Talk-Polywell.org

Reality is catching up on the policy excesses of the global warming crowd.:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... tm?ven=rss
From the Editorial:
The global warming alarmists continue to go about their business — which is minding everyone else's business — while their yarn keeps fraying. Their latest problem: a study that says nature, not man, drives climate.

Last week President Obama issued the executive order "Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change."

It's almost 3,000 words outlining a plan to help the country get through "prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures" and "more heavy downpours" as well as "an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise."

The order even insists that these dire conditions "are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the nation."

Clearly the White House missed the news — isn't that where Obama has learned about various scandals that have suffused his administration? — that there has been no warming since 1997.

What's more, it's also missed the news about a peer-reviewed paper that recently appeared in the journal Climate Dynamics. According to the science, the pause in warming that began as temperatures leveled off in the late 1990s could extend into the 2030s.

Paper authors Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Marcia Wyatt, from the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder, found — no surprise here — that the United Nations climate models that predict a scorched Earth are not reliable.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... z2jw4kXbVE
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

It look like the policy agenda of the left can't use global warming as an excuse anymore. From Watt's, of course. The source for all The REAL climate news and not the BS.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/g ... the-facts/

Yep, it's getting too hot too fast.

Jccarlton wrote:It look like the policy agenda of the left can't sue global warming as an excuse anymore. From Watt's, of course. The source for all The REAL climate news and not the BS.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/g ... the-facts/

Reality doesn't care about agendas.

More from Watts on other assertions of an arctic death spiral.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/02/m ... lude=96268

[2] Miller et al. claim that recent exposure of moss by melting ice proves that modern temperatures at the site were as high or higher than at any time since the moss was covered by ice and that therefore present temperatures have not been exceeded in 120,000 years. But is this necessarily true? If a block of ice is placed on the floor of a room and the thermostat is turned to 90°F, the ice will begin to melt. If the thermostat is then turned down to 40°F before all of the ice has melted, ice will continue to melt until the floor is uncovered, but to conclude that the temperature had never risen above 40°F since the floor was first covered with ice would be totally false. The same is true of the Baffin ice caps—if moss is uncovered at today’s temperatures, that doesn’t mean that higher temperatures haven’t occurred previously. Thus, the Miller et al. conclusions that “temperatures of the past century must have exceeded those of any century in more than 44 ka” and “there has been no intervening century during which warmth exceeded that of the last 100 years” are illogical and badly flawed. One wonders how this bad logic got past peer review. In addition, we know from data in the Greenland GISP2 ice core that temperatures in Greenland rose more than 20°F per century at least three times in the past 15,000 years, well within the 120,000 years claimed by Miller et al. to have never been warmer than recently.

[3] Among the 145 14C dates on exposed moss in this study are10 dates ranging in age from 23,900 to 50,700 years, leading to their conclusion that temperatures today are the hottest in >50 ka and most likely in the past 120 ka. They explain the disparity between these old dates and the multitude of young Holocene dates as due to higher elevations of the older samples so the younger sites could be exposed by melting of ice while the higher, older sites remained ice covered. But as shown by their data, this really isn’t true. Figures 1 and 3 show site M10-231v as an ‘Eemian’ site with dates ranging from 23,900 to 44,300 years. But ages at two nearby sites, M10-B226v and M10-223v, whose ages are shown as 2-3,000 and 4-5,000 years old, are higher than the site with old dates (Figure 4).



Figure 3. Site M10-231v, dated at 23.9 ka to 44.3 ka at an altitude of 1395m (4577 ft) and sites M10-226v at 1438m (4718 ft.) and M10-223v at 1405mm (4609 ft). (Google Earth image)



Figure 4. Elevations of sites M10-223v (2-3,000 yrs) and M10-226v (4-5,000 yrs) are higher than the ‘Eemian’ site >47,000 years.

This totally destroys their argument for no temperature as warm as the present since the Eemian Interglacial. All they have shown is that melting of the ice caps on Baffin Island wasn’t complete during the Holocene and recent warming has continued the melting.

Comparison with temperatures recorded in Greenland GISP2 ice cores

Figure 10 shows that virtually all of the period from 1500 years ago to 5000 years ago was warmer than modern temperatures. This data is directly contrary to the Miller et al. conclusion that “average summer temperatures of the last ~100 years are now higher than any century in more than 44,000 years.”

Looking still farther back in time, about 90% of the past 10,000 years were warmer than temperatures of the past century (Fig. 11). Thus, the Miller et al. conclusion that “temperatures of the past century must have exceeded those of any century in more than 44 ka” cannot be true.

Conclusions

From the foregoing data and analyses, what is abundantly clear is that the Miller et al. paper is so badly flawed with unwarranted assumptions, poorly thought out assertions, and astonishingly bad logic that their conclusion “temperatures of the past century must have exceeded those of any century in more than 44 ka” cannot be considered valid. How could reputable scientists come to such incorrect conclusions? Perhaps the last sentence in their conclusions section gives us a clue: “anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have now resulted in unprecedented recent summer warmth that is well outside the range of that attributable to natural climate variability.” Even if the conclusions in the paper were correct, they wouldn’t prove anything about CO2 as the cause of climatic warming, so this statement suggests that the real purpose of the paper was to push CO2 at the expense of objective science.

The readings are obvious and correct. There's nowhere to hide.

You're lying again.

You just keep trying the same stupid crap over and over and over like it's gonna be true this time.

Strange Doings on the Sun
Sunspots, Which Can Harm Electronics on Earth, Are Half the Number Expected

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0409194498

Not in the article but mentioned in comments: Sunspot count, correlation with solar activity that influences cosmic ray activity, impacts cloud formation which is a BIG weak spot in the climate models.

"Global Warming Policy Being Overtaken by Reality"


Could be said about every Liberal policy throughout history. Eventually reality catches up with nonsense.

hanelyp wrote:

Strange Doings on the Sun
Sunspots, Which Can Harm Electronics on Earth, Are Half the Number Expected

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0409194498

Not in the article but mentioned in comments: Sunspot count, correlation with solar activity that influences cosmic ray activity, impacts cloud formation which is a BIG weak spot in the climate models.

Actually interesting, back in a bit after Monday Nite Football.