Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[GLG]

Because once again you are wrong.
The albedo of Earth

by Judith Curry

An important new paper finds that the albedo of Earth is highly regulated, mostly by clouds, with some surprising consequences.


The albedo of Earth

Graeme L. Stephens, Denis O’Brien, Peter J. Webster, Peter Pilewski, Seiji Kato, and Jui-lin Li

Abstract. The fraction of the incoming solar energy scattered by Earth back to space is referred to as the planetary albedo. This reflected energy is a fundamental component of the Earth’s energy balance, and the processes that govern its magnitude, distribution, and variability shape Earth’s climate and climate change. We review our understanding of Earth’s albedo as it has progressed to the current time and provide a global perspective of our understanding of the processes that define it. Joint analyses of surface solar flux data that are a complicated mix of measurements and model calculations with top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux measurements from current orbiting satellites yield a number of surprising results including (i) the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (NH, SH) reflect the same amount of sunlight within ~ 0.2Wm2. This symmetry is achieved by increased reflection from SH clouds offsetting precisely the greater reflection from the NH land masses. (ii) The albedo of Earth appears to be highly buffered on hemispheric and global scales as highlighted by both the hemispheric symmetry and a remarkably small interannual variability of reflected solar flux (~0.2% of the annual mean flux). We show how clouds provide the necessary degrees of freedom to modulate the Earth’s albedo setting the hemispheric symmetry. We also show that current climate models lack this same degree of hemispheric symmetry and regulation by clouds. The relevance of this hemispheric symmetry to the heat transport across the equator is discussed.

Published in Reviews of Geophysics; [link] to full manuscript.

Excerpts from the Introduction:

There are many reasons why it is important to understand the variability of the Earth’s albedo and the factors that define it:

1. Simple energy balance models of the climate system are unstable to small changes in the amount of energy reflected to space. In these simple models with an albedo overly sensitive to surface temperature, relatively small changes in the absorbed solar energy can swing these models from a near ice-free Earth to a fully ice covered state.

2. It is also speculated that albedo changes potentially regulate the climate system. Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, exemplified in the study of “Daisyworld”, suggests that regulation of the system albedo by the adaptation of biota of differing albedos to climate change might in fact buffer the system from the instabilities inherent to earlier energy balance models.

3. The reflection of sunlight by clouds provides an important climate change feedback mechanism. Our inability to quantify these feedbacks with any certainty is recognized as one of the major obstacles in climate change predictions .

4. More locally, the Earths albedo appears to be resilient to other internal changes that might otherwise alter the system albedo. Perturbations to the albedo through effects of aerosol on clouds appears to be buffered by compensating processes that restrict local albedo changes to changing aerosol influences. The implications of these more local compensations to concepts proposed to mitigate climate change through geoengineering cloud albedo are thus profound.

5. Regulation of the Earth’s albedo is also central to other important climate feedbacks, including the snow/ice surface albedo feedback as well as cloud feedbacks.

6. It has also been conjectured that the characteristics of the total energy transport from low to high latitudes are insensitive to the structure and dynamics of the atmosphere-ocean system and are determined primarily by external controls such as the solar constant, the size of the Earth, the tilt of the Earth’s axis, and the hemispheric mean albedo.

We show, as in other studies, that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (NH and SH) reflect the same amount of sunlight within 0.2Wm2. We show clearly how this is achieved as a consequence of reflection from increased amounts of SH clouds offsetting precisely the increased reflection from the larger NH land masses . The spectral distribution of this reflected energy exhibits clear differences between the hemispheres that reinforce our understanding of how the hemispheric symmetry is established.

The albedo appears to be highly constrained on the hemispheric and global scale and over interannual timescales. The hemispheric symmetry is an example of such a constraint, and the interannual variability of reflected energy is another example. The interannual variability is small, mostly regulated by the changes to clouds associated with the main modes of climate variability. Overall, these changes occur in a way that minimizes the global effects of clouds on the albedo, buffering the Earth system from large changes.

We also show that the ability of present-day models of climate in simulating the statistical properties of the energy reflected from Earth varies depending upon the metric used. Models produce a much more variable reflected sunlight than observed and fail to reproduce the same degree of hemispheric symmetry. Simple arguments suggest that a symmetric energy balance implies zero net cross equatorial transport of heat that is also a condition of a steady state. Although Earth is very near this symmetric state, it is out of energy balance, with less outgoing longwave radiative (OLR) emitted from the SH than the NH. This hemispheric asymmetry in OLR contributes to the approximate 0.6Wm2 imbalance observed and is associated with offsetting transports of heat from north to south in the atmosphere and from south to north in the oceans.

From the section Discussion:

Is the Hemispheric Symmetry Purely Coincidental? While Voigt et al. could not rule out the possibility of the observed hemispheric symmetry being merely accidental, their results suggest that mechanisms exist to minimize hemispheric differences in reflected shortwave irradiance and planetary albedo in some fundamental way. Voigt et al. searched for possible mechanisms in simple aqua-planet simulations using a general circulation model coupled to a slab ocean. The experiments were performed with the model initialized with an imposed hemispheric difference in clear-sky albedo. The results showed how the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) adapted in such a way as to compensate for the imposed hemispheric asymmetries in clear-sky albedo. The compensation occurred as a shift of the ITCZ and tropical clouds into the darker hemisphere, suggesting that in these model simulations the climate system prefers hemispheric albedo asymmetries to be small and that cloudiness serves as a strong regulator of albedo. The main point of these studies is they show how adjustments of cloud patterns in one hemisphere can influence the properties of the other hemisphere, thus hinting at possible mechanisms that determine how a symmetric energy balance might be maintained.

From the Summary:

We also show, as others before, how the amount of solar energy reflected from each hemisphere is essentially identical. This symmetry appears in broadband data but not in spectral radiances, thus hinting at the importance of such spectral data as a diagnostic tool for studying Earth’s climate system. Again, the cloudiness of the planet is the principal regulatory agent that maintains this symmetry with the increased energy reflected from SH clouds precisely balancing the larger reflections from NH land masses. Simple arguments suggest that a symmetric energy balance implies zero cross equatorial transport of heat, which is a condition of a steady state. Although Earth is very near this symmetric state, it is currently out of energy balance with less OLR emitted from the SH than the NH giving rise to the approximate 0.6Wm2 global imbalance observed.

Climate models fail to reproduce the observed annual cycle in all components of the albedo with any realism, although they broadly capture the correct proportions of surface and atmospheric contributions to the TOA albedo. A high model bias of albedo has also persisted since the time of CMIP3,mostly during the boreal summer season. Perhaps more importantly, models fail to produce the same degree of interannual constraint on the albedo variability nor do they reproduce the same degree of hemispheric symmetry. The significance of these shortcomings is not yet fully known, but model studies of hypothetical slab-ocean worlds suggest that interhemispheric changes in albedo can grossly affect the climate states of those worlds, shifting the ITCZ and altering the amount of heat moved poleward.

JC reflections

The implications of this paper strike me as profound. Planetary albedo is a fundamental element of the Earth’s climate. This paper implies the presence of a stabilizing feedback between atmosphere/ocean circulations, clouds and radiation. Climate models do not capture this stabilizing feedback.

The results of this paper also have interesting implications for ice ages, whereby the forcing that is predominant in one hemisphere is felt in the other.

The failure of models to reproduce this hemisphere synchronicity raises interesting implications regarding the fidelity of climate model-derived sensitivity to CO2.

Moderation note: this is a technical thread, please keep your comments relevant.

OBD you should read this as it does have many valid points.....
Why don't you study this albedo effect and really learn something. Its important to understand.

 

[GLG]

The drawn-out Mann lawsuit: Science is not taking a stand for Michael Mann

Guest essay by John A.

It has been awhile since we’ve heard anything about the progress of the lawsuit, and so given the current toxic witchhunt against climate skeptics, perhaps it’s time to review again. I noticed a couple of posts on Mark Steyn’s blog regarding the suit brought against him by Michael Mann, WUWT’s favorite climate scientist, which I felt should be brought to a wider audience.

Someone is going to lose heavily in this Climate Loserweight Title Fight. I can’t see it going the distance.

What nonsense OBD.... Typical.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/09/03/michael-mann-dc-appeals-court-brief-sept3-2014/
For those who are not familiar with this case, or could use a review of some essential points, Dr. Mann's brief filed today contains a 16-page Statement of Facts and a 28-page Argument (the latter is outlined below).
In its Introduction, Dr. Mann's brief says (with underlining added):
Defendants' and amici assert that this case is a threat to freedom of expression and involves a "scientific controversy" which courts are "ill-equipped" to referee. ... They are mistaken. The issues in this case are simple, straight*forward, and certainly capable of an effective judicial resolution. This is not a referendum on global warming, or climate change, or even the accuracy of Dr. Mann's conclusions. This is a defamation case, no more and no less: did Defendants defame Dr. Mann when they accused him of fraud? As in any defamation case, the issues are limited: were the defendant's statements true or false; did the defendant make a defamatory allegation of fact concerning the plaintiff; and did the defendant act with the requisite degree of fault? Those are the essential questions in this case as well—and they do not involve a search for "scientific truth, as Defendants claim. Nor is there, as Defendants suggest, any broad-based "science exclusion" in defamation law.
Here, there is no question that Defendants' assertions were false, and Defendants do not even attempt to argue that their statements about Dr. Mann were true. They have accused him of "academic and scientific misconduct," "data manipulation," "molesting and torturing data," and "corruption and disgrace"—all the while gloating in a disgraceful comparison to Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child molester who worked at the same institution that employs Dr. Mann. And they made these statements knowing that Dr. Mann's research has been reviewed repeatedly and replicated by other scientists, and that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated: no fraud: no misconduct; no molestation; no corruption. Importantly, Dr. Mann brought this lawsuit not to squelch public debate, but rather to protect himself against those who have recklessly accused him of fraud and misconduct.
Rather than defending the falsity of their words, because they cannot, Defendants attempt to hide behind the inapposite "opinion defense" and the unsupported position that accusations of fraud are an accepted part of political discourse and thus protected under the First Amendment. Defendants say that their words are "protected speech" because they are "pure opinion and hyperbole" and cannot be construed, by any reasonable reader, to be assertions of fact. Not so, and the U.S. Supreme Court has been clear on this opinion defense. ...
Defendants also argue that they really did not intend to accuse Dr. Mann of fraud. They now claim that they were just engaging in hyperbole; and that, in any event, their readers (or at least their reasonable readers) did not construe their statements to be factual assertions of fraud, but rather to be legitimate criticism of Dr. Mann's scientific conclusions. These arguments are not only factually unsupported, they are flatly contradicted by the evidence. Defendants' own subsequent statements make it clear that they intended to—and did—accuse Dr. Mann of fraud. ...
Defendants' secondary challenge to this lawsuit is that it should be dismissed because Dr. Mann is not likely to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. ... The allegations already of record without access to discovery demonstrate overwhelmingly that Defendants knew that there was no fraud, and, at the very least, proves that Defendants acted with a reckless disregard for the truth or a "deliberate effort to avoid the truth." [emphasis added]
The brief has a multi-part Statement of Facts, then this outline of the Argument to the Court of Appeals:
The Superior Court Correctly Found That Dr. Mann's Lawsuit Should Not Be Dismissed Pursuant To The District Of Columbia's Anti-SLAPP Statute.
Relevant Legal Standard
The Superior Court Correctly Found That Dr. Mann Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of His Defamation Claims.
The First Amendment Does Not Immunize Defendants' False Statements Regarding Dr. Mann.
Defendants' Specific Accusations Of Fraud And Misconduct Are Not Constitutionally Protected Opinion.
Defendants' Statements Do Not Qualify As "Rhetorical Hyperbole."
Defendants Acted With Actual Malice.
The Superior Court Correctly Found That Dr. Mann Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of His Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Claim.
National Review Is Liable For Steyn's Statements.
National Review Failed To Raise With The Superior Court That It Was Immune From Suit Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The CDA Does Not Provide Immunity For National Review.
We think Dr. Mann has a good argument. Now the ball is in the Court of Appeals' court, so to speak. Hopefully the Court will move expeditiously on this long-delayed case.

 

[GLG]

And another view of this legal case....

http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-mann-responds-to-misleading-filings-in-climate-change-lawsuit-641

Two years ago, a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) analyst said something incredibly nasty about Penn State University climate researcher Michael Mann:

“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”
​

Mark Steyn at the National Review passed on those comments in a blog post and added that Dr. Mann is “behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph…”
Dr. Mann subsequently sued both institutions and court filings have been flying back and forth ever since. Dr. Mann’s lawyers have just filed a response to scientific and legal claims from the National Review and CEI. As their new brief makes clear, any claim that Dr. Mann’s research is “fraudulent” is pure bunk.
The Serengeti strategy at work

In his book chronicling the attacks he’s faced, Dr. Mann compares climate contrarians’ strategy to the one used by predator animals he saw in Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. Rather than trying to take on all the world’s climate scientists, they pick out someone from the herd who they think they can attack effectively. He’s faced many over-the-top criticisms of his research—and his character—from the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and a whole host of front groups, political actors and online haters.
Why all the fuss? In the late 1990s, Dr. Mann and his colleagues found that much of world is warmer than it used to be. The key graph from their research looks like an upturned hockeystick, a nickname that stuck. At the time, it was groundbreaking work. It also blew a hole in a standard contrarian talking point: that it used to be warmer in the Middle Ages.
Fifteen years after Dr. Mann and colleagues published their initial research, climate contrarians are still attacking it as if it’s the keystone that holds up the entire edifice of climate science.
Climate science goes to court

The National Review’s last filing in this case devotes a section to rehashing whether or not research Dr. Mann’s original research is valid. They largely cite contrarian books, statements from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), an article from the Telegraph newspaper and Congressional testimony from a contrarian climate scientist. Nothing in their brief substantiates an accusation of “fraud.”
CEI has done the same in some of its filings, though it takes a more sophisticated approach. CEI does more to dress up its accusations in the language of science, but their brief emphasizes typical scientific uncertainties and nitpicking while downplaying the fundamental soundness of the original hockeystick. Again, there’s no evidence of “fraud” in their brief.
What’s missing, of course, from all their briefs, are legitimate scientific citations rejecting or refuting Dr. Mann’s work. That’s because those don’t exist.
As Dr. Mann’s response brief notes, follow-up studies have “not only replicated Dr. Mann’s work using the same data and methods, but independently validated and extended his conclusions using other techniques, and using newer and more extensive datasets.”
Indeed, climate scientists have more hockeysticks than an NHL locker room:

That’s a lot of hockeysticks! From a 2008 Mann et al. paper. Graphic from Skeptical Science.

A 2013 study took a comprehensive look at so-called “paleoclimate reconstructions.” The result “looks like a twin” of the original hockeystick, according to researcher Stefan Rahmstorf. Graphic via ThinkProgress.


It’s fair to say that Dr. Mann’s original research is among the most scrutinized scientific papers of all time. If it were fraudulent – or even just wrong – we’d know by now.
Scientists take fraud and retractions very seriously. Look at the Andrew Wakefield case:The Lancet retracted his research on vaccines and autism and he was banned from practicing medicine. Or skim the great work over at Retraction Watch.
CEI and the National Review also pass on lame rehashings of emails that were stolen from climate scientists back in 2009. National Review’s brief largely ignores the investigations that cleared Dr. Mann and other scientists of the accusations climate contrarians lobbed at them. CEI’s brief cites these investigations, including one from the National Science Foundation (NSF), but tries to downplay them and question their credibility.
As Dr. Mann’s response brief notes, two universities and six government agencies examined the claims climate contrarians were making about the emails and rejected them. His brief cites the NSF’s conclusion that, “…no direct evidence has been presented that indicates [Dr. Mann] fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified the results.”
Again, no fraud.
Never the less, National Review’s Steyn has tripled-down on his initial accusations. In a recent post on the case, he called Mann “Doctor Fraudpants.” I suppose in some circles, that’s hilarious. But the humor of accusing a scientist of living a lie is lost on me.
Different worlds

I attended a hearing related to this case last June. It was disturbing to listen to lawyers for CEI and the National Review accuse Dr. Mann of conducting fraudulent research while he was sitting right there. I squirmed in my seat more than once and quietly shook my head at their presentations. It was clear that the lawyers didn’t understand the scientific research they were discussing. I felt like I had stepped way, way down a rabbit hole.
After the hearing concluded, one of the lawyers for the defendants walked up to Dr. Mann outside the court room and asked to shake his hand. He was aghast when Dr. Mann politely declined – as if the lawyer was the one who just had his honor and integrity insulted.
From the lawyers’ perspective, perhaps this was just another day at the office. But for Dr. Mann it was an affront to his character, ethics and work as a scientist.
Crossing the line with attacks on science

I’m not a libel lawyer or a First Amendment scholar. Unlike Dr. Mann’s detractors, I’m not so convinced of my own righteousness that I claim to have expertise on topics that are well outside my wheelhouse. I’m just a guy who loves science and appreciates everything scientists do to inform us about our world.
It’s worth noting that other judges have previously sided with Dr. Mann. Litigants in those cases, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, also did not have a leg to stand on when it came to accusing Dr. Mann of fraud.
Generally, courts and judges have shown respect for the weight of the evidence on a range of scientific issues, including climate, tobacco and asbestos. In this case, it’s abundantly clear to me that the attacks on Dr. Mann are the result of ideological thinking run amok, not any real dispute about the science. Steyn, National Review and CEI can argue against government policies all they want, but misrepresenting scientific research to make their case simply degrades public discourse.
Finally, comparing a scientist to a child molester and accusing him of fraud is ethically indefensible. Whether or not it is legally defensible remains to be seen, of course, but I’ll be watching this case closely.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Yes you should as I note you missed this again.

The implications of this paper strike me as profound. Planetary albedo is a fundamental element of the Earth’s climate. This paper implies the presence of a stabilizing feedback between atmosphere/ocean circulations, clouds and radiation. Climate models do not capture this stabilizing feedback.

The results of this paper also have interesting implications for ice ages, whereby the forcing that is predominant in one hemisphere is felt in the other.

The failure of models to reproduce this hemisphere synchronicity raises interesting implications regarding the fidelity of climate model-derived sensitivity to CO2.

So strong possibility why the models are still wrong. Glad to get some projections made that are not happening like they said they would.

But hey, you do not get fact of no global warming over 18 years even when science says it is happening.

OBD you should read this as it does have many valid points.....
Why don't you study this albedo effect and really learn something. Its important to understand.

 

[GLG]

Yes you should as I note you missed this again.

The implications of this paper strike me as profound. Planetary albedo is a fundamental element of the Earth’s climate. This paper implies the presence of a stabilizing feedback between atmosphere/ocean circulations, clouds and radiation. Climate models do not capture this stabilizing feedback.

The results of this paper also have interesting implications for ice ages, whereby the forcing that is predominant in one hemisphere is felt in the other.

The failure of models to reproduce this hemisphere synchronicity raises interesting implications regarding the fidelity of climate model-derived sensitivity to CO2.

So strong possibility why the models are still wrong. Glad to get some projections made that are not happening like they said they would.

But hey, you do not get fact of no global warming over 18 years even when science says it is happening.

No I did not miss anything... I'm not like you.

Oh dear... I see you stuck again. Study albedo this is important.

We also show, as others before, how the amount of solar energy reflected from each hemisphere is essentially identical. This symmetry appears in broadband data but not in spectral radiances, thus hinting at the importance of such spectral data as a diagnostic tool for studying Earth’s climate system. Again, the cloudiness of the planet is the principal regulatory agent that maintains this symmetry with the increased energy reflected from SH clouds precisely balancing the larger reflections from NH land masses. Simple arguments suggest that a symmetric energy balance implies zero cross equatorial transport of heat, which is a condition of a steady state. Although Earth is very near this symmetric state, it is currently out of energy balance with less OLR emitted from the SH than the NH giving rise to the approximate 0.6Wm2 global imbalance observed.

What do you think this means?

 

[OldBlackDog]

See the world has not changed temperature in 18 years.
See that you need to read all the posts on the site.
See that the sea has not risen as you said it would.
See the world is still ticking along and none of your or your leaders projections are happening.
See that you pretend to be a scientist.
See that scientists are always questioning, yet they are stifled by government.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Are Climate Skeptics Like Doubters Of Evolution?

darwin
A friend of mine is a journalist who writes about scientific issues for major national publications. He recently wrote a piece trying to explain why some people doubt an established consensus in the physical sciences. One consensus he cites is that emissions of warming gases pose a “serious threat.” Being conflated with critics of evolution and vaccines got under my skin, so I responded with the following email.

From: Caleb Rossiter
To:
Subject: Hi from Caleb, the luke-warmist

Dear _________: I just read your piece in ______________ on doubters of a scientific consensus. You include with modern doubters of Darwin, Galileo, fluoride, and vaccines those of us who study the science, math models, and statistics of “climate change” and find little evidence of human-caused climate catastrophe. I think that our inclusion on that list is inappropriate at present.

Theories about evolution and vaccines, or claims about the damage done to human health by GMOs or by chemicals, can all be tested by controlling for intervening variables that also affect rates of damage. These hypotheses can then be confirmed or rejected to a degree of certainty. For example, Rachel Carson on DDT causing cancer, Mother Jones magazine on industrial chemicals reducing sperm counts, and Erin Brockovich on chromium-6 causing a litany of ailments were all proved wrong with proper statistical controls.

However, in Earth’s poorly understood and complex, interactive climate system, many intervening variables are impossible to control for accurately. As a result, predictions about climate changes are extremely hard to test. Climate claims at present are fundamentally speculative, rather than, as in the other examples of science cited in your article, definitive.

I am just a small fry among the big fish like Lindzen, Happer, Dyson, Soon, Pielke, pėre et fils, Curry, and Spencer who think this. But I have taught math models and statistics for a decade at American University, and I am proud of the work my students have done to assess the climate “consensus” you cite.

Yes, the United Nations summary you cite concludes that most of the half degree F warming from 1980 to 2000 (it has held flat for the 15 years since then) was the result of human emissions. But the justification for this conclusion comes almost entirely from the fact that a few modelers, using hundreds of parameters for unknown and currently unknowable interactions, can get a decent back-fit on previous global mean temperatures when they assume a certain sensitivity of temperature to CO2 and methane levels.

That is hardly the “scientific consensus” you claim. It’s a mathematical effect, which can also be produced with baseball batting averages as the correlated variable, given enough tuning of the other parameters. And the modelers have had to cut their sensitivity almost in half recently to account for the recent 15-year hiatus.

The modelers themselves call their future figures “scenarios” and not “predictions.” They also acknowledge that they must resort to solar and other natural variations to model an even greater temperature rise from 1890 to 1940, since industrial CO2 in that era would have had little effect. Their scenarios have huge error bands, in part because the laboratory effect of CO2 on temperature is a square root rather than a linear function, meaning that the impact of additional CO2 on temperature levels off, rather than keeps increasing. This is because the CO2 molecules, which happen to oscillate at the same frequencies as infrared leaving the atmosphere, get “filled” with the resulting heat-trapping interactions, and absorb less and less of the escaping infrared over time.

More importantly, the “climate change” that drives policy choices is not the modest temperature rise in the past 130 years, whatever its cause, but rather its effects. There is absolutely not a scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is "a serious threat.” The UN report provides little to show that droughts, hurricanes, and sea height have increased due to, or even with the warming. I know because for many years my students have taken the individual, usually peer-reviewed studies cited in the U.N.’s footnotes and analyzed them for their final projects, so I’ve had to read all the studies.

—All the best, CalebA luke-warmist catastrophe-denier and hopeful recipient of those energy company research funds you say are sloshing around out there for climate skeptics…tell ‘em I’m waiting!

P.S. I have written much on this topic. One piece in the WSJ about the need for carbon-based electricity for Africa got me fired from my anti-imperialist think-tank last year. In this polarized debate, newspapers that adopt the “consensus” had, of course, turned it down. It’s all on my blog, We Love Electricity, on calebrossiter.com.

Source

 

[OldBlackDog]

The EPA Thinks You're Stupid

ginaThe folks at the Environmental Protection Agency, starting with a long line of its administrators that now includes Gina McCarthy, think you and the Congress of the United States are stupid. They have been telling lies for so long they can’t imagine that their chokehold on the American economy will ever end.

It is, however, coming to an end and the reason is a Republican-controlled Congress responding to the countless businesses and individuals being ravaged by a ruthless bureaucracy driven by an environmental agenda determined to deprive America of the energy sources vital to our lives and the nation’s existence.

his was on display in early March when Gina McCarthy testified to the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, asking for a nearly $500 million increase in its 2016 budget. The total discretionary budget request would have topped out at $8.6 billion and would reward states nearly $4 billion to go along with the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

The problem is that the Clean Power Plan is really about no power or far more costly power in those states where the EPA has been shutting down coal-fired plants that not long ago provided fifty percent of all the electricity in the nation.

In February 2014, the Institute for Energy Research reported:

“More than 72 gigawatts (GW) of electrical generating capacity have already, or are now set to retire because of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulations. The regulations causing these closures include the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (colloquially called MATS, or Utility MACT), proposed Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and the proposed regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.

To put 72 GW in perspective, that is enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes—or every home in every state west of the Mississippi River, excluding Texas. In other words, EPA is shutting down enough generating capacity to power every home in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

Over 94 percent these retirements will come from generating units at coal-fired power plants, shuttering over one-fifth of the U.S.’s coal-fired generating capacity. While some of the effected units will be converted to use new fuels, American families and businesses will pay the price with higher utility bills and less reliability for their electricity.”

What nation would knowingly reduce its capacity to produce the electricity that everyone depends upon?

Answer: The United States of America.

Why? Because the EPA has been telling us that coal-fired plants produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and it is causing ours and the world’s temperature to increase to a point that threatens our lives. They have been claiming that everything from blizzards to droughts, hurricanes to forest fires, are the result of the CO2 that coal-fired plants produce.

That is a huge, stupendous lie.

In the Senate Committee meeting, McCarthy said, “Climate change is real. It is happening. It is a threat. Humans are causing the majority of that threat...the impacts are being felt. Climate change is not a religion. It is not a belief system. It’s a scientific fact. And our challenge is to move forward with the actions we need to protect future generations.”

Climate change is real. It’s been real for 4.5 billion years and it has absolutely nothing to do with anything that humans do, least of all heating, cooling and lighting their homes, running their businesses, and everything else that requires electricity.

McCarthy said that the EPA’s overall goal was to save the planet from rising sea levels, massive storms, and other climate events that impact our lives. No, that’s not why the EPA was created in 1970. Its job was to clean the water and the air. It has done a relatively good job, but its mandate had nothing to do with the climate, nor does the provision of energy have any impact on the climate.

The reverse is true. The climate has a lot of impact on us.

Regarding the “science” McCarthy referred to, according to a 2013 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there were record low tornadoes, record low hurricanes, record gain in Arctic and Antarctic ice, no change in the rate of sea levels, and there had been NO WARMING at that point for 17—now 19—years.

When Sen. Jeff Sessions asked McCarthy a number of questions about droughts and hurricanes, she either dodged providing a specific answer or claimed, as with hurricanes, that “I cannot answer that question. It’s a very complicated issue.”

Asked about the computer models on which the EPA makes its regulatory decisions, McCarthy replied, “I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to.” Sen. Sessions said that it was incredible that the Administrator of the EPA “doesn’t know whether their predictions have been right or wrong.”

As for any “science” the EPA may be using, much of it is SECRET.

H. Sterling Burnett, the managing editor of the Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, reported on The Secret Science Reform Act (HR 4012) introduced by the House Science Committee late last year. The bill would “prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based on science that is not transparent or reproducible.”

The House passed the Act on November 20, 2014 and it has been received in the Senate, read twice, and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. If it passes the Senate, that will be a giant leap forward in gaining oversight and control of the EPA.

Until then, the EPA’s administrator and staff will continue to work their mischief in the belief that both Congress and the rest of us are stupid. We’re not.

Source

 

[OldBlackDog]

I Deny I’m a Denier

shutterstock_68641195I consider myself to be a skeptic in the matter of man-made global warming. I’m not a denier; I’m not smart enough to be that certain. But, as with a lot of things in life, I’m skeptical. (And see what they did there? By labeling skeptics as deniers, they equate us with Holocaust Deniers. Pretty clever, huh?) Every now and then, I’ll use my Twitter account to send out a tweet poking fun at climate alarmists (see what I did there?). And, while most Twitter users understand the humor, there are those who get very, very angry.

First, they pointedly remind me that I’m not a scientist. That’s very helpful, because sometimes I confuse being a TV game show host with being a scientist. (It’s always embarrassing when I show up for a taping in a white lab coat.) Actually, that’s not the first thing they do; the bulk of them usually start with obscene name-calling. There are two favorites, but Ricochet’s Code of Conduct forbids my being any more specific on the matter. Finally, most of them tell me that they don’t care what such an idiot who hosts such an idiotic program for idiotic viewers thinks about something that 90% (or 94% or 97%) of climate scientists agree on. Of course, the fact that they read my tweet, became agitated by it, and responded to it demonstrates that they truly do care. I find that rather odd, because I’m not sure why anyone would particularly care about any beliefs—or non-beliefs—held by a quasi-celebrity, especially one who doesn’t use his television forum to proselytize (as some are wont to do).

I’m also often reminded by my global warming (climate change?) Twitter buddies that climate is not weather. The fact that it’s extraordinarily cold in particular areas at particular times does not negate their argument. The climate—hockey stick and all—will doom us if we do not act quickly and drastically. I find the climate vs. weather argument interesting because weather events can only prove their point; they cannot disprove it. The historically calm Gulf hurricane period since Katrina—despite predictions of increasingly strong and devastating storms—can be explained away. However, it’s a safe bet that, had the last decade been marked by more violent activity, it would have been more evidence that The End Days were near. Snowless winters in England are a sign of the climate changing times, but when the snow and ice return…well, it’s weather, not climate.

So here we are. The science is settled. Extreme weather of any kind confirms it. Weather that seems to fly in the face of predictions is irrelevant. So how can one possibly deny all that? I can’t, because I’m not a scientist. But can’t I be just the teeniest bit skeptical?

 

[GLG]

See the world has not changed temperature in 18 years.
See that you need to read all the posts on the site.
See that the sea has not risen as you said it would.
See the world is still ticking along and none of your or your leaders projections are happening.
See that you pretend to be a scientist.
See that scientists are always questioning, yet they are stifled by government.

Wow that's mature.

I'll ask again....



We also show, as others before, how the amount of solar energy reflected from each hemisphere is essentially identical. This symmetry appears in broadband data but not in spectral radiances, thus hinting at the importance of such spectral data as a diagnostic tool for studying Earth’s climate system. Again, the cloudiness of the planet is the principal regulatory agent that maintains this symmetry with the increased energy reflected from SH clouds precisely balancing the larger reflections from NH land masses. Simple arguments suggest that a symmetric energy balance implies zero cross equatorial transport of heat, which is a condition of a steady state. Although Earth is very near this symmetric state, it is currently out of energy balance with less OLR emitted from the SH than the NH giving rise to the approximate 0.6Wm2 global imbalance observed.


What do you think this means?

 

[OldBlackDog]

That,would be number 2.
You did not read all the posts.
Also,I did not see you posting on the site with your comments.
As I have said before if you think you have something to say about this science then tell them. I note you have not done it once yet.
I know I am not a scientist and never,pretended to be one.

Wow that's mature.

I'll ask again....



We also show, as others before, how the amount of solar energy reflected from each hemisphere is essentially identical. This symmetry appears in broadband data but not in spectral radiances, thus hinting at the importance of such spectral data as a diagnostic tool for studying Earth’s climate system. Again, the cloudiness of the planet is the principal regulatory agent that maintains this symmetry with the increased energy reflected from SH clouds precisely balancing the larger reflections from NH land masses. Simple arguments suggest that a symmetric energy balance implies zero cross equatorial transport of heat, which is a condition of a steady state. Although Earth is very near this symmetric state, it is currently out of energy balance with less OLR emitted from the SH than the NH giving rise to the approximate 0.6Wm2 global imbalance observed.


What do you think this means?

 

[steelmadness]

I picture you guys like grumpy old men, arguing over the best spot at the starin window.

 

[GLG]

Are Climate Deniers Like Doubters Of Evolution?

Source

Here is one for you.
[7W0Q0quq-nI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0Q0quq-nI

 

[OldBlackDog]

The Infant Science

I don’t want to sound overly critical of climate science, as the news coming out is much better being reported than ignored. I’m glad research is uncovering new and important things–maybe we really are getting our money’s worth, even if the sums spent on climate research seem very high.

When it was announced two years ago that black carbon had been determined to be one of the largest forcings of climate change (the soot from chimneys in the North fall on snow, changing the surface’s albedo and hastening its melt, which… also exposes the ground below, further changing the albedo), I wrote that it was remarkable that the second largest component of climate change was discovered so late.

I put it down to climate studies being an example of an ‘infant science’. I got a lot of flack for that, as people equated ‘infant’ with juvenile behavior or something similar. But it’s a professional term that has been used before to describe fields of study in the initial stages, where everything is new and exciting and those working in it are finding important things rather than refining at the margins.

ScienceMorningNSB

Recent news reinforces my impression–Watt’s Up With That refers us to a study in Geophysical Research Letters asserting that the new generation (CMIP 5) of climate models have programmed in a rather large error in calculating how solar radiation is calculated at the top of the atmosphere, with unsurprising large impacts on the results of these models.

Those with a consensus view of climate science have been resisting skeptical criticism of model performance ever since temperatures plateaued 15 or so years ago. If the findings of this paper hold up, those defences may become a bit more strained.

Almost at the same time, Climate Etc. refers us to another paper that includes an inherent critism of model performance in measuring planetary albedo, which the paper finds to be symmetrical between the northern and southern hemispheres, but is treated differently by climate models.

It is good for climate science to keep improving and I want to applaud these papers. It makes climate science better and we all want that.

However, that matters of such (apparent–it’s early days) magnitude with regard to their impacts on our understanding of both climate and climate change are being discovered now only emphasizes how far we have to go before climate science is settled in any sense of the word.

We are still learning more about some of the basics. Let’s keep doing it, but let’s also remember this before we assume an authoritarian tone in discussing the ramifications of human caused climate change, okay?

 

[GLG]

The EPA Thinks You're Stupid

Why would they think that? OBD?

[r3OZPQzNq94]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3OZPQzNq94&t=69

 

[GLG]

That,would be number 2.
I know I am not a scientist and never,pretended to be one.

Yes the "i'm not a scientist" gag .... so how do you know if man-made climate change is real or not?

Simple listen to people that are real scientist not those ones pretending to be at steve gonnad dot con or what's up with my hat rack dot con or where every your favorite conspiracy website you follow.

Listen to the 97% of climate scientists that have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening it's real and it's a serious problem..

 

[GLG]

What nonsense

The Infant Science


However, that matters of such (apparent–it’s early days) magnitude with regard to their impacts on our understanding of both climate and climate change are being discovered now only emphasizes how far we have to go before climate science is settled in any sense of the word.

The science is settled and has been for a long time. That's why we say your in denial.

 

[GLG]

In Florida, officials ban term 'climate change'

The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years.
But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes.
DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.
The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department with about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget.


“We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,’” said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.”

Read more here:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html


Published on Mar 11, 2015
Once again, viewers of these videos are ahead of the rest of the world in understanding climate issues.
Rick Scott, the Climate denying Governor of Florida, also denies that his administration had a policy of not allowing the words "climate change", "global warming" or "sea level rise" to be used by State employees. Nevertheless, former state employees are sticking by that claim.

[mh8ql8k9bVo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh8ql8k9bVo

Gov. Rick Scott has denied that he prohibits DEP employees from using the terms “climate change” and “global warming.” When asked to supply current reports to back up his claim he said he would get back to us..... still waiting.

 

[agentaqua]

Friday September 30, 2016
Facing the Change: How rising seas are putting Richmond, B.C. at risk
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episod...as-are-putting-richmond-b-c-at-risk-1.3782566

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/facing...-seas-in-richmond-b-c-1.3786450?autoplay=true

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio...ing-richmond-b.c.-at-risk&contentid=1.3782566

For Richmond, British Columbia, a city that sits just one metre above ocean level, high tides and rising seas have become serious and imminent threat.

The city is being featured in "Facing the Change," a special Day 6 series about the impact climate change is having right now in urban centres and communities across the country.

By the end of the century, sea levels along Richmond's coast are expected to rise by about 1.2 metres. But the city itself sits just 1m above current sea levels on average. And while the city is surrounded by dikes, they aren't all high enough to protect against those rising seas.

The pump station on No. 4 Road in Richmond, B.C. The city has an extensive plan in place to upgrade local flood protection systems against sea level rise. (Google Streetview)

Located just south of Vancouver, Richmond is built on the floodplain of the Fraser River delta.

High tides have come alarmingly close to the top of the dikes that protect communities like Steveston, a waterfront neighbourhood on the southern end of Richmond. Low points in the dike system are being monitored on regular basis.

Residents of Boundary Bay in Delta, B.C. set up sandbags in anticipation of king times in January 2016. (Jesse Johnston/CBC)

The city has an extensive plan in place to upgrade its dikes in the coming decades. It's building four new pump stations— and spending millions of dollars each year to raise the height of the dikes.

City officials expect to have all the dikes upgraded well before sea levels rise high enough to breach them. And in the meantime, they say Richmond is well-equipped to address any flooding that could arise during storm surges or especially high tides.

But the looming threat has some residents thinking about leaving the city behind.

We speak to Tom Pedersen, a professor with the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria and the former executive director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, about the risks that Richmond faces with rising sea levels.

We also hear from Brett Peters, who lives in the seaside neighbourhood of Steveston; cranberry farmer Bruce May; and John Irving, the director of engineering for the City of Richmond.

‘A False Creek’

The painted stripes on the pilings of the Cambie Bridge were created by Rhonda Weppler and Trevor Mahovsky to mark the midpoint of the anticipated five-metre rise in sea levels that will occur with the melting of the Earth’s major ice sheets.

While for the people walking or cycling by the stripes at first appear to be purely decorative, their appearance becomes ambiguous when the true purpose of the design is understood. Seen in relation to the scale of False Creek and the Cambie Bridge, the scale of looming environmental change is visually and physically unequivocal.

‘A False Creek’ by Rhonda Weppler and Trevor Mahovsky.

 

[Fish Bait]

Most of Richmond's problem comes from the land sinking not the sea rising.

http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/aff4fba4-e4b3-50c0-8e3c-c360a924487d.html