COP16 AR5 Aerosols, geo-engineering, wolken-behandeling.Mr.Pachauri IPPC !

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

Dat, mijn beste, is bewolking. Altostratus of nimbostratus bvb.

Idd., dit soort wolken kan men meestal terugvinden op lagere hoogte. Altostratus zit er wel iets dichterbij. Toch even de draad doornemen ?

[zonbron]

@ parcifal, dit onderdeel wou ik nog niet behandelen, maar ik geef U deze tip, bekijk eens 'marine cloud brightening (MCB) geoengineering'

Later meer over MCB...

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Another Jack

Zonbron, uw postings zijn vééél te lang.
Geen hond leest ze.

Zolang mensen het lezen is voor mij alles in orde (bijna 3000 hits nu )
Verder kan ik ADHD niet verhelpen. Ik ben nl. geen medicus.

[zonbron]

Wie had dit verwacht ?

Breaking: A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008″ – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011)


The Kaufmann et al 2011 paper (Note: Michael L. Mann is a co-author, not the same as Michael E. Mann of hockey team fame) was embargoed until 8PM GMT (12PM PDT) today, and we have an advance copy thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser .

Here is the PDF file: pnas-201102467.pdf

The headline from the abstract:

Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.

But in the conclusion:

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”

From the GWPF:

Comments by Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al.

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008.

It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade.


The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

The researchers seek to explain the temperature standstill between 1998 and 2008. They say that the global temperature has increased since then.

This is misleading. There was an El Nino in 2010 (natural cyclic warming) but even that did not raise temperatures above 1998. In fact the standstill has continued to 2010 and 2011 appears to be on course to be a cooler year than any of the preceding ten years.

Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.

Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out of date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.

Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.

This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported.

Dr David Whitehouse

The Global Warming Policy Foundation

[zonbron]

Voor @parcifal die enkel wolken ziet... Een deftige C/P. Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB)

www.planetwork.net/climate/cooling


Cloud Brightening
Emergency Climate Protection

Text from a 2010 LOI & 2011 RFP from a grant application
John Latham

Program Description
Global Cooling is a geo-engineering research initiative led by Dr. John Latham designed to avert the immediate impacts of catastrophic climate change. This idea, called cloud-brightening, has become the focus of a growing network of world-renown researchers working to developed a safe and effective solution to what is rapidly becoming the issue of our time, global warming.

Mission
Global Cooling’s mission is to research the potential for and create safe and controlled processes through which to effect global cooling in order to balance current and projected global warming resulting from CO2 emissions. The project involves seeding low-lying ocean clouds with sea-water in order to increase their reflectivity and thereby protect and potentially restore the polar ice-caps. This process has the potential to delay or prevent the projected runaway feedback loops and catastrophic climate destabilization that the world’s top climate scientists warn would result from inaction.

Funding Request
We propose research to prepare for the seeding of ocean clouds with seawater in order to produce a cooling effect that could hold back catastrophic climate change. The idea is to increase the reflectivity of the Earth to incoming sunlight. Computer modelling indicates that global temperatures could be stabilized for decades, and more importantly, sea-ice could be maintained at both poles, thereby preventing a catastrophic feedback loop that would result from the melting of highly reflective ice into highly absorptive water. This could, in turn, stop the runaway release of vast quantities of methane from thawing permafrost.

Context
As we have failed to reduce CO2 emissions rapidly enough to avert climate change, many leading climate scientists are urging an examination of 'geo-engineering' strategies in order to suppress these effects until renewable energy can be deployed on a global scale.

By employing wind-powered, satellite-controlled watercraft to “seed” low-lying clouds near the poles, we propose to increase the reflectivity in the cloud cover to protect the sea ice from further damage. Cloud-brightening effects already occur in shipping lanes and are observable from satellites, but to produce a global cooling effect, we would need to seed clouds deliberately, on a much larger scale. Our recent field tests have shown an increase in the reflectivity of existing clouds by up to 10%, which world-class global climate modelling suggests could balance global warming for perhaps 50 years. The technology involves spraying strategic areas of existing, low altitude ocean clouds with a fine, seawater mist. Professor Stephen Salter has developed engineering for the production and dissemination of seawater droplets at the rate and scale required.

Constituency
All of humanity and the biosphere - the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers throughout the world all indicate that “global warming” already underway has the potential to create catastrophic runaway feedback loops.

Strategy
Cloud brightening has advantages over other geo-engineering proposals in that the raw materials are wind and seawater and the effect drops out and returns to previous weather patterns within a few days after deployment. This appears to be the most benign, reversible and low-cost option for achieving a cooling effect. Recent NCAR studies suggest that it may be possible to not only stabilize the Earth's temperature, but also replenish the Arctic ice that has melted. Further modelling and more extensive studies are needed to confirm this. Design work on the major technological aspects of our project has progressed well despite limited funding, but significant support will be required to produce and test prototypes, currently of the spray system, and advanced aspects of the global climate modelling. Two of the world’s best computational resources have assessed the idea separately; Hadley Center Meteorological Office, UK, and NCAR, US, resulting in two favourably published papers.

Goals & Accomplishments
The Global Cooling project has won critical acclaim around the world, receiving significant interest from the scientific community and media, including Scientific American, The New York Times and Nature, and has been the subject of documentaries by the BBC and Discovery, which manufactured a small “Flettner Vessel” for the show. It worked perfectly. For years John Latham and Stephen Salter worked alone, but in recent years have been joined by over 30 other scientists (many world-renown) working on a part-time and entirely voluntary basis (we have no money for salaries or consultancy fees).

Results so far have been very encouraging –– subject to the caveats below. Computations predict that marine cloud brightening could hold the Earth’s average surface temperature and polar sea-ice coverage constant, even with up to double the current atmospheric CO2 concentration, which might be fifty years from now, buying the decades of time needed to deploy new energy sources to replace fossil fuels.

Caveats: that (1) all important technological issues are satisfactorily resolved, (2) the reflectivity increase of the oceanic clouds is as assumed (there exists supportive evidence from satellite studies, but more is required), (3) there are no unacceptable ramifications of the deployment that cannot be corrected. This last issue is currently under intensive examination.

We have published seven papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals; two appeared in the 2008 special geo-engineering issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the most comprehensive and authoritative assessment of climate mitigation. The UK Royal Society conducted a survey of all geo-engineering, and ours was one of only two global cooling techniques recommended for support. A similar assessment by the Copenhagen Consensus Center concluded that cloud-brightening is the most attractive solution.

In November 2010 the Royal Society (the UK equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences) organized a 2-day conference on geoengineering in London; at which Dr. Latham was invited to present a comprehensive paper on Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB). We were also invited to submit a lengthy paper on our work for publication in the prestigious and venerable journal The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, in which Isaac Newton published his papers. Our paper is now at the external review stage.
Further Background (from the full RFP)
Increased awareness within the global scientific community indicates that climate change is in fact occurring, and that the manifestations (for example, polar ice melting, changes in weather patterns, ocean-level rise and ocean acidification) can be extremely severe. The prospect of additional warming as a result of even current CO2 levels has much greater credibility, as does growing concern over new feedback loops driving potentially even greater runaway heating as a result.

For those not familiar with geoengineering research, there are currently two major proposed methods of holding back the warming effect caused by excess greenhouse gases. Both involve increasing the net reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere. Early thinking about this led to some ideas, such as mirrors in space, which are so expensive (and irreversible) that they are no longer under serious consideration, but evoked the term geoengineering, which unfortunately stuck. The two ideas that are now under serious investigation, injecting sulphuric aerosols into the stratosphere, or increasing the reflectivity of low ocean clouds, are both methods of increasing the reflection of incoming solar radiation, hence the rather arcane term Solar Radiation Management, or SRM.

Until this past year, many scientists and policy makers were using the term geoengineering almost interchangeably with the idea of injecting sulphuric aerosols into the stratosphere, as this was assumed to be the cheapest and easiest way of achieving a cooling effect. However, in the past year, as a result of the growing network of scientists who are investigating Maritime Cloud Brightening (MCB), this alternative is now being discussed equally in the scientific community.

Values
We regard the ethical questions associated with geoengineering as being of the utmost importance, and we explicitly and strongly oppose any use of our work as a rationale to justify not cutting carbon emissions as rapidly and drastically as possible. We believe that Marine Cloud Brightening should be fully researched as rapidly and fully as possible so that if and when the climate-change crisis reaches otherwise irrecoverable tipping points, we may have an established method of buying time to stave off ecological disaster long enough to make the transition to a zero-carbon energy infrastructure.

We acknowledge that none of the current Solar Radiation Management ideas, including our Marine Cloud Brightening idea, address the crucially important issue of ocean acidification. The severity of the effects of ocean acidity, even at CO2 levels currently being regarded as acceptable in climate negotiations, will force society to address CO2 much more rapidly than is currently expected.

It is, however, widely understood that glaciers, polar sea-ice, and permafrost are already rapidly melting now, as a result of CO2 emissions from decades ago. Even if we were able to instantly reduce CO2 emissions to zero today, we would still see additional increased warming for decades, in part due to the inertia associated with a century of unbridled emissions. Thus, even reducing CO2 emissions on a crash program would not prevent the loss of much of the world’s fresh water supply currently fed by glaciers, or the irreversible loss of much of our biodiversity.

It is ironic that a small but vocal activist group was able to push forward a proposal in October of 2010 to insert language regarding the prohibition of geoengineering experiments under the UN biodiversity protocol, even though biodiversity is already under increasingly severe threat due to warming. Mass extinction will only increase under this inevitable additional warming unless we can hold back temperature increase, as well as cut CO2 emissions, and ultimately take steps to actually remove net CO2 from the atmosphere.

Most seriously, the risk of catastrophic methane release from the melting of permafrost is no longer a theoretical idea. Scientists are already seeing the early signs of this occurring. If a positive feedback loop were to takeoff whereby warming causes permafrost to melt and release methane, and that methane causes more warming, then the only defence for humanity, and biodiversity, would be emergency SRM, and the most effective approach would be MCB.

In our view, we are fooling ourselves if we imagine that research into emergency remedial actions are premature, or that we can responsibly continue to delay such research any longer. Computations made with world-class models suggest that (subject to the various caveats under current investigation) Marine Cloud Brightening could maintain polar ice cover and globally averaged temperature at roughly current values –– or even restore them to previous levels.

Leadership
Inspired by Dr. John Latham’s original work on Maritime Cloud Brightening, first published in the prestigious science journal Nature, in 1990, we have assembled an international “team” of over 30 collaborating scientists (including several who are regarded as world ranking). Most work on a volunteer basis, none are paid from our funds, some are retired, and two are PhD students, but the majority are established scientists who have managed to devote a significant fraction of their time to MCB, and/or have asked their postdoctoral scientists to devote effort to this work. In the absence of significant funding our choice of strategy has been limited, but as it happens, has proved to be quite flexible and successful.

Collaboration
Our informal network of scientists and engineers share a common goal of subjecting MCB to objective, rigorous and comprehensive study, in order to establish whether it could safely produce a short-term global cooling to compensate for the warming resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. As part of this work it is our duty to identify and examine fully, any possible adverse consequences that might accompany the deployment of MCB. The detailed results of our studies should be made available to anyone. These common goals are what bind us into an effective international collaboration.

The paper recently submitted for publication in The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, entitled Marine Cloud Brightening, has 25 co-authors, listed here, along with their affiliations: Authors:- John Latham1,4, Keith Bower4, Tom Choularton4, Hugh Coe4, Paul Connelly4, Gary Cooper7, Tim Craft4, Jack Foster7, Alan Gadian5, Lee Galbraith7, Hector Iacovides4, David Johnston7, Brian Launder4, Brian Leslie7, John Meyer7, Armand Neukermans7, Bob Ormond7, Ben Parkes5 , Phillip Rasch3, John Rush7, Stephen Salter6, Tom Stevenson6, Hailong Wang3, Qin Wang7 & Rob Wood2 .

Affiliations:- 1 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO. 2 U Washington, Seattle, WA, 3 PNNL, Richland, WA., 4 U Manchester, UK, 5 U of Leeds, UK,
6 U of Edinburgh, UK, 7 Silver Lining, CA.

The international nature of our effort is clear from the list above. We have also worked with scientists and engineers at NOAA and Purdue University, as well as in Spain and Germany.

Benchmarks
Perhaps the greatest measure is that our informal “team” of scientists has grown rapidly from two people a few years ago, to now number about 30 scientists around the world –– though most are still based in the US and the UK.

Several documentaries, including the BBC, Discovery Channel, and National Geographic, have been made about our work in at least 6 countries, along with many articles in prestigious magazines. Much of this recognition, and associated involvement of world-class scientists in our work, would not have occurred, in my view, without the support from Threshold –– for which we are very grateful.

Three different, independent Global Climate Modeling studies, conducted by three different world-ranking groups, each using the highest-quality computer models, reached the same conclusion: namely that Marine Cloud Brightening would be capable of maintaining both the Earth’s average surface temperature, and perhaps even more importantly, the sea-ice cover at the poles, at roughly current values for 30 or 50 years –– even in the face of atmospheric CO2 doubling –– providing time for clean energy to be deployed globally. MCB produces preferential cooling at the poles. Other SRM techniques do not.

This assumes that MCB operates as prescribed in the global computer models. A substantial amount of further work is required before any definitive assessment of the efficacy of MCB can be made. The marine stratocumulus clouds –– which cover about a quarter of the oceanic surface –– are more complex than the global computer modeling assumes, so it will be necessary to also conduct high-resolution cloud modeling studies, and probably small-scale field experiments, to achieve a better understanding of these clouds. Paper 9 in the list below is a first step towards achieving this goal.

Also, although substantial progress has been made in the development of spray-production technology, more work needs to be done in this area. We need to develop our plans for limited-area field-testing of MCB. We are fortunate that several people in our team played leading roles in the highly successful international VOCALS field study of marine stratocumulus clouds, conducted two years ago off the coast of Chile. The technology used in that study is basically the same as will be required for MCB field-testing. We anticipate conducting a field study in 2 or 3 years time.
A critically important component of our studies is to examine the possibility that adverse consequences might accompany the deployment of MCB; if this were the case –– and if these effects were significant and could not be remedied –– then MCB should not be deployed.

The source of the greatest controversy around MCB to-date was one early study, conducted by excellent scientists from the Hadley Center (UK), which modelled seeding in only three locations, and yielded an initial conclusion that rainfall would be reduced in Northern South America. Our own global climate modeling studies did not reproduce this result. Later, a more detailed investigation by notable climate modellers (Bala, Caldeira and colleagues) found that –– unlike other SRM techniques (such as stratospheric sulphur aerosols) –– Marine Cloud Brightening produced no rainfall reduction anywhere over land. Finally, further work by the same Hadley Center group also found that if MCB was deployed in different regions from those in their earlier studies, there is no rainfall reduction in Northern South America. So, it seems likely that this problem could be resolved by making better choices of seeding location –– i.e. seeding in a variety of judiciously selected places rather than seeding heavily in only three small areas.

In principle, MCB is quite benign, especially if the dissemination of seawater particles is from wind-powered vessels, as proposed by Stephen Salter. In this case, the only raw materials needed are wind and seawater. Also, seeding could be switched off instantaneously, with the seawater particles falling back almost entirely into the oceans, within a few days.

One highly respected benchmark of success is publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals. To date, we have published 9 papers (excluding the one just submitted) on MCB research:

1. Latham, J., 1990: Control of global warming? Nature 347. 339-340.
2. J Latham and M H Smith: 1990 Effect on global warming of wind-dependent aerosol generation at the ocean surface. Nature, 347, No. 6291, 372-373.
3. Latham, J., 2002, Amelioration of Global Warming by Controlled Enhancement of the Albedo and Longevity of Low-Level Maritime Clouds. Atmos. Sci. Letters. doi:10.1006/Asle.2002.0048.
4. K.Bower, T.W.Choularton, J.Latham, J.Sahraei and S.Salter., 2006. Computational Assessment of a Proposed Technique for Global Warming Mitigation Via Albedo-Enhancement of Marine Stratocumulus Clouds. Atmos. Res. 82, 328-336.
5. J. Latham, 2007. Cooling may be possible, but we need safety data. Nature, 447, 908.
6. J. Latham, P.J. Rasch, C.C.Chen, L. Kettles, A. Gadian, A. Gettelman, H. Morrison, S. Salter., 2008. Global Temperature Stabilization via Controlled Albedo Enhancement of Low-level Maritime Clouds. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 366, 3969-3987,doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0137.
7. S. Salter, G. Sortino and J. Latham, 2008. Sea-going Hardware for the Cloud Albedo Method of Reversing Global Warming Phil.Trans.Roy. Soc. A, 366, 2989-4006, doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0136.
8. P.J.Rasch, J. Latham & C.C.Chen, 2010. Geo-engineering by Cloud Seeding: influence on sea-ice & Climate System. Environ. Res. Lett. 4 045112 (8pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112
9. H. Wang, P. J. Rasch, & G. Feingold, 2011. Manipulating marine stratocumulus cloud amount and albedo: a process-modelling study of aerosol-cloud-precipitation interactions in response to injection of cloud condensation nuclei. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 885?916. doi:10.5194/acpd-11-885.

Funding
The monetary funding provided through the Global Cooling fiscal project of Planetwork actually represents only a fraction of the growing support for our overall efforts. This includes in-kind support in the form of hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of computer modeling time “borrowed’ from other funded projects; countless volunteer hours from scientists whose salaries are paid by universities; and in some cases from their graduate students and post docs devoted to our MCB studies and research. It is difficult to calculate precisely the monetary value of all such contributions, but a rough estimate, averaged over the past five years, is about $150K per year, but trending above that recently.

However, the actual monetary funding provided by Threshold has proved invaluable in the furtherance of our research. It has been this comparatively small amount of cash that has allowed us to meet and interact with each other face to face. It is those meetings that have allowed us to connect and grow our informal network of collaborating researchers. This has been crucial to our ability to expand the network of scientists working on this out of our shared sense of commitment. These funds have allowed us to attend conferences, meet with international collaborators, and hold discussions with people who have specialized knowledge to help further our research. As a direct result, our work has become well recognized within scientific circles and MCB was deemed by the prestigious Royal Society geoengineering panel to be one of two SRM techniques that should be supported for additional funding. Such funding has not yet been provided to our effort, but it seems increasingly likely that it will happen, especially as a distinguished panel from the Copenhagen Consensus Center chose MCB as the most promising of the SRM geoengineering ideas.

Global Cooling is a fiscally sponsored non-profit project of Planetwork NGO, Inc. a CA 501(c)3.
All donations are fully tax deductible to the full extent allowable by law.

[zonbron]

Ik had in voorgaande tekst belangrijke punten in vet gezet, jammer genoeg timeout 30min

Lees meer over de op officiele wijze reeds gerealiseerde experimenten met MCB.
Ik heb het genoegen gehad om die persoonlijk mee te maken, ik kan U verzekeren, als uw sigaret plot zoet smaakt zoals dat kan gebeuren na het inademen van stof van bepaalde mineralen en de vogels onophoudelijk 'zingen' op niet normale uren, dan sproeit men wel wat meer dan enkel zeewater. Ik heb er ook foto's van, van de resulterende hemel. Daar zouden zelfs de chemtrailers stil van worden.


pdf file www.atmos.washington.edu/~robwood/papers/geoengineering/final_jl_philtv17101104.pdf

[zonbron]

Lees vele artikels over 'climate' hier, onderstaande link.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Renewable energy can power (nearly all of) the world

Crikey Blogs / Thursday, 12 May 2011

Nearly 80% of the world’s energy needs could be met by renewable energies by 2050, according to a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), writes Amber Jamieson.
IPCC warned: focus on the science, not policy

Crikey Blogs / Thursday, 2 September 2010

It’s been a gloomy year for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a damning review of its processes and procedures released this week wouldn’t have helped lift the fog. Amber Jamieson explains.
The IPCC truth: flawed, but don’t believe everything you read

Crikey / Thursday, 8 July 2010

Reading some of the media coverage on the report into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, you’d think it had condemned the IPCC for gross misrepresentation of the climate science. Climate scientist Andrew Macintosh cuts to the truth.
Silence from media on IPCC apology

Crikey / Andrew Crook / Wednesday, 23 June 2010

The Sunday Times has apologised for its sham IPCC ‘Amazongate’ story. But will The Oz, the ABC, Fairfax and many other outlets do the same?
Climate science: a field in crisis

Der Spiegel / Wednesday, 7 April 2010

The entire field of climate research is facing a crisis of confidence, says Der Spiegel. Can scientists save themselves in time to save the planet?
Are you now or have you ever been a climate scientist?

Crikey / Clive Hamilton / Monday, 8 March 2010

Accusation of criminality against leading climate scientists takes the denialist campaign of harassment and intimidation to new lows.
Penny Wong: Climate change deniers are the cigarette supporters of yore

The Age / Friday, 19 February 2010

Penny Wong launches a scathing attack on climate change deniers, including the lies of Climategate and says the worst thing about Copenhagen’s failure was the smugness that it gave sceptics.
Is Piers Akerman fabricating quotes from the IPCC?

Crikey Blogs / Monday, 15 February 2010

Is News Ltd’s Piers Akerman the source of an alarmist climate change quote that has for years been attributed to the first head of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton? That’s what the UK’s Independent is claiming.
How Climategate wasn’t as scandalous as the sceptics claimed

Rabett Run / Thursday, 11 February 2010

Michael Mann, a climate scientist embroiled in the middle of the Climategate hacked emails scandal, had his professional conduct reviewed in a Penn State university inquiry and was exonerated. Read the results before the denialists spin it.
More dodgy IPCC claims?

Crikey / Monday, 1 February 2010

The IPCC faced a fresh round of criticism in the British media over the weekend, with revelations of more spurious sources and that its chief, Rajendra Pachauri, may have known about the false claims before Copenhagen.
Britain declares war on climate sceptics

The Guardian / Monday, 1 February 2010

In an interview with the Observer, UK climate secretary Ed Miliband declares a “battle” against climate change deniers and defends the IPCC.
Your Say: Daily Mail readers' feedback: Clarifying the Crikey clarifier

Crikey / Friday, 29 January 2010

Crikey readers weigh in on Lord Monckton, climate change, the IPCC, Tony Abbott talking about virgins and Clive Hamilton.
Scientists, the IPCC wants you

Crikey / Bernard Keane / Thursday, 28 January 2010

Nomination to the IPCC process is an invitation for public smears, threats and routine attacks on your credibility — not by your peers, but by newspaper columnists, bloggers and conspiracy theorists.
Crikey Says: Growing battlefield momentum inside the Sceptics Army

Crikey / Thursday, 28 January 2010

Of the two climate change wars currently being waged across the globe — the war against climate change and the war about climate change — it’s War 2 that’s now occupying the most territory.
Your Say: Daily Mail readers' feedback: Losing it over lost trolleys

Crikey / Monday, 25 January 2010

What’s the big issue getting Crikey readers in a spin? No, it’s not the JJJ Hottest 100 leak or the Massachusetts election. It’s abandoned trolleys.
Did the IPCC cash-in on melting glaciers?

The Times (UK) / Monday, 25 January 2010

“Glaciergate” continues: The UK Times is accusing the IPCC and its chairperson, Rajendra Pachaur, of using its now refuted claim that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 “to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds”.
Crikey Clarifier: Crikey Clarifier: how the IPCC works

Crikey / Wednesday, 20 January 2010

This week, the IPCC was thrown into controversy when it was revealed that its long-held claim that global warming will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was incorrect. Climate law and policy expert Andrew Macintosh explains how things could go so wrong.
Melting glaciers: the canary in the mine shaft of global warming

Crikey / Ben Sandilands / Tuesday, 19 January 2010

The career-driven, social agenda-driven scaremongering frenzy of the IPCC over global warming is totally unnecessary when glaciers already tell the tale.
Did the UN mislead us on climate change?

The Times (UK) / Monday, 18 January 2010

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has egg on its face after its long-held claim that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 has been revealed as pure speculation published in a non-academic pop-science magazine.
...

crikey

[zonbron]

Spoedig goed nieuw van CERN ?

CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet

The next climate debate bombshell

Get ready for the next big bombshell in the man-made warming debate. The world’s most sophisticated particle study laboratory—CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet. Thus, the solar source of the earth’s long, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle will finally be explained.

Cosmic rays and solar winds are interesting phenomena—but they are vastly more relevant when an undocumented theory is threatening to quadruple society’s energy costs. The IPCC wants $10 gasoline, and “soaring” electric bills to reduce earth’s temperatures by an amount too tiny to measure with most thermometers.

canadafreepress

[zonbron]

Ook Bill Gates wil een wolkje bijdragen. (onderdeel van MCB, marine clouds)
(Artikel van 8 Mei 2010)

Bill Gates pays for ‘artificial’ clouds to beat greenhouse gases

The first trials of controversial sunshielding technology are being planned after the United Nations failed to secure agreement on cutting greenhouse gases.

Bill Gates, the Microsoft billionaire, is funding research into machines to suck up ten tonnes of seawater every second and spray it upwards. This would seed vast banks of white clouds to reflect the Sun’s rays away from Earth.

The British and American scientists involved do not intend to wait for international rules on technology that deliberately alters the climate. They believe that the weak outcome of December’s climate summit in Copenhagen means that emissions will continue to rise unchecked and that the world urgently needs an alternative strategy to protect itself from global warming.

Many methods of cooling the planet, collectively known as geoengineering, have been proposed. They include rockets to deploy millions of mirrors in the stratosphere and artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide from the air. Most would be prohibitively expensive and could not be deployed for decades.


Silver Lining, a research body in San Francisco, has received $300,000 (£204,000) from Mr Gates. It will develop machines to convert seawater into microscopic particles capable of being blown up to the cloud level of 1,000 metres. This would whiten clouds by increasing the number of nuclei.

The trial would involve ten ships and 10,000sq km (3,800sq miles) of ocean. Armand Neukermanns, who is leading the research, said that whitening clouds was “the most benign form of engineering” because, while it might alter rainfall, the effects would cease soon after the machines were switched off.

Other types of geoengineering, such as mimicking volcanoes by using aircraft to spray reflective sulphate particles in the stratosphere, would have much longer effects on weather patterns.

Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design at the University of Edinburgh, said that there was no need to wait for regulations because the trials would not add chemicals to the atmosphere. But Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the Government, said that experiments with potential consequences beyond national borders needed international regulations. He told The Times: “I do not see any geoengineering solution which does not have unintended consequences or is not far too expensive.”

timesonline

Besluit uit dit artikel:

- Het niet wachten op internationale wetgeving aangaande 'geoengineering'
- Het kris kras laten varen van schepen die micro molecules van zeewater tot op 1km hoogte de lucht inspuiten (dit ipv kris kras vliegende vliegtuigen met zwavel)
-MCB (met schepen en zeewater) is de veiligste techniek
-Andere geoengineering technieken produceren ongewilde effecten, zijn te kostelijk en kunnen langdurige (blijvende?) veranderingen veroorzaken in het wereldwijde dynamisch klimatologisch model

[D'ARTOIS]

Amerikaanse rookgordijnen bedoeld om eigen belang te laten prevaleren.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door D'ARTOIS

Amerikaanse rookgordijnen bedoeld om eigen belang te laten prevaleren.

Idd @D'ARTOIS, maar er is (ijs)bere(n)goed nieuws, zelfs de mensen bij NASA beginnen uiteindelijk met het bekendmaken van de 'juiste' informatie.

Van rookgordijnen tot de steeds overschatte atmosferische dekmantels... het zal klaren. What goes up must come down, alsook de temperatuur...

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
Forbes

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Bron Forbes

Bekijk de studie : new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing

Lees ook : Forbesblog

Merk in dit artikel ook op wat de invloed van cirrusbewolking op de temperatuur zou zijn.

[zonbron]

POLARBEARGATE

De IJsberen hebben het beregoed !

Every holiday flight you take to Tuscany another one of these DIES!!!

Charles Monnett, de wetenschapper die in zijn wildste dromen overal ijsberen zag verdrinken is in opspraak gekomen en geschorst. 'Scientific misconduct' is de beschuldiging.

De klimaathysterici en oa. Al Gore, maakten gewillig gebruik van deze situatie (vervalste feiten) om hun Global Warming wereldwijd aan de man te kunnen brengen en natuurlijk ook om hun eigen zakken te vullen.

Voor zij die toch nog in opwarming geloven, geen paniek, Al Gore begint nu een campagne om de pinguins te redden.

APNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

The federal agency where he works told him he was on leave pending the results of an investigation into "integrity issues." A watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear, but a source familiar with the investigation said late Thursday that placing Monnett on leave had nothing to with scientific integrity or the article.

The source, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing investigation, wouldn't comment further.

...

Volledig artikel : AP


Polarbeargate?

This is too good a story not to repeat, not least for the headline it invites: (H/T Ed West; Julian Morris)

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.”

Something about this story is very odd. Surely, under the Obama administration any government official who was discovered to have been “emotionalising the issue” in order to raise public awareness of the terrible dangers of ManBearPig would be given a promotion, and a Congressional Medal of Honor at the very least? Can it really be possible that BOEMRE remains so principled and inviolate that it still insists its employees cleave to the truth?

It’s definitely one to watch, anyway. After all, the “drowning polar bear” story was instrumental in the US Interior Department’s controversial decision in 2008 to have Ursus maritimus declared a “threatened species.” (Despite evidence that polar bear populations have increased roughly five-fold in the last 50 years: not so much a threatened species, you might say; more like a plague or an infestation). It also prompted the silly scene in Al Gore’s fantasy movie An Inconvenient Truth where an animated polar bear is shown drowning because of “global warming.”

At Watts Up With That you’ll find an excellent World Climate Report essay reporting on the background to the “drowning polar bear” story.

But the part of the study that garnered the press attention so much so that it has become ingrained in global warming lore was that Monnett et al. reported the sighting of four polar bear carcasses floating in the sea several kilometers from shore, presumably having drowned. All four dead bears were spotted from the plane a few days after a strong storm had struck the area, with high winds and two meter high waves. Since polar bears are strong swimmers, the authors concluded that it was not just the swimming that caused the bears to drown, but that the swimming in association with high winds and waves, which made the exertion rate much greater, sapping the bears of their energy and leading to their deaths. The authors also suggested that the frequency and intensity of late summer and early fall storms should increase (as would the wave heights) because of global warming and thus the risk to swimming bears will increase along with the number of bears swimming (since there will be less ice) and subsequently more bears will drown. But they didn’t stop there—they suggested that the increased risk will not be borne by all bears equally, but that lone females and females with cubs will be most at risk—putting even more downward pressure of future polar bear populations. And thus a global warming poster child (or cub) is born.

But does all of this follow from the data? Again, we haven’t heard of any reports of polar bear drownings in Alaska in 2005, 2006, or 2007—all years with about the same, or even less late-summer sea ice off the north coast of Alaska than in 2004, the year of the documented drownings.

Lubos Motl, as is his splendid way, has some trenchant things to say on the subject.

One of the commenters at Watts Up With That thinks this story could turn out to be really juicy. His rationale is that no way would BOEMRE bring an action against an employee for something as innocent as having honest, peer-reviewed research twisted, misrepresented and exaggerated by the media. No, it would have to be way more serious than that.

... But the part of the study that garnered the press attention so much so that it has become ingrained in global warming lore was that Monnett et al. reported the sighting of four polar bear carcasses floating in the sea several kilometers from shore, presumably having drowned.
...


Meer + Links The Telegraph

[zonbron]

Grotere ijsberenpopulatie nu dan in de 20ste eeuw

Polar Bear Population Higher than in 20th Century: Is Something Fishy about Extinction Fears?

By Amrutha Gayathri | August 2, 2011

If polar bears had any clue of the scale of speculation about the extinction threat they are facing due to climate change, they would have probably said, "you're kidding, right?"

If you think statistics are a pointer towards the growth or decline of a species, it will be interesting to have a look at the estimates published in a 2008 report by U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.



"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations 'may now be near historic highs,'" it read.

J. Scott Armstrong of The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; Kesten C. Green of Business and Economic Forecasting, Monash University; and Willie Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, published their findings in 2008, arguing that the claims of declining population among polar bears are not based on scientific forecasting principles.
...
Meer

ibtimes

[zonbron]

Zal de door NASA onthulde data de Gobale Opwarming, de grootste en meest succesvolle pseudowetenschappelijke fraude, ontmaskeren ?

Global Warming a Hoax? NASA Reveals Earth Releasing Heat into Space

Global warming predictions have followed UN models and trends in describing how Earth traps heat due to carbon dioxide. The increased gases and rising temperatures would create large amounts of water vapors to develop into clouds. Those clouds would trap larger amounts of heat and devastate the planet's ecosystem, leading to the end of mankind.

With new data collected from a NASA’s Terra satellite, the previous model may be proven as a hoax. Hypothesis based on the satellite’s findings show that planet Earth actually releases heat into space, more than it retains it.

With new data collected from NASA's Terra satellite, that established ecological model may be proven inaccurate. Hypotheses based on the satellite's findings show that planet Earth actually releases heat into space, more than it retains it. The higher efficiency of releasing energy outside of Earth contradicts former forecasts of climate change.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's Aqua satellite, studied a decade's worth of satellite data regarding cloud surface temperatures.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he writes. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

By cross-examining data with other Climate Change models, he concluded that carbon dioxide is just a minor part in global warming. His studies have garnered media attention and that the data are going against the beliefs of global warming alarmists by disproving their theory.
...
Meer
ibtimes

Volgens
denken 69% van de Amerikanen dat de Globale Opwarming-'wetenschappers' waarschijnlijk data vervalst hebben.

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
Wednesday, August 03, 2011



The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)

The number of adults who say it’s likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009 .

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. One in four (25%) believes scientists agree on global warming. Another 18% aren’t sure.

Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major political party feel stronger than Democrats that some scientists have falsified data to support their global warming theories, but 51% of Democrats also agree.

Dit en veel meer:
rasmussenreports

[zonbron]

De temperatuur van onze planeet is verantwoordelijk voor het waargenomen CO2-gehalte in de atmosfeer, niet de mens...

Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans

There goes another “fingerprint”…

It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.

Judging by the speech Murry Salby gave at the Sydney Institute, there’s a blockbuster paper coming soon.

Listen to the speech:“Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources”

Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia.

Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.
...
meer

joannenova

[Sodomis]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door zonbron

De temperatuur van onze planeet is verantwoordelijk voor het waargenomen CO2-gehalte in de atmosfeer, niet de mens...

Stel dat onze menselijke invloed op de atmosfeer niet zo groot is als gedacht...
Is dat dan een excuus om verder te doen als voorheen?
Want het verdwijnen van biodiversiteit is wel onomstotelijk bewezen me dunkt.

[zonbron]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Sodomis

Stel dat onze menselijke invloed op de atmosfeer niet zo groot is als gedacht...
Is dat dan een excuus om verder te doen als voorheen?
Want het verdwijnen van biodiversiteit is wel onomstotelijk bewezen me dunkt.

@Sodomis, ik heb nergens beweerd dat de mesenlijke invloed op de atmosfeer niet zo groot is als gedacht, als U deze draad doorneemt kan U opmerken dat ik het tegendeel beweer. De huidige geoengeneering technieken en andere zogenaamde 'moeder aarde ophemelende' maatregelen die men in een nabije toekomst wenst te implementeren, vormen in wezen de feitelijke bedreiging voor de door U en vele anderen zo nauw aan het hart liggende biodiversiteit. Ik durf zelfs te stellen, dit zonder al teveel poespas, dat zelfs de toekomst van onze eigen menselijke (bio)diversiteit in het gedrang komt, en dit NIET vanwege het gedoodverfde CO2-gas, dat een noodzakelijk onderdeel is van menig biologisch huishouden.

Dat gezegd zijnde, is het natuurlijk zo dat nieuwe rendabele technologien een absolute must zijn.

[zonbron]

Nikola Aleksic van de ecologische beweging Novi Sad wil geen GMO's & Chemtrails in Servië.

Serbia’s Nikola Aleksic to President Tadic: Stop GMO, Stop Chemtrails, Or I Will Call the People of Serbia to the Streets

In this remarkable video from Serbia (English transcript is below), Nikola Aleksic, Director of the Ecological Movement of Novi Sad, issues a stern warning to the president Boris Tadic to stop importing food based upon GMO and stop the chemtrail spraying, or he will call and personally lead the people of Serbia to the streets. He concludes his speech by saying: “You can be sure that, I, Nikola Aleksic, will keep my word – even at the cost of my own life.”

Aleksic also implores the Serbian army to “defend you people and sky over Serbia”, and tells the people of Serbia that now is no time to be cowards – they need to stand up for their rights for themselves and their children.
Video bericht

Transcript

[zonbron]

De oproep van Nikola Aleksić werd gehoord en kreeg antwoord.

Tuesday, 16 August, 2011

NOVI SAD – The fight has paid off!


...at the initiative of the Director of the Ecological Association of Novi Sad Nikola Aleksic, first primary in Belgrade public prosecutor's office opened an investigation into "allegations of genocide spraying chemical compounds from unmarked aircraft".

Origineel
kurir

Vertaling Google

[zonbron]

Nikola Aleksić opnieuw in de Kurir.

Dokle više?! How long more?
KEMTREJLS PONOVO NAPADA KEMTREJLS strikes again

21 August, 2011. | Autor: Ekipa Kurira Author: Team Kurir

Kurir reported the number of people who claim to have witnessed the release of toxins from the plane

...
Ecological Movement of Serbian President Nikola Aleksic said that Serbia is the first country that launched a formal investigation into the spraying chemicals from airplanes.

kurir