Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 111. (Read 636455 times)

Weak sun could offset some global warming in Europe and US – study


Regional impact of a weaker solar cycle likely to be larger than global effect, with only minimal impact on worldwide temperature rises caused by climate change






Global warming in northern Europe and the eastern US could be partially offset in future winters because of the sun entering a weaker cycle similar to the one which enabled frost fairs to take place on the river Thames in the 17th and 18th century, according to new research.

However, the study said any potential weakening in solar activity would have only a small effect on temperature rises at a worldwide level, delaying the warming caused by emissions from cars, factories and power plants by around two years.

The sun has been in a period of high activity for the past few decades. But scientists believe there is now as much as a 20% chance of a weaker period of activity, known as a grand solar minimum, occurring in the next 40 years.

“Even if you do go into Maunder minimum conditions it’s not going to combat global warming, the sun’s not going to save us,” said lead author Sarah Ineson at the Met Office. The Maunder minimum is the name for the sun’s weak period during 1645-1715, when the Thames froze solidly enough for eyewitnesses to report horse-driven carriages crossing it.

Climate change means such sights in the second half of the century would not occur, since the sun’s cooling effect would only reduce manmade temperature rises in northern Europe and the eastern US by 0.4-0.8C. Such offsetting was not a “large signal”, Ineson said, although the study found there would be more frosty days in those regions than there would be without the weaker solar activity.


Northern Europe and the eastern US would experience a much stronger cooling effect from a weaker period of the sun’s activity than other areas because less ultraviolet solar energy at the top of the stratosphere would cause a chain reaction which would affect the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The NAO is a climate phenomenon which plays a key role in influencing winter weather on both sides of the Atlantic.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/23/weak-sun-could-offset-some-global-warming-europe-us-study

Britain faces FREEZING winters as slump in solar activity threatens 'little Ice Age'

BRITAIN could face colder than average winters with a plunge in solar activity threatening a new "little ice age" in the next few decades.






Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries".

They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.

The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters.

A spokesman said: "A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming.

"Return of 'grand solar minimum' could affect European and eastern US winters."

Long episodes of low solar activity were seen during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and the 'Dalton Minimum' from 1790 to 1830.

Both periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures earning the title from scientists of "Little Ice Age."

The latest study, published in Nature Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.

A much bigger cooling effect is expected for Britain, northern Europe and North America where thermometers could drop by 0.8C.

Amanda Maycock, of the University of Cambridge and National Centre for Atmospheric Science, said: "It's important that we consider the potential impact of changes in UV output when looking at future climate."

Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This research shows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are likely to be larger than the global effect.

"This study shows that the sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions about adapting to climate change for the decades to come."

Met Office long-range expert professor Adam Scaife said solar activity has already started to decline over the past few years.

He said: "Although the effect on global temperatures is very small, the local effect is big enough to make a difference and we need to include that in our future climate projections."

[...]


http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity

What's really warming the world? by Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

STEVEN MALANGA

Brother Glum, Mother Earth
The pope’s encyclical on climate change ignores how markets and technology have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.

June 19, 2015

Shortly after the Argentinian cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was consecrated Pope Francis in 2013, news stories reported that the new pontiff wanted to build a stronger relationship between the Catholic Church and science—one that saw science not in opposition to, but compatible with, religious belief. Some months later, the pope declared that evolution and the Big Bang theory of creation are real and don’t conflict with belief in God. Now, in the wake of the pope’s encyclical on climate change and the environment, Laudato Si (or, Be Praised), the press has exulted in the pope’s apparent effort to find even more “common ground” with science.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The encyclical, whose title is derived from a line from St. Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Sun (“Be praised, My Lord, through all your Creatures”), is being welcomed by some in the scientific community because it proclaims that climate change is real and that humanity must address it. But the nearly 38,000-word document—most of which is not about climate change—actually reads like a giant step backward for the Church’s social teaching: a rejection of technological progress; a dark, narrow vision of human nature that ignores the enormous gains the world has made in alleviating human suffering; and an almost antihuman call, reminiscent of the most radical environmentalists, to reduce human activity drastically as the only way to save the planet. As Michael Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute and co-author of An Ecomodernist Manifesto, observed: “When [the] Pope speaks of ‘irrational faith in human progress’ I want him to visit the Congo to see what life is like when there is no progress.”

Early on, Francis said that his papacy would be shaped by his experiences serving the poor of Argentina—a place where, as economic historian Pierpaolo Barbieri wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Government takeovers [of private businesses] and crony capitalism are the enemy of genuine development.” More than any recent pope, his vision has been shaped by this distorted view of how modern trade and commerce work. One result is that Laudato Si devolves into a long rant against consumerism that ignores the many benefits produced by human innovation through free markets.

French writer Pascal Bruckner has observed that modern environmentalism is essentially a composite of the blame game preached by two twentieth-century ideologies: Marxism, which blamed capitalism for humanity’s problems; and Third World ideology, which blamed the West. This perfectly describes Laudato Si. No less than five times the pope derides humanity’s “throwaway culture.” His concern? We don’t recycle most of the paper we use. The pope also disparages “financial gain,” “financial interests,” and “financial resources” more than a dozen times, though what these interests have to do with the environment isn’t clear. It doesn’t seem to matter. They make a convenient target in the world from which the pope hails, where a theology of class warfare seems to reign.

Pope Francis frames his argument in favor of a heavy-handed environmentalism around the idea that climate change hurts the poor the most. Yet he seems to have little notion of what has helped the world’s poor more than anything: namely, the march of markets and technology, which has lifted billions out of destitution. Instead, Francis rails against those who “doggedly uphold the myth of progress,” the “modern myth of unlimited material progress,” and the “myths of modernity,” including “unlimited progress.” Yet after levying these warnings against progress, the pope calls for a bigger effort to develop sources of renewable energy. Exactly how will this be accomplished, except through giant advances in technology?

Too much of the encyclical reads like a list of green gremlins cooked up by the most ardent environmentalists. Francis finds reason not to like genetically modified foods because, he claims, wherever they’re employed, “productive land is concentrated in the hands of a few owners” and small farms disappear due to “an expansion of oligopolies for the production of cereals and other products.” This claim ignores the good that genetically engineered food does in boosting production and helping to feed people around the world.

The pope also decries the way humans are depleting the world’s natural resources. Under this heading, he includes a lack of fresh drinking water in some areas. He claims that water suitable for drinking “is a basic and universal human right.” But in much of the underdeveloped world, human overuse isn’t responsible for the scarcity of drinking water; rather, lack of technology to discover, pump, and purify water is the issue. Bringing clean water to Africa’s poor, for instance, has nothing to do with Americans or other wealthy peoples using too much of their own water. Instead, the solution lies in transferring the tools we have developed for ourselves—technologies that have drastically reduced disease and dehydration—to the poor.

The most dispiriting thing about the encyclical, however, is the relentlessly bleak vision of the world this pope proffers. He at times sounds like a survivalist warning that time is running out—and not because the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Francis talks of impending, large-scale natural disasters, the breakdown of social life on the planet, and warns, “Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain.” His critique ignores so much—the extension of democracy and rise of the middle class in the Third World, the decrease in wars, the eradication of deadly diseases, and even the decline in pollution in places, thanks to technological innovations like cleaner engines and fuels.

The pope’s assuming of the apocalyptic tone of the environmentalist is, in the end, ironic. It is the Church’s gospel that offers us the true Apocalypse, which is a hopeful revelation of God’s coming and cause for joy among the good. Laudato Si, by contrast, is perhaps the least hopeful, most joyless document to come out of the Vatican in my lifetime.

Steven Malanga is the senior editor of City Journal and the author of Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer.

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0619sm.html

I guess you don´t glean any point from this and that´s just fine. Probably someone will. Bye bye and good luck, g

No shit?

In 1898, delegates from across the globe gathered in New York City for the world’s first international urban planning conference. One topic totally dominated the discussion. Horse poop. In fact this was deemed such a huge and insurmountable problem with no practical solution in sight that this conference broke up in desperation after three days instead of the scheduled ten. Twenty years later the city’s last horse-drawn streetcar made its final run.

Parable of Horseshit.

“When the solution to a given problem doesn’t lie right before our eyes, it is easy to assume that no solution exists. But history has shown again and again that such assumptions are wrong.”

---SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance”

book by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner

“Just as equine activity once threatened to stomp out civilization, there is now a fear that human activity will do the same.” As usual, they say, the anxiety is unwarranted. First, the global-warming threat has been exaggerated; there is uncertainty about how, exactly, the earth will respond to rising CO2 levels, and uncertainty has “a nasty way of making us conjure up the very worst possibilities.” Second, solutions are bound to present themselves: “Technological fixes are often far simpler, and therefore cheaper, than the doomsayers could have imagined.”

That's some pretty good shit.

Well, in the late 1800s horse shit was a far more tangible crisis than nowadays when it mostly comes to mind regarding utterances of politicians and prelates and their minions.

In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in
horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-story windows. At the time the ballooning horse fleet dropped like 5000 tons of manure per day so those concerns seemed quite legitimate.

Let me know how many predictions from 1930 about 2015 were valid.

Wow!  I finally find something I can agree with Gina McCarthy on!

She is 100% right of course.  'Normal' people are herd animals who can be reliably programmed to believe almost anything no matter how absurd.

EPA Chief: ‘Climate Deniers’ Aren’t Normal Human Beings









EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an audience Tuesday gathered at a White House conference “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the debate on global warming.

McCarthy’s remarks came as she was talking about the reasons why the EPA put out a report on the negative health impacts global warming will have on public health. She said the agency puts out such reports to educate the public, not answer critiques from global warming skeptics.

“I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers,” McCarthy told doctors, health professionals and others gathered at a White House summit. “You can have fun doing that if you want, but I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times and if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.”

McCarthy then remarked how “normal people,” and not skeptics would eventually win the global warming debate. Implicit in her remarks is the contention that skeptics are somehow not “normal people.”


http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/23/epa-chief-climate-deniers-arent-normal-human-beings/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Obama Admin Warns 57,000 People Will Die Unless We Enact His Climate Change Rules…


A new report from the Obama administration warns of rising death counts and other disastrous consequences from inaction on climate change.

When compared with a “future with unchecked climate change,” taking action to curb manmade global warming would avoid nearly 13,000 deaths by 2050, and 57,000 deaths by 2100 from poor air quality, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

“This report shows us how costly inaction will be to Americans’ health, our environment and our society,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in the administration’s latest reason for taking action on climate change.

“But more importantly, it helps us understand the magnitude of benefits to a number of sectors in the U.S. with global climate action,” McCarthy added.

The report, “Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action,” examines two scenarios — action vs. inaction — that essentially makes an economic argument for deploying more renewable energy and other actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the next century.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2566765?utm_content=bufferdbfd7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Pope's key science advisor is atheist who believes in 'Gaia, not God'...



The scientist who influenced Laudato Si, and who serves at the Vatican's science office, seems to believe in Gaia, but not in God.



St. Francis of Assisi’s hymn Laudato Si’ spoke of “Brothers” Sun and Fire and “Sisters” Moon and Water, using these colorful phrases figuratively, as a way of praising God’s creation. These sentimental words so touched Pope Francis that he named his encyclical after this canticle (repeated in paragraph 87 of the Holy Father’s letter).

Neither Pope Francis nor St. Francis took the words literally, of course. Neither believed that fire was alive and could be talked to or reasoned with or, worse, worshiped. Strange, then, that a self-professed atheist and scientific advisor to the Vatican named Hans Schellnhuber appears to believe in a Mother Earth.

Gaia

The Gaia Principle, first advanced by chemist James Lovelock (who has lately had second thoughts) and microbiologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s, says that all life interacts with the Earth, and the Earth with all life, to form a giant self-regulating, living system.

This goes far beyond the fact that the Earth’s climate system has feedbacks, which are at the very center of the debate over climate change. In the Gaia Principle, Mother Earth is alive, and even, some think, aware in some ill-defined, mystical way. The Earth knows man and his activities and, frankly, isn’t too happy with him.

This is what we might call “scientific pantheism,” a kind that appeals to atheistic scientists. It is an updated version of the pagan belief that the universe itself is God, that the Earth is at least semi-divine — a real Brother Sun and Sister Water! Mother Earth is immanent in creation and not transcendent, like the Christian God.

What’s this have to do with Schellnhuber? In the 1999 Nature paper “‘Earth system’ analysis and the second Copernican revolution,” he said:

Ecosphere science is therefore coming of age, lending respectability to its romantic companion, Gaia theory, as pioneered by Lovelock and Margulis. This hotly debated ‘geophysiological’ approach to Earth-system analysis argues that the biosphere contributes in an almost cognizant way to self-regulating feedback mechanisms that have kept the Earth’s surface environment stable and habitable for life.

Geo-physiological, in case you missed it. Cognizant, in black and white. So dedicated is Schellnhuber to this belief that he says “the Gaia approach may even include the influence of biospheric activities on the Earth’s plate-tectonic processes.”  Not the other way around, mind you, where continental drift and earthquakes effects life, but where life effects earthquakes.

He elaborates:

Although effects such as the glaciations may still be interpreted as over-reactions to small disturbances — a kind of cathartic geophysiological fever — the main events, resulting in accelerated maturation by shock treatment, indicate that Gaia faces a powerful antagonist. Rampino has proposed personifying this opposition as Shiva, the Hindu god of destruction.

Mother Earth gets the flu and instead of white blood cells and a rise in temperature to fend off the infection, it sends white ice and a decrease in temperatures. How? Geophysiologically! I remind the reader that our author, writing in one of the world’s most prominent science journals, does not use these propositions metaphorically. He proposes them as actual mechanisms.

Schellnhuber echoes the theme of a cognizant, i.e. self-aware, planet in another (co-authored) 2004 paper in Nature 2004, “Climbing the co-evolution ladder,” suggesting again that mankind is an infection, saying that mankind “perturbs … the global ‘metabolism'” of the planet.

Tipping Points

Schellnhuber, a one-time quantum physicist who turned his attention to Mother Earth late in his career, was also co-author of a 2009 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper “Imprecise probability assessment of tipping points in the climate system,” which asked select scientists their gut assessment about the arrival of various “tipping points.” Tipping points are a theme of Schellnhuber’s research (see inter alia this and this).

Tipping points are supposed moments when some doom which might have been avoided if some action had been taken, is no longer possible to avoid and will arrive no matter what. Tipping points have come and gone in climate forecasts for decades now. The promised dooms never arrive but the false prophets never quit.  Their intent is less to forecast than to induce something short of panic in order to plead for political intervention. When the old tipping point is past, theorists just change the date, issue new warnings and hope no one will notice.

One of the tipping points Schellnhuber asked about was the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, depending on what the temperature did. All of the selected experts (who answered the questions in 2004 and 2005) gave moderate (~15-25%) to quite high probabilities (50-80%) for this event to have occurred by 2015. The ice did not melt.

Schellnhuber presented more tipping points to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 2014 in the co-authored paper, “Climate-System Tipping Points and Extreme Weather Events.” In that paper, Schellnhuber has a “scientific” graph with Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel Adam “flicking” a planet earth over a methane tipping point, such that the earth would roll down into a fiery pit labeled the “Warming Abyss.” Hell on earth.

The Problem of People

Schellnhuber is most famous for predicting that the “carrying capacity” of the earth is “below” 1 billion people. When confronted with this, he called those who quoted him “liars.” But he then repeated the same claim, saying, “All I said was that if we had unlimited global warming of eight degrees warming, maybe the carrying capacity of the earth would go down to just 1 billion, and then the discussion would be settled.”  And he has often said that this temperature tipping point would be reached — unless “actions” were taken.

The man is suspicious of people. In that same interview he said, “If you want to reduce human population, there are wonderful means: Improve the education of girls and young women.” Since young women already know where babies come from, and since this knowledge tends neither to increase nor decrease population, the “education” he has in mind must be facts about how to avoid the consequences of sex. Austin Ruse discovered a 2009 talk in which Schellnhuber said the earth “will explode” due to resource depletion once the population reaches 9 billion, a number that the UN projects in 2050. Presumably he wants earth to avoid that fate, so he must support the population control that Pope Francis so clearly repudiated in his encyclical.

Bad Religion

Confirmation bias happens when a scientist manipulates an experiment so that he gets the outcome he hoped he would get. When Schellnhuber invites only believers in tipping-points-of-doom to characterize their guesses of this doom, his view that the doom is real will be confirmed. And when he publishes a paper that says, “Scientists say world is doomed” the public and politicians believe it.  Scientists skeptical of the doom are dismissed because they are skeptics. This isn’t good science. It’s really bad religion, and a pagan one at that.

Global warming research is characterized by an insider’s club. If you believe, you’re in. If you doubt, you’re out. This is also so at the Pontifical Academies of Science where Schellnhuber was appointed by Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo. The bishop locked scientists with contrary views out of the process, scientists he has repeatedly dismissed as “funded by the oil industry.”  Given this, how likely is it that the Holy Father was fully aware of the views of the chief scientist who advised him?



https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/


http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/es41/es41-schellnhuber.pdf

Watching this video i came to a part that talks about volcanoes producing more co2 than humans https://youtu.be/D-m09lKtYT4?t=24m49s. This is what a agw believer website says about it https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

Any thoughts from the people here who spend a lot more time studying this stuff than i do? If it is a myth than any idea where it comes from? What might have been the source used to produce this documentary?

If you believe it is in part man driven then you are a denier... Weird hey!

You are always welcome here.


 

Going up on the computer model algorithm or on the actual satellite data from NASA?


New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism. DUH



NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.


“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/