Letters to the Editor

Warmth supports life — cold kills

quill pen

To the Editor
Climate Conversation

24th Month 2016

Texas blizzards recently killed 47,000 cattle — cold kills.

Wild animals and nomadic herders know this and move to avoid the cold.

Reindeer follow the sun — they spend summers grazing on the treeless tundra, but when the snows start they head south into the protective forests.

Snow geese winter near the equator and return to the Arctic in summer.

The geological record is clear on the matter of global temperatures — cold kills. The mammoths and about 100 species of mega-fauna were extinguished in the end-Pleistocene Ice Age.

It is testament to the power of propaganda that a whole generation is having hysterics about a natural and beneficial climate cycle — the modern warm era. Our warm, moist, carbon-rich atmosphere supports abundant life on Earth.

Returning to the cold, dry, carbon-starved climate of the Little Ice Age would cause world-wide famines; humans may not survive a return to Pleistocene Ice Age conditions.

Viv Forbes

Rosewood,
Queensland,
Australia.

forbes [at] carbon-sense [dot] com

11 Thoughts on “Letters to the Editor

  1. which suggests that Alan Gibbs no longer “donates” large sums to the ACT Party.
    Rational pro free market / libertarian political parties do not deny AGW.
    And before you protest, The US Republican Party is neither pro free market nor rational.

  2. I thought that maybe the ACT party needed to free up some space on its website.

    Wasn’t that the excuse Phil Jones used for deleting emails?

    Anyway, it is hilarious reading all the outraged comments on the Stuff article. Image that, no climate change policy! How dreadful!

    Given that this country has no climate change policy of any note, it is hardly an issue worthy of mention. What do all these outraged people actually want anyway? They never say, it’s always endless drivel about “taking action”

  3. “The US Republican Party is neither pro free market nor rational.”

    are they socialists then?

  4. Or maybe communists?

    What exactly is the definition of someone that is “anti-free market”?

    Presumably, most people acknowledge the need for government regulation. It doesn’t mean you are anti free market. There is nowhere that has no regulations at all.

  5. Conservatism often implies preservation of existing oligarchies, especially if that is where the campaign money is coming from. It is interesting to note that the two most vocal critics of the TPPA are Donald Trump and Bernie Saunders. Cruz and Clinton’s opinion have flip-flopped several times depending on the audience they are talking to.

    I like ACT’s policy of selling Landcorp. Apart from the poor return on investment, no reason for the Govt to be in the business etc, it is a huge financial risk. Another couple of years of dairy downturn and it will implode like Solid Energy did.

  6. “Conservatism often implies preservation of existing oligarchies, especially if that is where the campaign money is coming from”

    It could imply that but I don’t think that is what conservatism means. However, the US Oligarchy that forms the Clintons has received money from non other than Donald Trump, so it’s not all black and white.

    If nothing else, the US elections are good entertainment.

    The Winter is Trumping Game of Thrones mashup takes some beating
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lGH_DvtBEM

  7. LukesAreWrongToo on March 1, 2016 at 12:01 pm said:

    You cannot add back radiation to solar radiation and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to explain the mean surface temperature.

    The 324W/m^2 of back radiation is overstated because the wrong emissivity value of the atmosphere has been used in calculating that back radiation from measurements. On Venus, using emissivity of 0.19 for carbon dioxide, the atmosphere would have to be over 350 degrees hotter than the surface for its radiation to support the surface temperature.

    Even if you use the 324 figure (as is implied in the energy diagrams which show 168+324-102 = 390W/m^2 into the surface) that 390 figure (being a mean of variable flux) gives you a mean temperature close to zero C, not 15C.

    So it’s all totally wrong and the whole radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture fails to explain reality.

    If you genuinely want to hear explained what really happens in the equivalent of a 43 minute live presentation, watch the full video as over 1,100 others have done in its first 6 months. You can ask genuine questions on this blog.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on March 2, 2016 at 6:44 pm said:

    ‘Climate Models are NOT Simulating Earth’s Climate – Part 4’

    Bob Tisdale / March 1, 2016

    THE FOUR EXTREMES

    According to the hypothesis of human induced global warming, in the real world, if the Earth had a very high positive energy imbalance (much more incoming than outgoing radiation), wouldn’t global surfaces be warming at a very high rate? They are not in the models with the high energy imbalance.

    To help drive home the point of this post, Figure 5 illustrates the ocean heat accumulation and losses from 4 of the climate models: MIROC-ESM, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, NorESM1-M, and NorESM1-ME. Those are the models with the extremely high simulations of ocean heat accumulation and losses.

    And Figure 6 shows the reasons for the extreme ocean heat gains and losses in those models: the high positive and negative simulated energy imbalances at the top of the atmosphere. They are roughly +2.5 watts per square meter and -2.5 watts per square meter for those four models.

    Yet, as shown in Figure 7, regardless of whether the average simulated energy imbalances for the period of 1955 to 2015 are roughly +2.5 watts per square meter or -2.5 watts per square meter, they show comparable rates of global surface warming for that period.

    CLOSING

    Bottom line: According to some of the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report, global surface warming for the period of 1955 to 2015 is NOT dependent on the simulated top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalance. In other words, those climate models undermine the hypothesis of human-induced global warming.

    If climate model drift is the reason for those odd relationships, the modelers need to fix the models, not adjust the outputs.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/01/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-4/

    # # #

    Major model FAIL. This is an indictment on the GCMs. Fixed warming and wildly divergent TOA imbalance – it should be the other way around. TOA imbalance “controls” temperature according to the IPCC FAQs.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on March 3, 2016 at 6:20 pm said:

    ‘The ‘Karlization’ of global temperature continues – this time RSS makes a massive upwards adjustment’

    Anthony Watts / 7 hours ago March 2, 2016

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/02/the-karlization-of-global-temperature-continues-this-time-rss-makes-a-massive-upwards-adjustment/

    # # #

    Mears and Wentz paper was rejected by the first Journal where it was submitted.

    Spencer:

    “The paper is for MT, not LT…but I think we can assume that changes in one will be reflected in the other when Mears completes their analysis.

    From what little we have looked at so far, it appears that they did not correct for spurious warming in NOAA-14 MSU relative to NOAA-15 AMSU…see their Fig. 7c. They just leave it in.

    Since this spurious warming is near the middle of the whole time period, this shifts the second half of the satellite record warmer when NOAA-14 MSU (the last in the MSU series) is handed off to NOAA-15 AMSU (the first in the AMSU series).

    Why do we think NOAA-14 MSU is at fault?

    1) AMSU is supposed to have a “Cadillac” calibration design (that’s the term a NASA engineer, Jim Shiue, used when describing to me the AMSU design, which he was involved in).
    2) NOAA-14 MSU requires a large correction for the calibrated TB increasing with instrument temperature as the satellite drifts into a different orbit. The NOAA-15 AMSU requires no such correction…and it wasn’t drifting during the period in question anyway.

    So, it looks like they decided to force good data to match bad data. Sound familiar?

    As Anthony Watts puts it – “Yes, yes it does”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation