This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
White House: "Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change"
So Obama went to California to talk drought and climate change. He brought some cash with him to help the state cope with the water shortage. The Prez is right to be worried about this drought, after all, Cali is 15% of the US economy. The only question is how big the hit to CA/US GDP is going to be.
The President's new plan is have the Ag department come up with $100 million for cattle farmers. There is also $5m for communities that are literally running out of water. So it's 20 to 1 in favor of the cattlemen. Great plan...
As Obama headed west, the White House's Science Assistant, John Holdren, had this to say about the California drought:
"Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change"
Really? It's all climate change?
There are many forces that shape weather patterns. One of the most significant is the El Nino/ La Nina cycles. this is what NOAA has to say about the connection between El Nino and rainfall in the South West:
El Niño results in increased precipitation across California and the southern tier of states
The California drought has persisted for the past three years. It's no coincidence that there have been no El Nino conditions during this time period:
The WH has a climate agenda - this is payback for a lot of support (money). Okay, but when the chief scientist at the WH ignores the scientists who actually look at weather patterns, then one is forced to doubt everything the WH says on the topic.
Misdirection By Holdren???
- advertisements -





Cap and trade is bullshit...
Any other strawmen you would like blowtorched?
The math and science is way over my head, but what got my attention 25 years ago was James Burke's 'After The Warming' Presented in true JB style, it was a history lesson from the year 2050. The reason for giving the lesson in 2050 was because they finally had "the deep ocean data".
Oh, could you point out any credible reference that supports your claim?
In fact, we could have a replay of the Maunder Minimum and it would be squat now
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-we...
500 billion tonnes of additional C02 has way of completely overwhelming what Sun does within its historical range...
Well flaky has solved the energy problem. Wait, no he hasn't, just doesn't understand basic science.
All heat energy originates from the sun. Mans input, in the form of C02, cannot exceed the input from the sun. Laws of thermal dynamics.
let's run with that - the sun warms the planet. What the planet wears, like many things, helps determine its temperature. What's the point again?
Here. this may help.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE...
Apparently the laws of physics and thermodynamics have something to say about how it all works. Note in particular the sentence about the main influences when there is an active water cycle and high transparency in the atmosphere. Yes, that's right: solar irradiance is one of the main factors. Or are you suggesting that Newton was wrong as well?
[quote]
Abstract
In an isolated global atmospheric system as that of Earth, in hydrostatic equilibrium in the cosmic vacuum, heat is
transmitted only in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, the thermal and conductive properties of different
components, such as ocean waters, soils, and atmospheric gases, and the atmospheric adiabatic gradient. The same
conditions apply to planets having huge atmospheric masses, such as Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, whose surfaces
and/or cores are heated only by a Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, gravitational compression of gases, according to their
mass/density, as well as the impedance of their opaque atmospheres to solar radiation. In the case of Earth's
atmosphere with relatively high rarefaction and transparency and an active water cycle, which does not exist on Venus,
Saturn, or Jupiter, the main factors influencing heat transfer are irradiance related to solar cycles and the water cycle,
including evaporation, rain, snow, and ice, that regulates alteration of the atmospheric gradient from dry to humid.
Therefore, the so-called "greenhouse effect" and pseudo-mechanisms, such as "backradiation," have no scientific basis
and are contradicted by all laws of physics and thermodynamics, including calorimetry, yields of atmospheric gases’
thermodynamic cycles, entropy, heat flows to the Earth's surface, wave mechanics, and the 1st and 2nd laws of
thermodynamics.
[end quaote]
Not quite. Physics and thermodymnamics state that because of the elevated transparency of the atmosphere it is solar cycles and the active water cycle that drive climate change to a greater extent.
The link to the paper is in another comment - possibly at the end of the 3rd page.
What nonsense.
Giant nuclear ball of fire nearby in space vs odourless colourless gas necessary for all life on earth? c'mon, really? It' a no brainer.
Supporters of the AGW hypothesis (that's right, it's not settled - see the link below) like to quote CO2 in tonnes because it appears overwhelming. In actuality, it is so small as to be less than the thickness of the goal line on a football field, if the football field is used to represent the atmosphere.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting...
"Giant nuclear ball of fire nearby in space vs odourless colourless gas necessary for all life on earth"
you missed a few classes
Elaborte please. Is the sun not nuclear in reaction? Is CO2 not odourless and colourless? Is it not necessary for all plant life which is the store for all consummable energy from the sun?
your simplification of this issue to the existence of the sun, photosynthesis and the color and odor of CO2
Occam's razor.
thickening the atmosphere has few assumptions
This may help:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE...
Apparently the laws of physics and thermodynamics have something to say about how it all works. Note in particular the sentence about the main influences when there is an active water cycle and high transparency in the atmosphere. Yes, that's right: solar irradiance is one of the main factors. Or are you suggesting that Newton was wrong as well?
[quote]
Abstract
In an isolated global atmospheric system as that of Earth, in hydrostatic equilibrium in the cosmic vacuum, heat is
transmitted only in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, the thermal and conductive properties of different
components, such as ocean waters, soils, and atmospheric gases, and the atmospheric adiabatic gradient. The same
conditions apply to planets having huge atmospheric masses, such as Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, whose surfaces
and/or cores are heated only by a Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, gravitational compression of gases, according to their
mass/density, as well as the impedance of their opaque atmospheres to solar radiation. In the case of Earth's
atmosphere with relatively high rarefaction and transparency and an active water cycle, which does not exist on Venus,
Saturn, or Jupiter, the main factors influencing heat transfer are irradiance related to solar cycles and the water cycle,
including evaporation, rain, snow, and ice, that regulates alteration of the atmospheric gradient from dry to humid.
Therefore, the so-called "greenhouse effect" and pseudo-mechanisms, such as "backradiation," have no scientific basis
and are contradicted by all laws of physics and thermodynamics, including calorimetry, yields of atmospheric gases’
thermodynamic cycles, entropy, heat flows to the Earth's surface, wave mechanics, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
[end quaote]
Thickening of the atmosphere leads to an increase in pressure, no? Has the pressure at sea level risen? Curious.
Define thickening. Are we still talking about the less than 0.5% increase in all atmospheric gases. Lets put some context around this, right?
And what fraction of non-condensable CHG does C02 correspond to?
Start here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Doesn't matter. What proportion of free-ion gas does the CO2 correspond to? who cares?
The total amount existing in the atmosphere of CO2 is a fraction of the total gases. It's odourless and colourless. The amount added every year (net) is even smaller. The amount of that caused by people is even smaller still. You have to take it in context of the total system, no?
If you don't think it matters, then you clearly have no understanding of the GHE...
What controls the temperature given a constant solar flux are the concentrations of non-condensable GHG. The GHE from water vapor is merely a feedback, not a driver..
BTW this is what happens when you remove non-condensing CHGs
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/lacis_etaal.jpg
figure from
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
10 years and the earth is an icecube...
Ah yes. the infamous magnification feedback mechanism which has yet to be proven to exist anywhere (on the level needed for CO2-induced climate change) except in the minds and models of those who want us to be sitting around camp fires dying slowly.
Making shit up don't work buddy...
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VEAChapter1_Robocknew.pdf
A nice summary of the experimental verifications is here
http://weather.unl.edu/RCM/IDB_Mexico/PDF/verify.pdf
And of course you are basically claiming these two guys who are in every thermodynamics text book since the 19th century are wrong...
Here is an online course
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c123/clausius.html
One can hope. That way we won't have to live with the misguided consequences of those made-up models.
You realize that you are clown, don't you?
I would think that your lesson in trying to model complex systems (remember CDOs) with inadequate assumptions and missing critical parts would give you pause in this latest foray into saving the world.- It doesn't matter how many Nobel Laureates you have met, it;s still GIGO.
Typical misleading liberal response. "500 BILLION tons"!!!!!
In % terms, it's insignificant.
In temperature increase in degrees it's insignificant.
Would ANY reference, that confutes yours, be considered "credible" ??
You could hypothetically remove all the C02 from the atmosphere, what would the average global temperature be?
Any idea?
About 2.7-3 oC lower without any feedback (a poor assumption given the fact we live on the water world where surface T is determined nearly entirely by the hydrological cycle including vapor, clouds, liquid and ice) About 2.7 degrees of the radiation forcing occurs with the first 20 ppm added, however. That's because,
I/I(0) = exp(-ecl), where c is the concentration, e the extinction coeffiient at the absorbing frequency, and l the path length. Thus, Log(I/(0)) ~ c, a weak log dependence.
Normally, you'd have to pay tuition to learn this important concept, so I'm lowering the cost of higher education right now.
John is very clever except no expert says "2.6 degrees of radiation forcing" because radiative forcings are not expressed in units of temperature..
And quoting the nature of an exponential does not change that..
Plants "breath" CO2 and turn it into carbon while releasing oxygen. I love how our climate freaks slipped "the earth is warming" into "climate change" without batting an eye.
With the sun at a million times the mass of the earth do you claim the sun has no influence and never has had any influence on the earth ?
I'm curious where you were on the AGW discussion 25 years ago when this freak, James Burke, hosted a detailed documentary called 'After The Warming ' and 90 seconds into the presentation says "understanding why climate change really happened back in the 20th century".
You'll note this was 15 years before An Inconvenient Truth.
All plant life would disappear and we'd be dead. It wouldn't matter. Do you have any idea? It's impossible to determine because the MODELS ARE ALL WRONG.
The models aren't necessarily wrong (but I haven't looked), However, they miss two larger issues, what happens to Earth's atmosphere over time without CO2, and what are the practical consequences of that statistical manipulation called an "average".
The Moon is in the same general neighborhood as the Earth, but lacks an insulating and "greenhouse" like atmosphere, the "average" temperature on the Moon's equator is about -90 Fahrenheit, the problem is that during the day the "average" temperature is about +240 Fahrenheit, while at night the "average" is -280 Fahrenheit.
http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
(Edit: since Flak's around I'll be more honest and call it a psychological manipulation using a statistic, but otherwise, same difference...)
The models have been very wrong.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/hockey-stick-finally-locat...
Those aren't quite the models we were talking about, and the last time me and Flak went at it over models a couple years ago it went on for days, which I can't afford right now... (and I'm still trying to get ETH Zurich to adopt the open source religion after that one). As much as I think the big shiny ball in the sky is the primary source of most life and disagreement- I do have a hockey stick chart of my own... regarding the percentage of the earth's surface covered by water (e.g. dam and reservoir construction) as well as the percentage of the earth's surface being artificially and forcibly irrigated, both of which (in my amateur opinion, but which I can professionally certify humans have built) contribute to increased frequency and severity of hydrological cycles, (irrespective of whether an ant colony building a little lake in my yard will change the local micro-climate there).
Regardless I think if we did away with all PUBLIC funding of proprietary black box models and demanded full open source documentation and access in exchange for direct public funding (or preferential tax treatment in the case of universities and non-profits) regardless of whether toes are stepped on at the NIST, FED, IPCC, that a lot of these problems would either go away or actually get solved.
Quit the bullshit, all the major GCMs are open source...
Flak, stick to physics.
The MPI-M SLA is is not an open source software license agreement (even though MPI does provide access to the ECHAM source code), HAMMOZ at ETH is even more restrictive.
ICDC has both open and restricted access data sets
CERA is built on Oracle, (nuff said, but I will give DKRZ credit for decent documentation and a entry level front end functionality, which would mean more with a more open CPU cycle allocation model)
And if the open source approach to technology ever gets to where it should be. It would be nice if "publishing" scientific authors, as a basic matter of intellectual integrity included all sql statements in their publications, but the concept of CTRL-C followed by CTRL-P is apparently above the skill level of a PhD in physical sciences... At least the dismal pseudo-science PhDs can routinely get the CTRL-P part right.
Really, you shouldn't make shit up
Here are the CMIP-5 downloads
http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/data_getting_started.html
http://proj.badc.rl.ac.uk/exarch/wiki/ExArchProcessing/CDOProcsForWPS/CM...
As for what CMIP5 is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupled_model_intercomparison_project
Go ahead fill your boots...
I shouldn't dignify that strawman non-response which didn't address a single factual point I raised, but since your own links disprove your previous assertions... I'll indulge (but I really think you should look into the definition of "making shit up" - I'm not sure it means what you think it means:
Terms of use agreement for CMIP5 model output:
All model output in the CMIP5 archive is available for “non-commercial research and educational purposes.” A subset (about three-quarters of the models) of the data has also been released for “unrestricted” use, see table in the document "Modeling Groups and their Terms of Use"
...
For both groups of users, the terms of use include these additional statements:
b) I will hold no individual(s), organization(s), or group(s) responsible for any errors in the models or in their output data.
c) In publications that rely on the CMIP5 model output, I will appropriately credit the data providers by an acknowledgment similar to the following:
“We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme's Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modeling groups (listed in Table XX of this paper) for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP the U.S. Department of Energy's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals.”
---
I maintain mirrored copies (as in: all raw data) of the both the EUROSTAT and COMTRADE databases (among others) on my servers and even with the EU's BLSing of their economic data and huge volume of "patch" records they don't include terms of use like that in their user conditions (and EUROSTAT don't even make a claim of being open-source).
COMTRADE is a data warehouse of data warehouses (including EUROSTAT, and is analogous to CMIP5 in terms of structure and function, but the scientific community better pray to GOD ALMIGHTY they aren't comparable in terms of data integrity. COMTRADE (the work-product of banksters and BLSers) does have an indemnification disclaimer but losses and expenses arising out of your use of COMTRADE data is really a much higher standard of integrity. (And if anyone in the anti bankster/NWO crowd hasn't sampled the BLS of COMTRADE please do so in order to fully appreciate the level of both sarcasm and irony in my use of "integrity" especially after trying to reconcile EUR/CNY and KGs across thirty thousand plus commodity codes in a given period of time (those numbers match up just as smoothly as the EUROSTAT and NNPC/NCS (Nigerian Customs Service) trade values of oil that supposedly flows from Nigeria to the EU27).
But I did learn something useful this morning, if I want even crapppier access to the DKRZ/CERA data with an additional layer of data manipulation which is further reduced to the just garbage output of a model, then the US government HAS AN APP FOR THAT.
/snark /rant
What exactly is your point, the model is basically available to the public as long as you don't use for profit....
Here is the source code for some aspects
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/science/models/echam.html
And here is where you can find the rest
I have only one fundamental issue with GIGO "in connection with its manifestation and implementation in modern global business and political systems, the 3^3 (27) sub-parts of which..." can easily made to a matrix of three dimensions 1)Fundamental and Philosophical Issues 2)Areas of Application and 3)Outcomes (Sorry- couldn't resist on so many levels - but it's my lunch hour so I'll try to keep the canteen humor to a minimum, but it is my feeding time)
The Postulate (which must hold also hold in an interdisciplinary approach): Shit rolls downhill
The Matrix:
Fundamental and Philosophical Issues
1) What is open source?
2) The data warehouse model is a proven failure
3) The road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to the fairy-tale land Oz is paved with quick profits in gold, and the road to Salvation is paved with hard work a disciplined intellect and countless combined efforts of individuals to again engineer and construct roads and libraries which can survive millennia.
Areas of Application
1) Climate Data
2) Financial Data
3) 9/11/2001 Data
Outcomes
1) Protects both the Guilty and Incompetent
2) Punishes Reason and produces Faulty Conclusions, based on Non-Science (not even pseudo science), as a result of an ancillary manifestation of the Strategic Paradox peculiar to Data Warehousing practices
3) The misallocation of scarce resources at an individual, corporate, State, NWO Cabal, and planetary levels.
Morpheus's Red Pill: The proponents of FRB/ECB/BOJ/BIS economics, AGW, and the 9/11 Commission NIST accounts of history are (at the macro level) intellectual, ideological and social equals. The preponderance of properly documented paperwork, the collectivist and conformist frameworks of both the State and Academia, as well as the guiding hand of TPTB all work to ensure and desire that humanity continues its regimen of blue pill suppositories so that their reality is respected.
Jumping back into the Matrix:
There enough material in this rabbit hole to keep us going until the next AGW-inspired ice age (yes I do what endothermic means, but my concept of time was linear in the preceding post) when Hell freezes over, but since we both value our finite allowance of time, I'll keep it the discussion to a short bout of verbal diarrhea (keeping there are 27 sub-parts).
What is open source? A the philosophical level it is analogous to a seed. Once planted it grows routes and draws in resources (both human and financial), and from the seed a shoot (product) develops and as it grows off-shoots or forks develop, many of which die over time, but in the physical world the desirable evolutionary traits produced by the forks are incorporated back into the host product (irrespective of the survival of the individual branch on the tree)... The result is a superior and highly evolved organism, assuming the root structure remains intact ant their is enough intellectual and financial nutrients in the soil population to sustain life.
What it isn't open source? The software licenses discussed above. There are varying ideological factions within the community. Some of which are more (often counter-productively) fundamentalist than others. My open-source congregation (whose theology is a hybrid coexistence of LGPL and proprietary software) and is not a fundamentalist one, but their is an element to the GPL dogma that is extremely important to applications which have broad social impact- conferring the legal right to reverse engineering. Having the source code is a good start, but if the source code includes proprietary binaries and is not released under GPL then reverse engineering is actually both impossible (without NSA-scale supercomputers) and illegal (or at least exposes one civil financial penalties from the financially and legally endowed establishment).
In regards to the misallocation of resources in relation to non-open source research, as long as every academic or policy paper is contractually committed to a "thank you" to an aggregator and manipulator of data (as opposed to the actual producers of the underlying data), they should also be contractually committed to prominently displaying
a declaration that the author of said academic or policy paper advocating public financing "does not accept any responsibility any errors in the models or in their output data, and cannot guarantee that their research is free from errors in either the models source data or output data." But the Matrix must be maintained, so alas it will not be.
Compare and Contrast the Data Warehouses which aggregate Climate Data, Financial Data, and 9/11 Data... They're all proprietary black boxes, but Climate Data is actually the prettiest of the pigs in the poke. In terms of potential scale and potential precision and confidence models- the universe of potential Financial Data is finite and precisely quantifiable, the universe of potential 9/11 is vast and somewhat quantifiable, while the universe of Climate Data is literally infinite and least precisely quantifiable of the three.
But Data Warehouse are pigs in a poke, the Strategic Paradox of data warehouses was identified almost as quickly as the first warehouses were conducted and there is plenty of information available from the googlebot an that debate and its implications for decision making.
I am actually more concerned by a particular corollary of the paradox as it pertains to best practices in data warehouse implementation. Every time data is replicated there are two distinct risks (apart of Acts of God, CPU computational errors, or the janitor tripping over an electrical cord). Data Translation Risk and Data Transformation Risk.
Translation Risk occurs when data is "copied" from one database management system to another (Oracle, Sybase, DB2, MicroSnobSQL, MySql, or PostgreSQL) in theory the risk is miniscule, and in the case of MIT or ETH I have over 99% confidence in successful execution of a transaction, the minuscule 1% being the day the task was delegated to a dimwitted TA, and proper transaction validation procedures were not followed (and those rare instances generally get cleaned up). However, the universe with the universe of potential Climate Data being literally infinite, and the potential institutions contributing data being vast, the standards of MIT or ETH cannot be broadly applied. There is a huge amount of micro climate data that is collected in relatively wealthy and well educated Switzerland (the Alps are have benefits beyond skiing and defending against the march of EU fascism), and there is a large amount of micro climate data that is collected in relatively poor and less educated Ghana (home of Lake Volta). However, the University of Ghana, University Of Energy And Natural Resources, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, and the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology all have financial constraints which limit their choice database management system and human resource constraints which increase the Translation Risk to the extent they could contribute data, which they are practically and reasonably prevented from doing at the current time.
Transformation Risk occurs when data is aggregated or re-formatted to facilitate analysis. For example, Citibank NA, Citibank NA, Citibank NA, Citibank NA, and Citibank NA are distinct institutions, except when you view them through a financial equivalent of CMIP5. A year or so from now "we the people" will be granted access to some data from our overlords at the FED. Steve LIESman will get on boob tube and say Citibank got some insignificant share of the FEDs overall support of the financial services industry, while over in the ZH house on Paper Street, snarky Tyler Durden will say ShitiBankers got a Sextillion dollar handout at taxpayer expense in (2020 dollars), before getting smacked by his Edwarad Norton-like alter ego who points out Ben & Janet are using bank holding company subsidiary with a separate certificate number to underwrite Draghi and Kuroda's significant investment of capital. They're all mathematically and factually correct. The truth however, is lost as the raw data from the is aggregated and re-formatted and distributed by the Matrix's Bloomturd Boxes to the agents of the Ministry of Truth.
Science is supposed to be reproducible. The science of data warehouse relies on both the laws of math and the laws of Structured Query Language. One of the dirty secrets of data warehouses is that data is not reverse-producible, (it can be reconstituted if a virgin and unadulterated instance of the original data is maintained). Proper documentation, source code access, reverse engineering, DBMS predictive and regression analysis tools (like SAP/SAS)... they all sound nice, but even with NSA scale capacities- the data can't actually be recreated. A bank data warehouse sounds simple, the number of dollars in existence can more precisely counted that the number of watts of radiation in the earth's atmosphere. And the share of the dollar supply of attributable to a specific financial institution can be precisely calculated than share of energy balance distortion attributed to an individual nation. Moreover dollars only actually exist in the digital ether of FRB servers and those of the member banks. In theory in should be easier within a data warehouse to trace and quantify the path and impact of a specific dollar as it travels through the digital ecosystem of a financial institution, in fact, it is impossible. When the walls of Glass-Stegall came tumbling down, we had over a billion (1990's not BernankeBuck) dollars of IT capitalization (in terms of both human and machine resources, and the humans resources were top dollar serfs and indentured servants, not bottom of the barrel H1B dregs). Even with the best brains, servers, and latest model wiz-bang business object/tool, in order to actually trace a dollar, someone had to unglue their ass from Aeron chair, grab a clipboard and go perform actual field observation.
Banks and Universities rely on expensive clustered and super computers to run complex calculations, which is both an antiquated approach and barrier to entry for competition. Distributed computing botnets (from the early days of "share your CPU cycles screensavers" to the latest bitcoin mining consortiums' raw computational power regardless of the hardware or software platform of the individual bots) are a more evolved approach and instead of erecting barriers to entry- the create new entrances and expand the pool of participants.
Lunch is wrapping up, so I'll skip a few skip a few steps on this rabbit hole tour and go bank to Ghana. ECN (Netherlands) and CDKN are assisting the government in developing a new public sector environmental policy framework (evolved from IPCC 2007 and MDC). On the private sector side there are few crypto-tree-huggers incorporating academic partnerships to address food security deforestation and other pet peeves into various projects. A public sector sub-project within the larger environemental policy framework is the Hydro Chlorofluorocarbon Phase-out Management Plan, which is being implemented with the assistance of UNDP. (From memory) there is a 3:1 ratio between what the cash starved government of Ghana is contributing and what the CTRL-P Money Printer backed DFIs are putting in the kitty to pay for "Progress". One component of HPMP is a feasibility study for development of a high efficiency refrigeration plant, and a six-figure contract will probably be awarded to my buddies at PWC or another firm for a plan that involves more public sector indebtedness and demands the utilization foreign (neo-neo-colonialist) TPTB/DFI friendly sub-contractors. The problem is that the plan already exists. The first one was written in 2010, and was updated in 2012 and again 2013 (and I have copies of all three on this computer). The plan, however, was completely to be completely private sector financed. We considered doing a quick "search and replace" and adding in some more politically correct bullshit filler and giving it to UNDP for 20-50k (there are some contractual and ethical reasons for not finally pursuing path) but UNDP is fully aware of this plan. Moreover, the final work product the UNDP hands over will both faulty economical pseudoscience and faulty environmental science as the marginal utility of a second plant is different from the marginal utility of the first plant. But that's OK since checks will be cut to certain interests and those checks will be underwritten by the indentured servitude of both your and my grandchildren (who will probably have the benefit of a good education) as well as the indentured servitude of a population that won't have that benefit. In the meantime, the opportunity cost of a needless study could finance computer servers running open source software and additional environmental data collection equipment by UENR (.edu.gh)... and as the capacity and skill set of UENR matures, the data set could be properly replicated and incorporated into environmental data sets. But open-source is really a bottom-up approach, which is often in direct conflict with the top-down approach favored by TPTB.
..which is almost the equivalent of energy companies offering "scientists" 10,000 to say what they want them to say
it's weird how folks miss the potential power and influence of other (contrary) interests and how history has proven that influence....
Note that we are only discussing condensable greenhouse gases. The moon has no atmosphere to speak of, big difference and a moon-day is about 28 earth days, another big difference...
10 years and the earth is an iceball...
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-009-0633-5
Hell, we have excellent evidence that if you reduce C02 by 1/2 that a good chunk of North America will eventually be covered in ice...
Well we better make sure we keep enough CO2 around - especially with all those plants sucking it up. Breathe more.
Ten years, yes, but what about the day after tomorrow? No CO2- no endothermic photosynthesis- ergo more heat (granted more of the heat would escape the atmosphere while we're all suffocating and I'm ignoring the distinction between upper and lower atmosphere concentrations. The actual math would be interesting to look at, and valuable since an apparent head-fake in the models that was only "predicable" after the fact doesn't help reputations.
(I only skimmed the articles but CTRL-F "photosynthesis" came up blank. The Pierrehumbert, Brogniez and Roca piece looks like it might feed might my amateur fetish in regards to increased hydrological cycles so I intend to read that one carefully when time permits- thanks)
No one is discussing the role of C02 in the biosphere, the discussion is about the role of C02 as the Earth's thermostat...
And for shits and giggles, come up with an estimate of the forcing from "endothermic photosynthesis" and compare to the well known forcings. Talking about splitting hairs....
The free quick and dirty (268 mW/m2) doesn't look like splitting hairs to me, unless the taking the IPCC's models from WikiShittia at face value for the increased forcing of CO2 over the past decade (245mW/m2) is also splitting hairs.
A meager 2 pages from the International Journal of "Astrobiology", so perhaps I misinterpreted something- but like I said: free quick and dirty (since I'm juggling work, wife, and 9/11 pseudo-engineering).
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~kaas/Bornoecourse/Material/rosing.pdf
You do understand what endothermic means, do you?
And big deal if the steady state rate of energy absorbed by plant life corresponds to the change in the forcing due to 20 ppm of C02... I fail to see the relevance...
The point of the paper is that life probably requires the ability to convert solar photons because other intrinsic sources are too small.. Read the conclusion, I did...
Hell, even Anthony Watts at WUWT has a good idea of what the temp would be...
This was originally taken from his site
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oDFMp8_K5kw/UuC7vRCn2xI/AAAAAAAAE5w/YlsvQqQ2JV...
---
Most informed skeptics agree with Anthony Watts. It is undeniable that a doubling of CO2 will increase global temperatures by 2C degrees, after which additional CO2 will have negligible effect. The skepticism lies with the added 4 degrees of "positive forcings" in models developed for and funded by environmental advocates. If the science of climate was objective and balanced, then there would be much more public support. The public is not as stupid as the progressive elites believe. They understand the motivations and drills, and they aren't buying this pig.
"If the science of climate was objective and balanced, then there would be much more public support."
weird, cause I feel the same way about the energy industries, their influence on our government and just about every one of our national and international policies
so it's a stalemate and you look to the science, the scientists, the evidence, the peer reviewed work, your own observations and common sense.
just because corrupt bastards, including governmental ones are trying to exploit people or extract money or add lies to this issue means little. This is what they do - they exploit every issue.
Sixty percent of the population believes in angels, hell, 1 in 4 think the sun goes around the earth...
And you are not much better, making shit up don't work.. You don't "add 4 degrees of positive forcings"....