Climate Cultist's greatest myths.

This is an ongoing list of greatest lies told by the Cult of Global Warming (AGW).

The source of climate data will be: http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An%20overview%20to%20get%20things%20into%20perspective
which has all the satellite and surface data and how the surface data is changing (the past is getting colder).

First lets list the points that they concede outright:
1. CO2 trailed temperature coming out of the ice ages.

And now to areas of dispute:
L1. Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
We love lies like this - at least most of their lies try to hide under a corner of the truth. This one not so much. This is what Politifact calls "pants on fire". CO2 is responsible for much of the increase in food production this century. To claim CO2 harms agriculture is an out and out lie. Garden centers recommend 1500 ppm of CO2 and warming the greenhouse - it helps if the plants are warmer to take advantage of the extra CO2.

L2. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains. Huh? This is another outright lie. The ocean is alkaline so by definition it has to get a lot less alkaline before it can start becoming acidic. The ocean has a pH of about 8.2. The great lakes have clams and other shellfish with a pH of between 4 and 7 (acidic) so the claims that a disaster would happen if the ocean became acidic seem overblown. Besides the effects on marine life are overblown.
The big problem is that these horror stories are from scientists paid to concoct them. The saturation depth (point at which the ocean is acid) is below 3000m. To raise the saturation depth the calcium deposits on the ocean floor above the SD would have to dissolve - which makes the ocean neutral again. To make the ocean acid (pH < 7.0) would take 10s of thousands of years.

L3. Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. Net negative feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence too. We are going to call the positive feedback claim false. CO2 has gone up 120 ppm - this should produce about .34°C more or less change in temperature with no feedback. Most of the increase occurred from a historic low and before the CO2 rise which means it can't be part of a CO2 anomaly. The question is whether or not the CO2 contribution to the "anomaly" has even reached .34°C. Current records do not compensate for UHI and a Korean study says this is over half the anomaly. The AGW Cultists are claiming a 5 to 10 positive feedback multiplier and there is NO EVIDENCE for that. Just to recap - right now proving no feedback is tough let alone positive feedback.

L4. Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer. Lets start with "how warm was Greenland" - they were growing wheat for hundreds of years during the MWP which can't be done today.

L5. Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species. Liar Liar pants on fire. There are 25000 bears that live 25 years and humans kill over 1000 a year. There is a balance between the bear population and the human population. We are killing over half of the bears. If you want more bears - quit shooting them. Polar bear populations were estimated at 5000-8000 in 1965 and are estimated at 25,000+ today. The polar bear situation is like most of AGW claims - they go fishing for trouble and report they found it whether they caught something or not. The Davis Strait population has increased by almost 250% from 900 to 2251 but show signs of overpopulation stress. That would seem to argue for more managed hunting in some areas. The "troubled" South Beaufort Sea area has 1.75 cubs per liter, 3.6 year interliter interval, and 43% 5 year survival rate. That's 1.04 cubs surviving to 5 years per female - for an animal with a 25 year life span. That's more than adequate to provide population growth. The only problem with polar bears is targeting the sport hunting to the overpopulated areas.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120130143523AAZpfJS

L6. Investment in renewable energy creates more jobs than investment in fossil fuel energy. Liar. Let's think this through:

• renewable energy takes more jobs to create the same amount of energy
• which means renewable energy is more expensive per unit of energy.
• which means products made with renewable energy will be more expensive.
• which means US products will be more uncompetitive.
• which costs US jobs.
  

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
This is of course untrue - the climate hasn't cooled or warmed its just kind of muddling along for the last 15 years. (Politifact would call this half true). The solar output is 1.5 W higher than at the start of the 20th century. The sun currently isn't getting warmer and the climate doesn't appear to be warming either.


97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. This came from someone's MS thesis. Does that mean it was an actual professional poll? Well not so much. No one has asked the actual question "Is rising CO2 responsible for the majority of global warming" because it would hard to get a consensus.


Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
This is of course untrue - but humans are influencing climate ( half true).

Grandmart is updating its website.

[Notice] week three days a temporary stop information service guidance

Hello

Thank you for visiting Grand Mart website.

Temporary information service is temporarily suspended three days to weeks.

Upgrading a web server in the process of modifying the information for any inaccuracies in week three days

While correcting the error will stop the service.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

Normal operations will soon be.


Thank you.


Local food store is apparently updating their website (I guess)...

Pavement and UHI Effect

The USHCN seems to deny that there is a significant UHI Effect, they are UHI Deniers!

Well, how bad is it?

In 1900 there were 10 miles of paved road in the US. Today there are 16 million hectares (61000 square miles) of roads and parking lots. According to the Virginia Highway Department roads get 60 degrees (33^oC) warmer than ambient temperature. But how to compute the actual heat difference over the course of a day? Thanks to the solar lobby we have an answer - the US on average receives 6 Solar Hours (hours at 100% sun) per day.

Lets assume the asphalt replaced trees. Tree lose more than 65% of their heat by evaporation and because they are at ambient temperature lose almost zero heat by thermal radiation. Asphalt at 33^oC is going to lose enormous amounts of heats by radiation and convection.

How much heat will be lost by radiation? Lets first assume a summer day with ground/air temp of 90^oF or 305K (Kelvin). The road is assumed to be 60^oF warmer or about 338K.

At Engineering Expert Witness Blog, a professional engineer (not a scientist but a REAL professional) discusses the convection problem.

First lets cover convection - there is engineering rule for rooftops that the convection loss (unforced) is 10 W/m²/K. The PE is using a rule for unforced flat surface of 15 W/m²/K and assuming an even larger temperature difference - 35K. We will stick with VA Highway number and split the difference heat transfer coefficient and go with 12. We will compute for a unit area.

Heat Flow = 12 * 33 = 396 W/m2

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/13000/13100/13135/MPC02-136.pdf has a detailed study of asphalt heat emission and we are more or less compliant with it.


From the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: j = εσT⁴
for net emission j = εσ(T₁⁴ - εσT₀⁴
ε - emissivity of asphalt = .9
σ - sigma (SB constant) = 5.6704*10^-8
T₀ = 305K
T₁ = 338K
εσ*338⁴ - εσ*305⁴ = about 224 W/m2

The total loss is 620 W/m² for 5 hours per day .

What about the heat loss to the ground? Well, a worse case analysis would use 4 inches of asphalt, 8 inches of aggregate (1/3 meter for easy computation) and assume ground temperature at ambient. Heat transfer coefficient is 0.7 w/m/k.

HL = .7 * 33 / (1/3) = about 70 w/m2.

How much energy did it take to heat our asphalt (assuming the 4 inches (0.1m) is all at 60F above ambient)
Density = 1.3 g/cm3
Specific heat = 1.3 J/gC

E_h = 1.3 g/cm³ * 0.1m * 1 m² * 1.3 J/gC * 33 C * 10⁴ cm²/m² = 55770 W to raise the temp 60 degrees F. That's about an hour and a half of energy at peak sun.


How much of a difference does this make for the US?
Since the thermal radiation is assumed to be absorbed in the lowest 200 meter of air, and the convection only affects the surface air, all the energy is going into the surface air. So what is the impact of our 16 million hectares of asphalt?

Total = 620 W/m² * 16 * 10⁶ h * 10⁶ m2/h = 9920 TW

Total Yearly energy = 5 * 9920 * 365 = 18.1 eW*h (thats exaWatt*hours)
In 2008 the US produced 4.344 TWh of electricity but produced about 10TWh of waste heat doing it. The paving produced 1.5 million times more heat.

This has nothing to do with CO2 - this is just the heat from replacing trees and grass with asphalt.

Work in Progress...

A little CO2 is good - but more is better.

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'Thank goodness we came along & reversed 150 million-year trend of reduced CO2 levels in global atmosphere. Long live the humans'

Plants gobbling up CO2 – 45% more than thought.



I just wish someone could explain to me why CO2 is bad? It looks for all the world like CO2 is how humanity will avoid starvation.

Why does the USHCN keep moving the goalposts?

Newly found weather records show 1930′s as being far worse than the present for extreme weather

Analysis: Claim that last 12 months is warmest in US history is not surprising, because USHCN is massively cheating – by adding 2.5 degrees on to 2012 temps relative to 100 years ago

'They have some massive data tampering going on after the year 2000. The US temperature record is corrupted beyond comprehension'

All Claimed July Warming In The US Is Due To Data Manipulation

USHCN has adjusted recent US July temperatures upwards by 1.5 degrees F, relative to the 1890s. The adjusted July graph shows about 1.5 degrees of warming since 1895'

Anyone who has studied the data for a while realizes that since about 1998 the 1930s temperatures have dropped about 0.3^oC. Since the current temperatures are compared to historic temperatures that makes current temperatures look higher and current high temperature records more numerous. Why is the USHCN doing and how can they possibly think this is honest?

I used to play football - there is a football term for this - moving the goal posts. In any other field of endevour the people involved in this would be fired for dishonesty. Why is this tolerated in the climate field? If they are going to cheat and lie - why should we take climate science seriously? Climate science in its current state appears no more accurate or honest than astrology.

Blacks liberals and Romney.

From the drudgereport: SMEAR: TOO 'WHITE' FOR NAACP ADDRESS

I'm really not sure what I think about this. When I don't believe that liberals can sink any lower they manage to exceed my already dismal expectations.

There is a liberal/warming cultist/neo-luddite element that there just isn't any way to engage in an intelligent conversation because:
a. They aren't intelligent.
b. They aren't interested in conversation.

Their focus is just to throw sand in the gears. The only way to deal with people like this is to make their activities illegal so they can be confined.

A prime example is the Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberin. His opponents get harassed - really harassed, using dangerous tactics like swatting. Three of his opponents have been swatted. Swatting is a very simple tactic:
a. The police are called
b. They are told that one of his opponents is killing their wife.
c. The address of the opponent's house is given. Sometimes the phone is cloned to appear to be calling from the targetted house.
d. 15 minutes later a SWAT team knocks the door down and chaos ensues for several hours - with a significant chance of death or injury.

This type of tactic or conspiracy to commit this kind of tactic should be a 5 to 10 year mandatory sentence with no possibility of parole.

Then there is this: James Earl Jones: Tea Party Is 'Racist'

I used to like James Earl Jones. He is a fellow Michigander - comes from Northern lower Michigan as well.

But this is crazy. The national media deliberately composed any visual images (photos or video) of the tea party movement to exclude the many blacks in attendance - one of the blacks was beaten up by SEIU thugs and the media reported the story without showing any pictures of the beaten man - not because his injuries were so shocking - but because he was black.

The liberal media is one of the most repugnantly racist groups in the country. The time has come to call them out and hold their nose in their mess until they repent.

Saw this article at WTFUWT

Unexplored Possible Climate Balancing Mechanism

Even after chopping down 80% of the rainforest and removing over a megaton of iron from the core ocean every year, people blame fossil fuels for the CO2 rise.

If you want a better explanation - trying dumping iron sulfate in the ocean - there is an immediately algae bloom. This indicates the ocean is iron depleted. People who are surprised by the depletion of fishing stocks shouldn't be - if you have fewer nutrients and fewer plankton there are fewer fish. Why is iron so critical? Iron is 5% of the earth's crust. The concentration in seawater is only 0.00034 ppm (parts per million) - much less than one part in a billion.

Well - if there is so little, how much are we taking out each year? Doing the math:
1.34x10⁹ (sea volume in km*3) * 0.00034 (mg/l) * 10^-6 (tonnes/gm) * 10³ (l/m*3) * 10⁹ (m3/km3) * 10^-3 (gm/mg) = 455600000 tonnes of iron. We are removing at least 2.2% of the ocean's iron per decade.
The solution is obvious - we should be dumping the equivalent of several large ore carriers of iron and trace elements into the ocean every year to keep the ocean productive, and stop chopping down rainforest to produce palm oil biodiesel.

This is win/win - a more productive ocean means less CO2 and more fish. As for the rainforest - who can argue with more trees.