Friday, September 29, 2017

“Climate Fears and Finance” - A look at CRC's Dr. S.J. Allen’s fraud.

I will be taking a closer look at Dr. Steven Allen’s (Capital Research Center) YouTube feature, “Climate Fears and Finance” which is a stringing together of misrepresentations, innuendo and lies about a topic that is of critical importance to our future, after an introduction. 

Finishing my Investors Business Daily takedown was the usual let down.  No one seems concerned or interested.  No one wants to be bothered.  In my short email exchanges with Dr. Mann, I could almost hear him thinking: ‘Buddy, I got a bottom drawer full of this and worse! What do you want me to do about it?’  Thing is, that’s right.  He’s got far more important work to do with that incredible brain, his time is too precious to be squandered on such contrived delusionals.

Still, people should care.  In particular, I can’t grasp why there are so few knowledgable students who care about their futures and honesty enough to confront such trash in comments sections where ever that sort of fraud gets astro-turfed.  

Why aren’t hundreds writing the sort of take-downs I am - say what you will about my quality or tone, these dissections are to the point and packed with valid information that climate science contrarians always run and hide from.  Nor are they tough to put together, if you have a familiarity with the topic, a curiosity to search out more information and wrestle with arguments.  They also make excellent personal learning tools. 

Or, for that matter the older folks like me who have been attentive witnesses to the past decades of slow ominous degradation of the biosphere we were born into, mature people who resent juvenile malicious nonsense when they see it.  We have Potholer54 and Greenman3610, but need many more.  Why are we leaving the playing field open to these strategically manipulative fraudsters?

In any event I did what I could, it’s part of the record now, back to catching up on my wage slaving obligations.  In my spare time I've returned to wresting with the Map Territory Problem and am reading from suggestions that Trenberth and Francis offered and this.  Of course, such reading always leads to looking up more papers.  Check out one link, read the abstract, perhaps dig into the full paper if available, do a little searching for other stuff related to points raised, see something else that catches my eye, before I know, I’ve got multiple pages with a dozen tabs on each open and me overwhelmed with info overload and deeply humbled by the folds within folds of complexities.  That’s when I must step back allowing things to soak in, reestablish my grip on the fundamentals and to get some perspective.

If I visit CFI and am not careful my sparring mate Mikie The Contrarian will have me chasing another one of his shticks.  Which is how I discovered the scandalous Dr. S.J. Allen of the Capital Research Center where he’s Vice President & Chief Investigative Officer.  He previously served as press secretary to U.S. Senator Jeremiah Denton, as editor of Tea Party Review magazine, and as senior researcher for Newt Gingrich 2012.  
edited 9/30/2017,  9:00 PM
Links to info re feedback mechanisms added October 11.

Dr. S.J. Allen's presentation is another example of criminal behavior and a direct affront to We The People’s right to honestly hear what the real experts are trying to convey, without the constant cross screaming of such self-destructive deception and fraud.  Not to mention being treasonous to our children’s interests.

I couldn't walk away from the challenge, Dr. Allen’s presentation is another stringing together of misrepresentations, innuendo and lies about a topic that is of critical importance to our future.  One that we need to get real about!  I’ve reproduced the text of his talk in Courier font with my responses in Verdana and supporting information indented. 

| Climate Fears and Finance | Dr. Steven J. Allen | 
Capital Research Center

Dr. Allen, what if climate fears are very much justified?  
Ever given it any serious thought?  Lets take a look,

Dr. Allan begins - 0:09:  The current round of fear of human-caused global warming really started in the 1970s.  Based on the best available surface data, from 1940 to the mid-1970s global temperatures had been falling, creating fears of another ice age. 


The physics of global warming and man’s contribution goes back to the 1800s 
( ).  There was no serious concern of an ice age in the 70s, quite the contrary.

The start of popular concern that modern human fossil fuels burning was going to drastically alter Earth energy budget, (thus radically changing the weather patterns that circulate across our globe) can be traced back to the July 1959 issue of Scientific American and “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” written by Gilbert Plass

1959 - “Carbon Dioxide and Climate”

An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?” … During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth [see graphs on page 43]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. ...

This article was based on the very specific knowledge being gained in decades long US Air Force Atmospheric Studies - not just the US, but also other independent research programs by Australian, Russian and many other military powers.  You see a thorough understanding of atmospheric greenhouse gas physics is required to make air to air missiles accurate.  Not to mention, a litany of other modern marvels that would be utterly impossible without such clear cut, certain knowledge.

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, 
Cambridge Research Lab

CO2 Science - Why We Can Be Sure.

There were other important early studies that made crystal clear that yes, public concern was warranted, because the physics and their logical implications were so clear cut.

1967 - “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity”

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
Ethan Siegel, March 15, 2017,

Modeling the Earth's climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. If only we were more like the Moon, things would be easy. The Moon has no atmosphere, no oceans, no icecaps, no seasons, and no complicated flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative physics. 

No wonder it's so challenging to model! In fact, if you google "climate models wrong", eight of the first ten results showcase failure

But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1972 - “Man-made carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse” effect”
A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972

A paper published in Nature in 1972 accurately predicted the next 30 years of global warming

John Stanley (J.S.) Sawyer was a British meteorologist born in 1916. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1962, and was also a Fellow of the Meteorological Society and the organization's president from 1963 to 1965.

A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1975 - “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”

Wallace Broecker was among the first climate scientists to use simple climate models to predict future global temperature changes. 

Broecker anticipated the actual increase in CO2 very closely, predicting 373 ppm in 2000 and 403 ppm in 2010 (actual values were 369 and 390 ppm, respectively). Broecker also used an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2; however, his model’s transient climate sensitivity worked out to be 2.4°C for doubled CO2.  …
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1981 - “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”

A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’  projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present. …


0:09  The current round of fear of human-caused global warming really started in the 1970s.

Allen deliberately ignores the all around increasing awareness driven concerns about Earth’s ability to support the ongoing population explosion along with peoples’ growing consumption expectations.

The concern was justified and documented.  During the 70s/80s the science had become abundantly clear and well known.  Worries were the result of enlightened self-interest in action, based upon sober appraisal of scientific observations and fundamental laws of physics.

There was a new found appreciation for the limits of growth and such.  I remember the time well.  I, a teenager, learning about our marvelous planet and biosphere - then I got to watch the growing PR campaign dedicated to forging contempt for that knowledge and weird undercurrent of resentment towards our planet Earth in general.  

Rather than facts and logical arguments the Right Wing used faith-based absolutism, innuendo, lies and malicious slander - then called it their free speech, thus creating the kangaroo debates that have destroyed constructive learning and dialogue about this all important topic.
0:23  Around 1977, temperatures suddenly rose. At that time, the reasons for this sudden increase were not known.  Some scientists suggested the cause of the sudden warming was an increase in carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases, that came with the Industrial Revolution.


To begin with, it's not a suggestion - there is no question about what CO2 does in the atmosphere!  For the details listen to Dr. Archer’s lectures:
GHGs slow down the escape of infrared radiation to outer space.  After long focused study this is well understood physics.

Allen won’t remind us that it was actually aerosols suppressing global temperatures by reflecting the sun’s radiation before it had a chance to hit Earth and become infrared energy.  

Once global Clean Air Acts started cleaned up the atmosphere of aerosols (that were killing city dwellers and tough on other animals and plant), that reflectivity was eliminated so more of the sun’s energy reached Earth.  As reflected in higher temperatures.
0:41  The Climate Research Board appointed an Ad Hoc Study Group to examine the impact of greenhouse gases on the earth’s temperatures. The study group was headed by the noted American meteorologist Jule G. Charney.
Their report published in 1979 was called the Charney Report. It estimated that “the most probable global warming for a doubling of carbon dioxide to be near 3ºC with a probable error of ±1.5ºC.”  According to the Charney Report, there are two components to human-caused greenhouse gas warming.
1:10  The first component is directly from increased carbon dioxide and is estimated from laboratory experiments to be modest. The second component of human-caused global warming is an indirect, a positive feedback, from increased atmospheric water vapor, and would be far more powerful than the direct warming from carbon dioxide.  Since, in 1979, there were no comprehensive measurements of atmospheric temperatures, the estimates in the Charney Report could not be confirmed or disproven.

National Academy of Sciences
Reports and Resources by Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

Charney Report
In 1979 Charney chaired an "ad hoc study group on carbon dioxide and climate" for the National Research Council. The resulting 22-page report, "Carbon dioxide and climate: A scientific assessment", is one of the earliest modern scientific assessments about global warming

Its main conclusion can be found on page 2: "We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ± 1.5°C." This estimate of climate sensitivity has been essentially unchanged for over three decades, …”
1:40  But, since it proposed the warming starts in the atmosphere, atmospheric warming trends would have to be more pronounced than surface warming trends because much of the energy from atmospheric warming is lost into space.

It’s well beyond a proposition, it is proven fact.  

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect
February 25, 2015

Allan should have read the Charney Report.  Instead Allen ignores that
our oceans holds over 90% of the heat of our global heat and moisture distribution engine.  Nor does he acknowledge the constant direct exchange of heat and moisture between the ocean and atmosphere. 
Yes they are difficult to quantity but that does not make them go away!
1:56  Unfortunately, there was pressure to take action before we understood the problem

Please refer to the information offered at the beginning of this post.  There was every reason in the world to take our basic understanding seriously and to follow logic by incorporating that understanding into our entire society and even our economic attitudes and dreams going forward.

The real problem was that certain political industrial mega interests bristled at the thought of moderation.  Greed, maximizing profits, minimizing expenditures and responsibility, winning, power lust, disregard for all but their own self-interest overruled all else.  
1:56  Before a method to measure atmospheric temperatures was developed which could be used to directly test the greenhouse gas warming hypothesis, international organizations were being mobilized to control greenhouse gases that were estimated, guessed, to cause global warming. The international solution was to control carbon dioxide emissions. The conflict among scientists as to adequate testing of the hypothesis became very public with the involvement of governmental organizations, and the money started to flow.


There is no hypothesis of Greenhouse Gas physics - it had already been established as sound physics - read realityDeniable, but unavoidable.

The remaining questions had/have to do with how the heat was/is moving about within our oceans and atmospheric our cloak.  

It is absolutely dishonest to discuss surface temperatures without including what we know about the dynamic exchange of heat and energy between our oceans and atmosphere.

Enhanced Decadal Warming of the Southeast Indian Ocean during the Recent Global Surface Warming Slowdown

Yuanlong Li, et al. September 21, 2017


The rapid Indian Ocean warming during the early-21th century was a major heat sink for the recent global surface warming slowdown. Analysis of observational data and ocean model experiments reveals that during 2003-2012 more than half of the increased upper Indian Ocean heat content was concentrated in the southeast Indian Ocean (SEIO), causing a warming “hotspot” of 0.8-1.2 K decade-1 near the west coast of Australia. …

This does leave out the Feedback question - see end of this expose'.
2:30 Thus the resulting conflict is largely political, not scientific, and financed by governments seeking to control carbon dioxide emissions for political reasons


Why would any government want to control energy consumption?  This is the sort of lalaland that Allen’s sort of dogma based tunnel vision leads to.  Government officials are being forced to deal with manmade global warming because they are feeling it’s cascading consequences already.

Speaking of largely political, how about the sponsor of this attack on serious science?  

Bradley Impact Fund: $63,000 (2013-2015)
Charles Koch Foundation: $39,200 (2011 -2015)
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation: $660,000 (1998-2008)
Donors Capital Fund: $213,000 (2010-2015)
DonorsTrust: $27,500 (2010-2014)
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation: $2.5 million (1998-2015)[2]

These people are paid advocates, I'll trust real scientists instead !
Allan: The U.S. government is heavily involved in financing the position that global warming is dangerous and is caused by industry, transportation, and the generation of electricity by carbon-based fuels. 

The U.S. government is involved because it has a responsible to its citizens to look out for our safety and wellbeing.  No one likes global warming, it’s simply happening, it’s the grownup reality this planet is experiencing and we damned well understand why.  

Why has the GOP so wrapped themselves within such profoundly disconnected rejection of down to Earth realities, while the evidence keeps piling up faster than we can process it?  It’s a horrifying thing to behold.

Incidentally, Capital Research Center is heavily invested in denying climate science for profit.

Politico reports that the CRC has received millions of dollars of funding from conservative philanthropies over the years.[21] The philanthropies include foundations run by the Koch family, the Scaifes, and the Bradleys. As of 2005 CRC had received $115,000 from ExxonMobil.[22]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CRC claims that exposing the funding of these groups is important because "sunshine--the glare of public scrutiny--is 'the best of all disinfectants.'" But CRC doesn't seem to think its own hidden agenda should receive public scrutiny. The CRC website does not give any indicator of where it gets its own funding, and it has not responded to queries from PR Watch staff. However, some of CRC's funders are publicly disclosed through IRS filings or other means.”

Total Revenue: $2,291,002
Total Expenses: $1,777,994
Net Assets: $15,085,690
Total Revenue: $2,404,390
Total Expenses: $1,756,451
Net Assets: $14,831,662
Total Revenue: $2,038,009
Total Expenses: $1,678,713
Net Assets: $12,940,363

Allan: At the same time, independent research efforts are producing evidence that call into question the fear of man-made global warming. Two American scientists, 

Interesting.  Get this, our government who’s tasked with caring for it’s citizens are painted as greedy, untrustworthy.  No evidence, only insinuations based on the assumptions of a biased heart, all it takes.

What he calls "independent" are high dollar advocacy firms, there's a great deal that's been documented about these Right Wing organizations and their 'think tanks' and the resulting campaigns dedicated to public stupefaction.

These real geophysical realities and their problematic implications threatened their avaricious ways.  But, Allan wants us to trust the attack dogs of oligarchs?  Their origins and development have been documented, though like everything else, I’m sure Allan would dismiss this entire collection of solid documented evidence with a wave of his hand.  Of no interest, it’s the government who are at the root of all evil in his world.

3:06  Roy Spencer and John Christy, developed a method to finally measure global atmospheric temperatures, `. For developing the method to calculate atmospheric temperatures, Spencer and Christy have been awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

True enough, mind you that was back in 1991, 1996, and that doesn’t make them infallible.  Furthermore, considering their record and public statements since.  It can not be said they are unbiased scientists. 

Andrew Dessler later published a paper opposing the claims of Spencer and Braswell (2011) in Geophysical Research Letters.[25] He stated, among other things:

“First, [they] analyzed 14 models, but they plotted only six models and the particular observational data set that provided maximum support for their hypothesis. Plotting all of the models and all of the data provide a much different conclusion.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Roy Spencer: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Data and Research Quality
Spencer and Christy’s data set has undergone many major corrections to address various errors and biases. This is how science always progresses, but those who believe that adjustments to surface temperature measurements are part of a conspiracy (including Roy Spencer) always seem to neglect the major adjustments to the satellite data. In fact, in its early days, Spencer and Christy’s data set seemed to indicate the atmosphere was cooling, before a series of big adjustments were made.

As discussed in my book and as a paper that John Abraham and I published with several colleagues last year showed, much of Spencer and Christy’s contrarian research has not withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny.
This is an ironic answer given the recent revelations that scientists in Florida have been barred from using phrases like “climate change” and “global warming.” Similarly, the George W. Bush administration was accused of censoring government reports about climate change. It’s contrarians who have tried to squash inconvenient scientific research, not those who accept the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming.
3:18  But the data they’ve collected don’t confirm the predicted result. Independent researchers have tested the hypothesis against atmospheric temperature data, now extending over thirty-seven years. The assumptions in the Charney Report are not supported by nature.

From the Jason Report 1979,

“In 1979 they produced their report: coded JSR-78-07 and entitled The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate. Now, with the benefit of hind-sight, it is remarkable how prescient it was.

“Right on the first page, the Jasons predicted that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would double from their preindustrial levels by about 2035. Today it’s expected this will happen by about 2050. 

They suggested that this doubling of carbon dioxide would lead to an average warming across the planet of 2-3C. Again, that’s smack in the middle of today’s predictions. They warned that polar regions would warm by much more than the average, perhaps by as much as 10C or 12C. That prediction is already coming true – last year the Arctic sea ice melted to a new record low. This year may well set another record.

“Nor were the Jasons frightened of drawing the obvious conclusions for civilization: the cause for concern was clear when one noted “the fragility of the world’s crop-producing capacity, particularly in those marginal areas where small alterations in temperature and precipitation can bring about major changes in total productivity”.

3:34  The failure to find physical evidence supporting the assumptions about global warming is not due to a lack of public funding. 

Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment
Charney et al, 1979

Summary and Conclusions
“We have examined the principal attempts to simulate the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate. In doing so, we have limited our considerations to the direct climatic effects of steadily rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and have assumed a rate of CO2 increase that would lead to a doubling of airborne concentrations by some time in the first half of the twenty-first century.  …

The known negative feedback mechanisms can reduce the warming, but they do not appear to be so strong as the positive moisture feedback. We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of :i: 1.5°C. Our estimate is based primarily on our review of a series of calculations with three-dimensional models of the global atmospheric circulation, which is summarized in Chapter 4.  …

“One of the major uncertainties has to do with the transfer of the increased heat into the oceans. It is well known that the oceans are a thermal regulator, warming the air in winter and cooling it in summer.  …
… One consequence may be that perceptible temperature changes may not become apparent nearly so soon as has been anticipated. We may not be given a warning until the CO2 loading is such that an appreciable climate change is inevitable. …

The warming will be accompanied by shifts in the geographical distributions of the various climatic elements such as temperature, rainfall, evaporation, and soil moisture. The evidence is that the variations in these anomalies with latitude, longitude, and season will be at least as great as the globally averaged changes themselves, and it would be misleading to predict regional climatic changes on the basis of global or zonal averages alone. …

“To summarize, we have tried but have been unable to find any overlooked or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the currently estimated global warmings due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to negligible propor­tions or reverse them altogether. However, we believe it quite possible that the capacity of the intermediate waters of the oceans to absorb heat could delay the estimated warming by several decades. It appears that the warming will eventually occur, and the associated regional climatic changes so important to the assessment of socioeconomic consequences may well be significant, but unfortunately the latter cannot yet be adequately projected.” 

Because of the political, not scientific, impact of global warming, the United States alone has spent billions of taxpayer dollars on global warming issues.

This belies a childish unfamiliarity with our complex society and how dependent we are on moderate and predictable weather patterns that allowed our society to develop in the first place.  Look at the news, our city can't handle extreme weather events, this is not a joke.  

Impacts of human produced greenhouse gas driven warming are compounding and cumulative, Allan pretends all that doesn’t exist.

We will be spending many billions more because of decades worth of our collective denial of reality and lack of planning which has caused our current state of unpreparedness.
3:50  You can find all the details of our calculations on our website, linked in the description, but from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2014 total US expenditures on climate change amounted to more than $166 Billion in 2012 dollars.

So what?  Your tunnel vision blinds you.
4:06  By way of comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the entire Apollo program, from 1962 to 1973 with 17 missions, and 7 of them sending men to the moon and returning them cost $200 Billion in 2012 dollars. In other words, we’ve spent almost as much on global warming as we spent on the Apollo program.
Here again the utter childish foolishness is appalling.  Allan is either completely oblivious to, or contemptuous of, all the ways our society depends on predictable moderate weather patterns.  There are very good reasons for investing this money.

Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes
Seung-Ki Min, Xuebin Zhang, Francis W. Zwiers & Gabriele C. Hegerl
Nature - February 16, 2011 

“Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change (2016)
National Academy of Science, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Munich Re's analysis of natural catastrophes in 2002

Munich Re's analysis of natural catastrophes in 2002: Economic losses increase distinctly to US$ 55bn (2001: 35bn) / Worst floods in Europe for centuries / Extraordinary accumulation of severe storms and flash floods / Winter Storm Jeanett one of the most expensive storms ever for the German insurance industry / Various weather extremes herald new El Niño / Mounting loss potentials call for adjustments of insurance prices and conditions

The year 2002 was a year of extremes: Scientists documented record figures for windstorms, rain and floods.

Windstorms and floods lead the table with just under 500 of the total of 700 loss events recorded. They accounted for 98% of the insured losses from natural catastrophes and thus dominated the claims burdens in the insurance industry.
        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Munich Re: “The only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change”
Joe Romm  |  JAN 5, 2011

4:26  And that’s just direct government spending (including tax subsidies). It doesn’t count the many billions that represent the cost of government regulations or the jobs that are lost.  It’s time to finally recognize the shaky science Global Warming stands on, and stop spending spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on a highly questionable hypothesis.

Earth’s CO2 Pumphandle in action.  (2016)

It’s time to finally start exposing this sort of nonsense as the malicious libel and calumny that it is!  Fraud that should no longer be tolerated.

We The People have a Right to hear what serious professionals have to tell us without constantly being outshouted with malicious innuendo, fabrications and misrepresentations of the physical truth.

Greenhouse gases’ impact on our atmosphere is about physics, nothing makes sense without that fundamental understanding.  Scientists know this with certainty and we enjoy a great many modern marvels build around the scientific mastery of those facts!

Tracking where all that extra heat accumulates and moves to gets technically impossibly challenging, but technical shortcomings don’t make the physics disappear, neither does ignoring it.

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview

Lines from top to bottom on right side of graph
Purple    2011
Green    2016
Red       2017* (first half )
Yellow   2008
Aqua     2012 (behind yellow)
Blue      2015
Black    1980 to July 7, 2017 average
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes,
Seung-Ki Min, Xuebin Zhang, Francis W. Zwiers, Gabriele C. Hegerl 
Nature ( Feb 17, 2011), 470(7334):378-81 (subscription required)

“Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Must-Read Trenberth: How To Relate Climate Extremes to Climate Change
By Joe Romm on Mar 25, 2012
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

How will climate change alter the landscape of natural hazards and risks over the long term?
(2014 review)

Heat and drought
Intense rainfall
Severe thunderstorms
Winter storms
Tropical cyclones
Sea level rise

This isn’t a game
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Posted by Greg Laden on March 11, 2015

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
At least, it shouldn’t be!

Information regarding climate feedback mechanisms.

The study of Earth as an integrated system

Earth system science is the study of how scientific data stemming from various fields of research, such as the atmosphere, oceans, land ice and others, fit together to form the current picture of our planet as a whole, including its changing climate.
Climate scientists separate factors that affect climate change into three categories: forcings, feedbacks, and tipping points. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Earth 103: Earth in the FutureClimate Feedback Mechanisms

Authors: Drs. Timothy Bralower and David Bice, Professors of Geosciences, College of Earth and Mineral Science, The Pennsylvania State University.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Executive Summary 5
Arctic Climate Change 
Key Findings of this Assessment
  1. Atmospheric Circulation Feedbacks 
  2. Ocean Circulation Feedbacks
  3. Ice Sheets and Sea-level Rise Feedbacks
  4. Marine Carbon Cycle Feedbacks 54 
  5. Land Carbon Cycle Feedbacks
  6. Methane Hydrate Feedbacks

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What are climate change feedback loops?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here’s a golden oldie, what we knew by 2000 - 

Please note besides more details not much has changed. About those facts, that is.  Looking around at global weather patterns and the shape of our cryosphere and global forests, coast cities and their “nuisance” flooding issues of late, seems a whole bunch is changing, yet half of our society, the right wing half feel they have a god given right to ignore.  And children of the enlightenment simply seem to be giving in without a struggle.  It’s all so profoundly heartbreaking and unnecessary.  Oh but I digress.

Feedback Mechanisms In Climate

"Sometimes you're the windshield, Sometimes you're the bug…".
M.C. Carpenter, "The Bug”

Suggested Readings:
World Meteorological Organization Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment", Cambridge, 1990.
Ahrens, C. Donald, "Meteorology Today", 6th ed., Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1999.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Scientists Outline High Cost of 'Nuisance Flooding' Along US Coasts
Reuters  -  March 07, 2017


citizenschallenge said...

Is any body out there?

citizenschallenge said...

Last couple days Russian's been hitting me with many hundreds of visits, but they remain mum on why.

Well,... as does everyone else.