Where to go to get good climate data.

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is a site with excellent climate data. It is unpolluted by political agendas. The brains behind it is Richard Mulller a physics professor at Berkley. I have corresponded with him and I can say with some assurance that he is scientific to the bone and has no political agenda that I can detect.

Here is the URL to his website: http://berkeleyearth.org/

He has written an excellent book on energy related issues with a chapter (chapter 3) on global warmning.

Energy for Future Presidents by Richard Muller. I think it is a first rate book.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't have the book, Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines, but I did look at the Amazon preview and reviews.

Here's a passage that jumped out at me from a five-star review by a person named Ralph D. Hermansen:

I became aware of this important book while watching the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. Richard Muller was Rachel's guest and he was discussing his new book with her. This author had become a news item worth reporting on the show because he had changed from being a skeptic about global warming into a convinced scientist. He stated that global warming is real and that 99% of it is due to human causes.

(sigh)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't have the book, Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines, but I did look at the Amazon preview and reviews.

Here's a passage that jumped out at me from a five-star review by a person named Ralph D. Hermansen:

I became aware of this important book while watching the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. Richard Muller was Rachel's guest and he was discussing his new book with her. This author had become a news item worth reporting on the show because he had changed from being a skeptic about global warming into a convinced scientist. He stated that global warming is real and that 99% of it is due to human causes.

(sigh)

Michael

You did not get the whole story. The likely increases in temperature will not be rapid as the IPCC has asserted and not be a disaster.

Muller has outlined six levels of understanding climate chance

There is the Alarmists who do not know the science but believes the AGW gospel

The Exaggorators who know the science but want to scare the public for "their own good"

The Warmists who know the science and see a danger in the temperature increase

The Lukewarmsts who know the science but are not so sure that there is danger in the increase. An increase in temperature might do some good.

The Skeptics who know the science but are totally appalled by the Alarmists. The point to serious flaws in the underlying theory and in the models. They are annoyed by the alarmists who will not give logical responses to the flaws in the underlying models

(That is where I am located by the way)

The Deniers who do not know the science but for ideological reasons totally deny the clearly existing climate changes. They are impervious to facts.

Muller has told me he considers himself a Lukewarmist. He an his group are utterly disgusted with the intellectual dishonesty of the IPCC and have under taken their own survey of temperature and surrogate data. They have produced a database 4 or 5 times the size of the database the IPCC used. Their database is totally open to public scrutiny. They have not used the obscure computer modelling of the iPCC and have used proven and sound statistical method for eliminating errors.

Muller told me he was totally appalled by the Mann "Hockey Stick" and found the methods Mann used and the lake of transparency Mann displatyed concerning his data source to be appalling and unscientific.

Muller is a top rung physicist. One of his student Perlmutter headed the American team that discovered that the expansion of the cosmos is accelerating.

I have complete confidence in Muller's integrity and judgement.

He has taken the position that the government will not and cannot deal with the potential climate problems that may come. Muller is pushing hard for nuclear power generation (no CO2 overload produce) and he had recognized that the main actors increasing the overload are the so called developing nations, headed up by China. The PRC produces more that 50 percent of the CO2 overload. And there is nothing the U.S. can do by itself to address the condition. The fact of the matter is that CO2 slows down the rate at which the atmosphere reaches temperature equilibrium by radiating heat out into space. Without CO2 in the atmosphere the oceans of the earth would freeze over so some CO2 is necessary for life on land to exist. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is no where near what it takes to produce a runaway "greenhouse" effect such as is on Venus. Their atmosphere is 99 percent CO2. Our atmosphere is 0.0038 percent CO2.

Read the book. It is well written. It establishes its scientific position scientifically. It has no part in the political agenda of the IPCC and has nothing good to say about Al Gore.

It is one thing to be appalled at the politically motivated alarmism. It is another to ignore the facts. Muller's Berkeley Group has done a good job of getting data that is not politically polluted. It is sound engineering and science at work. Muller and his group have done a first rate job of introducing sanity and soundness into the issue. They use a sound thermodynamic approach and do no foul themselves with bogus computer modelling. I applaud them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Yet another good source of climate data. Have a look at this blog site; http://kavanna.blogspot.com/2007/05/climate-greenhouse-power-of-bad.html

The basic Url is kavanna.blogspot.com.

The paper he posted on the "greenhouse" effect mirrors my view. It is a bad misleading metaphor when applied to earth climate and atmosphere. The reason why a greenhouse gets hot and stays hot (while the sun shines in) is that the glass prevents convection. If the air could rise freely the greenhouse would not be so hot. Here is an experiment you can do yourself. Park you car so that the sun shines in. Close all the windows. In a short time the car will become very hot. How open the windows. It cools off fast, but the sun is still shining in. Why did the car cool down, even in the sun? Answer: Convection.

The IPCC climate models treat the earths atmosphere, at low levels, as a glass enclosure. Bzzzzzt. Wrong! The CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT prevent convection so that both wet and dry adiabatic lapse can occur and the earths atmosphere will eventually radiate its heat out into cold dark space. The CO2 in the atmosphere can slow down the radiation exchange but it can not stop it. So if more and more CO2 is put in the atmosphere the temperature will rise a bit. No more than a 0.1 degree Celsius a decade. Can such a temperature rise trigger off a not so pleasant climate change. Yes. If the ice in the northern hemisphere continues to melt it will dilute the salt content of the oceans and that may inhibit or stop the thermal-halocene conveyor currents (such as the Gulf Stream) If so countries in Northern Europe will experience much colder winters than they do now. It is possible that something like this could trigger off a major cooling spell (in its worst form a reglaciation cycle). More snow. More light reflected, weather gets colder, more snow, more light reflected. Before too too long the glaciers start to form again. Our planet has been through over a dozen major ice ages in the past billion years and about 600,000,000 years ago it might have turned into a snowball with the oceans freezing. There is a potential hazard in rising temperatures. The temperatures are currently rising, but at such a slow rate I do not thing we will see a major hazard in this century. In any case Earth will NOT, I repeat NOT turn into Venus despite what Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson have hinted.

[BaalChatzaf]

Yet another good source of climate data. Have a look at this blog site; http://kavanna.blogspot.com/2007/05/climate-greenhouse-power-of-bad.html

The basic Url is kavanna.blogspot.com.

The paper he posted on the "greenhouse" effect mirrors my view. It is a bad misleading metaphor when applied to earth climate and atmosphere. The reason why a greenhouse gets hot and stays hot (while the sun shines in) is that the glass prevents convection. If the air could rise freely the greenhouse would not be so hot. Here is an experiment you can do yourself. Park you car so that the sun shines in. Close all the windows. In a short time the car will become very hot. How open the windows. It cools off fast, but the sun is still shining in. Why did the car cool down, even in the sun? Answer: Convection.

The IPCC climate models treat the earths atmosphere, at low levels, as a glass enclosure. Bzzzzzt. Wrong! The CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT prevent convection so that both wet and dry adiabatic lapse can occur and the earths atmosphere will eventually radiate its heat out into cold dark space. The CO2 in the atmosphere can slow down the radiation exchange but it can not stop it. So if more and more CO2 is put in the atmosphere the temperature will rise a bit. No more than a 0.1 degree Celsius a decade. Can such a temperature rise trigger off a not so pleasant climate change. Yes. If the ice in the northern hemisphere continues to melt it will dilute the salt content of the oceans and that may inhibit or stop the thermal-halocene conveyor currents (such as the Gulf Stream) If so countries in Northern Europe will experience much colder winters than they do now. It is possible that something like this could trigger off a major cooling spell (in its worst form a reglaciation cycle). More snow. More light reflected, weather gets colder, more snow, more light reflected. Before too too long the glaciers start to form again. Our planet has been through over a dozen major ice ages in the past billion years and about 600,000,000 years ago it might have turned into a snowball with the oceans freezing. There is a potential hazard in rising temperatures. The temperatures are currently rising, but at such a slow rate I do not thing we will see a major hazard in this century. In any case Earth will NOT, I repeat NOT turn into Venus despite what Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson have hinted.

[BaalChatzaf]

On 12/9/2015 at 4:13 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't have the book, Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines, but I did look at the Amazon preview and reviews.

Here's a passage that jumped out at me from a five-star review by a person named Ralph D. Hermansen:

(sigh)

Michael

No sigh.  The climate has warmed up since the end of the last Ice Age with a few cool spells in between.  Muller had done a first rate job getting good data to reach conclusions  and he is not committed to those highly questionable  climate models that the IPCC uses.  Muller does his thing with thermodynamics and sound  statistical methods.  And he does not have an ideological horse in the race.  Human activity is putting a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere and that will cause some warming.  No,  it will not turn Earth into Venus.