[Stoves] issue of climate change for off list discussion
Richard Stanley
rstanley at legacyfound.org
Sat Nov 29 15:15:21 CST 2014
Thanks Paul, Andrew and Eric for your suggestion: I am proceeding offline.
Richard
On Nov 28, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Paul Anderson wrote:
Richard,
As a personal friend of you and Crispin and Andrew and many others, I request that you and everyone drop the subject of climate and warming from the STOVES listserv.
Everyone, please stick to the topics of stoves and fuels, but feel free to invite anyone to debate with you privately or on other listservs.
I do not want to lose any of you from our Stoves Listserve.
Thank you in advance.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 11/27/2014 1:55 PM, Richard Stanley wrote:
> Crispin
>
> Quite apart from the substance of your well presented data and rationale, I have to repeat Andrew Heggie's (somewhat) admonsihment "TUT TUT", telling me to not dive into this subject (after he offers a denier claim in same sentence) because it is off topic…How about ti Andrew : Do you have a condecending "tut tut" message about global climare change being ff topic for Crispin as well, or is your admonishment reserved for those of us who propose and accept climate change as anthropogenic in nature and in need of direct and intensive action ?
>
> Richard
> ===========
>
> On Nov 26, 2014, at 9:58 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Richard and AD and Jock and Yuri and Greg
>
> Richard, please note that WB did not write that report, they reported what the Potsdam Institute told them. The Potsdam Institute is a well-known alarming organisation that believes a lot in wealth distribution. Have a look at any 1, 2, 3 of their publications. One of their most senior scientists recently departed them saying what they were promoting was load of hogwash. Who knew? He wrote a book about it and has been vilified by the faithful for climate apostasy.
>
> If you asked certain other groups you would get the same answer. If you asked still other groups, you would get a very different answer.
>
> >It's the continuing barrage of obviously unresearched, un-vetted, backyard analyses like that below, which keep plaguing me about your contention that we are in fact cooling off, not warming up..
> I am not convinced the Earth is cooling. I am quite convinced we are not warming at any rate that was predicted by general circulation models of which there are more than 70. At the moment it is generally agreed that the temperature is the same now (globally) as it was 18 years and 1 month ago. That is not ‘cooling’. Well, I don’t think it is. I am sure you are aware that 1/3 of all the CO2 mankind has ever emitted was put into the air during that time. Where’s the warming James Hansen promised us?
>
> GISTEMP: 0.012 ±0.271 °C/decade (2σ)
> NOAA: -0.019 ±0.250 °C/decade (2σ)
> HADCRUT4: -0.027 ±0.222 °C/decade (2σ)
> RSS: -0.060 ±0.325 °C/decade (2σ)
> UAH: 0.056 ±0.327 °C/decade (2σ)
>
> None of these are statistically different from zero.
>
> AD> global warming and cooling have occurred many times in the past. One cannot just extrapolate the present warming trend into the future.
>
> That's for sure. First you can ask, ‘what warming trend?’
>
> Go to http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html and click on the following settings:
>
> Trend
> 1989-now
> RSS.MSU (satellite read temperatures read at 1000m altitude so as to avoid ground-based issues like black roads and concrete)
>
> Have a look at the temperature plot. It is the anomaly (meaning deviation from a baseline). As you can see the temperature wiggles up and down but is the same as it was in 1996.
>
> AD>The polar ice cap has already melted to the extent of 50% and it will disappear by 2020.
>
> Actually it is growing again. It has not yet melted as much as it did in the early 1880’s nor even close to what it was 1000 years ago when the Vikings sailed around Greenland. That is not possible today.
>
> AD>Evaporation of water from the open sea has already started to cause heavier snowfall in the circum-arctic region and it would increase in the near future.
>
> The water content of the atmosphere has been dropping at all the upper levels (the opposite of the modeled result).
>
>
>
> The water vapour load at the lower level is unchanged. When evaporation increases in the tropics is creates more clouds which cool the earth at a rate of several hundred watts per sq m. The temperature in the Arctic has not risen in summer for a long time. The winter temperatures have gone up several degrees since 1850. There is a plot of the typical and current temperatures at http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
>
> Look about 1/3 of the way down the page for Arctic Temperature. Each year it just rises above the melting point for a few weeks.
>
> Here is the Arctic temperature chart for the past 30 years.
>
>
>
> The 30 year trend us up, the last decade or so, it is flat. In fact it is the same now as it was in 1981 but why quibble.
>
> AD>The excess snow would take longer to melt, resulting into cooling. I saw a presentation by BBC in which the author claimed that by the year 2050, the cities of Moscow, London and New York would be buried uder snow, because the snow would not melt and would go on accumulating.
>
> This is the typical claim of someone who is talking through their hat (not AD, the person cited). The claim is global warming will cause more snow and cold leading to cold. Good grief.
>
> JG> I'd be looking at the Forbes article that advised
>
> I advise that Forbes is not a good place to find useful information about the earth climate system. Neither is the New York Times, nor, sadly, Scientific American.
>
> RS>Please tell us where these crackpots are wrong.
>
> That is surprisingly easy. But remember they just asked for a report from a known hotbed of climate alarm. They lead the charge in Europe, if you didn’t know. The WB doesn’t have weather and climate experts. They finance governments.
>
> Climate alarmism (baked in heat, rapid rise of sea levels, exponentially increasing temperature of the earth as the CO2 goes up – all that and so much more) is based on two fundamental assumptions:
>
> 1. That CO2 increases the temperature of the earth and drives additional warming by increasing the water vapour content of the atmosphere.
> 2. That the rise in temperature from 1976 to 1996 was cause by Industrial Output of CO2 driving just such a mechanism.
>
> Dealing with them in that order:
>
> 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas in the regular sense of the meaning. No one (not scientific people anyway) believes that CO2 by itself will increase the temperature more than about 1 degree per doubling from 400 to 800 ppm. The fact that there is not enough carbonaceous fuels in the world to bring it up to 800 ppm is a topic better avoided because we don’t want to spoil the party, but there you are: CO2 could increase the temperature, by itself, by perhaps 1 degree C overall if you could find enough to burn. That is the theory and it is based on physics that deal with IR radiative gases.
>
> The ‘increase’ above that 1 degree is supposed to come from additional water vapour. Water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and covers the same absorption range (larger, actually). That is also a physical fact. The problem is, the water vapour content has not been rising with the CO2 content, undermining the central claim that it will. The models are programmed as if the water vapour will rise, but it doesn’t .The reason is obvious: if the water vapour content goes up, it starts to rain. Before that, it creates clouds which have a strong cooling effect. The models are contradicted by reality. When there is a conflict between models and reality, it is not reality that is wrong. This has not stopped people from claiming that the models are right and the measurements are defective. Even millions of contradicting measurements are not enough to convince them otherwise. Climate models are the WBT’s of weather.
>
> 2. The temperature rise from 1976 to 1996 was notable. It was not as notable as the steeper and faster rise in temperature from 1920 to 1940. Nor was it as rapid as the rise in the 1880’s. Nor was it as rapid as the rise in the 1700’s which was the fastest ever recorded. None of these rises seem to have had anything to do with CO2, industrial or otherwise. On a long timescale, CO2 rise follows temperature rise by hundreds of years. As the CO2 concentration has gone up some, there should be at least a bit if warming due to it, but so far it is not separable from the background variation, which is substantial. A constant global temperature is very atypical. The climate is always changing.
>
> Yuri wrote: Climate change is the normal state of the earth. It was cooling and warming.
>
> This is correct. Not that it is very exciting news. We have been experiencing 60 year-long cycles of temperature change for quite some time, with a long term gentle rise. The unusual things about the last 30 years (which should have been ‘up’) is that it only went up for 20 years. It should have been 30. This change from up is called ‘the pause’. It is widely acknowledged. There are more than 50 official explanations for it, all involving some sort of ‘investment of heat’ in the Earth system, somehow. In fact there is no proof of any accumulating heat – just claims that it must be in there somewhere and model outputs based on that assumption.
>
> JG> Folks, it is not about warming and cooling. It is about disruption of patterns we have taken for granted for a very long time. So the question is really about the new patterns that are, or will, emerge. And of course it would be useful to know what is driving the disruption, just in case we might want to limit it.
>
> Well, what exactly is the ‘pattern’ that is being disrupted? There is no reason to expect that the weather is anything other than what is has always been – variable with big storms now and then. Why has the warming by models been so spectacularly wrong?
>
> The move away from ‘global warming’ happened after it was embarrassingly clear (by 2005) that the temperatures were not going up. First there was ‘climate change’ which everyone knew meant ‘global warming’. Then ‘climate disruption’ implying that mankind was ‘disrupting the weather’ again by implication, caused by ‘global warming’ that insiders knew was not really there. Then came ‘climate weirding’ which had a very short shelf life. The implication again was that ‘we are doing something bad to the climate’ and all storms are ‘our fault’. This is reminiscent of the German ‘weather witch’ trials of the 1620’s. Seriously. They executed more than 2000 ‘witches’ for causing the disruptive and unusual weather than plagued Europe in the 1600’s.
>
> Everyone should read this. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/a_chronological_listing_of_early_weather_events.html
>
> Have a look at what has been recorded in history without ‘industrial CO2’. There is nothing happening at the moment that even comes close to the extreme natural weather events we have already survived.
>
> “The winter of 401 [AD] was very cold in Asia Minor. The Black Sea froze over and there was sea ice near Constantinople.” “In the year 401, the Black Sea was frozen over for twenty days, and men crossed from Asia Minor to the Crimea.”
>
> “During the autumn of 585 A.D. and the winter of 585-586 A.D. [in France], the weather produced extreme sweetness. The trees bloomed again in September and again before Christmas and bore fruit.”
>
> Winter of 760 / 761 A.D. In the year 761 according to the Helgoländer Chronik (of Helgoland and Norddeutschland in northern Germany], the winter was very severe. It began in October when the open sea and large lakes were clogged with ice for many miles. More than 20 Ellen [46 feet, 14 meters] of snow fell. In the following February, the ice broke with the most incredible bang, that could be conceived on heaven or earth. Some of the icebergs were as tall as trees. They were 31 Ellen [71 feet, 22 meters]
> thick.
>
> “In 825 there was a fall of huge hail [in France]. A piece of ice fell that was 15 feet long by 6 feet wide.” “…lightning set fire to a multitude of buildings and killed many people and huge hail ravaged the countryside in France. In addition, all historians assure, that we dare not believe without the unanimity of their testimony, that by the summer solstice [around 20 or 21 June] in Autun in the region of Burgundy, France, was seen falling from the sky, following a sudden storm and amidst a terrible hailstorm, real ice blocks (we are sure of these measures) of 4.6 meters (15 feet) long by 1.8 meters (6 feet) wide and 0.6 meters (2 feet) thick.”
>
> Can you imagine the hue and cry about ‘climate change’ that would emerge on TV if blocks of ice 15 x 6 x 2 feet (6.4 tons) started falling from the sky in Europe?
>
> Be sure that nothing, nothing happening today is in the slightest way unusual, unprecedented, ‘worst evah’ or any other superlative. Even sea level isn’t nearly as high as it used to be many years ago. Selling the alarm entirely depends on people’s ignorance of climate history – something called ‘Grubering’. “Grubering is when politicians or their segregates engage in a campaign of exaggeration and outright lies in order to “sell” the public on a particular policy initiative.”
>
> So the idea that the climate has 1.5 degrees of ‘baked in’ warming, is the output of a climate model with 1.5 degrees baked into the computer code. Quelle surprise.
>
> “The Climategate emails are full of discussions about how to “sell” the public on CAGW through a campaign of lies and exaggerations. There are many discussion about how the public could not possibly understand such a complex subject.”
>
> Unless they bothered to read enough to understand the complex subject. Imagine that.
>
> “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
> – Steven Schneider
>
> Yeah, well, I have made my decision about that.
>
> Yuri: “All emissions can add 0.01% of CO2 per year to what exists in nature.”
>
> Ron: “Correct ratio - but not helpful, useful, or important in climate terms… The organization 350.org is suggesting that we need to remove 50 ppm from the atmosphere ... But this would then give 2/50 = .04 or 4% worse very year.”
>
> So Yuri being correct is not useful or helpful? Useful to whom? Useful for being ‘honest’ or being ‘effective’? You have turned his correct calculation of 0.01% into 4%. Why? Your number is a 40,000% error!
>
> лучше быть и останец чем простой лжец
>
> Peace…
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141129/975b644b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Mail Attachment.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9261 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141129/975b644b/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Mail Attachment.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15245 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141129/975b644b/attachment-0001.jpeg>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list