Experts Shred Obama Administration's Laughably Fraudulent Climate Scam

[longknife]

Guest post by David M. Taylor @ Doug Ross @ Journal: THUNDER: Experts Shred Obama Administration's Laughably Fraudulent Climate Scam

This laughably misleading report is the predictable result when hard-core environmental activists are chosen to write up a climate assessment for, and subject to the approval and revisions of, the Obama administration. It is like the punch line to a bad joke: "How many environmental activists does it take to put together an alarmist global warming report?"

Leading authors of this report include staffers for activist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Planet Forward, The Nature Conservancy, and Second Nature. Few objective climate experts will take this report seriously. Even those scientists who are not overtly affiliated with environmental activist groups were almost uniformly on the record as global warming alarmists before being chosen to write this report. The only real surprise in the report is it didn’t take the opportunity to trumpet the Union of Concerned Scientists’ call for U.S. unilateral nuclear disarmament.

So, Obama choses to select a clearly pro-Globull Warming group to tout his latest political ploy the destroy America's energy infrastructure? Anyone surprised? And, would any of you defenders care to try to refute this?

 

[bripat9643]

Guest post by David M. Taylor @ Doug Ross @ Journal: THUNDER: Experts Shred Obama Administration's Laughably Fraudulent Climate Scam

This laughably misleading report is the predictable result when hard-core environmental activists are chosen to write up a climate assessment for, and subject to the approval and revisions of, the Obama administration. It is like the punch line to a bad joke: "How many environmental activists does it take to put together an alarmist global warming report?"

Leading authors of this report include staffers for activist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Planet Forward, The Nature Conservancy, and Second Nature. Few objective climate experts will take this report seriously. Even those scientists who are not overtly affiliated with environmental activist groups were almost uniformly on the record as global warming alarmists before being chosen to write this report. The only real surprise in the report is it didn’t take the opportunity to trumpet the Union of Concerned Scientists’ call for U.S. unilateral nuclear disarmament.

So, Obama choses to select a clearly pro-Globull Warming group to tout his latest political ploy the destroy America's energy infrastructure? Anyone surprised? And, would any of you defenders care to try to refute this?

It's an official government report, so it must be true! The government would never lie to us!

 

[flacaltenn]

The perfect merger of liars from politics and activist zealots.. Professional PR firms and consultants must be making $$$Mill/$$$$Bill off this propaganda blitz... Let's hope there's no website involved..

NOAA Climate.gov | science & information for a climate-smart nation ----- OOOPS.. That must have made a few Millionaires..

 

[Old Rocks]

Guest post by David M. Taylor @ Doug Ross @ Journal: THUNDER: Experts Shred Obama Administration's Laughably Fraudulent Climate Scam

This laughably misleading report is the predictable result when hard-core environmental activists are chosen to write up a climate assessment for, and subject to the approval and revisions of, the Obama administration. It is like the punch line to a bad joke: "How many environmental activists does it take to put together an alarmist global warming report?"

Leading authors of this report include staffers for activist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Planet Forward, The Nature Conservancy, and Second Nature. Few objective climate experts will take this report seriously. Even those scientists who are not overtly affiliated with environmental activist groups were almost uniformly on the record as global warming alarmists before being chosen to write this report. The only real surprise in the report is it didn’t take the opportunity to trumpet the Union of Concerned Scientists’ call for U.S. unilateral nuclear disarmament.

So, Obama choses to select a clearly pro-Globull Warming group to tout his latest political ploy the destroy America's energy infrastructure? Anyone surprised? And, would any of you defenders care to try to refute this?

Saw a whole lot of flap-yap and stupidity in those few paragraphs, and nothing at all that addressed the points in the report.

Perhaps you should try reading reports by real scientists such as those published in the peer reviewed journals.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms : Abstract : Nature

Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.

 

[Old Rocks]

A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change - Abraham - 2013 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library

Keywords:
global warming;ocean heat content;Argo float;thermosteric sea level rise;expendable bathythermograph;Earth energy balance
Abstract
[1] The evolution of ocean temperature measurement systems is presented with a focus on the development and accuracy of two critical devices in use today (expendable bathythermographs and conductivity-temperature-depth instruments used on Argo floats). A detailed discussion of the accuracy of these devices and a projection of the future of ocean temperature measurements are provided. The accuracy of ocean temperature measurements is discussed in detail in the context of ocean heat content, Earth's energy imbalance, and thermosteric sea level rise. Up-to-date estimates are provided for these three important quantities. The total energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere is best assessed by taking an inventory of changes in energy storage. The main storage is in the ocean, the latest values of which are presented. Furthermore, despite differences in measurement methods and analysis techniques, multiple studies show that there has been a multidecadal increase in the heat content of both the upper and deep ocean regions, which reflects the impact of anthropogenic warming. With respect to sea level rise, mutually reinforcing information from tide gauges and radar altimetry shows that presently, sea level is rising at approximately 3 mm yr−1 with contributions from both thermal expansion and mass accumulation from ice melt. The latest data for thermal expansion sea level rise are included here and analyzed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Projecting future sea level - Springer

Through the use of fossil fuels as an energy source, mankind is slowly changing the constitution of the atmosphere. The emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases changes the radiative properties of the earth/atmosphere system, and as a result climate is expected to become warmer. As a starting point for the sea-level rise scenario discussed here it is assumed that the globally-averaged increase of surface air temperatures will amount to 2 to 4°C in the second half of the next century (i.e. around 2085 AD). One of the consequences of this warming is an accelerated rise in sea level, caused by thermal expansion of ocean water and further retreat of mountain glaciers. The Greenland Ice Sheet will also decrease in size, but on the other hand, Antarctica is expected to grow slightly due to increased snowfall. Taken together, the projection for future sea level presented here suggest that by 2085 AD, global sea-level stand will be 28–66 cm higher than the present level, which implies a rate of sea-level rise of about 2 to 4 times that observed during the last 100 yr. Our scenario does not include a contribution resulting from the possible collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. If this collapse is indeed likely to occur after the major peripheral ice shelves have thinned considerably, the effects on sea level will be small in the coming 100 yr. First, the oceans surrounding Antarctica must have warmed sufficiently to reduce the winter sea-ice extent to allow circumpolar deep water to penetrate into the sub-shelf cavities, thus increasing basal melt rates on the ice shelves. Of course, on longer time scales, West Antarctica could become the major contributor to rising sea level.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I predict the AGWCult will never produce a single repeatable scientific experiment demonstrating a link between temperature and additional wisps added to the atmospheric trace element CO2

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Zander]

The Science is Settled!!!!

 

[Stephanie]

well, the needed a new CRISIS

things had started to settle down just a bit, so it's off with A NEW ONE

this administration can't be gone soon enough for me

 

[flacaltenn]

Projecting future sea level - Springer

Through the use of fossil fuels as an energy source, mankind is slowly changing the constitution of the atmosphere. The emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases changes the radiative properties of the earth/atmosphere system, and as a result climate is expected to become warmer. As a starting point for the sea-level rise scenario discussed here it is assumed that the globally-averaged increase of surface air temperatures will amount to 2 to 4°C in the second half of the next century (i.e. around 2085 AD). One of the consequences of this warming is an accelerated rise in sea level, caused by thermal expansion of ocean water and further retreat of mountain glaciers. The Greenland Ice Sheet will also decrease in size, but on the other hand, Antarctica is expected to grow slightly due to increased snowfall. Taken together, the projection for future sea level presented here suggest that by 2085 AD, global sea-level stand will be 28–66 cm higher than the present level, which implies a rate of sea-level rise of about 2 to 4 times that observed during the last 100 yr. Our scenario does not include a contribution resulting from the possible collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. If this collapse is indeed likely to occur after the major peripheral ice shelves have thinned considerably, the effects on sea level will be small in the coming 100 yr. First, the oceans surrounding Antarctica must have warmed sufficiently to reduce the winter sea-ice extent to allow circumpolar deep water to penetrate into the sub-shelf cavities, thus increasing basal melt rates on the ice shelves. Of course, on longer time scales, West Antarctica could become the major contributor to rising sea level.

Gee Goldi, none of that good shit youre posting is in this political brainwash report.. Dont you want to quote the regurgitated wisdom of political hacks and proffesional whiners? Get with program girl, nobody cares about the science anymore. This is now a Broadway production number ......

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am very skeptical as the science isn't settled as we have a lot to learn. NOT the basic physics but of the climatic inputs and outputs.

We have much to debate.

 

[Moonglow]

You people debate, I have house cleaning to do...let me know when I'm dead about the outcome.

 

[SSDD]

Projecting future sea level - Springer

Through the use of fossil fuels as an energy source, mankind is slowly changing the constitution of the atmosphere. The emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases changes the radiative properties of the earth/atmosphere system, and as a result climate is expected to become warmer. As a starting point for the sea-level rise scenario discussed here it is assumed that the globally-averaged increase of surface air temperatures will amount to 2 to 4°C in the second half of the next century (i.e. around 2085 AD). One of the consequences of this warming is an accelerated rise in sea level, caused by thermal expansion of ocean water and further retreat of mountain glaciers. The Greenland Ice Sheet will also decrease in size, but on the other hand, Antarctica is expected to grow slightly due to increased snowfall. Taken together, the projection for future sea level presented here suggest that by 2085 AD, global sea-level stand will be 28–66 cm higher than the present level, which implies a rate of sea-level rise of about 2 to 4 times that observed during the last 100 yr. Our scenario does not include a contribution resulting from the possible collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. If this collapse is indeed likely to occur after the major peripheral ice shelves have thinned considerably, the effects on sea level will be small in the coming 100 yr. First, the oceans surrounding Antarctica must have warmed sufficiently to reduce the winter sea-ice extent to allow circumpolar deep water to penetrate into the sub-shelf cavities, thus increasing basal melt rates on the ice shelves. Of course, on longer time scales, West Antarctica could become the major contributor to rising sea level.

1) What was the temperature at the point that the earth began to descend into the ice age it is presently climbing out of?

2) What was the atmospheric CO2 level at that time?

3) Is there any reason to suppose that the temperature will not continue to climb back to the pre ice age temperature?

Bonus question:

4) What do you believe to be the optimum temperature for life on earth?

 

[skookerasbil]

computer models are horsecrap.......projections are meaningless.


Just a couple of months ago, Dr Roy Spencer said, "the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably".

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy Spencer, PhD


Every AGW bozo in this forum knows it too.......but they will continue to hammer the alarmist theme and hope enough of the stoopid naïve people buy it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The climate is the ultimate denier. It refuses to validate the AGWCult models

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[jc456]

Period end of story!

 

[Zander]

The climate is the ultimate denier. It refuses to validate the AGWCult models

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

/thread

 

[mamooth]

Doug Ross? You've got to be kidding. That's right. The best minds on the planet are all in on a vast conspiracy, and nutty fringe-right blogger Doug Ross know the real truth. The real truth being mixed in there with stories of the Benghazi conspiracy and similar right-wing kook rants.

This does, however, help confirm that denialism is purely a right-wing political cult that has nothing to do with actual science.

Hey, if all the data says you're wrong, just declare the data is a conspiracy. It's the denier way. It's not like any of 'em can do science or logic.

 

[SSDD]

Doug Ross? You've got to be kidding. That's right. The best minds on the planet are all in on a vast conspiracy, and nutty fringe-right blogger Doug Ross know the real truth. The real truth being mixed in there with stories of the Benghazi conspiracy and similar right-wing kook rants.

This does, however, help confirm that denialism is purely a right-wing political cult that has nothing to do with actual science.

Hey, if all the data says you're wrong, just declare the data is a conspiracy. It's the denier way. It's not like any of 'em can do science or logic.

You warmest wackos are the true deniers. Roy Spencer just did a short piece outlining the denial of alarmists.

1) natural climate change denial

2) denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels,

3) denial that a small amount of warming is better than killing millions of poor people by restricting access to inexpensive energy,

4) denial that the human-induced component of climate change is anything but catastrophic and an emergency,

5) denial that an increasing number of scientists are becoming skeptics,

6) denial that IPCC scientists were caught red-handed trying to silence the opposition and “hide the decline”,

7) denial of the observations, which show much less warming than any of the climate models can explain over the last 30+ years.

Of course there are a plethora of other things you guys deny, but those cover the basics pretty well.