House Directs Pentagon To Ignore Climate Change

a reply to: tadaman

To deny the suns role altogether in global warming shows the bias towards data not supporting your field of employment.

Who is doing that? But there's a problem. The Sun's been a bit cooler but temperatures kept rising.
Irradiance vs temperature

Yeah al gore promised us no Ice caps.

When?

Makes me sad people are actually happy about this....this just means normal people will be more effected If the guys in power are not willing to anything to combat climate change.
In fact it is disgusting people glad of this...so called Christians also.
Shame on you all.
Who gives a toss If it is man made (it is btw) or from the sun we need to act on this now or risk our grand kids future.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Spider879

The oldest report on climate change I could find from the pentagon was released in 2003 and presented to the Bush administration.

A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the US and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. Sound like the ravings of doom-saying environmental extremists? It's actually from a report commissioned by the Pentagon on how to ready America for the coming climate Armageddon.

greenpeace lol yes I know!

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The Guardian


Here is the pentagon report in pdf:

Executive Summary There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant glob al warming will occur during the 21 st century. Because changes have b een gradual so far, and are projected to be similarly gradual in the future, the e ffects of global warming have the potential to be manageable for most nations. Recent research, however, suggests that there is a possibility that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of the ocean’s thermohaline conveyor, whic h could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, an d more intense winds in certain regions that currently provide a significant fraction of the world’s food production. With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment.

An Abrupt Climate Ch ange Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security October 2003

Hmmm threats foreign and domestic!

Threats foreign and domestic indeed,it's amazing that these Pols never met a weapons program they didn't like,tanks sitting in park lots that the Army said they didn't need but these Pols built anyway are now saying preparing for an eventuality is a waste of money.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Makes me sad people are actually happy about this....this just means normal people will be more effected If the guys in power are not willing to anything to combat climate change.
In fact it is disgusting people glad of this...so called Christians also.
Shame on you all.
Who gives a toss If it is man made (it is btw) or from the sun we need to act on this now or risk our grand kids future.

Combat Climate change?? I wished we had the time now it's all about living with it,if you have property on the coast that you wished to leave to your descendants might want to let them know in a will that they should relocate in-land.

a reply to: Spider879

I know I fear we are to late also but to just deny it and carry on as normal is not an option.
This is make or break for our civilization.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Spider879

I know I fear we are to late also but to just deny it and carry on as normal is not an option.
This is make or break for our civilization.

Yes the question now become what can we do to minimize the effects,do we build or increase levies? evacuate the coast line,build great cisterns for water in case of drought? totally redesign our cities or abandon them to live in smaller village type communities,these are the kind of changes we are going to face and while we may not live to see the worst our kids and grand kids may have to deal with this,this means nothing less than a long term vision and problem solving.

a reply to: Spider879
All of the above.

But we also have the chance, now, of slowing the rate of change in order to allow more time to figure out what to do and to do it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Spider879
All of the above.

But we also have the chance, now, of slowing the rate of change in order to allow more time to figure out what to do and to do it.

Yes but baring an immediate catastrophe do we have the political will to make it happend.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Spider879
All of the above.

But we also have the chance, now, of slowing the rate of change in order to allow more time to figure out what to do and to do it.

Would it be possible to reverse the effects? And what are the realistic ways of making that happen?

Scientists, writing in the journals Science and Nature, have recently pointed out that the tropospheric temperature is not increasing, but is decreasing. Contrary to the predictions made by scientists linking the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with the warming of the atmosphere, the observations clearly show that the link is extremely weak or that it does not exist, and that the hypothesis on the effect of greenhouse gases (GHG) is scientifically incorrect and cannot explain the current state of the global climate.

I have written a peer reviewed paper on the impossibility of carbon dioxide causing global warming. I have also written another peer reviewed paper on the correlation of the Solar Irradiance and the Variation of Atmospheric Temperatures (VAT) where I refer to the evidence on the influence of solar activity on tropospheric temperature and the global climate since the medieval period to the present. Further assessments have been carried out by solar physicists to correct and calibrate the 2001 databases on the Intensity of Solar Irradiance (i.e. Lean. (2004), Preminger (2005) and Svalgaard (2007)). In this paper, I compare the calibrated databases of TSI with the new databases of VAT since 1610 AD to date and since 1700 AD to date. The TSI databases were provided by Dr. Judith Lean from NOAA. The VAT databases were provided by Dr. Craig Loehle and UAH.

www.biocab.org...

www.biocab.org...

www.biocab.org...

Nahle, Nasif. Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases. Biology Cabinet. 27 April 2007. Obtained on 5 /27,2014; from biocab.org...


1. INTRODUCTION

When investigating the propagation of energy, we must take into account the science of thermodynamics, which allows us to predict the trajectory of the process, and the processes of heat transfer to know the modes by which energy is propagated from one system to other systems. Heat is not the same as temperature because heat is energy in transit. Heat is energy being transferred from a warmer system to another cooler system sue to a temperature gradient, whereas temperature is the measurement of the average of the kinetic energy of the particles of a substance. The average of the molecular kinetic energy depends on the translational motion of the particles of a system.

The energy absorbed or stored by a substance could cause an increase in the kinetic energy of the particles of that substance. This kinetic energy or motion causes the particles to emit energy, which is transferred to other subsystems of the emitter or towards other systems with a lower energy density.

To understand heat transfer we have to keep in mind that heat is not a substance, but energy that flows from one system toward other systems with lower density of energy.


CHANGE OF THE TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE BY SOLAR IRRADIANCE (This theme is better developed at Solar Irradiance is Increasing. It was corrected in 30 June 2008 due to minor grammar errors)

The total incoming solar irradiance to the terrestrial surface is 697.04 W/m^2. From this amount of infrared radiation, the surface absorbs about 348.52 W/m^2. The atmosphere absorbs 317 W/m^2. Considering the mass of air and its thermal capacity, the Earth’s temperature should vary by 30 °C. The fluctuation of the solar irradiance in the last 300 years has been 1.25 W/m^2. 1.25 W/m^2 causes a change of the Earth's temperature of 0.56 °C, which is the maximum averaged change in tropospheric temperature achieved during the 1990s (the average of change of temperature in 1998 is 0.51 °C). (Hurrell & Trenberth. 1999)

Planet Earth would not be warming if the Sun's energy output (Solar Irradiance) was not increasing. Favorably, our Sun is emitting more radiation now than it was 200 years ago, and so we should have no fear of a natural cycle that has occurred many times over in the lifetime of our Solar System.

Heat always moves from places of higher density of heat to places of lower density of heat, thus states the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Van Ness. 1969. Page 54). In daylight (P. S. obviously under, Sunlight), air is always colder than soil (P. S. obviously, the surface of soil); consequently, heat is transferred from the soil to the air, not vice versa. By the same physical law, the heat emitted by the Sun -a source of heat- is transferred to the Earth, which is a colder system.

The capacity of carbon dioxide to absorb-emit heat is much more limited than that of oceans and soil; thus, carbon dioxide cannot have been the cause of the warming of the Earth in 1998.

A fact well known to all scientists is that the absorptivity-emissivity thermal property of carbon dioxide diminishes as its density increases and as the temperature increases. This happens because the infrared radiation absorption margin is very narrow (wavelengths from 12-18 micrometers) and so the opacity of carbon dioxide to infrared radiation increases with altitude. As the column of CO2 gains height, its opacity to infrared radiation increases.

The dispersion of emitted heat increases when the density of carbon dioxide increases because there are more microstates toward which energy can diffuse. As a result, the momentum of the carbon dioxide molecules decays each time heat is transformed into molecular kinetic energy, and emitted heat disperses in greater amounts towards deep space through the upper layers of the atmosphere. This process -determined by the second law of thermodynamics -could explain the observed paradoxical phenomenon of the coldness of the higher tropospheric layers in contrast with the tropospheric layer above the Earths surface, which is always warmer than the upper layers.

When the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, the strong absorption lines become saturated. Thereafter its absorptivity increases logarithmically not linearly or exponentially; consequently, carbon dioxide convective heat transfer capacity decreases considerably.

Amplitude of Solar Irradiance and Change of Temperature
www.biocab.org...

originally posted by: The_Phantom

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Spider879
All of the above.

But we also have the chance, now, of slowing the rate of change in order to allow more time to figure out what to do and to do it.

Would it be possible to reverse the effects? And what are the realistic ways of making that happen?

Stopping it maybe not slowing it down by not adding to it seems more reasonable in any case an Iceberg six times the size of Manhattan broke of from Antarctica while this is not unusual it goes towards a trend and given it's size..well that's a little different.

a reply to: The_Phantom

Would it even be possible to reverse the effects? And what are the realistic possibilities of making that happen?

No. In no practical sense can the effects be reversed. Not much short of ceasing the use of fossil fuels would even stabilize the situation, and that's not going to happen. As I said, the best we can hope for at this point is slowing it down a bit.

Warming will continue, if we continue to burn more fossils fuels at an increasing rate the rate of warming will continue to accelerate. Our kids and their kids will bear the brunt of it.

Amplitude of Solar Irradiance and Change of Temperature

The records released by NOAA (1) and other institutions (2) dedicated to assessing climate are magnitudes that refer to anomalies. For example, we determined that the average of global temperature on 2 February 2008 was 290.45 K when the global average for the same position of the Earth with respect to the Universe had averaged 290.68 K in the last 100 years. To obtain the anomaly on 2 February 2008, we subtract the centennial average of temperature from the current average of temperature on the same date:

290.45 K - 290.68 K = -0.23 K

Which means that the change of temperature on 2 February 2008 was -0.23 K.

The magnitudes of oscillations of temperature are simulated because it is impossible for us to know what the standard change of temperature is, given that the Earth is 4.8 billion years old and has undergone millions of global oscillations, most of them larger than the current ones. Consequently, we cannot assert that recent warming has been unprecedented or atypical. The examination of iron stained grains (3, 4) and other proxies like diatoms, foraminifera, growth tree-rings and Ca-II shows that the Holocene Epoch has been characterized by fluctuations of temperature of 6 degrees Celsius or more (4). The global fluctuation detected throughout the last 100 years has been no higher than 0.52 degrees Celsius (5).

Further evidence of increased solar Irradiance.

MPLITUDE OF TOTAL SOLAR IRRADIANCE FROM JUDITH LEAN'S DATABASE (2001) (6)

We have a highly ambiguous set of data referring to the equilibrium point for solar radiation hitting the outer layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. Some solar physicists take 1371 W/m^2 as the equilibrium point, others take 1366 W/m^2, some say that the equilibrium is 1364.5 W/m^2 and others that it is 1360.5 W/m^2. Thus, given the state of things, we decided to consider the median of each database as the equilibrium point in all datasets of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). For example, the median of Lean’s complete database (6) on the intensity of solar irradiance is 1364.67865 W/m^2 (taking into account the number of sunspots and proxies). With this value, we can calculate the amplitude of the intensity of solar irradiance for each set of data; for example, the amplitude of the intensity of solar irradiance in 1610 was:

A = 1364.7338 W/m^2 - 1364.67865 W/m^2 = 0.05515 W/m^2

The subtraction is contemplated as a deviation from the median; however, the median in all these cases is the magnitude of equilibrium for any particular database of TSI. The greater the amplitude, the greater the energy it carries. If the amplitude is below the standard deviation, then the energy would be low. If the amplitude is above the standard deviation, then the energy would be high.

Notice that the deviations (red spots) have been higher than the standard deviation (violet horizontal band) since 1916 AD.

www.biocab.org...

Sp we do see increased solar irradiance increasing. We now understand how all that extra energy exerting its natural force on earth would increase temperature according to basic laws of thermodynamics and how carbon dioxide isnt the contributing factor to the increase since its effect would be negligible in terms of trapping "extra" radiation (energy).

originally posted by: tadaman

Scientists, writing in the journals Science and Nature, have recently pointed out that the tropospheric temperature is not increasing, but is decreasing. Contrary to the predictions made by scientists linking the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with the warming of the atmosphere, the observations clearly show that the link is extremely weak or that it does not exist, and that the hypothesis on the effect of greenhouse gases (GHG) is scientifically incorrect and cannot explain the current state of the global climate.

I have written a peer reviewed paper on the impossibility of carbon dioxide causing global warming. I have also written another peer reviewed paper on the correlation of the Solar Irradiance and the Variation of Atmospheric Temperatures (VAT) where I refer to the evidence on the influence of solar activity on tropospheric temperature and the global climate since the medieval period to the present. Further assessments have been carried out by solar physicists to correct and calibrate the 2001 databases on the Intensity of Solar Irradiance (i.e. Lean. (2004), Preminger (2005) and Svalgaard (2007)). In this paper, I compare the calibrated databases of TSI with the new databases of VAT since 1610 AD to date and since 1700 AD to date. The TSI databases were provided by Dr. Judith Lean from NOAA. The VAT databases were provided by Dr. Craig Loehle and UAH.

www.biocab.org...

www.biocab.org...

www.biocab.org...

Nahle, Nasif. Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases. Biology Cabinet. 27 April 2007. Obtained on 5 /27,2014; from biocab.org...


1. INTRODUCTION

When investigating the propagation of energy, we must take into account the science of thermodynamics, which allows us to predict the trajectory of the process, and the processes of heat transfer to know the modes by which energy is propagated from one system to other systems. Heat is not the same as temperature because heat is energy in transit. Heat is energy being transferred from a warmer system to another cooler system sue to a temperature gradient, whereas temperature is the measurement of the average of the kinetic energy of the particles of a substance. The average of the molecular kinetic energy depends on the translational motion of the particles of a system.

The energy absorbed or stored by a substance could cause an increase in the kinetic energy of the particles of that substance. This kinetic energy or motion causes the particles to emit energy, which is transferred to other subsystems of the emitter or towards other systems with a lower energy density.

To understand heat transfer we have to keep in mind that heat is not a substance, but energy that flows from one system toward other systems with lower density of energy.


CHANGE OF THE TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE BY SOLAR IRRADIANCE (This theme is better developed at Solar Irradiance is Increasing. It was corrected in 30 June 2008 due to minor grammar errors)

The total incoming solar irradiance to the terrestrial surface is 697.04 W/m^2. From this amount of infrared radiation, the surface absorbs about 348.52 W/m^2. The atmosphere absorbs 317 W/m^2. Considering the mass of air and its thermal capacity, the Earth’s temperature should vary by 30 °C. The fluctuation of the solar irradiance in the last 300 years has been 1.25 W/m^2. 1.25 W/m^2 causes a change of the Earth's temperature of 0.56 °C, which is the maximum averaged change in tropospheric temperature achieved during the 1990s (the average of change of temperature in 1998 is 0.51 °C). (Hurrell & Trenberth. 1999)

Planet Earth would not be warming if the Sun's energy output (Solar Irradiance) was not increasing. Favorably, our Sun is emitting more radiation now than it was 200 years ago, and so we should have no fear of a natural cycle that has occurred many times over in the lifetime of our Solar System.

Heat always moves from places of higher density of heat to places of lower density of heat, thus states the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Van Ness. 1969. Page 54). In daylight (P. S. obviously under, Sunlight), air is always colder than soil (P. S. obviously, the surface of soil); consequently, heat is transferred from the soil to the air, not vice versa. By the same physical law, the heat emitted by the Sun -a source of heat- is transferred to the Earth, which is a colder system.

The capacity of carbon dioxide to absorb-emit heat is much more limited than that of oceans and soil; thus, carbon dioxide cannot have been the cause of the warming of the Earth in 1998.

A fact well known to all scientists is that the absorptivity-emissivity thermal property of carbon dioxide diminishes as its density increases and as the temperature increases. This happens because the infrared radiation absorption margin is very narrow (wavelengths from 12-18 micrometers) and so the opacity of carbon dioxide to infrared radiation increases with altitude. As the column of CO2 gains height, its opacity to infrared radiation increases.

The dispersion of emitted heat increases when the density of carbon dioxide increases because there are more microstates toward which energy can diffuse. As a result, the momentum of the carbon dioxide molecules decays each time heat is transformed into molecular kinetic energy, and emitted heat disperses in greater amounts towards deep space through the upper layers of the atmosphere. This process -determined by the second law of thermodynamics -could explain the observed paradoxical phenomenon of the coldness of the higher tropospheric layers in contrast with the tropospheric layer above the Earths surface, which is always warmer than the upper layers.

When the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, the strong absorption lines become saturated. Thereafter its absorptivity increases logarithmically not linearly or exponentially; consequently, carbon dioxide convective heat transfer capacity decreases considerably.

Amplitude of Solar Irradiance and Change of Temperature
www.biocab.org...

Global warming was a bad label,climate change is more correct,some places will get hotter and drier others will see dramatic swings in sever weather like snow storms .so it's not just a question of the planet heating up.

a reply to: tadaman
Do you have any comments on those quotes?

I do. This statement makes no sense"

When the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, the strong absorption lines become saturated. Thereafter its absorptivity increases logarithmically not linearly or exponentially; consequently, carbon dioxide convective heat transfer capacity decreases considerably.

Absorption lines do not become "saturated" and GHG warming doesn't really have anything to do with convective heat transfer.

Sp we do see increased solar irradiance increasing.

Not lately. I guess you didn't see this chart:
Irradiance vs temperature

Odd, Nahle's chart doesn't seem to show any variation due to the solar cycle.

a reply to: Spider879

sure but climate alarmists use temperature to claim human influence on climate change.

Temperature is not the same as climate.

The concept is simple enough. More energy from the sun, more energy on earth.

Heat is a product of that energy transfer interacting with less density bodies (earth) receiving it coming from higher density bodies (sun) emitting it.

Carbon Dioxide cant account for that added radiation being stored here since it would dissipate by what we know about carbon dioxide. If there is an increased amount of energy on earth, its because the source is emitting more of it, not because we somehow are keeping more of it here.

Climate is the product of that exchange.