Global Warming ie: Climate Change is Science the GOP can’t wish away

Many months ago I posted -EPA denies climate change challenges- that the Climate Scientist Reported: stolen emails undermined the Climate Change Reports.

So I thought it was especially appropriate to include the following email I received from the Alliance to Save Energy-News You Can Use-via New York Times

Before you read the article I have to put my two cents in as I don't feel it takes a report from Climate Scientist to tell me that warmer temperatures are affecting the World.  I use my personal experiences instead and the Climate Scientist's can vouch for my observations.

• I can remember when I was young growing up on the Family Cattle Ranch in North Missouri.  The Winters were long and the Snow Drifts were Huge- (way over my head creating perfect opportunities for Snow Forts and Tunnels in the Back Yard).  
• It seems that the Bad Weather Started in November and Lasted until the month of March (4 months of Brutal Weather).
• Since the early to mid 80's I do not feel we have had extended periods of cold temperatures that keep the snow that falls from thawing out.  
• It seems to me that: the percipitation we now get in our area has more Ice with less Snow and seems to melt within weeks- now seems faster melting times than ever.
• We now know the major cause of the warmed temperatures: Global Warming ie: Climate Change caused by "Exhaust Gases or GHG's Emissions" from using Fossil Fuels from Coal and Oil

So I asked myself- "Why don't the Governments and Politicians of the World act to reduce these GHG Emissions?" I can't speak for the other countries in the World, but I will point out some facts I have been preaching now for months.


The Rich and Powerful Fossil Fuel Industry supports Politicians both Democrat and Republican.  All of which keep the Politicians in-line and in the Pockets of the Coal and Oil Industries- though Donations for Re-Elections, Pet Projects, etc. Read and Research for yourself at: Dirty Energy Money http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=congress

 Global Warming and Climate Change is Science the GOP can’t wish away-  Step away from the Monetary Feed Trough filled by Big Oil and Big Coal  

The National Academy reports concluded that "scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming." Party affiliation does not change that fact. Link Here-http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/all-republicans-in-office-take-heed.html

Now on with the Article via the New York Times- Emphasis Added by Scotty
Scientists Are Cleared Of Misuse Of Data

Feb 25, 2011

by: LESLIE KAUFMAN

An inquiry by a federal watchdog agency found no evidence that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated climate data to buttress the evidence in support of global warming, officials said on Thursday.

The inquiry, by the Commerce Department’s inspector general, focused on e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 (NOAA is part of the Commerce Department). Some of the e-mails involved scientists from NOAA.

Climate change skeptics contended that the correspondence showed that scientists were manipulating or withholding information to advance the theory that the earth is warming as a result of human activity.

In a report dated Feb. 18 and circulated by the Obama administration on Thursday, the inspector general said, “We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data.”

Nor did the report fault Jane Lubchenco, NOAA’s top official, for testifying to Congress that the correspondence did not undermine climate science.

The finding comes at a critical moment for NOAA as some newly empowered Republican House members (see prior post here) seek to rein in the EPA- Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, often contending that the science underpinning global warming is flawed. NOAA is the federal agency tasked with monitoring climate data.

The inquiry into NOAA’s conduct was requested last May by Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, who has challenged the science underlying human-induced climate change. Mr. Inhofe was acting in response to the controversy over the e-mail messages, which were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, a major hub of climate research.

Mr. Inhofe asked the inspector general of the Commerce Department to investigate how NOAA scientists responded internally to the leaked e-mails. Of 1,073 messages, 289 were exchanges with NOAA scientists.

The inspector general reviewed the 1,073 e-mails, and interviewed Dr. Lubchenco and staff members about their exchanges. The report did not find scientific misconduct; it did however, challenge the agency over its handling of some Freedom of Information Act requests in 2007. And it noted the inappropriateness of e-mailing a collage cartoon depicting Senator Inhofe and five other climate skeptics marooned on a melting iceberg that passed between two NOAA scientists.

The report was not a review of the climate data itself. It joins a series of investigations by the British House of Commons, Pennsylvania State University, the InterAcademy Council and the National Research Council into the leaked e-mails that have exonerated the scientists involved of scientific wrongdoing.

NOAA welcomed the report, saying that it emphasized the soundness of its scientific procedures and the peer review process. “None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA’s understanding of climate change science,” Mary Glackin, the agency’s deputy undersecretary for operations, said in a statement.

But Mr. Inhofe said the report was far from a clean bill of health for the agency and that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists “engaged in data manipulation.”

“It also appears that one senior NOAA employee possibly thwarted the release of important federal scientific information for the public to assess and analyze,” he said, referring to an employee’s failure to provide material related to work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a different body that compiles research, in response to a Freedom of Information request.

                                          __________________

Don't let the GOP pull the Wool over your Eyes on the Climate Change Issue-Scotty

__________________

So If you are as sick as I am of the Denial and the GOPs inaction to curtail GHG Emissions.  I encourage everyone to contact your Elected Leaders and tell them: Act to Save Our Planet from Global Warming ie: Climate Change caused mainly by the Exhaust Gases from Fossil Fuels.  For your Convenience You can find your Elected Leaders Information at:

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested #VOTE

Need I mention again that Clean Energy Production will also create JOBS? and Lessen the Demand the US has on Imports of Oil from the Middle East?  It really pisses me off to think about all the prior Service Men and Women who have given so much to protect our Nation from the Damage created from the consumption of OIL, especially from Nations that oppose the Freedoms the USA is best know for.  We can lessen this demand and create Clean Energy Jobs for the USA. 

All Republicans in Office Take Heed-Science the GOP can't wish away

 Global Warming and Climate Change is Science the GOP can’t wish away-  Step away from the Monetary Feed Trough filled by Big Oil and Big Coal

Suggestions for the Republicans in Office:

1. Get with the Program and push yourself away Monetary Feed Trough; supported by the Big Oil and Big Coal Campaign Donations, it is clouding your Judgment on Global Warming / Climate Change.
• The Fog in your Head is being caused by the CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuels
  
• The Donations have Clearly Altered Your Perceptions that: Fossil Fuels are not Destroying our Planet.
• If you think God will save us like Republican John Shimkus-Joke of the Day- Rep J Shimkus believes god will save us from Global Warming-- I'd like to introduce you too Reality- "The World is Warming at an Alarming Rate" see the Following Web Links
  
• global warming (3)
• Global Warming Basics for Research (1)
• Global Warming Research (1)
2. See for Your Self and determine which Politician in your States Elected Officials-  whose side of the Bread gets Buttered by the Big Oil and Big Coal Companies at: http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=congress (Missouri's Roy Blunt made the Top 5.  (That's sure something to be proud of-NOT!))
   
3. If you think the USA does not want Clean Energy for Homes and Business- Take note of the Nov 2, 2010 Election and the Clean Green Energy-http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_%282008%29
4. It obvious that the Republican Party is not interested in Creating Jobs-yet so many Americans are out of Work-WTF?  Is not a portion of your Pay Check created by the Taxes levied against our Pay Checks? Maybe Americans should claim Exempt on their W4's?
   
5. Food For Thought: What if the Political Leaders Pay Checks were determined by the Performance of their Actions or Lack of Actions in the Congress and Senate.  I bet many would be singing a different tune.
   
6. Mark my Words: Lack of Bi-Partisanship  will be a factor in the Next Election
7. Republicans supposedly support Business Growth- How much will a Business Grow if the Un-Employed can't buy any products?
   

I encourage everyone to contact your Leaders in the House and Senate, use the following web link to find your Elected Officials Contact Information and Let them know your Thoughts.  They are supposed to Listen to their Constituents. 

Science the GOP can't wish away

By Sherwood Boehlert

Friday, November 19, 2010 

Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn't help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party's line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.


National Journal reported last month that 19 of the 20 serious GOP Senate challengers declared that the science of climate change is either inconclusive or flat-out wrong. Many newly elected Republican House members take that position. It is a stance that defies the findings of our country's National Academy of Sciences, national scientific academies from around the world and 97 percent of the world's climate scientists.

.

• Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world's top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.

In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and nonpartisan National Academy concluded that "a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems."

• Our nation's most authoritative and respected scientific body couldn't make it any clearer or more conclusive.

When I was chairman of the House Committee on Science, top scientists from around the world came before our panel. They were experts that Republicans and Democrats alike looked to for scientific insight and understanding on a host of issues. They spoke in probabilities, ranges and concepts - always careful to characterize what was certain, what was suspected and what was speculative. Today, climate scientists - careful as ever in portraying what they know vs. what they suspect - report that the body of scientific evidence supporting the consensus on climate change and its cause is as comprehensive and exhaustive as anything produced by the scientific community.

While many in politics - and not just of my party - refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, leaders of some of our nation's most prominent businesses have taken a different approach. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This was no collection of mom-and-pop shops operated by "tree huggers" sympathetic to any environmental cause but, rather, a step by hard-nosed, profit-driven capitalists. General Electric, Alcoa, Duke Energy, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler signed on. USCAP, persuaded by scientific facts, called on the president and Congress to act, saying "in our view, the climate change challenge will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy."

There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem's existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution. The record flooding, droughts and extreme weather in this country and others are consistent with patterns that scientists predicted for years. They are an ominous harbinger.

The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn't stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry - the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity - are exploited for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it's also bad politics.

What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn't deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.

The National Academy reports concluded that "scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming." Party affiliation does not change that fact.


The writer, a Republican, represented New York's 24th District in Congress from 1983 to 2007. He is a special adviser to the Project on Climate Science.


--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http:scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Additional Reading:
Decision Points, Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate

NASAs Climate Change Prediction

How Much More Will Earth Warm?

To further explore the causes and effects of global warming and to predict future warming, scientists build climate models—computer simulations of the climate system. Climate models are designed to simulate the responses and interactions of the oceans and atmosphere, and to account for changes to the land surface, both natural and human-induced. They comply with fundamental laws of physics—conservation of energy, mass, and momentum—and account for dozens of factors that influence Earth's climate.

Though the models are complicated, rigorous tests with real-world data hone them into powerful tools that allow scientists to explore our understanding of climate in ways not otherwise possible. By experimenting with the models—removing greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of fossil fuels or changing the intensity of the Sun to see how each influences the climate—scientists use the models to better understand Earth's current climate and to predict future climate.

The models predict that as the world consumes ever more fossil fuel, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise, and Earth's average surface temperature will rise with them. Based on a range of plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century.

Model simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate that Earth will warm between two and six degrees Celsius over the next century, depending on how fast carbon dioxide emissions grow. Scenarios that assume that people will burn more and more fossil fuel provide the estimates in the top end of the temperature range, while scenarios that assume that greenhouse gas emissions will grow slowly give lower temperature predictions. The orange line provides an estimate of global temperatures if greenhouse gases stayed at year 2000 levels. (©2007 IPCC WG1 AR-4.)

Climate Feedbacks

Greenhouse gases are only part of the story when it comes to global warming. Changes to one part of the climate system can cause additional changes to the way the planet absorbs or reflects energy. These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone. The primary feedbacks are due to snow and ice, water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle.

Snow and ice

Perhaps the most well known feedback comes from melting snow and ice in the Northern Hemisphere. Warming temperatures are already melting a growing percentage of Arctic sea ice, exposing dark ocean water during the perpetual sunlight of summer. Snow cover on land is also dwindling in many areas. In the absence of snow and ice, these areas go from having bright, sunlight-reflecting surfaces that cool the planet to having dark, sunlight-absorbing surfaces that bring more energy into the Earth system and cause more warming.

Canada's Athabasca Glacier has been shrinking by about 15 meters per year. In the past 125 years, the glacier has lost half its volume and has retreated more than 1.5 kilometers. As glaciers retreat, sea ice disappears, and snow melts earlier in the spring, the Earth absorbs more sunlight than it would if the reflective snow and ice remained. (Photograph ©2005 Hugh Saxby.)

Water Vapor

The largest feedback is water vapor. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas. In fact, because of its abundance in the atmosphere, water vapor causes about two-thirds of greenhouse warming, a key factor in keeping temperatures in the habitable range on Earth. But as temperatures warm, more water vapor evaporates from the surface into the atmosphere, where it can cause temperatures to climb further.

The question that scientists ask is, how much water vapor will be in the atmosphere in a warming world? The atmosphere currently has an average equilibrium or balance between water vapor concentration and temperature. As temperatures warm, the atmosphere becomes capable of containing more water vapor, and so water vapor concentrations go up to regain equilibrium. Will that trend hold as temperatures continue to warm?

The amount of water vapor that enters the atmosphere ultimately determines how much additional warming will occur due to the water vapor feedback. The atmosphere responds quickly to the water vapor feedback. So far, most of the atmosphere has maintained a near constant balance between temperature and water vapor concentration as temperatures have gone up in recent decades. If this trend continues, and many models say that it will, water vapor has the capacity to double the warming caused by carbon dioxide alone.

Clouds

Closely related to the water vapor feedback is the cloud feedback. Clouds cause cooling by reflecting solar energy, but they also cause warming by absorbing infrared energy (like greenhouse gases) from the surface when they are over areas that are warmer than they are. In our current climate, clouds have a cooling effect overall, but that could change in a warmer environment.

Clouds can both cool the planet (by reflecting visible light from the sun) and warm the planet (by absorbing heat radiation emitted by the surface). On balance, clouds slightly cool the Earth. (NASA Astronaut Photograph STS31-E-9552 courtesy Johnson space Center Earth Observations Lab.)

If clouds become brighter, or the geographical extent of bright clouds expands, they will tend to cool Earth's surface. Clouds can become brighter if more moisture converges in a particular region or if more fine particles (aerosols) enter the air. If fewer bright clouds form, it will contribute to warming from the cloud feedback.

See Ship Tracks South of Alaska to learn how aerosols can make clouds brighter.

Clouds, like greenhouse gases, also absorb and re-emit infrared energy. Low, warm clouds emit more energy than high, cold clouds. However, in many parts of the world, energy emitted by low clouds can be absorbed by the abundant water vapor above them. Further, low clouds often have nearly the same temperatures as the Earth's surface, and so emit similar amounts of infrared energy. In a world without low clouds, the amount of emitted infrared energy escaping to space would not be too different from a world with low clouds.

Clouds emit thermal infrared (heat) radiation in proportion to their temperature, which is related to altitude. This image shows the Western Hemisphere in the thermal infrared. Warm ocean and land surface areas are white and light gray; cool, low-level clouds are medium gray; and cold, high-altitude clouds are dark gray and black. (NASA image courtesy GOES Project Science.)

High cold clouds, however, form in a part of the atmosphere where energy-absorbing water vapor is scarce. These clouds trap (absorb) energy coming from the lower atmosphere, and emit little energy to space because of their frigid temperatures. In a world with high clouds, a significant amount of energy that would otherwise escape to space is captured in the atmosphere. As a result, global temperatures are higher than in a world without high clouds.

If warmer temperatures result in a greater amount of high clouds, then less infrared energy will be emitted to space. In other words, more high clouds would enhance the greenhouse effect, reducing the Earth's capability to cool and causing temperatures to warm.

See Clouds and Radiation for a more complete description.

Scientists aren't entirely sure where and to what degree clouds will end up amplifying or moderating warming, but most climate models predict a slight overall positive feedback or amplification of warming due to a reduction in low cloud cover. A recent observational study found that fewer low, dense clouds formed over a region in the Pacific Ocean when temperatures warmed, suggesting a positive cloud feedback in this region as the models predicted. Such direct observational evidence is limited, however, and clouds remain the biggest source of uncertainty--apart from human choices to control greenhouse gases—in predicting how much the climate will change.

The Carbon Cycle

Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and warming temperatures are causing changes in the Earth's natural carbon cycle that also can feedback on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. For now, primarily ocean water, and to some extent ecosystems on land, are taking up about half of our fossil fuel and biomass burning emissions. This behavior slows global warming by decreasing the rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase, but that trend may not continue. Warmer ocean waters will hold less dissolved carbon, leaving more in the atmosphere.

About half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air from burning fossil fuels dissolves in the ocean. This map shows the total amount of human-made carbon dioxide in ocean water from the surface to the sea floor. Blue areas have low amounts, while yellow regions are rich in anthropogenic carbon dioxide. High amounts occur where currents carry the carbon-dioxide-rich surface water into the ocean depths. (Map adapted from Sabine et al., 2004.)

See The Ocean's Carbon Balance on the Earth Observatory.

On land, changes in the carbon cycle are more complicated. Under a warmer climate, soils, especially thawing Arctic tundra, could release trapped carbon dioxide or methane to the atmosphere. Increased fire frequency and insect infestations also release more carbon as trees burn or die and decay.

On the other hand, extra carbon dioxide can stimulate plant growth in some ecosystems, allowing these plants to take additional carbon out of the atmosphere. However, this effect may be reduced when plant growth is limited by water, nitrogen, and temperature. This effect may also diminish as carbon dioxide increases to levels that become saturating for photosynthesis. Because of these complications, it is not clear how much additional carbon dioxide plants can take out of the atmosphere and how long they could continue to do so.

The impact of climate change on the land carbon cycle is extremely complex, but on balance, land carbon sinks will become less efficient as plants reach saturation, where they can no longer take up additional carbon dioxide, and other limitations on growth occur, and as land starts to add more carbon to the atmosphere from warming soil, fires, and insect infestations. This will result in a faster increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and more rapid global warming. In some climate models, carbon cycle feedbacks from both land and ocean add more than a degree Celsius to global temperatures by 2100.

Emission Scenarios

Scientists predict the range of likely temperature increase by running many possible future scenarios through climate models. Although some of the uncertainty in climate forecasts comes from imperfect knowledge of climate feedbacks, the most significant source of uncertainty in these predictions is that scientists don't know what choices people will make to control greenhouse gas emissions.

The higher estimates are made on the assumption that the entire world will continue using more and more fossil fuel per capita, a scenario scientists call "business-as-usual." More modest estimates come from scenarios in which environmentally friendly technologies such as fuel cells, solar panels, and wind energy replace much of today's fossil fuel combustion.

It takes decades to centuries for Earth to fully react to increases in greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, among other greenhouse gases, will remain in the atmosphere long after emissions are reduced, contributing to continuing warming. In addition, as Earth has warmed, much of the excess energy has gone into heating the upper layers of the ocean. Like a hot water bottle on a cold night, the heated ocean will continue warming the lower atmosphere well after greenhouse gases have stopped increasing.

These considerations mean that people won't immediately see the impact of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Even if greenhouse gas concentrations stabilized today, the planet would continue to warm by about 0.6°C over the next century because of greenhouses gases already in the atmosphere.

See Earth's Big Heat Bucket, Correcting Ocean Cooling, and Climate Q&A: If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases, would global warming stop? to learn more about the ocean heat and global warming.

Next Page: How Will Global Warming Change Earth? -- Scott's Contracting scottscontracting@gmail.com http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Executive Report: The Executive's Guide to Global Climate Change

Executive Report:
The Executive's Guide to Global Climate Change

Global Climate Change is a growing concern as organizations adjust to ever-changing disclosure mandates, while trying to gain a competitive advantage through implementation of climate strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Towards this end, many organizations are trying to forge ahead utilizing manual processes and disparate legacy systems that only provide limited support for assessment of current conditions and hinder the development of forward looking business strategies.

In today's carbon-constrained environment, companies need information management solutions that generate accurate, verifiable data to meet the demands of regional, national and international standards, directives and regulations, as well as requests for Corporate Social Responsibility reporting for investors and community stakeholders.

Read this paper to learn why a robust information management strategy is needed to support your organization’s overall climate strategy and GHG inventory management plan. Executives now play a vital role in implementing corporate climate strategies, and their role will only become more important as information challenges escalate with supply chain and product lifecycle reporting initiatives that may soon impact your business – and the bottom line.

The Authors

* Jeff Ladner, IHS Director of Global Climate Change Solutions Practices
* Dorney Douglass, Vice President, EH&S Solutions Practices for IHS


Scott's Contracting GREEN BUILDER, St Louis "Renewable Energy" Missouri.http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com, contact scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com for additional information