New Study shows the Climate Models the U.N. used "fundamentally wrong".

[HAL 9000 96]

.......

Now if you ask me about p-chem... yeah... alright.

(O/T sorry) I might just do that when I am defending my thesis and authoring dissertation in the future..... as all POV on the science of physical chemistry and the properties of matter and it's interactions and impact on physical life is both obvious and relevant. (oh man-I just re-read that and I hope it makes sense).

it moiks purrfect sense dere.

Don't know why but I'm sent back to Sagan's 'we're all made of star stuff' comment from Cosmos.

Seriously... and that has a lot more to do with climate than some will give reasonable credit for...

[tmma 467]

I think I just killed this thread

As for Sagan/star dust/climate -- now *that* is a whole very interesting subject and debate in itself...The thing is that instead of folks being swayed somewhat by politics-------religion/creationalism and all that is in on it too. Major headache.

almost forgot to add (IMO), of course.

Edited July 16, 2009 by tmma

[mendeleev 69]

The article analyzes the short, very warm PETM temperature runaway at the beginning of the Eocene. The dynamics of that temperature excursion are not well enough understood. The rise in CO2 accounts for a large portion of the excursion but cannot explain all of it by itself. Apparently, additional climate feedback mechanisms contributed to the maximum. Those feedback mechanisms apparently were operative only over a fairly short (several tens of thousands of years) timeframe. The PETM lasted only about 100,000 years.

Although it doesn’t turn up in climate models, scientists today wonder about whether the current warming could trigger unexpected amplifications. Earth is warming most strongly at the poles. Perhaps, if warming continues sufficiently, large amounts of methane (a greenhouse gas much stronger than CO2) will be released from methane clathrate pools that currently sequester very large amounts of methane, especially in the arctic. This could result in a very substantial amplication of global warming. The amplification would last a long time (according to human lifetimes) but probably not that long geologically since methane will be oxidized in the atmosphere relatively rapidly.

Perhaps a similar event occurred during the PETM. We just don’t know yet.

[HAL 9000 96]

tmma... novotul is likely a better expert for p-chem questions.

[GaryC 7]

The Meterological office is biased towards man made global warming why Gary? What's the rationale for that? Is it a political motivation or perhaps, a scientific one? This is an office that provides shipping and weather forecasting for a nation, it is stuffed full of top weather and climate scientist, they spend all day every day steeped in all things weather and climatic but yet you poo poo it because it doesn't say what you want it to say. In favour of what? A site that references itself, nothing outside of itself and no clues to the author. How do you rationalise that behaviour Gary, seriously? What you are doing does not make sense.

If they were not biased they would show all data and theories. All you get is the pro-man made side of things. Or are you saying there is no debate or competing theories?

Which again begs the question as to why they would do that, what is the motivation for it?

Perhaps the theories you are promoting just aren't as influential as you think they are. As I've told you before - this is-it-isn't-it GW debate seems to be taking place almost exclusive in this country. You may not find it the least bit odd, but I certainly do.

Once again - I direct you to this inconvenient truth (no pun intended):

Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

That's pretty damning, Gary.

No it isn't. That does not imply that the scientists in those bodies agree with what the orginizations endorse. It only says that the leaders of those bodies have endorsed the idea that man is the cause. There are plenty of reputable scientists that disagree. They are just being shut out.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course it implies it!

If the leadership of these organisations were pushing conclusions that its member base doesn't support and which doesn't reflect the findings born out of the work that its members are doing - you'd see scientists jumping ship en-masse and quitting those organisations to found new ones.

That hasn't happened, has it.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Private Pike

[GaryC 7]

Of course it implies it!

If the leadership of these organisations were pushing conclusions that its member base doesn't support and which doesn't reflect the findings born out of the work that its members are doing - you'd see scientists jumping ship en-masse!

No, because the scientists need the affiliations with those groups. They need the funding they provide and the ability to publish. They remain silent rather than risk getting kicked out. I can show you many stories about scientists that have dissented and were threatened by the groups they belong to.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

oh geezuz...

[GaryC 7]

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'

By Tom Harper

Published: 12:01AM GMT 11 Mar 2007

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/154...ate-denial.html

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course it implies it!

If the leadership of these organisations were pushing conclusions that its member base doesn't support and which doesn't reflect the findings born out of the work that its members are doing - you'd see scientists jumping ship en-masse!

No, because the scientists need the affiliations with those groups. They need the funding they provide and the ability to publish. They remain silent rather than risk getting kicked out. I can show you many stories about scientists that have dissented and were threatened by the groups they belong to.

In these fields people do (and can) found new organizations. Its not unheard of - and if the movement against anthropomorphic global warming were as strong as you say, where is the concerted movement in the scientific community to recognise it and to facilitate it?

[GaryC 7]

Skeptical Climate Scientists Shunned At UN Bali Meeting

Consensus by force as media ignores dissenting views

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The self-proclaimed "consensus" behind man-made global warming is one enforced by threats, intimidation and ignorance, as is again being proven by media coverage of the latest UN meeting in Bali, where skeptical climate scientists are being shunned and ignored if they dare express an opposing viewpoint.

Representatives of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which include a member of the IPCC since its inception in 1990, were almost barred from attending the meeting when their credentials were rejected by UN officials.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," said climate researcher and former British government cabinet member Christopher Monckton.

Australian scientist Dr. David Evans slammed the conference as a "circus" and warned that the UN's politicization of science had created a dangerous atmosphere.

"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction, away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, " Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.

Evans cited a report in this month's International Journal of Climatology which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is largely a result of solar activity and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/decem...sts_shunned.htm

[GaryC 7]

BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE

FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.

A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.

Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.

His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.

Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

"When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn’t believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be.

I am a scientist and I have to ­follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my ­opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme.

My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: “I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?”

It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock.

The truth is, I didn’t think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy so I said so. Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn’t doing that.

At that point I was still making loads of television programmes and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren’t getting taken up. I’ve asked around about why I’ve been ignored but I found that people didn’t get back to me.

At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: “This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic,” and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we’ve seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly – and they’ve not grown for a long time.

I’ve seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies – carbon dioxide is not the driver.

The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, it’s a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer.

If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago we’d be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn’t be here otherwise.

People such as former American Vice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming – which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you’ve got no proof.

And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science.

There’s no proof, it’s just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs.

To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that’s not global warming. They’re drying up for the very ­simple reason that most of them have dams around them.

So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and veget­ables for the supermarkets of Europe.

One of Al Gore’s biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming. Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every ton of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water.

The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.

Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are much bigger problems at stake.

I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues. For example, we must stop the dest­ruc­tion of trop­ical rainforests, something I’ve been saying for 35 years.

Mother nature will balance things out but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas.

That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

These are all pretty vague accusations though aren't they.

If there were only a hundred scientists in the world - this might be of significance, but we're talking about tens of thousands of people, aren't we...

David Bellamy? That last one is illustrative of just how ridiculous that is - Bellamy is a naturalist who used to be BBC presenter who did David Attenborough type documentaries about plants and animals. He wasn't on the air much in the 90's at all...

In point of fact, the decline of his career had more to do with his running as a political candidate in 1997 (you have to quit the BBC if you're running for political office - as its a conflict of interest).

Edited July 16, 2009 by Private Pike

[GaryC 7]

These are all pretty vague accusations though aren't they.

If there were only a hundred scientists in the world - this might be of significance, but we're talking about tens of thousands of people, aren't we...

I can continue to post stories like this. It isn't just a few scientists like you imply. Anyone that does not hold with the idea that man is causing GW risks losing his ability to practice in his field. They have been bullied into silence.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

These are all pretty vague accusations though aren't they.

If there were only a hundred scientists in the world - this might be of significance, but we're talking about tens of thousands of people, aren't we...

I can continue to post stories like this. It isn't just a few scientists like you imply. Anyone that does not hold with the idea that man is causing GW risks losing his ability to practice in his field. They have been bullied into silence.

Law of the jungle. Losers always lose.