First of all, I really think these papers are worth while reading, because sometimes there are papers published which do not appreciate the importance of meta-data (information about the data) and ask the question what they really represent.
Feulner demonstrates how the failure to adequately correct for seasonal variations and volcanic eruptions can lead to spurious results in terms of the brightness of the direct solar beam (pyrheliometry), the brightness of the sky in a ring around the Sun (pyranometry), and measured precipitable water content.
Such mistakes can easily give the impression that cosmic rays induce aerosol formation. Feulner’s work is a reanalysis of Weber (2010), which strongly suggested that cosmic rays cause a large part of the atmospheric aerosols. We have already discussed cosmic rays and aeorsols (here), and similar claims have been made before. The new aspect of this includes analysis of pyranometry and pyrheliometry.
When he said "the earth is cooling this year," I probably should've cut and run. I'd just re-tweeted something on 2010 being tied for first place as the hottest-year-on-record, and I mistook an initial response for a genuine, thoughtful comment (albeit from a skeptical standpoint).
So I tried to engage, pointing him to the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA website) for the best available science. It didn't take long, however, before he launched into full-blown vitriol about green religion, how Al Gore is a liar, how the IPCC is not a scientific body and how the moon is made of green cheese. Okay, I made that last one up, but by then my eyes had glazed over and I was searching for the "block user" function to stop his cluster bombing of my twitter page.
As the GOP candidates jockey their way toward the presidential nomination, they continue to create new litmus tests for what makes a worthy pick. The top contenders have to loathe government. They have to hate health care reform. And most deny the reality of climate change.
Most of these benchmarks have their roots in ideological battles but that last one is different. It requires candidates to forgo reality as they disavow scientific evidence.
I wonder how they choose which science to accept and which to ignore. Is it alright to acknowledge that gravity exists and cigarettes cause cancer, but not okay to concede that man made climate change is making the Arctic is melt and extreme weather events are becoming the norm? When do you cross the line? When does the crazy start? Most importantly, should ignoring science disqualify you from being president?
Having a president who willfully disregards the scientific evidence of a looming threat is not in our national interest, to put it mildly. I don't think President Reagan would have gotten elected if he'd said he didn't trust the data showing the Soviet Union had an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons. We don't need leaders who close their eyes to the facts.
Last week, the Economist's front page stated that we have entered into the Anthropocene age: the age of man -- scientists now agree that the human race "has become a force of nature reshaping the planet on a geological scale." The article argued that the human race is to blame for a long line of alterations in the earth's natural processes, and that we are causing these changes on earth to happen faster than ever before -- the "humans have changed the way the world looks" and acts.
The same week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) documented a record high increase in global CO2 emissions -- which transforms even the most extreme climate scenarios from being scare stories into a mere realistic projections of the future of our planet. The IEA warned that the "Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2ºC is getting bleaker" due to estimates showing that CO2 emissions reached a record high in 2010.
These gloomy wakeup calls came just a few days after, the Republican Gov. Chris Christie announced that New Jersey is dropping out of the Regional Green House Gas Initiative -- an initiative considered an important test run for future national and international emissions trading pacts. His argument was that the initiative is a failure at cutting pollution and a burden to taxpayers.
The New Jersey case is just the latest example that the climate changes and the numerous warnings from science is not taken seriously by the politicians -- that politicians are still allowed to make politics on a falsity that climate change is not real and that political decisions not to fight climate change is still considered a winning strategy.
Turnbull rips into Abbott and vested interests and defends Climate Change action - YouTube
MALCOLM Turnbull has urged people to speak out loudly on behalf of the science of climate change.
In a strong assault on sceptics such as Lord Christopher Monckton who attack the science, Mr Turnbull declared: ''We cannot afford to allow the science to become a partisan issue as it is in the United States.''
CLIMATE CHANGE: THE COLD spell Ireland and the rest of northern Europe has been experiencing may, paradoxically, be the result of global warming, rather than evidence it is not happening, according to the most recent scientific research.
The Journal of Geophysical Research suggested a link between diminishing levels of sea ice in the Arctic and an increased probability of harsh winters across Europe, saying these “do not conflict the global warming picture, but rather supplement it”.
As HSBC Global Research noted in its latest report, If the World is Warming, Why is it so Cold?, “climate change involves profound disruptions in global average temperatures. But as individuals we only experience local weather.” And “coming on the back of the unusual cold winters of 2009-2010, this cold spell has caused some commentary that global warming is over”. The explanation they offer is that the “warming trend is not uniform, and northern Europe has shown considerable cooling this winter”.
Despite the cold spell here, “almost all the areas of the world have shown considerable warming . . .”
CLICK to see Andrew C. Revkin "Warmshape" at Slideshare.net
After I gave a talk at Pennsylvania State University not long ago, a professor there asked if I could share the slide I use to describe one source of confusion and disputes when people are yelling about “global warming” or “climate change.” Here’s an improved version of the slide, which I hope helps reveal that the issue can’t be meaningfully discussed without getting into some more specifics:
Confusion and division over “global warming” often grows out of the meaninglessness of the phrase on its own. The result is that people with very different world views, in essence, create their own definitions of the term. (This is a point long made by Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia, and is a central theme in his book, “Why We Disagree About Climate Change.”)
When you get more specific, you can see that the level of confidence and range of views* on each aspect of greenhouse-driven climate change, from the basic physics onward, has a different “shape,” as I’ve tried to depict above:
Click source to read FULL report from Andrew C. Revkin
The release of climate-science e-mails last November ripped apart Phil Jones’s life. He’s now trying to patch it back together.
I like to think the worst is over, but it’s coming up to the first anniversary and it’s something I’ll always remember at this time of year, when the nights close in. This is the time it happened.”
Twelve months ago, Phil Jones was a productive, if not particularly outspoken, climate scientist. That was the way he liked it. Head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, Jones worked with the Met Office to compile data from weather stations around the world into a monthly series showing global average temperature.
He had much on his mind — not least a puzzling drop in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures during the mid-twentieth century that he had recently helped to discover.
It was a curious finding, but Jones would soon have bigger things to ponder. On 19 November 2009, someone released roughly 1,000 e-mail messages and documents stolen from a server at the CRU. Many of them contained Jones’s private correspondence, which sometimes showed him in an unflattering light.
CLICK to download PDF file to read FULL article from David Adam
Gore is referring to an e-mail that Bill Sammon, the Washington, DC, managing editor at Fox News, sent last December to Fox News producers just as the United Nations climate conference was beginning in Copenhagen. The e-mail was leaked to frequent Fox critic Media Matters, a self-described "progressive" watchdog group, which posted it online Wednesday.
"Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data," Sammon wrote, "we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."