Climate-gate

[Photizo]

I repeat, stop cramming your religious beliefs down everyones throat.

 

[Photizo]

Photizo, you know, I assume that your god, charged man with taking care of the earth and its creatures. - How is helping boost the temperature rise to the extinction level (Wet bulb temperature of ~35 C or 95F lasting only an hour for man) by constantly denying man has anything to do with global warming going to go down for you on judgment day?

Here you go, Billy T : http://www.cornwallalliance.org/

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Billy T, any one,

I am aware that you are predicting some serious possibilities regarding CH4 in the atmosphere. I too, also hold concerns but from a slightly different angle.

There appears to me that the planet may provide it's own solution ( whilst disregarding human consequence btw) and that is in the natural increase in lightning activity which we are witnessing here in Australia and I believe this increase is significant and global, increasing every year at a significant rate.

What I would like to ask you is :

How in your opinion, increases in lightning strikes/activity may effect the models of excessive CH4 ?

I have a suspicion that as weather dynamics increase so too does lightning activity and I believe (with out any supportive reason I might add) that lightning may and I mean may provide this planet a counter effect to the high CH4 emissions that you have stated as being evident.

I wonder what, say, a 1000 fold increase in lightning activity might mean to climate change gasses? (and oxygen levels)

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are judging/accusing me according to your misunderstanding of what you erroneously label my measure. That's called Quackery*; nevertheless, you believe you are right concerning your assessment--this same state of 'perspicuity' leads you to believe you are right concerning AGW. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, guess what?

* A "quack" is ... a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan."

perhaps you could defend your God against such a charge as quackery?
After all for an omni potent all knowing entity he certainly has let you down.
What? Can't heal - must destroy.... comes to mind... such a limited understanding of the true God, couched in human fear driven egoistic terms and definitions. blah!
Quackery indeed and in deed!

 

[Billy T]

... (1) There appears to me that the planet may provide it's own solution ( whilst disregarding human consequence btw) and that is in the natural increase in lightning activity which we are witnessing here in Australia and I believe this increase is significant and global, increasing every year at a significant rate.

What I would like to ask you is: How in your opinion, increases in lightning strikes/activity may effect the models of excessive CH4 ?

I have a suspicion that as weather dynamics increase so too does lightning activity and I believe (with out any supportive reason I might add) that lightning may and I mean may provide this planet a counter effect to the high CH4 emissions that you have stated as being evident. (2) I wonder what, say, a 1000 fold increase in lightning activity might mean to climate change gasses? (and oxygen levels)

On (1), yes more lighting should help remove CH4, I think. I know It makes ozone as have smelled it once. My best high-school friend and I were in small boat fishing in a lake, when bolt hit the water very near us. He was at the stern, stood up to pull on the starter motor cord (we were "drift fishing") and I gave such a hard pull on the ores that he only avoided falling out over the stern as he could gab hold of the motor.

In some posts here, I have also described in some detail (wanting to prevent anyone from patenting idea) how a wind spun cylindrical balloon* could power some germicidal UV lamps to make both OH- radical and ozone to destroy CH4. (Energy used in situ so no power line to ground weight or cost. Also on axis at both ends are cheap, weather proof, car or truck alternators.) Lighting does the same but not continuously and makes harmful to life reactive agents close to ground that my concept does not. The balloon needs "tails" to keep best orientation (axis orthogonal to wind) and they provide space for advertisements. I think that the concept may even make a profit but it will be marginal why I don't want any patent license fees to exist. Extinction is too serious to try to make profit while speeding its arrival as the Big oil does. Making a profitable system is needed to get many thousand deployed globally. That is needed to destroy CH4 as fast as it is being released.

On (2): I don't think even a 10 fold increase in lightning is possible, but even if it is it would not be enough to terminate the growing CH4 atmospheric concentrations.

* BTW, a spinning cylinder balloon can have more lift per pound than a spherical one. The extra lift is form the same force than lets a pitcher throw a curve ball. I forget just now what this spin lift is called.

 

[Photizo]

http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-b...-politics-global-warming-research-jane-s-shaw

 

[Photizo]

perhaps you could defend your God against such a charge as quackery?
After all for an omni potent all knowing entity he certainly has let you down.
What? Can't heal - must destroy.... comes to mind... such a limited understanding of the true God, couched in human fear driven egoistic terms and definitions. blah!
Quackery indeed and in deed!

How has He let me down?

 

[Quantum Quack]

How has He let me down?

Gosh , I could write a list a mile long and it would still prove futile regardless of it's veracity...

 

[Quantum Quack]

On (1), yes more lighting should help remove CH4, I think. I know It makes ozone as have smelled it once. My best high-school friend and I were in small boat fishing in a lake, when bolt hit the water very near us. He was at the stern, stood up to pull on the starter motor cord (we were "drift fishing") and I gave such a hard pull on the ores that he only avoided falling out over the stern as he could gab hold of the motor.

In some posts here, I have also described in some detail (wanting to prevent anyone from patenting idea) how a wind spun cylindrical balloon* could power some germicidal UV lamps to make both OH- radical and ozone to destroy CH4. (Energy used in situ so no power line to ground weight or cost. Also on axis at both ends are cheap, weather proof, car or truck alternators.) Lighting does the same but not continuously and makes harmful to life reactive agents close to ground that my concept does not. The balloon needs "tails" to keep best orientation (axis orthogonal to wind) and they provide space for advertisements. I think that the concept may even make a profit but it will be marginal why I don't want any patent license fees to exist. Extinction is too serious to try to make profit while speeding its arrival as the Big oil does. Making a profitable system is needed to get many thousand deployed globally. That is needed to destroy CH4 as fast as it is being released.

On (2): I don't think even a 10 fold increase in lightning is possible, but even if it is it would not be enough to terminate the growing CH4 atmospheric concentrations.

* BTW, a spinning cylinder balloon can have more lift per pound than a spherical one. The extra lift is form the same force than lets a pitcher throw a curve ball. I forget just now what this spin lift is called.

If you google "lightning strike frequency" you may be surprised by the large number of future predictions.

Just some thoughts:

The concept is premised on the basis that this planet and all that live upon it are not existent in this universe simply by chance. That the human race exists because it is a universal physical requirement that it does. The laws of physics (beyond that which are already known) that include life and living forms requires that this planet and it's cargo of life forms is essential to maintaining universal integrity.
That integrity is maintained by the true laws of physics that allow for automatic corrections in the event of deviations from the median.

Therefore one could speculate that the planets eco systems are self justifying and self correcting. How this would play out for individual humans is not the point. It is how it plays out for the eco system that the human race (as a collective) is and has been a significant part of.

As the planets environment degrades whether man made or not, the equalizing and justifying systems kick in. In this case in the form of an increase in lightning activity. ( And no doubt other self correcting systems become evident - a sort of auto immune response)

If we assume that we exist not by chance but by physical necessity we can suggest that:
Due to the planets position and circumstance in this solar system "liquid" water must be present within a certain range so no conversion to Venus or Mars type environmental conditions is possible.

Essentially it means that the Earth has to remain the Earth and that applies to all upon it.

This does not mean that mankind can avoid consequences for it's unwise activities or natural adjustments, but it does mean that man kind must survive in some form.

The planet and it's eco systems (which include mankind) IMO, is evolving to a more sustainable position at a vastly accelerated rate due to circumstances discovered/revealed and yet to be discovered/revealed.

Lightning strikes I believe is one such system of atmospheric self correction so that ultimately liquid water can remain present on this planet. ( keeping in mind that humans are up to 95% water the above makes sense when considering a holistic universal closed system that includes human life that places the presence of liquid water in a pivotal and central role.)

 

[Billy T]

If you google "lightning strike frequency" you may be surprised by the large number of future predictions.

I did that and found only one, predicting a 50% increase might occur in a 100 years with more global warming:

"For every two lightning strikes in 2000, there will be three lightning strikes in 2100," said David Romps, at the University of California, Berkeley.

As well as triggering more wild fires, he said, this would alter the chemistry of the atmosphere. The team's work reveals a new method of working out the relationship between temperature and lightning storms, by estimating the heat energy available to "fuel" storm clouds.

"As the planet warms, there will be more of this fuel around, so when thunderstorms get triggered, they will be more energetic," said Prof Romps. He and his colleagues calculated that every 1C rise in global temperature would lead to an increase in the frequency of lightning strikes by 12%.

I'm quite confident my "10 fold increase in frequency of lightning is impossible" is very conservative.

As no one understands how clouds can get charged up to such high negative voltages that it breaks down the normally good insulation of the air - "prediction" is just guessing with no foundation. The idea that heat has something to do with it is surely correct, but there is no energy available with out thermal difference.

 

[Kristoffer]

Here you go, Billy T : http://www.cornwallalliance.org/

Sorry, but in my opinion that was just... ridiculous.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I did that and found only one, predicting a 50% increase might occur with more global warming: As no one understands how clouds can get charged up to such high negative voltages that it breaks down the normally good insulation of the air - "prediction" is just guessing with no foundation. The idea that heat has something to do with it is surely correct, but there is no energy available with out thermal difference.

I guess the advent of increased lightning strikes is only just starting to emerge. Certainly the amazing lightning displays seen over our latest summer here ( and subsequent bush fires ) indicates a significant increase in activity (to me). Storms with significant lightning appearing as if "almost out of no where" with significant vortex type flows seem to becoming more frequent and intense.
The available strike data I believe is immature and not yet able to be assessed properly IMO.
But from what I have experienced my self over 50 odd years there appears to be a massive increase trending...

As no one understands how clouds can get charged up to such high negative voltages that it breaks down the normally good insulation of the air - "prediction" is just guessing with no foundation. The idea that heat has something to do with it is surely correct, but there is no energy available with out thermal difference.

Agrees... prediction based on the inadequate understanding may be limited, however prediction based on the experience ( event data) may provide a better trend picture.

Also the frequency of "Dry" and "Clear Sky" lightning may also be increasing but detection is not so easy.

Found this little gem as a matter of side interest (Sydney):

 

[Billy T]

I guess the advent of increased lightning strikes is only just starting to emerge. Certainly the amazing lightning displays seen over our latest summer here ( and subsequent bush fires ) indicates a significant increase in activity (to me). ... The available strike data I believe is immature and not yet able to be assessed properly IMO.
But from what I have experienced my self over 50 odd years there appears to be a massive increase trending...

No. lighting any where on earth is readily heard as that discharge is a source of a very wide sprectrum of EM waves, even down in the audio frequencies, where they are called "whislers," VLF wave can be trapped in a spherical wave guide (between earth an the ionosphere) and have been monitor for about 100 years, with AFAIK, no significant change in their average number of lighting strikes per day.

Compared to 24/7/365/ many decades of global lightning strike data, you impressions and memory are useless.

There are paths that are trapped in the Earth's magnetic field lines too. Google "lightning whislers" with/without VLF added. You can hear recordings of the Whislers. They sweep down in tone as those that pass thru weakly ionized plasma have significate dispersion.

 

[Quantum Quack]

fair enough.. useless it is then
although it appears the latest published data from our BOM includes only up to 2012 ...as far as my scim research can tell.

 

[sculptor]

In nature, nitrogen is fixed by some micro-organisms and by lightning.
Nitrogen was the main limiting factor for accelerated plant growth in the F.A.C.E. (free air carbon enrichment) studies.

More would be better?

 

[Photizo]

Sorry, but in my opinion that was just... ridiculous.

Thanks for sharing, Kristoffer!

 

[milkweed]

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/

From above link in the comments section:

Willie Soon did disclose his funding sources in most if not all of his older papers. The tempest in the teacup is that they were not disclosed in some of his more recent papers.

Going all the way back to the furor of his Climate Research paper (Soon and Baliunas, 2003), Willie Soon had been attacked as a “paid shill” for oil companies. I guess everyone that knew he was a “paid shill” conveniently forgot so they could feign outrage when old funding was not disclosed on new work.

That paper was interesting because he didn’t present any original data, he just used all the temperature proxies published by others in the field to go back and ask a simple question. Is the 20th century the hottest of the last 1000 years in those proxies? He found that in almost every proxy, there was clear evidence that past temperatures were hotter than modern temps.

The field erupted, first by attacking Soon as a paid shill, then by demanding and accepting the resignations of editorial board of the journal. The only scientific criticism was centered around the idea that the warmer past temps in all the various proxies were not “contemporaneous across the globe”. In other words, back then they expected that the entire globe would heat up at once due to manmade Global Warming, so if the past temps didn’t all go up together it didn’t matter that they were hotter. Now of course, the field has shifted to “climate change” where record cold in the US is evidence that we broke the climate. I guess the whole “contemporaneous across the globe” criticism of Soon and Baliunas has now been jettisoned, meaning that his analysis has withstood scientific scrutiny as far as I’m concerned.

Has anyone read the paper "why models run hot"....

A different comment:

I think this a rather encouraging development. As the actual temperature, or at least the temperature after it has been through various mincing machines, fails to rise as the GCM predict, the bulk of the climate science field looks increasingly stupid. The various temperature indecies are being attacked, and rudely defended by their creators, yet they still not make the global temperature rise. So what is left? Attack the heretic’s and plat the (wo)man and not the ball...

End of the world religions do move the goalposts when their dire predictions fail to materialize.

Another comment.

All IPCC scientists have a conflict of interest when conducting climate research. The IPCC produces reports that support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change. The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

Therefore, all IPCC scientists cannot, in principle and in practice, say something that contradicts the ultimate objective of UNFCCC. It is ridiculous for a scientific body to have a political agenda namely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is glaringly obvious that IPCC is a political advocacy group and cannot be unbiased in its reports.

As such, climate skeptics must petition to Congress to ban all IPCC scientists from making testimonies and reject IPCC reports unless corroborated by scientific studies outside the purview of IPCC....

I grant IPCC scientists can still testify in Congress but they should be regarded as environmental lobbyists not as climate scientists.

The IPCC objective as stated above is still available on the IPCC website. Strings Attached anyone?

Another comment regarding Grijalva:

Figured if I searched for various ties to big oil, I’d find something on Democratic Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva who is behind the Witch Hunt against Climate Skeptics…

Right away found that he invested in Royal Dutch Shell and other energy companies in 2013…

Plus, I found that he has a conflict of interest when he opposes the Keystone Pipeline. Like Democrat Tom Steyer, his wife has invested in a competing pipeline. Not just a pipeline, but a ‘TAR SANDS PIPELINE’. See Enbridge Energy Partners.

http://threesonorans.com/2014/07/30...aul-grijalva-invests-wells-fargo-caterpillar/

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/grijalva-buy.pdf

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
Created: 19:54 EST, 23 January 2010

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

The hypocrisy abounds!! But confirmation bias is a normal human condition. Related to Nobel Cause Corruption.

 

[Billy T]

Reply to Milkweed's post 1756:

Comments and other opinions do not change the facts and physic presented in post 1710. - For fifth time, I ask: can you find any flaw in what is presented there?

 

[Trippy]

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/instruments-catch-carbon-in-the-act-of-warming-sky/

 

[Billy T]

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/instruments-catch-carbon-in-the-act-of-warming-sky/

Thanks. I had noticed that but was too busy at time to open. From that link is:
"We can hope now that people everywhere will be convinced that the IPCC’s reports have been correct.”
Yes they can hope that, but given AGW's deniers strong beliefs it is not likely to be more than just a hope.

I too don't think the IPPC is correct. They are nearly a decade behind newly known facts and positive feed-back discoveries and thus still underestimating the danger of AGW. For examples see some of what they are neglecting in post 1710. More specifically still falsely assume tiny CH4 bubbles can't reach the Arctic Ocean surface, even with photographs and gas samples taken showing they do - in part because of the natural vertical pump I described, 5 August last year*, first for the air flux of CH4 up out of the new holes in Siberia but mechanism holds for gas bubbles making water buoyant too.

* In post here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/climate-gate.97892/page-46#post-3213664