Real Climate Science

Drastic changes needed to curb N2O, most potent greenhouse gas

Meat consumption in the developed world needs to be cut by 50 per cent per person by 2050 if we are to meet the most aggressive strategy, set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to reduce one of the most important greenhouse gases, nitrous oxide (N2O).

Drastic changes needed to curb N2O, most potent greenhouse gas: study

Complete BS. Nitrous oxide makes up much less than one part per million in the atmosphere, and has only a few narrow absorption bands – which overlap with CO2 and water vapor. The percentage of the greenhouse effect on earth produced by nitrous oxide is very close to zero. These clowns need to stop inhaling whip cream.

File:Atmospheric Transmission.png – Global Warming Art

80 degrees of global warming in five days in 1934. Hansen would have declared this to be impossible without the emissions from your SUV.

1934: What would become one of the hottest summers on record in Iowa began to intensify as a heat wave in the last three days of May resulted in nearly every location in the state exceeding 100 F on at least one of those three days. The heat wave peaked on the 30th when the temperature soared to as high as 111 F near Inwood which is the highest temperature ever recorded in Iowa in May. Other high temperatures on the 30th included 110 F at Boone, 109 F at Logan and Spencer, 108 F at Le Mars, and 107 F at Storm Lake. Des Moines and Sioux City also set their respective May records as both reached a high of 105 F. Amazingly this extremely hot weather came only a few days after unseasonably cool temperatures in the 30s had been recorded across much of the state with frost on the 25th and 26th. In fact, at Boone the low temperature on the morning of the 25th was 30 F so the temperature at that location rose by 80 F in just five days. To put this into perspective, the largest temperature range ever recorded across the state of Iowa during the entire month of May is 88 degrees.

May 30

h/t to Andy DC

Study: Global warming could bring penguins to brink of extinction

If global temperatures continue to rise, however, the Emperor penguins inTerre Adélie, in East Antarctica may eventually disappear, according to a new study by led by researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Complete bullshit. Temperatures in East Antarctica have cooled, and sea ice has steadily increased. Much of the claimed 0.6C global warming has been winter temperatures at high northern latitudes. How is that supposed to affect Penguins in Antarctica?

Global warming may have another victim in its sights: the penguin.

According to newly released report, penguins are facing an intangible threat that may ultimately decimate the population.

A study produced by several Boulder researchers notes that penguin populations could decline by as much as 60 percent. The team noted that a series of recent observations showed that the penguin population is already witnessing a steep decline in numbers.

Hopefully the money for phony Boulder scientists will drop by 100%.

“Over the last century, we have already observed the disappearance of the Dion Islets penguin colony, close to the West Antarctic Peninsula,” says Stephanie Jenouvrier, WHOI biologist and lead author of the study. “In 1948 and the 1970s, scientists recorded more than 150 breeding pairs there.”

She notes that within the past ten years the population has nearly vanished, a disturbing sign that global warming may be forcing the birds to migrate elsewhere.

Exactly. The birds moved their colony elsewhere. One study of one small local population tells nothing about the overall population of the species.

“By 1999, the population was down to just 20 pairs, and in 2009, it had vanished entirely,” said Ms. Jenouvrier.

Study: Global warming could bring penguins to brink of extinction | The Bunsen Burner

Cook goes full stupid and shoots himself in the foot.

He argues that Hansen’s predictions failed because humans have greatly reduced their output of GHG’s other than CO2. He also argues that CO2 is a minor component relative to the other man-made GHG’s.

the main difference between the various Hansen emissions scenarios is not due to CO2, it’s due to other greenhouse gases (GHGs) like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and methane (CH4), whose emissions have actually been below Scenario C (Figure 1).  In fact, more than half of the Scenario A radiative forcing comes from non-CO2 GHGs.

Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988

Cook is claiming that the most important greenhouse gases have been reduced by more than 80% below what Hansen forecast.

Then he produces a graph showing that temperatures are below Scenario C.

This is what Hansen said about Scenario C :

“Scenario C assumes … that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000”

In summary, Cook is arguing that man has already cleaned up the most important GHG’s, and that temperatures are lower than if man had produced no GHG’s since the year 2000. We can conclude from his argument that the world has far exceeded its Kyoto GHG reduction targets, and that temperatures are rising very slowly.

Time for everyone to come home from Rio, and find a different way to repress and rob the citizenry.

Gavin and Jim want you to believe that Scenario B is the right one, because Scenario B’s predictions didn’t suck quite as bad as Scenario A. But it is worse than it seems.

The CO2 curve is an exponential curve. Joe Romm described it as being “super-exponential” The curvature is upwards, which means that the second derivative is positive.

The graph below adds tangents, showing how the slope is getting progressively steeper.

Jim and Gavin naturally assume that their audience is gullible, and have been pushing the Scenario B meme. So let’s look at what Hansen actually wrote in his 1988 paper.

pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

Scenario A assumes exponential growth of CO2. Scenario B assumes linear growth, which clearly is not the case. Scenario C assumes no growth.

The graph below shows what Hansen’s three scenarios would have looked like. Scenario A in blue, Scenario B in green, and Scenario C in red.

According to NASA’s top experts, the Arctic may be ice-free by the summer of 2012. An ice-free Arctic would require that the ice edge melts back about 20 miles a day, for the next ten weeks.

That could happen if aliens aim a giant blow torch at the North Pole. Only an evil denier would question the word of a NASA climate expert.

The Sun has reached its peak elevation for the year in the Arctic, and is about to start its descent towards winter. Experts tell us that albedo loss in the Arctic is dramatically warming the climate, but I am having a tough time seeing it. Everything looks white – just like it always does.

arctic.io – Arctic Terra – (2012/171)

An unenlightened individual might think it is stupid to build an expensive house in a location surrounded by 50 foot tall kindling wood, which burns every few decades.

An enlightened green would instead recognize that the reason the house burned was due to “climate change” caused by evil “climate change deniers”  This same individual would also recognize that CO2 generated by driving back and forth to the mountains every day, is not of the evil CO2 variety. Rather, it is a good form of CO2 generated by an individual who lives in harmony with nature.

It is also well known that having an Obama sticker or a bike rack on your car, makes your vehicle harmless to the environment.

NSIDC says that Arctic ice extent is at a record low for the date. PIOMAS says that ice thickness is at a record low. NOAA says that it is the hottest year ever, with record highs exceeding record lows at a ratio of three trillion to to one.

Someone out there must be willing to bet on a record low ice extent this summer?

I was reading Robert Redford’s idiotic comments on the Huffington Post, and the comments of the morons who post there – and realized that the only way to get through to these people is to shut off fossil fuels for a month next winter. They think that is what they want, and we should oblige them.

It will be interesting to see how many greenies have resorted to cannibalism after three weeks of no fossil fuels.