned the restriction on air travel may last until the end of the week.

Speaking this morning, IAA chief executive Eamonn Brennan advised intending travellers to check with their airlines but insisted there would be “nothing moving" until this evening.

While Scandanavian countries, Spain and the southern part of Italy are now clear for air traffic, Mr Brennan said Ireland was “very much” in the core area. “Ireland and the UK are right slap bang in the middle of this thing; from a practical point of view there’s not much we can do about it," he said.

Mr Brennan said the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) was holding a Europe-wide meeting today. He said it is hoped the organisation will come up with a formula using scientific data which would allow some commercial routes to resume operations.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0419/...a=rel

by Scientist. Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:23

99% of plane over Europe would not even notice.

If only one percent encountered Icelandic ash then several planes would already have fallen to the ground.

Several Lockerbies.
,.

by Frank Adam - private citizen Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:47

We are already on the threshold of global peak oil when we shall have burnt half the stuff available and the other half gets burnt out at twice the speed under twice the demand as China and India become fully developed- or developed enough to equal European and US demand.

Hubbert King in the late fifties first predicted US peak oil for the early 70's which came in on time and there is no reason to disbelieve his work for Global peak oil.

Within the next decade it will be obvious that we have to go alternative and do with less and less petroleum - initially because of price. That will cause ructions to the spoilt softees as they have to get out of big cars and more than one car to a household besides the revival of gazogenes to power farm tractors etc .

Further after a last inflationary petrosheikh spending spree several states and alliances are going to fade badly and quickly as plantations of oil berries and oilseeds replace mineral oil and finance the growth of Africa and several other Third World regions that have so far been undercut from joining the prosperity of the industrial age.

As vegetable oils are carbon neutral and silicate cements in contrast to the current carbonate cements are carbon negative, we might just avoid the global warmng disaster if e also take up insulation, solar, wind and tidal power; but it will be another century to absorb and level out the damage already done.

by HB Sun Apr 18, 2010 22:40

Last April the UK Met Office forecast that we were in for a "barbecue summer" – and we all know how wrong they were on that score

This is the third year running that these purveyors of nonsense have got their predictions for both summer and winter hopelessly wrong. In 2007 and 2008 they forecast that summers would be warmer and drier, and winters milder than average – just before temperatures plunged and the heavens opened, deluging us with abnormal rain or snow according to season.

One cause of the blunders that have made the Met Office a laughing stock is less widely appreciated, however. It is that the multi-million pound computer it uses to assist its short-term forecasting for Britain is also one of the four main official sources of data used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to predict global warming. In this respect the IPCC's computer models have proved just as wrong in predicting global temperatures as the Met Office has been in forecasting those mild winters and heatwave summers.

Climate and weather in general are 'chaotic' - there are 3 definition which apply:

# lacking a visible order or organization
# completely unordered and unpredictable and confusing
# of or relating to a sensitive dependence on initial conditions

The AGW hysterics seem to have forgotten at least 2 of those definitions if not all 3

In Physics, chaos is is defined as 'a dynamical system that is extremely sensitive to its initial conditions '

AGW-Hysterics seem to have become fixated on this definition to the detriment of science in general, ignoring that fact that by its nature chaos is completely unordered and unpredictable and confusing

Like brainless automatons they keep offering up 'predictions' of this chaos despite the fact that they are repeatedly proven wrong.

Albert Einstein once said:

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

by HB Sun Apr 18, 2010 22:09

You will be flying alone.

Not if I fly tomorrow, Monday, I won't

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100418/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_icel...lcano

EU says half of normal flights may run Monday

So even though I posted proof that the predictions were nonsense, I posted the original 'simulations' and posted a link to the reality which was far removed from the simulations - and even linked to a news item which already told you that flights would be resuming monday, which already told you both KLM and Lufthansa said the skies were clear, idiot that you are you still think your comment is anything but nonsensical irrelevant drivel? No wonder you believe in AGW -

by HB Sun Apr 18, 2010 22:01

ftp://ftp.eumetsat.int/pub/EUM/out/USD/videos/mpg_vol_a...p.mpg

that link is to a loop of RGB images made between the 14th and 15th of april which showed that the MET office 'simulations' were well-off-the-mark. SO by midday 15th of April it should have been obvious that the advice from the UK MET office should have been chucked in the bin

by Physicist. Sun Apr 18, 2010 21:53

Sure off you go HB.

You fly at 600MPH towards an erupting Icelandic Volcano.

You will be flying alone.
.

by HB Sun Apr 18, 2010 21:44

The European air-space shutdown originated from the usual nonsensical 'predictions' from those towering Geniuses of Ineptitude, the UK MET Office - the same dullards who have decided to stop offering medium-term/long-term 'predictions' of climate and weather because their previous 'predictions' had turned out to be so woefully contradicted by reality

The usual nonsense from the UK MET office. The 'prediction' was made and was never re-examined once 'reality' quickly showed the 'predictions' were ridiculously incorrect - and consequently the 'alert' was never chucked in the bin where it belonged - this is the usual type of scare-mongering nonsensical unScientific 'guesswork' these people are famous for. After years of getting it wrong in relation to climate-based predictions you'd think people would have wised-up by now

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Test+flights+rai....html

KLM, acting on a European Union request, flew a Boeing 737-800 without passengers at the regular altitude of 10 km (6 miles) and up to the 13 km maximum on Saturday. Germany's Lufthansa said it flew 10 empty planes to Frankfurt from Munich at altitudes of up to 8 km.

"We have not found anything unusual and no irregularities, which indicates the atmosphere is clean and safe to fly," said a spokeswoman for KLM, which is part of Air France-KLM.

UK MET Office nonsensical 'predictions' - scaremongering down to a fine art

by HB Sun Apr 18, 2010 20:24

Why don't you go up in a plane over Europe at the moment HB.

Sure you might be ok..

Then again.............You might not be ok at all.

that has to be most utterly irrelevant comment ever. Do be sure to get back to us when you have something even slightly intelligent to say on the subject under discussion, m'K?

by Physicist. Sun Apr 18, 2010 18:26

Why don't you go up in a plane over Europe at the moment HB.

Sure you might be ok..

Then again.............You might not be ok at all.

by HB Sat Apr 17, 2010 16:53

from 'a herd of elephants is thundering towards you just over the hill' to 'cancerous tumors' and what you described at one point as 'a slow inexorable process' has now become 'a roadside bomb in front of you might explode in a minute.' - keep this up and you're going to have to 'go nuclear'; in no time at all.

Your analogies are getting more and more hysterical. Is it any wonder that people have stopped believing your ridiculous 'predictions' and stopped listening to your hysterical analogies?

Hysterical analogies are not 'Scientific' at all, merely hysterical

by Scientist. Sat Apr 17, 2010 13:41

"You hysterics have decided."

Science is driven by data......and.........

A bit of guesswork about the future.

Like knowing that a roadside bomb in front of you might explode in a minute.

by HB Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:19

Glaciers melting in Peru tells us one thing and one thing only, that in Peru temperatures are rising enough that the Glaciers are melting - it doesn't tells us anything about 'why?'. Even if every glacier in the world were melting, and though many are, some are not, it still would not tell us anything about 'why?'

You hysterics have decided, and keep loudly insisting, it must be CO2 despite the fact that there is loads of evidence that it is not CO2.

All this causes me to wonder if you hysterics have any real understand of what is meant by the phrase 'chaotic system'?

by Questioner Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:07

That is just being pedantic,silly quibbling about what words mean.

I imagine an employer telling an employee the same thing when he hands over wages -

'Gross'/ 'Net' That is just being pedantic,silly quibbling about what words mean.

you should really take time to understand what you are reading. There is a good reason that different words have different meanings - in science as in many other things (Law for example) incorrect use of words can have grave implications. I'd hate for you to ever become a Judge in Court

'Innocent'/ 'Guilt' That is just being pedantic,silly quibbling about what words mean.

Isn't it about time you read Alice in Wonderland? You'll find it's a major theme in the book. Usually most people have read it by the time they get to your age - you really should have read it by now, that way I wouldn't have to explain to you why different words have different definitions, and why it is important to understand those definitions.

Glaciers make up approx 2 or 3% of all Ice in the world.

'Area' and 'Extent' obviously don't apply, since the terms apply to Sea Ice, but then in terms of Ice-melt the Glaciers are not at all significant, which, if you had any idea what you were talking about, other than you simplistic notions of 'Ice melt=bad', you would understand

Down at the Antarctic, in the area where the bulk of the Ice lies, approx 90% of all ice in the world, the Ice is expanding. This is clearly shown in the Graph I posted, which you really should have taken the time to understand the implications of, instead or rushing off to find the first thing you could find which says anything about ice melting.

The thing is - the Antarctic ice HAS been melting up until fairly recently, but then it has been melting for approx 6000 (that's SIX THOUSAND for those of you who have a hard time paying attention) years, without any catastporhic effect on humankind. Peer-reviewed scientific studies, carried out by actual scientists, like, have shown that it has started to expand.

The funny thing is that in all your rush all you did was throw up something from Sky news. No data, no plots of data, nothing in fact that could be called even remotely 'scientific'. You can ignore what Ice data tells us about the state of the Ice in the world if you wish, just don't expect to to be listened to if you're going to ignore the data.

The difference between Area and extent and the totally ever-changing figures for the 'assumed' unmeasured area are very significant - the fact that you are incapable of understanding their significance speaks merely to the limits of your own personal ability to understand.

by Word-Smith. Sat Apr 17, 2010 07:37

"Extent" and "area," which are not quite the same thing.

That is just being pedantic,silly quibbling about what words mean.

Take Peru for intance:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Peru-Tsunam...00502

Quote:
"According to the report, in the last 35 years Peru's glaciers have shrunk by 22 percent."

Did they shrink by "extent" or "area" ?

Who cares or gives a damn.

They shrank.

by Questioner Thu Apr 15, 2010 17:39

The AGW-Hysterics claim the ice is melting.

This is just not true for the majority of the ice in the world.

The Arctic contains approx 7% of the ice in the world - and the Antarctic contains approx 90% of all the ice on Earth

To understand Ice measurement we first have to understand the terminology used. There are 2 terms in particular which confuse people: these are 'ice area' and 'ice extent'. "Extent" and "area," which are not quite the same.

There is an entity called the [US] National Snow and Ice Data Center. If you go to its website, (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/index.html) you can find data and plots of sea ice extent.

Here (http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02135_seaice_index/) is how the NSIDC itself explains 'ice area' and 'ice extent':

Important Note: The "extent" column includes the area near the pole not imaged by the sensor. It is assumed to be entirely ice covered with at least 15% concentration. However, the "area" column excludes the area not imaged by the sensor. This area is 1.19 million square kilometers for SMMR (from the beginning of the series through June 1987) and 0.31 million square kilometers for SSM/I (from July 1987 to present). Therefore, there is a discontinuity in the "area" data values in this file at the June/July 1987 boundary.

My reading of those "important" words is that the only thing really measured by satellites was "area." Yet the plot also shows "extent," something more than was measured. And the difference is something they "assumed." (If you have a better explanation of that "Important Note," please enlighten me.)

What were the differences? From the above words from the NSIDC, you would think that the differences would be constant offsets (1.19 million sq km from 1979 through June of 1987, and 0.31 million since). The actual differences in the data file were not constant at all; they varied between 1.93 and 3.42 million sq km.

It appears that the area of an 'assumed' region is included in the NSIDC's graph. More importantly, it seems that assumed, non-measured area varies from year to year and month to month in no apparent pattern - that doesn't seem very 'Scientific' - if one of the AGW-Hysterics reading this has an intelligent and plausible explanation for this, I'd love to hear it

NSIDC graph of what it calls 'Northern Hemisphere sea ice'

Source: University of Illinois, Polar Research Group, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences.

lo at the difference between ''Area'' and ''extent'' - then go back and look at the definitions of 'Area' and 'Extent' provided above

by HB Thu Apr 15, 2010 16:52

This man used to be a non-executive chairman of Shell. Surely that's a conflict of interest, seeing as the energy industry is the chief bankroller of the climate change denial 'movement'?

Why one would highlight his past commercial interests and yet completely ignore his current ones is curious indeed, since his current commercial interests would appear to be much more relevant:

[Oxburgh] has been challenged over his other interests. Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables.

Critics say clean energy companies would benefit from policies to tackle climate change. But Lord Oxburgh insists the panel did not have a pre-conceived view.

by HB Thu Apr 15, 2010 16:42

Unless of course you can show some flaws in the methodology of his report or how the investigations and interviews were actually carried out.

Oxburgh did not invite oral testimony from anyone that was actively involved in the efforts to obtain FOI-requested data from the CRU over the past five years.

None of the people who were actually involved in dealings with the CRU, who were involved in the nitty gritty of trying to extract information from them, the people who were insulted and abused in the CRU emails, the people who understand the technicalities of “Mike’s Nature trick” and hiding the decline, none of these people will actually got to say anything at the public open sessions of the 'investigation'. They were left outside in the cold.

A truly unbiased observer would hesitate to label as 'impartial' an Inquiry, which only seeks testimony from one side,

However one point strenuously ignored by the media and the AGW--Hysteric side is that Prof Jones was actually forced to admit in front of the inquiry that there had been no “statistically significant” global warming for the past 15 years.

This fact has grave implications for the AGW-hysteric side, because it utterly negates their whole CO2=AGW theories.

Why the media have chosen to ignore this fact is a matter worthy of debate.

Surely that's a conflict of interest, seeing as the energy industry is the chief bankroller of the climate change denial 'movement'?

As already discussed here: Shell was also a bankroller of the CRU - therefore logically, if receipt of funding from Oil CO's causes you to doubt the integrity of the individuals receiving those funds, then you would also have to doubt the integrity and question the work of the CRU - provided of course you were using logic to arrive at your conclusions in the first place.

by Curious Thu Apr 15, 2010 14:28

He couldn't have been seen to be biased in favour of the Climate Unit. Given his previous position he would actually have been seen , if anything, as opposed to the Climate Unit viewpoint.Therefore I don't think you make a valid point.

Unless of course you can show some flaws in the methodology of his report or how the investigations and interviews were actually carried out.

by FSB! Thu Apr 15, 2010 14:17

Whether or which, he should never have been part of the inquiry team. There are plenty more people qualified to do that work out there in the British Establishment.

by Curious Thu Apr 15, 2010 14:04

If he was taking an Oil Industry line then surely he would have found against the Climate UNit? Its in the interest of Shell, BP etc to discredit Global Warming.

by FSB! Thu Apr 15, 2010 14:00

This man used to be a non-executive chairman of Shell. Surely that's a conflict of interest, seeing as the energy industry is the chief bankroller of the climate change denial 'movement'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Oxburgh

by Dr Doom Thu Apr 15, 2010 13:54

The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has been cleared of malpractice by the independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh. Full story at url below.

There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the "Climategate" affair. This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research published by the unit. It began its review after e-mails from CRU scientists were published online. The panel said it would be helpful for researchers to work more closely with professional statisticians in future. This would ensure the best methods were used when analysing the complex and often "messy" data on climate, the report said.

Lord Oxburgh said that the seriousness of the allegations being investigated made it crucial that the panel publish their findings "as quickly as possible". He explained: "We read 11 key [CRU] publications spreading back over 20 years and a large number of others. We then spent 15 person days interviewing the scientists at UEA. I don't know what more we could have done and we came to a unanimous conclusion."

by Scientist. Wed Apr 14, 2010 18:21

"Your powers of observation, limited though they are, are far better than your powers of logical reasoning"

You flatter me too much HB.

Hopefully data returned by satellites such as this will help us to find out what is really going on:

http://www.satimagingcorp.com/svc/environmental_impact_....html
.

by Questioner Sat Apr 10, 2010 23:31

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04...=2010

Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images. Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.

Sea Ice side by side comparison with 30 years ago

by HB Tue Apr 06, 2010 20:36

Sorry to ruin your little theory, but i just copy&pasted em from where you used them above - My use of them was to mock your use of them. Your powers of observation, limited though they are, are far better than your powers of logical reasoning

by Scientist Tue Apr 06, 2010 19:52

Your capital letters tell me that you are annoyed HB.

Riddle me this.

Where does the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere come from?

Even better:

When will it stop?

by HB Tue Apr 06, 2010 19:04

you asked for SCIENTIFIC DATA and were given it, and now, instead of addressing the issues raised by the statistical analysis of the requested SCIENTIFIC DATA , you choose to try and change the subject by making silly comments.

by Scientist. Tue Apr 06, 2010 18:50

Ok.

Give us YOUR theory as to why the carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing HB ?

If you are right you will be credited as being right.
.

by HB Sat Apr 03, 2010 17:56

your analogies get ever more hysterical as time goes on

from 'elephants thundering over the hill', to 'cancerous tumors'

'The growth in atmospheric carbon' has not resulted in the predicted inexorable runaway rise in temperature which you Global Warming Hysterics have repeatedly claimed it would. Ergo your attempts at prediction are proven to be utterly useless

The fact you are ignoring the statistical analysis of the SCIENTIFIC DATA and have resorted instead to ever-increasingly hysterical 'analogies' is telling. The 'warming signal' is totally absent from where it must be, if your theories of 'CO2=Catastrophic AGW' are correct, therefore your theories are provably false.

Irrespective of how elegant the mathematics looked on paper, the observed reality has proven that the theories are false

by Scientist. Sat Apr 03, 2010 17:35

Anybody can see that my elephant analogy was a mere analogy HB.
Nothing hysterical.

I just meant that if we do not heed the early warning signs we may not live to see the final outcome.

Same as cancer.

The growth in atmospheric carbon is an early warning sign of a "slow inexorable growing cancer".

We all hope it is a benign tumour.

The medical prognosis sure does not look good right now.
.

by HB Sat Apr 03, 2010 15:08

It is a slow inexorable process.

but YOU said it was

a herd of elephants is thundering towards you just over the hill.

I wish you Global Warming Hysterics make up your mind

Statistical analysis of the temp records has proven that there is no true warming signal. This 'warming signal' would be the equivalent to that 'thundering' you were so hysterically sure about earlier

What little warming has been claimed to be happening has been proven to be the result of cherrypicked thermometer data and also the Urban Heat island effect.

Essentially you Global Warming Hysterics have proven that you have not got a clue what is causing any of the changes in climate and have not provided any reliable proof to back up your claim that it is man made

by Scientist Sat Apr 03, 2010 08:23

People miss the point that almost nobody alive today will see the slightest evidence of global warming.

It is a slow inexorable process.

On the timescales of Nature, a single human life span is only slightly longer than the life span of a mouse.

We won't see the Thermohaline Circulation (Part of which is the Gulf Stream which warms Western Europe.) slowing down in the lifetime of anybody alive today.

The Gulf Stream transports a staggering amount of water northwards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

Quote:
"Consequently, the resulting Gulf Stream is a strong ocean current. It transports water at a rate of 30 million cubic metres per second (30 sverdrups) through the Florida Straits. As it passes south of Newfoundland, this rate increases to 150 million cubic metres per second.[14] The volume of the Gulf Stream dwarfs all rivers that empty into the Atlantic combined, which barely total 0.6 million cubic metres per second."

You won't see THAT slowing down within a brief human lifetime.

Just because we see no "spectaculars" before us right now does not mean that climate change theory is false.

The carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere really does have the potential to make this planet unrecognisable within the next 2000 years.

Thanks to the LAWS of Chemistry and Physics.(not to the OPINIONS of Chemists and Physicists).
.

by ASTRO bOY Thu Apr 01, 2010 18:34

Scientists cleared of manipulating data. No lies on their side.

Scientists at a leading British climate research centre had a culture of withholding information from global warming sceptics but did not deliberately manipulate data to support their case, lawmakers said yesterday.

In the first official report into the theft of e-mails from the unit last year, a British parliamentary committee said the messages did not contradict the mainstream scientific view that man-made emissions have contributed to rising temperatures. Thousands of e-mails exchanged between scientists were published on the internet days before world leaders met in Copenhagen for climate change talks last December.

by Questioner Thu Apr 01, 2010 18:03

"If you knew anything about theories and proof you would realise that while you need evidence to validate a theory and all new facts that arrive should fit with the theory if it is indeed correct, it only takes one counterexample, or evidence that data it is based on is not reliable to completely weaken a theory

All those who disagree need to do is find a few facts that don't fit the theory, or show that data has been "massaged""

the big problem for the Global Warming Alarmist side is that the climate is not behaving the way they have repeatedly claimed it would. This cast serious doubt, perhaps 'fatal-doubt', on their overly-simplistic theory of human-induced Global Warming

Gulf Stream 'is not slowing down' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8589512.stm

The Gulf Stream does not appear to be slowing down, say US scientists who have used satellites to monitor tell-tale changes in the height of the sea.

Confirming work by other scientists using different methodologies, they found dramatic short-term variability but no longer-term trend.

A slow-down - dramatised in the movie The Day After Tomorrow - is projected by some models of climate change.

The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The stream is a key process in the climate of western Europe, bringing heat northwards from the tropics and keeping countries such as the UK 4-6C warmer than they would otherwise be.

It forms part of a larger movement of water, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which is itself one component of the global thermohaline system of currents.

Between 2002 and 2009, the team says, there was no trend discernible - just a lot of variability on short timescales.

The satellite record going back to 1993 did suggest a small increase in flow, although the researchers cannot be sure it is significant.

"The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Josh Willis from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California.

"The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling." . . . .

If the observed 'realities' contradict the 'predictions' of the theories, then it should be obvious that the theories, and everything based on those theories, are seriously flawed. Q.E.D.

Warm and Cold Oceanic Currents, for beginners: Still doing what they have always done

by Logician Thu Apr 01, 2010 13:22

You are ignoring my whole point. My point is that the onus is on the "believers" to produce concrete proof of their theory. It is not up to those that disagree to prove a negative. Proving a negative is impossible. those that disagree with the theory merely need to produce some evidence that the figures you are using to validate your theory are not reliable. Climategate has done this.

If you knew anything about theories and proof you would realise that while you need evidence to validate a theory and all new facts that arrive should fit with the theory if it is indeed correct, it only takes one counterexample, or evidence that data it is based on is not reliable to completely weaken a theory

All those who disagree need to do is find a few facts that don't fit the theory, or show that data has been "massaged"

Perhaps you can tell me why is the raw data not made available in an open and transparent manner??

Your elephant hyperbole is ridiculous. Climate change is far less clear cut than a herd of elephants running towards you.

And are you saying that rigour should be abandoned under certain circumstances? Most unscientific

by Scientist. Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:54

Logician,

You use these words:

“god”….. “shut up”……“profitable”…… “stop bullying”…..“religion”….“heresy”…..“beaten down”…… “abused”……“holy tenets”……“not healthy”.

I asked you to provide SCIENTIFIC DATA .

If you knew anything at all about science, Logician, you would know that debating alternative opinions is the very lifeblood of science.

If the theory of Climate Change is wrong provide us with the evidence and the evidence will be examined.

It may yet prove to be wrong….but the data right now does not look good for our futures.

“Incontrovertible Proof” is not needed.
(Especially when somebody warns you that a herd of elephants is thundering towards you just over the hill.)

Theories are shot down in science every day of the week.

That is called the “Scientific Method”.
.

by Logician Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:16

A scientist asking somebody to prove a negative? While you are at it, why not prove god doesn't exist?

I would say that it is clearly up to the climate scientists to produce incontrovertible evidence of the (rather profitable) phenomenon they say does exist.
don't you think?

They haven't clearly done that yet. They should shut up and stop bullying everybody until they have definitive evidence. Then they should produce it. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary proof.

Meanwhile There should be a "climate" of open and honest debate and discussion of the evidence.

Instead there is just what looks like a "religion" where offering an alternative opinion is "heresy" and you are immediately beaten down and abused by the loyal clerics and followers of the holy tenets of climate change. Not healthy.

by Scientist. Thu Apr 01, 2010 08:53

It would be interesting to read some scientific data from the anti-climate-change brigade to support their case that climate change is not happening.

Science ultimately answers to FACTS,not to opinions.

This self-correcting nature of Science makes it the most powerful philosophical tool we have.
(The old name for science was "Natural Philosophy".)

The very process of science is about identifying blind alleys etc. and rooting out the truth.

2+2=4.

No matter how much you hate the fact.

So apart from railing at capitalism and corporations, give us some scientific data,you who believe that this is all a plot cooked up by Capitalists and Imperialists to subvert the working classes.

I think I'll be waiting.

Yawn.

by HB Thu Apr 01, 2010 00:11

'Climate Denial' has to be the all-time silliest pejorative EVER - are you seriously suggesting that there are people who deny that the climate even exists?!

With quick 1 minute search with google I found these comments

Climate deniers 'are like Fritzl' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7430684.stm


Are climate-change deniers guilty of treason? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html

Bernie Sanders [Brit politician] compares climate skeptics to Nazi deniershttp://celebrifi.com/gossip/Bernie-Sanders-compares-cli....html

[AGW scepticism] is a crime against humanity, after all http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/986

David Miliband said ‘those who deny [climate change] are the flat-earthers of the twenty-first century’ . Taking a similar tack, former US vice president-turned-green-warrior (lol) and mutli-millionaire and frequent user of private jets Al Gore recently declared: ‘Fifteen per cent of the population believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona and somewhat fewer still believe the Earth is flat. I think they all get together with the global warming deniers on a Saturday night and party.’

Seems to me that there is plenty of bullying going on on both sides. But the bullying from the Alarmist side seems worse when you consider the emotive imagery being used - 'Sex criminals' 'treasonous' 'holocaust deniers' etc.

Maybe the alarmists should demand a clean up their own camp before they start pointing accusing fingers

by Ajax Wed Mar 31, 2010 22:51

Clive Hamilton tracks the progress of climate denialism in Australia. He reveals how it works, who organizes it, where the raw material that fuels it come from, how popular perceptions are diverging from scientific facts, and what the effects are on politics and public debate. He begins by exposing an ugly campaign of cyber-bullying directed at leading scientists

http://www.countercurrents.org/hamilton220210.htm

by HB Wed Mar 31, 2010 21:17

According to Wikipedia: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

The CRU was founded in 1971 as part of the university's School of Environmental Sciences. . . . . . Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.
Michael Sanderson (2002), The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, p. 285, ISBN 9781852853365

So it's official - The Climatic Research Unit (of 'Climate-gate' fame) also received funding from Oil Co's

So anyone who claims that 'Funding from Oil Co's=Lies by the recipients,in favour of Big Oil,' has to also include the CRU.

The CRU are the holders and manipulators of much of the data upon which the 'CO2=AGW' theory rests

by Chemist. Wed Mar 31, 2010 18:57

Any Leaving Cert. chemistry student can create a hydrocarbon in any secondary school chemistry lab by joining up a carbon atom with four hydrogen atoms to form methane.

Methane is the simplest hydrocarbon.
It is the natural gas in the gas mains.

It doesn't take life to produce hydrocarbons,even though they are often called "Organic" chemicals.

Indeed ,on Saturn's Moon Titan it even rains hydrocarbons.

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMCSUUHJCF_index_0.html

Shell might soon be able to tell us where to find oil in Sweden!

They are exploring the Alum Shale in Southern sweden for gas.

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article205961.ece

They may well find oil as well.

by HB Wed Mar 31, 2010 18:33

CRU funding from Oil Co's discussed here; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-l...port/

by Astro Boy Wed Mar 31, 2010 13:50

Yet another example of the Oil Business funding Climate Change Deniers. Full text at link.

Koch Industries, which is owned and run by two Kansas-based brothers and has substantial oil and chemicals interests, spent the sum between 2005 and 2008 to finance "organisations of the 'climate denial machine'", claims the environmental campaign group Greenpeace.

Despite the relatively small size of the conglomerate, the sum is three times that spent by ExxonMobil, the western world's biggest oil company, in the same period.

A Greenpeace investigation also claimed that between 2006 and 2009, the company and its owners - Charles and David Koch - spent £25.3 million ($37.9 million) on direct lobbying on oil and energy issues.

According to Greenpeace, Koch foundations had provided substantial funding to at least 20 organisations involved in highlighting "Climategate", the controversy surrounding climate scientists that was prompted by emails hacked from the University of East Anglia.

A recent survey found that 73 percent of Americans believe global warming is happening, but only 18 per cent believed strongly it was man-made and harmful.

by Me Fri Mar 19, 2010 21:55

http://www.kth.se/aktuellt/1.43372?l=en_uk

Easier to find oil

Researchers at KTH have been able to prove that the fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate raw oil and natural gas. This result is extremely radical as it means that it will be much easier to find these energy sources and that they may be located all over the world.

“With the help of our research we even know where oil could be found in Sweden!” says Vladimir Kutcherov, Professor at the KTH Department of Energy Technology in Stockholm.

Together with two research colleagues, Professor Kutcherov has simulated the process of pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner strata of the earth’s crust. This process generates hydrocarbons, the primary elements of oil and natural gas.

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, these results are a clear indication that oil supplies are not drying up, which has long been feared by researchers and experts in the field.

He adds that there is no chance that fossil oils, with the help of gravity or other forces, would have been able to seep down to a depth of 10.5 kilometres under, for example the Gulf of Mexico. This is, according to Vladimir Kutcherov, in addition to his own research results, further evidence that this energy sources can occur other than via fossils - something which will cause a lively discussion among researchers for a considerable period of time.

“There is no doubt that our research has shown that raw oil and natural gas occur without the inclusion of fossils. All types of rock formations can act as hosts for oil deposits,” asserts Vladimir and adds that this applies to areas of land that have previously remained unexplored as possible sources of this type of energy. . . . .

Looks like Dale Allen Pfeiffer and the Peak Oilers are wrong

by james Tue Feb 16, 2010 00:58

The fuss is about a scientific theory which regardless of being correct or not, has been exaggerated and blown out of all proportion by environmentalists and politicians, to the extent that we now have this 'theory' at the top of the worlds political agenda and reaching into our hard earned money through a carbon tax which will be by all appearance futile.

The point is why are we rushing to tax the World when clearly the scientists are still debating the significance of Mans relationship to climate, if any at all. This behavior is irrational and based on greed and power rather than the benefit of life on the Planet, I mean the animals involved are Politicians so what does one expect really !?.... There is no benefit in policy other than raising easy revenue to be wasted by unregulated bureaucrats. Until now the so called experts have clearly been caught out exaggerating a simple little green house gas theory of physics with their 'green lies' and their green friends.

If you want to stop sitting on the fence like everything is going to be OK, while you get fleeced by manipulating politicians and so called environmentalists, then pull your finger out and do something useful to help the World wake up to this corruption.

You can start by signing the petition below to have Gore and the IPCC stripped of their unearned Nobel Prize.

by Astro Boy Sun Feb 14, 2010 18:35

In an interesting development a leading Global Warming Sceptic appears to have changed his mind. Dr Benny Peiser, the leading climate sceptic and director of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation said: “The basic science of the greenhouse effect is sound (ie more anthropogenic CO2 means more warming).” Full text at url below.

If you’re surprised, you shouldn’t be. For Lawson himself has said much the same, telling a parliamentary committee a couple of years ago that it was “fairly clear” that “man-made emissions, largely carbon dioxide, have almost certainly played a considerable part” in the warming of the globe. And Tony Abbott, the Australian opposition leader – who became the climate rejectionists’ poster boy late last year when he ousted his predecessor over the issue – has just proposed his own £6.6 billion programme to combat climate change. He explained: “There is enough science to suggest that where we can reasonably reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we should.”

So if the sceptics’ main standard-bearers effectively agree with environmentalists over the basic science, what on earth is all the fuss about? What is the basis for all the over-excited claims that global warming is a “hoax”, a “scam”, or the greatest scientific scandal ever? Can so much heat have ever been generated where there is actually so much enlightened agreement? Yet there is still plenty to debate, and here I must make a confession – I only quoted part of Dr Peiser’s sentence above. He went on: “What is uncertain is the magnitude and timescale of the effect.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-....html

by Questioner Wed Feb 10, 2010 16:03

the link to the video seems to have failed to render properly

the URL is: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5949034...18010

by Questioner Wed Feb 10, 2010 15:58

I forgot to mention that at the time Prof. Schneider made his comment about offering up 'scary scenarios' he was actually referring to his 'predictions' of a coming ICE AGE, not to his latest series of 'predictions' relating to runaway human-induced Global Warming

Below is a Channel 4 documentary on the subject of Global Warming made in the 80's - The Greenhouse Conspiracy broadcast by Channel 4 in the United Kingdom on 12 August 1990, as part of the Equinox series, which criticizes the theory of man-made global warming and asserts that scientists critical of this global warming theory are denied funding. Both Stephen Schneider and Tom Widgerly (Head of UEA's CRU who's funding list is posted above) are featured in it. I personally couldn't stop laughing when I noticed how uncomfortable both of them look when the interviewer raises any questions relating to their funding or questions their findings.

Another point of note is that when the documentary was made the Climate Models being used at the time were predicting that the middle of the Sahara would have levels of precipitation (rainfall) similar to that of Ireland and Scotland - which I think you will all agree is a laughably preposterous prediction - even for a Global Warming alarmist

It is a fairly long documentary if you are streaming it, so If you have Firefox installed along with the 'Video DdownloadHelper' Add-on, you can of course save the whole video to hard drive and view it that way

by Questioner Wed Feb 10, 2010 15:35

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

- Prof. Stephen Schneider - Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. . . a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR; and is currently a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

In the '60's & '70's when temperatures appeared to be dropping , people like Stephen Schneider were running around screaming that a new Ice Age was coming - then during the 80's when it appeared that temperatures were rising Prof Schneider dramatically changed his tune, and began running around screaming that runaway Global warming was going to destroy us all.

It appears what he was doing was merely over-reacting to the constant fall and rise in temperatures which has been a near-constant throughout all history - when the temp appeared to be falling he made 'predictions' that it was going to continue to fall - to in fact plummet to disastrous levels, then when it appeared to be rising he made completely contradictory 'predictions' that it was going to continue to rise to disastrous levels

I'd hate to go on a roller-coaster ride with Prof Schneider - as the roller-coaster rose he's be screaming that we're all going to fly off into space and then moments later when it started to drop he would probably begin screaming that we're all going to plummet to our deaths or else pass right through the surface and continue on into the bowels of the earth. And what's worse he would probably do this each and every time the roller-coaster rose and fall, never having learned from his previous failures to comprehend the inherent nature of roller-coaster rides

DR. STEPHEN SCHNEIDER: "Can we do these things? Yes. But will they make things better? I'm not sure. We can't predict with any certainty what's happening to our own climatic future. How can we come along and intervene then in that ignorance? You could melt the icecaps. What would that do to the coastal cities? The cure could be worse than the disease. Would that be better or worse than the risk of an ice age?

This is a man who is apparently well-respected within the Global Warming community for his knowledge of the 'science' behind the theories of Global Warming

At the end of the embedded Youtube video below, Prof. Stephen Schneider discusses "The Coming Ice Age" - which never came

Caption: Video Id: nprY2jSI0Ds Type: Youtube Video
Prof. Stephen Schneider discusses "The Coming Ice Age"

by Astro Boy Wed Feb 10, 2010 13:11

Evidence has emerged that a supposed quote from John Houghton was actually invented. Full story at url below.

Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist

Sir John Houghton, who played a critical role in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), was roundly condemned after it emerged that he was an apparent advocate of scary propaganda to frighten the public into believing the dangers of global warming.

"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen," Sir John was supposed to have said in 1994.

The quotation has since become the iconic smoking gun of the climate sceptic community. The words are the very first to appear in the "manual" of climate denialism written by the journalist and arch-sceptic Christopher Booker. They get more than a million hits on Google, and are wheeled out almost every time a climate sceptic has a point to make, the last occasion being in a Sunday newspaper article last weekend written by the social anthropologist and climate sceptic Benny Peiser.

The trouble is, Sir John Houghton has never said what he is quoted as saying. The words do not appear in his own book on global warming, first published in 1994, despite statements to the contrary. In fact, he denies emphatically that he ever said it at any time, either verbally or in writing.

In fact, his view on the matter of generating scare stories to publicise climate change is quite the opposite. "There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them," Sir John told The Independent.

"It's not the sort of thing I would ever say. It's quite the opposite of what I think and it pains me to see this quote being used repeatedly in this way. I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed," he said.

Christopher Booker, a newspaper columnist, considers the quotation so important that he lists it at the top of the first page of his most recent book on climate scepticism, The Real Global Warming Disaster, published last year. Mr Booker also cites the 1994 edition of Houghton's own book on global warming as the source of the quotation, even though there is no mention of it there. Mr Booker did not respond yesterday to enquiries by The Independent.

by Hubris Wed Feb 10, 2010 01:53

First, a few choice Wikipedia quote, since you've helpfully linked to it yourself:
"the abiogenic hypothesis has little support among contemporary petroleum geologists,"

"Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by some geologists in the former Soviet Union, most geologists now consider the biogenic formation of petroleum scientifically supported"

You might also check your sources a bit more carefully - this "Environmental Literacy Council" that you are using as a source has an interesting background - they were founded by former Cheney speechwriter Jeffrey Salmona and are tightly linked with the George C.Marshall institute, a right-wing think-tank who are funded by Exxon-Mobil among others. This institute was set up during the Reagan era to push for the "Star Wars" SDI defence initiative.

Src :
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmenta...uncil
http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/George_C._Marshal...itute

They have quite a history of fudging AGW , as you would expect from such an outfit.
Hardly the type of source whose opinion deserves respect among progressives, and frankly it shows how desperate you are to make your case that you will hastily pull references from such organisations....

As for the Russian stuff, here is a useful extract from an article by Dale Allen Pfeiffer at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011205_no_fre...shtml

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dneiper-Donetsk Basin, Ukraine
Most abiotic supporters point to the Dneiper-Donets basin as the major support for their argument. The basis for these claims rests upon a paper delivered before a symposium in 1994, authored by V.A. Krayushkin, J.F. Kenney and others, "Recent applications of the modern theory of abiogenic hydrocarbon origins: drilling and development of oil and gas fields in the Dneiper-Donetsk basin."26 While Dr. Krayushkin appears to avoid any debate with skeptics, Dr. Kenney has been most vociferous in his attacks upon the biological theory of oil generation.

The authors of this study claim that the Dneiper-Donetsk basin was chosen as the area for their study because it had already been deemed to possess no potential for petroleum production.27 However, the authors did not mention that the Dneiper-Donetsk basin is the home to most of Ukraine's proven oil reserves, and has been the focus of traditional oil exploration within the country for some years.28 The report claims the discovery of abiotic reserves totaling some 8,200 million metric tons of oil, or about 60 billion barrels of oil.29 There are many conflicting reports on the estimated reserves of Ukraine, and inconsistencies related to the Krayushkin study only complicate matters (see note 26 below).

In their 2003 country analysis brief, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) only recognizes 395 million barrels of proven reserves for the entire Ukraine, most of which resides in the Dneiper-Donetsk basin.30 The USGS has stated that the Dneiper-Donetsk basin holds reserves of about 1.4 Gb.31 Meanwhile, the Oil and Gas Journal reports current Ukrainian reserves at 0.40 Gb, and Colin Campbell estimates total providence-including future discoveries-will be in the range of 4.00 Gb.32 Not one of these sources credits Ukrainian reserves to abiotic origin. Russian petroleum geologist A.A. Kitcha, himself a supporter of the abiotic hypothesis, has been quoted as saying these claims of abiotic reserves in the Dneiper-Donetsk basin are… "difficult to demonstrate, partly because of multiple completions in basement and overlying cover."33

1.4 Gb is sizable enough to have drawn the attention of the majors. Yet the only major to take an interest in the region is BP, which plans to set up a joint venture in Dneiper-Donetsk basin to develop gas reserves. Several smaller players are also setting up ventures to produce gas reserves.34 No mention of oil.

Regal Petroleum Plc. is a small British company which listed on the London Stock Exchange in September of 2002. The core business of the company is production of oil and gas in the Ukraine's Dneiper-Donetsk basin. Regal is the first western company to be officially registered as an oil and gas producer in the Ukraine by the Ukraine oil department. Regal Petroleum's operations in the Ukraine are totally geared toward gas production. On their website, they estimate that their licensed areas of the Dneiper-Donetsk basin contain an estimated 25 billion cubic metres of proven and probable gas reserves, along with 5.8 million cubic metres of gas condensate reserves.35 Nowhere does the company mention the existence of or exploration for oil reserves in the Dneiper-Donetsk basin.

In the USGS World Petroleum Assessment 2000, geologist G.F. Ulmishek states that the Dneiper-Donetsk hydrocarbons have been classified into two oil families, which have their source in two different rock suites in the Upper Devonian and Lower Carboniferous sections. The Lower Carboniferous source rocks are Visean organic rich marls and shales. The Devonian source rocks, which occur much deeper, are organic rich marine anoxic shales similar to the shales of the Pripyat basin. The source rocks are largely overmature throughout the basin where they dip below the oil window, though they are mature in marginal areas where they reside within the oil window.36 This explains why most of the hydrocarbons in the basin are in the form of gas.

One of the few companies producing oil in the Ukraine, Naftogaz, reported that oil production declined by 5% during the first quarter of 1999, partially attributing this to declining oil deposits.37 The EIA states that production has been relatively flat since independence from the Soviet Union.38 Jean Lahererre has analyzed the available data on the second largest gas field in the Dneiper-Donetsk basin, Khrestyshchi-Zakhidny, and states that it does not show any sign of refilling from an abiotic source.39 He produced the following graph which illustrates that this field is declining naturally with time.

This graph maps yearly production in relation to cumulative production
Courtesy of Jean Laherrere.
This graph maps yearly production in relation to cumulative production.

This graph maps yearly production in relation to cumulative production

From this review, it would seem that neither the industry nor the scientific agencies have placed much credence in the Krayushkin study. The hydrocarbons of the Dneiper-Donetsk basin have been firmly established to be of organic origin.

Conclusion
Other questionable fields could be surveyed here, but for considerations of length. Suffice it to say that a sound argument for organic origin can be built for all other examples. The fields surveyed here constitute the core examples repeatedly adduced by abiotic adherents. And we have found ample evidence that none of these plays are of abiotic origin. As for volcanic outgassing, that too is explained by organic chemistry in conjunction with plate tectonics. The abiotic hypothesis remains just that, an hypothesis which has failed in prediction and so cannot be elevated to a theory. It is completely ignored by the oil industry worldwide, and even within Russia. And that is the final testament to its failure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it. I expect you have another "clever" reply to all this Hubris,. Unfortunately, I will have to let someone else check your references for you, because I don't think its worth my time. At least one can see the standard of evidence which you give credence to.

by Hubris Wed Feb 10, 2010 00:45

. . . . wouldn't know anything about Hydro-carbons, obviously.

Cian is far more expert on the subject of Hydro-carbons than any silly Russian Scientist or Russian Oil&Gas company. That's why the Russians have no Oil&Gas industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Russia) -

the Abiotic Theory of Oil (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html)

There is an alternative theory about the formation of oil and gas deposits that could change estimates of potential future oil reserves. According to this theory, oil is not a fossil fuel at all, but was formed deep in the Earth's crust from inorganic materials. The theory was first proposed in the 1950s by Russian and Ukranian scientists. Based on the theory, successful exploratory drilling has been undertaken in the Caspian Sea region, Western Siberia, and the Dneiper-Donets Basin.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html

excerpt:

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). The modern theory is presently applied extensively throughout the former U.S.S.R. as the guiding perspective for petroleum exploration and development projects. There are presently more than 80 oil and gas fields in the Caspian district alone which were explored and developed by applying the perspective of the modern theory and which produce from the crystalline basement rock. (Krayushkin, Chebanenko et al. 1994) Similarly, such exploration in the western Siberia cratonic-rift sedimentary basin has developed 90 petroleum fields of which 80 produce either partly or entirely from the crystalline basement. The exploration and discoveries of the 11 major and 1 giant fields on the northern flank of the Dneiper-Donets basin have already been noted. There are presently deep drilling exploration projects under way in Azerbaijan, Tatarstan, and Asian Siberia directed to testing potential oil and gas reservoirs in the crystalline basement. (http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm)

by John B Tue Feb 09, 2010 22:55

That's me told.
It will take me a while to fully digest your contribution. Thankyou for the food for thought
What exactly is the Abiotic theory of oil production?

by Declan Cullen - None Tue Feb 09, 2010 20:32

With the head of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri now being asked to step down by Greenpeace
and other organisations due to his flawed data on the melting of the Himalayan Glaciers, does this along
with Climategate, the scandal that saw data being manipulated, finally prove that Global Warming is a
fraud, in fact a clever fraud in order to put a price on Carbon, Carbon which the substance humans exhale
and plants take in to produce Oxygen, Carbon which is the very foundation that humans are built on.
Its time that the government of this country are checked and countered by the the truth that is now emerging
or else we will be paying for the lie of Global Warming for generations to come.

by Questioner Tue Feb 09, 2010 00:27

From Archive.org (http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cr...tory/)

A list of funders of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit - headed by Prof Phil Jones of 'Climategate' fame. for some reason the CRU decided in 2008 to delete this list of funders

This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order)

British Council,

British Petroleum,

Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre,

Central Electricity Generating Board,

Centre for Environment,

Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS),

Commercial Union,

Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU),

Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC),

Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA),

Department of Health,

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI),

Eastern Electricity,

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),

Environment Agency,

Forestry Commission,

Greenpeace International,

International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED),

Irish Electricity Supply Board,

KFA Germany,

Leverhulme Trust (Trust was originally endowed with a shareholding in Lever Brothers, which subsequently became part of Unilever.)

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF),

National Power,

National Rivers Authority,

Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC),

Norwich Union,

Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,

Overseas Development Administration (ODA),

Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates,

Royal Society,

Scientific Consultants, (?)

Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC),

Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research,

Shell,

Stockholm Environment Agency,

Sultanate of Oman,

Tate and Lyle,

UK Met. Office,

UK Nirex Ltd., (UK based ‘independent’ ‘radioactive waste’ management consultants.)

United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP),

United States Department of Energy,

United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Wolfson Foundation and the

World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

The changing terminology used to describe the 'threat'

by Hubris Mon Feb 08, 2010 21:48

Despite popular opinion and calls to action, the Maldives are not being overrun by sea level rise

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-o...rise/

So it boils down to this: Who would you rather believe? People doing studies on-site and gathering photographic evidence that shows clear geologic actions of lowered sea levels on the islands, or somebody sitting in an office analyzing and doing regressions on tide gauge data when they’ve never even done and checking on the quality control of the gauges themselves?

Contrary to what is frequently reported . . .

Photographic evidence proves that sea levels . . . .

. . . are NOT rising in the Maldives

by Astro Boy Mon Feb 08, 2010 21:28

An interesting piece on the effect of Global Warming on Tree Growth. Full article at link.

Global warming makes trees grow at fastest rate for 200 years
By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Forests in the northern hemisphere could be growing faster now than they were 200 years ago as a result of climate change, according to a study of trees in eastern America.

The trees appear to have accelerated growth rates due to longer growing seasons and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Scientists have documented the changes to the growth of 55 plots of mixed hardwood forest over a period of 22 years, and have concluded that they are probably growing faster now than they have done at any time in the past 225 years – the age of the oldest trees in the study.

Geoffrey Parker, a forest ecologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre in Edgewater, Maryland, said that the increase in the rate of growth was unexpected and might be matched to the higher temperatures and longer growing seasons documented in the region. The growth may also be influenced by the significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, he said.

"We made a list of reasons these forests could be growing faster and then ruled half of them out," Dr Parker said. The study, which is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that northern forests may become increasingly important in terms of moderating the influence of man-made carbon dioxide on the climate.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change....html

by Hubris Mon Feb 08, 2010 21:18

when I said earlier that

Perhaps you meant that the CO2 is 'trapped' in the atmosphere - and in that you would appear to be correct

I was wrong.

the atmosphere is not a closed system in relation the amount of CO2 - CO2 is constantly transferred between the oceans and the atmosphere as well as between the plant-life and the atmosphere - there may be other CO2 transfers methods but those 2 will do for now.

So the commenter who made the statement that

. . . the planet's atmosphere is a closed system.

Is even MORE wrong than I originally though him/her to be.

by Hubris Mon Feb 08, 2010 17:35

It never ceases to amaze me how many true- believers in AGW seem to have a false understanding of the theories which they themselves promote.

for example:

Given that the planet's atmosphere is a closed system.

The thing is that this in definitely NOT a 'given'. In terms of heat transference, the planets atmosphere is NOT a closed system. the atmosphere transfers heat into space and it receives heat from the sun - so it is not a closed system by any means. Perhaps you meant that the CO2 is 'trapped' in the atmosphere - and in that you would appear to be correct - but the atmosphere is NOT a closed system.

Given that fossil fuels have taken millions of years to form.

again - that may not be a given at all - firstly there is approx 30 yrs of Russian science which appears to prove that there is no such thing as a 'Fossil Fuel' and that Oil is in fact of Abiotic origin, constantly created within the Earth - Russian Lab experiments appear to confirm this thesis. Also we don't actually know how long it takes for Oil to form. The 'Fossil Fuel' theory of Oil dictates that Oil was a 'one-time' deal, created at a specific one time in the earths history - so it followed on from that that Oil took millions of years to be created - but since the Abiotic theory of Oil casts serious doubt on the 'Fossil Fuel' theory, the assumption that Oil takes millions and millions of years to form MAY in fact be incorrect. Personally I suspect that it is a fair assumption - but I recognise that I am merely assuming and may be proved wrong in the future.

And also given the environmental and social damage gone by fossil fuel extraction might we be wise to explore other options and reduce our reliance on them?

I know of few sceptics who would disagree with you on that score (except to say that 'Fossil Fuels' is a meaningless term since it appears the Russians have provided compelling evidence that there are no 'Fossil Fuels' :) BUT the argument is not about HydroCarbons - the argument is over the science used to support the claim that 'increased CO2=Runaway AGW.'

Switching the argument is not ok - they are NOT inter-changeable - but are in fact two very separate arguments - personally I support the move to more sustainable energy - the problem is that AGW-Alarmists like to treat the two arguments as if they were one and the same and could be interchanged at will - which they are not and can not. Also the Alarmists conveniently forget that most of the technology used in these new 'alternative' energy sources is in fact made using Hydrocarbons. At present most 'alternative' sources of energy, with the exception of large Hydro-electrical projects - are incapable of providing the energy needed to create the technology used in those 'alternatives'. This is a problem that it appears is not going to be overcome in your or my lifetime.

Is it not common sense to assume that there will be some kind of reaction from the climate in response?

Yes I agree that it s common sense to ASSUME so - but science is not actually about believing in assumptions - it is about attempts to provide EVIDENCE that something is correct or incorrect - so far Climate 'scientists' have miserably failed to prove correct their assumption that 'increaseed CO2 MUST equal increased Temp which 'proves' AGW' - If science has proved anything over the years it is that what we assume to be 'common sense' often turns out to be incorrect.

Another problem I personally have with the whole 'CO2=Climate-death' theory is that thet the data set used to support this thesis is a reconstruction of the rise of carbon dioxide since the time of James Watt. The early part of the series is derived from extracting air in polar ice, and measuring its carbon dioxide content. The later part is based on the measurements of Charles D. Keeling, since 1957, on Mauna Loa.

Now here is the problem : Muana Loa is An ACTIVE VOLCANO!

One thing ACTIVE Volcanos are noted for is their propensity to spew out large volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Personally I'm a little bit suspicious concerning the 'wisdom' of taking readings of atmospheric CO2 while precariously perched on the side of a geographical feature noted for it's propensity to spew out large volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't know about YOU, but that doesn't seem to be very 'scientific' to ME.

I presume you did not click through to the link I provided earlier. It links to a blog run by a programmer well versed in the usage of statistics. In the comments section (http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/co2-takes-summe...-off/) he makes this statement:

Do not be mislead by “appeal to authority” arguments. “Experts” are worth exactly nothing. (I know, I am one.) Only the data carry truth, though to find that truth you must ask it what it has to say and then listen. Do not torture it as GIStemp does or it will tell you the lies you wish to hear…

What I am saying is in some ways incredibly simple (even though folks seem to have trouble with it) and in a way somewhat subtile. First, the subtilely:

I’m talking about a “Warming SIGNAL” not “warming”.

What’s the difference? If you call your mistress and talk about sex, this is one hot conversation. But if you do it over an encrypted phone line, I can not hear the exact conversation. But what I can do is detect the conversation. (In signals intelligence work this is called “contact tracing”). If I’m very lucky, I might even get some meta data (how long you talk, what time of day, from where, to where) and if I’m very very lucky, I might be able to see that you always end with the same words. Maybe it’s “I Love You”, or maybe it’s “Don’t tell my wife” but the communication always ends with the same set of “stuff”. (This is part of how we broke the German Enigma in WWII – some operators always ended with “Heil Hitler” and we got enough crypt text with different keys to attack it.) And if I’m staffed for it, I might also be able to log when you visit after your phone calls.

I can know “about” the conversation even if don’t know exactly what was said. And knowing about it can tell me almost as much as hearing it (and sometimes more…)

So what I did was make a simple test. IFF the temperature record is warming (from whatever cause) then SOME of the temperature records MUST show warming. Which ones, when can tell you a great deal about why or why not.

So we look at the temperature data and find that August is just dead flat. There is no “signal” then. Not over 100 years. You never call your girl friend in August. We look in January. OMG does it warm up. Several Whole Degrees over the decades.

Now what does this tell us?

It says that it can NOT be CO2.

Why? CO2 does not go away in August. It rises steadily over the years. If the “CO2 causes warming” thesis is to “hold water” then you must have some way that increasing it from 260 ish parts per million to 380 ish parts per million does absolutely nothing in August and absolutely everything in January! CO2 can not do that. The physics of the stuff do not change with the seasons.

It is not that the poles or the winters are getting a little bit, or even somewhat, warmer; while the summers are warming, but not so much. It is very much that CO2 does nothing worth noting at all in summer. CO2 literally takes summers off. Gas laws, thermodynamics, they just can’t do that…

Now we also have the problem that the “experts” have said that CO2 is a positive feedback item and that, via water vapor, it is enhanced. But when is water vapor highest? Yup, in those dreadful summers with 98 F and 98 % humidity. Yet those times when we have the highest temps and the highest “water vapor and co2 feedback” we get NO feed back effect.

The “runaway feedback” thesis is “toast” based on the data. There is simply no positive feedback signal present at all. If anything, there is a negative feedback signal that approaches unity at about 20C (something looks to put a lid on at that point). It is as though someone said “Every time he calls the barber, he sees his mistress”; but when we check the phone log, you go home after calling the barber, but go the girl friend after calling the florist. We don’t know if the flowers went to the mistress or to the wife, but we know where you went – and it wasn’t to the barber…

On the other side, during winter, we have a rising “signal”. If there were positive feedback, then we ought not to see so much gain in winter (when water vapor drops to near zero at freezing and CO2 dissolves really well into cold rainwater).

OK, what could explain this? When we look into the data, do we see something else that clearly could account for this pattern? Yes. Thermometers move south.

There are other postings here that explored that thread and found it very well supported. I’ll not recount them here (see the AGW “issues” topic on the side bar). The “bottom line” is that we moved ever more of the total of thermometers to places that are warm during the N. Hemisphere winter (i.e. to the Tropics and S. Hemisphere) and it is exactly THOSE RECORDS that “carry the warming signal”. If we look at long lived cold or northern thermometers, there is no warming.

The Northern Records are not warming.
The Old Records are not warming.

We are left with the fact of the “warming signal” being almost entirely carried in the records from places that are new thermometers added in the south. ( There is also some warming signal from the fact that lots of thermometers counted as “rural” are in fact at airports that had growth over time and are Airport Heat Islands – there are a couple of postings here on that as well).

Basically, if you look only at averages of averages of adjusted averages of averages (no that is not an overstatement!) you see one thing, but when you look “inside the box” you see that the averages are simply hiding the truth.

And that truth is that the warming signal is not present in the places the AGW theory says it ought to be; but it is an artifact of adding Jet Age airports in the tropics and S. Hemisphere.

Essentially the guy is saying that the actual raw data does not confirm the 'common sense' assumption that the increase in CO2 in the last century is responsible for an increase in temperature - he claims - and provides figures to back up his claim - that the perceived rise in Temp reported by the Climate 'scientists' is almost solely the result of cherry-picking of Thermometer data, biased in favour of data collected in southerly locations as well as data collected from stations located in areas greatly affected by what is known as the 'Urban Heat Island Effect' - and he provides figures to back up his claims - using RAW data and NOT the so-called 'Homogenised' data which the likes of Jones and Mann have been using.

His conclusion is that the RAW data does not support the Alarmists theory that 'increase in CO2 = AGW' at all - and in fact if one removes thermometer data from locations which are obviously affected by the 'Urban Heat Island Effect', there is not even any evidence to support a claim of a statistically significant rise in temperature over the last hundred years or so. You can clicxk through to his blog and look at the data yourself - he even provides the source code he used to calculate all this as well as the raw data sets he used - which is a damn sight more than Jones and Mann were willing to do.

One of the major problems with climate 'science', as I see it, is that there is not nearly enough reliable data available to make any sort of prediction about how the climate is behaving.

We only have approx 100 yrs of anything which could conceivably be called 'reliable temperature data' - all the other data being used is inferred from proxy source such as Tree Rings - in fact the now discredited Prof Mann (the creator of the 'Hockey Stick') used Tree-Ring data to construct a 'historical record of Temperatures' - the problem is that there is now good evidence which casts serious doubt on the very notion that tree-ring data is in anyway useful as a proxy for historical temperature reconstruction - This article from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_831100...3.stm) reports on a peer-reviewed study which appears to provide evidence which casts serious doubt on the very notion that Tree-ring data is in anyway related to Temperature - which kind of negates all Climate 'Science' based on the notion that Tree-ring data is a useful Temp proxy - which is about half of the 'science' used to support the claim that there has been a rise in temperature over the last 5 or 6 centuries

Here are some quotes from the article:

The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.

the relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than to any climatological factors

However, during a number of years, the trees’ growth also particularly slowed. These years correlated with periods when a relatively low level of cosmic rays reached the Earth’s surface.

When the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s surface was higher, the rate of tree growth was faster.

The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.

“The correlation between growth and cosmic rays was moderately high, but the correlation with the climatological variables was barely visible,” Ms Dengel told the BBC.

And the relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than it was to any of the climatological factors we had looked at. We were quite hesitant at first, as solar cycles have been a controversial topic in climatology.”

The last 2 paragraphs from the BBC article are hilarious – it appered to me that they just couldn’t publish something which negates the very notion of using Tree-ring records as a proxy for Temperature, WITHOUT throwing in some bullshit which they just made up in order to secure future funding. Any study which negates the so-called ‘historical Tree-ring temperature record’ BETTER at least find some reason to blame humans if it wishes to receive future funding.

It also suggests the amount of aerosols that humans emit into the atmosphere could impact tree growth, as high levels of aerosols cause “global dimming”, an effect that occurs when the levels of light reaching the Earth’s surface fall.

“If it is true that the mechanism is all about rays enhancing diffuse radiation, it would mean that ‘global dimming’ and ‘global brightening’ would have a big effect on tree growth and therefore on the absorption of carbon dioxide,” warns Ms Dengel.

Which I personally would translate as:

Ms Dengel said “I realise I just pissed-off most of the AGW-pushers out there, by producing the evidence which completely discredits Michael Mann and the CRU’s use of Tree-ring data as a proxy for Temperature, and makes Mann’s little ‘trick’ look even more suspect than it already looked, SO I’m just going to make up some eco-sounding reason why my work should continue to be funded, otherwise I’m fucked and won’t be able to pay the mortgage, the monthly repayments on it are crippling since I bought it at the height of the property madness, silly me”

The other half of the Climate 'Science' is mostly based on Ice Core data - the problem with this is that Ice core data only gives a record of the conditions at that particular place on the planet, and it is extremely unreliable when Global-wide extrapolations are made (or assumed) from such a tiny data-point

by Astro Boy Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:16

Heres an example of the Denial Industrys actions. Was Dr MIchaels openly bought or was the money covertly directed to him? In either case his findings cannot be seen to be impartial.

Dr Patrick Michaels is often used by the media on both sides of the Atlantic as one of the very few people who deny that manmade climate change is happening and who is also a practising climate scientist. Among many other outlets, he has written for the Guardian's website, which describes him as "a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know." But there's something Michaels doesn't want you to know: as far as I can tell, he has never voluntarily disclosed the following information.

In 2006 the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (Irea) circulated a memo to electricity generators, transmitters and distributors[2]. The memo explained that most of the electricity its members provided is generated by coal plants, and Irea was intending to engineer a "considerable shifting from gas-fired generation" to coal. But the profits from this enterprise were now under threat. "A carbon tax or a mandatory market-based greenhouse gas regulatory system would erode most, if not all, of the benefits of the coal-fired generation."

In the hope of averting this disaster, Irea had "decided to support Dr Patrick Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services Inc). Dr Michaels has been supported by electric co-operatives in the past and also receives financial support from other sources ... In February of this year Irea alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels. In addition we have contacted all of the G&Ts [generators and transmitters of electricity] in the United States and as of the writing of this letter, we have obtained additional contributions and pledges for Dr Michaels' group. We will be following up with the remaining G&Ts over the next several weeks."

More info on several other actions by the denial Industry at the Guardian links .

by John B Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:05

Given that the planet's atmosphere is a closed system.
Given that fossil fuels have taken millions of years to form
Given that we have released huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere from burning these fossil fuels over a mere couple of hundred years
Is it not common sense to assume that there will be some kind of reaction from the climate in response?
And also given the environmental and social damage gone by fossil fuel extraction might we be wise to explore other options and reduce our reliance on them?

I know there are huge problems with government and corporate responses to climate change and these need to be challenged but much climate change scepticism seems to be an excuse to carry on with business as usual.
If I am wrong about this please explain to me how.

by James Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:20

It's time for the debate to be re-opened, because there's clearly something wrong with the science behind the Global warming 'Myth'

5oo Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of Man Made Global Warming, aand this doesn't include the 1000's of scientists who have signed their names and reputations on unseen and media ignored petitions.

Just look at what's happening in the US right now! See video

Caption: Video Id: guXi7ugC39s&feature= Type: Youtube Video
Embedded video Youtube Video

by Hubris Mon Feb 08, 2010 01:14

It DOES appear so . . . .

Thermometer Years by Latitude Warm Globe

Ask any retired person which way to get warmer. They will tell you it’s to "head to the tropics."

Well, I couldn’t sleep until I found out if my “eyeball” look at the increase in lower / middle latitude thermometers by year was right. It was.

So what AGW has found is that if you put more thermometers in the tropics you get more warming. Who knew? (Just about everyone retired…) I first discovered this trend in some steps detailed here:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/agw-is-a-thermo...fact/

Below is a Youtube presentation, that even a child could understand the implications of, showing comparison of data from urban and rural sites to see if there is an Urban Heat Effect. Data from NASA GISS. Graphs made with Microsoft Excel. Go to sufacestations.org for more information on the Urban Heat Effect.

Caption: Video Id: LcsvaCPYgcI Type: Youtube Video
Global Warming Urban Heat Effect

by Hubris Mon Feb 08, 2010 00:46

There is a denial' industry and equally there is an 'Alarmism' industry. I

It is laughable that the Alarmists claim there is not, and that they are mere downtrodden poor underfunded underdogs.. Prof Jone's own department was in receipt of approx 13 Million Pounds Sterling which would appear to confirm that there is plenty of money backing the alarmist side.

Of course the use of the term 'Denial' is merely a crass attempt to equate AGW sceptics with 'Holocaust Deniers'.

Comparing AGW Sceptics to 'Holocaust deniers' is no different from rabid-Zionist's attempts to demonise all who disagree with them, by labeling them 'Anti-Semites' - it's wrong and completely reprehensible when they do it, and it's wrong  and completely reprehensible when AGW-Alarmists use similar tactics.

In fact the very term 'Climate change Deniers' appears to be a very deliberate mis-nomer, since no one (to my knowledge) denies that 'the climate changes', but they do appear to deny that 'recent warming is all the result of human activity' which would appear to make them 'AGW deniers'.

When the Alarmist side must stoop to ad hominem and demonisation it is a sure sign they have abandoned any pretense that their arguments are based on reason.

Despite the mathematical 'elegance' of the CO2=AGW theories, the fact appears to be that in order to make the observed temperatures 'behave' in such a fashion as to conform the the theory, 'scientists' like Jones and Mann had to perform various sleight-of-hand statistical 'homogenisation' techniques.

When one ignores this so-called 'homogenised' data and examines the raw temperature data, it appears that any perceived temperature rises fall well short of those predicted by the 'CO2' based theories, and more importantly, the climate models, thus casting serious doubt on the theories upon which those models are based.

Hence the need for temperature-data 'homogenisation' or as the more plain-speaking amongst us prefer to call it: Fraud.

by Blazes B Sun Feb 07, 2010 20:50

There is a denial industry, and the problem for the rest of us is that the science proves the trend, but cannot say yet what the average temperature will be in 2035 if emissions don't change. The parameters convince me.

As for methane, a cow grazes about an acre a year. Leave that acre ungrazed for a year and it will give off much the same methane. Measuring an acre of rotting grass over 12 months is much harder than holding a bag over a cow's arse (yes, people are paid to do that) for a day and multiplying by 365. It's much easier to blame the cow, and as quite a lot of greens are vegetarians it suits them to try to eliminate livestock. That would easily be refuted by the deniers, and most of us enjoy a steak now and then.

While meat in America is carbon-intensive, your average dog-and-stick man in Ireland is not. What if we end his way of life? Ploughing up, sowing and fertilising his old pasture will only add to the carbon problem. Our grain is seldom good enough for bread, and it is usually fed to animals that won't be around to eat it. With increasing rainfall fewer farmers here will risk growing grain anyway.

When the Russian permafrost goes, things could change rapidly. It is full of methane, and I've seen a film of locals making holes in the ice of a frozen lake and lighting the methane bubbles trapped under it. Needless to say, no cows graze anywhere near.

by Astro Boy Sun Feb 07, 2010 17:51

Another article which oputlines the rality of rising sea levels and confronts the deniers.

As Sea Level Rises So Does The Level Of Climate Change Denial
By Andrew Glikson

Most of all those who criticise the IPCC ignore the fact that, to date, the IPCC reports have UNDERESTIMATED ice melt rates, sea level rise, feedback effects and the proximity of tipping points, not least the looming release of hundreds of GtC as methane from permafrost, lake sediments and bogs.

by Concerned Sun Feb 07, 2010 17:20

The UN climate change panel IPCC not only wrongly predicted Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, it also put more than half of the Netherlands below sea level.

The Dutch environment minister, Jaqueline Cramer, on Wednesday demanded a thorough investigation into the 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change after a Dutch magazine uncovered it incorrectly states 55 percent of the country lies below sea level. The the Dutch national bureau for environmental analysis has taken responsibility for the incorrect figure cited by the IPCC. Only 26 percent of the Netherlands is really below sea level.

The error surfaced at a time when the IPCC is already under fire for another false claim that revealed earlier this week. The 2007 report states glaciers in the Himalayas will disappear by 2035, while the underlying research claims the mountain ice would last until 2350, British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph discovered.

When Cramer heard of that blunder she wrote a letter to the IPCC, saying she was "not amused" there were mistakes in the scientific report she bases the Dutch environmental policies on. Now she is confronted with errors in the data about her own country. "This can't happen again," the minister told reporters in The Hague on Wednesday. "The public trust in science and politics has been badly damaged."

The IPCC based its claim about Dutch vulnerability to rising sea level on data it received from the Netherlands environmental assessment agency PBL. "The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced," according to the report.”

But the Dutch agency now admits it delivered incomplete wording to the panel. "It should have said 55 percent of the Netherlands is vulnerable to floods; 26 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level and another 29 percent can suffer when rivers flood," the PBL said in a statement after the mistake was uncovered by Dutch weekly Vrij Nederland on Wednesday.

The error features in chapter 12.2.3 of the “Impact, adaptation and vulnerability” section of the IPPC report. This part of the analysis was drafted by the so-called working group II, a different group than the one that wrote the part about the scientific basis of climate change and its causes.

One of the reasons the document is error-prone is in the width of its scope, experts say. A description of consequences of climate change all over the world is bound to touch on areas few people know anything about. In its report, the IPCC draws on publications assessed by outside scientists, reports from organisations like the World Bank and management consulting firm McKinsey, and even descriptions from tourist guides and observations from volunteers. Those sources have to be supported by others and are scrutinised through "qualitative analysis". But a problem in the analysis is there are few scientists in the world who know a lot about regional effects. Few people have enough knowledge and insight to predict longtime trends in ice development in the Himalaya, for example.

The Dutch mistake, however, is of a different order. Scientists missed the incorrect wording of the claim that they received from the PBL. Maarten Hajer, the director of that agency argued the conclusions of the IPPC are still solid: climate is changing, the earth is warming up and human behaviour is to blame for a large part of that. He did acknowledge damage had been done to the reputation of climate scientists. "But I prefer to call it a scratch in the finish rather than a dent," he said.

Article from: NRC.nl

by CrapNTrade Sun Feb 07, 2010 16:08

Why crap and trade won't work. worth a look

http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/

another scam I think.

plus...what Blazes said, except I am not quite so confident about the data being circulated anymore.

by Blazes Boylan - none Sun Feb 07, 2010 15:41

As the man who brought Indy an inside report on Al Gore's speech in 2007, this is a subject that interests me but it is also slippery in the extreme.

Ultimately the job of communicating the emissions problem lies with the politicians who sponsor the scientific research, and politicians aren't, em, very convincing nowadays. Instead they have to "be seen to be doing something", so they will jet into Copenhagen, and will use any useful research to increase the tax take in the meantime. Plus our politicos prefer to deal with problems by hoping they will go away of their own accord.

Consider:
1. Global warming is a fact (all those glaciers melting) and it does happen to correlate with increased carbon emissions since the 1970s or 1940s.
2. Temperatures were higher here in the 1200s with no known carbon emissions (even from volcanos etc.). Greenland was settled by farmers, lots of vineyards grew in northern Europe etc. We don't know why.
3. There followed a mini-ice age here from 1400-1800 - we still don't know why.
4. Scientists find it hard to get funding, and many have jumped on this bandwagon, and therefore are expected to find more results that show or suggest that the climate is warming. Why more? There are hundreds of such reports already.
5. In the distant past the earth has been much hotter and colder than today, for millennia at a time. That's the universe we live in.

Already we have:
1. An emissions trading regime that is not really understandable in logic - but its defenders say you have to start somewhere.
2. Increased carbon taxes on petrol that might be seen as stealth taxes if the science is queried.
3. A Green party in government that will lose some support if the science is queried.

Ask yourself, if governments are as convinced as they say they are:
1. If the current system will really lead to imminent chaos, would Copenhagen have failed?
2. Would the likes of Mary Hanafin be flying to Madrid to attend a poverty conference at a cost of €40,000? (Don't laugh, it happened, and there are endless similar examples). Video-conferencing has been around for years.
3. We have audits here of households, business and farmers' uses of carbon (all those farting cows), but there is no carbon audit yet of the government and the semi-states here. Surprised? I'm not.

Isn't the interest in America largely caused by a desire to buy less oil from the Arabs? Or to pay them less if demand drops?

Last autumn a storm arose in the USA when some scientist proved that a household pet dog uses as much carbon as a small car (small cars being bigger in Americay than they are here). It was suppressed as unpalatable - what politician would ever want to tell people to kill Fido for the sake of the planet? There you have it.

by James Sun Feb 07, 2010 05:40

Great piece, and time someone exposed the priests of Climate Change Lies. The World is waking up to these con men now, just look at this section from the Washington Times:

"The hitch is that the man-caused catastrophic global warming theory is dead, and it needs to be buried. Evidence had been mounting for years that there were problems with the global warming model; most telling was that the globe refused to warm up. Carbon emissions continued apace, but the world began cooling. This is why true believers abandoned the “global warming” brand name and tried to shift the debate to the more ambiguous label “climate change,” which is something the rest of us like to refer to as “weather.”
Climate scientists have to come to grips with some highly inconvenient truths. World temperatures continue to decline as carbon emissions increase. Chilly Scotland is facing its coldest winter in a century. Arctic sea ice is not vanishing. Polar bears are experiencing a baby boom. Water vapor appears to play as important a role in the climate as carbon emissions. Sunspot activity may be more important than both combined. Meanwhile, climate change fanatics seek to blame capitalism and productivity for global warming, global cooling, too much snow, not enough snow, hurricanes, tornadoes and even the Haiti earthquake.

The simplistic and increasingly discredited theory of carbon-based, man-caused global warming needs to be discarded, and the scientists who sought to squelch skeptics and artificially inflate their own reputations must be disciplined. Alas, Mr. Obama and Mr. bin Laden need to update their talking points."

by Cian Sun Feb 07, 2010 00:31

But global warming is not been caused by the sun, despite what Ian Plimer or some other quack would have you believe. The sun will eventually get hot enough to kill of all life on earth. But thats another 2 billion years away.

Src: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126932.500-how-....html

In the meantime, I would suggest you put down the doomsday clock and become part of the solution rather than part of the problem....

by spaceman Sat Feb 06, 2010 20:06

Mars temperature is om the rise also, this has nothing to do with co2 emissions here on earth but a rise in the temperature of the sun.
If it continnues life will be just about impossible in relatively short time.
The doomsday clock is ticking and the world is heating up through no fault of our own...theres nothing we can do to 'fix' it. That is what 'they' dont want you to know......

by Astro Boy Sat Feb 06, 2010 19:50

George Monbiot shows how the climate denial industry is run by a hugely powerful oil lobby.

The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's working

The denial industry, which has no interest in establishing the truth about global warming, insists that these emails, which concern three or four scientists and just one or two lines of evidence, destroy the entire canon of climate science.

Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence that could possibly be disputed – the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents – the evidence for man-made global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.

No other explanation for these shifts makes sense. Solar cycles have been out of synch with the temperature record for 40 years. The Milankovic cycle, which describes variations in the Earth's orbit, doesn't explain it either. But the warming trend is closely correlated with the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/...ustry

Monbiot writes of the contrast between the scandal these emails have provoked and the muted response to 20 years of revelations about the propaganda planted by fossil fuel companies. Monbiot outlines four case studies; each of which provides a shocking example of how the denial industry works here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/200...ustry

by Astro Boy Sat Feb 06, 2010 19:34

More evidence of temperatures continuing to rise on the roof of the world.

Tibet Temperature 'Highest Since Records Began'

The roof of the world is heating up, according to a report today that said temperatures in Tibet soared last year to the highest level since records began. Adding to the fierce international debate about the impact of climate change on the Himalayas, the state-run China Daily noted that the average temperature in Tibet in 2009 was 5.9C, 1.5 degrees higher than "normal"

by Mike Novack Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:30

This is more about a misunderstanding about how science works.

The general public has little understanding of the process, assumes that there would be more a more unanimous opinion, does not understand that there are personal/career oportunities on all sides of any question in science and that the interests of science are well served by presentations of positions that though in the wrong overall direction are right in criticizing some specific point of the dominant position.

In other words, the PROCESS of science isn't well understood by the general population which (incorrectly) assumes that there should be NO opposition to the well supported majority opinion. Does not understand that were this the case (were questions ever considered "closed") then science as whole could not correct mistakes and that these challenges to the dominant position is how science advances (most of the time strengthening/filling in holes in the dominant posiiton -- minor corrections).

Need to view the situation from the point of view of individual scientists. There are oportunities for presentation of papers/career advancement on all sides of questions (never considered fully closed) and with the competition being less on the minority side, a better chance for prominant publication. Such presentations "on the other side of the question" most of the time result in strengthening the dominant position by forcing that side to fill in some hole or make some necessary minor correction. Rarely they result in an overturning of the accepted position and a major change in the underlying theories.

The problem is that the general public assumes CERTAINTY and questions answered once and for all. That's for religion, not science. Wrong domain.