• Category Archives warming
  • Greenpeace Co-Founder debunk co2 climate fear

    Originally published by Marc Morano – Climate Depot

    Selected Highlights of Dr. Patrick Moore’s Feb. 25, 2014 testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee:

    “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

    Humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing…It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

    Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears:
    ‘When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.’

    On UN IPCC’s 95% confidence in man-made global warming: ‘Extremely likely’ is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

    Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

    What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.”

    Read the full statement here



  • A very cold reality

    Written by Alan Caruba, Cfact.org

    Maybe SuperBowl Sunday will be cold enough to awaken people to the myriad of lies that have kept the climate alarmists’ pockets well lined

    20140301-165821.jpg

    It’s not as if those in the Northeast have not experienced bone-chilling cold or that it is predicted to extend from the Midwest down into our southern States. There may possibly be a snow storm that will require the National Football League to reschedule the Sunday, February 2nd, Superbowl at the MetLife stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. Crews spent 18 hours working to remove the snow from last week’s storm.

    A visit to IceAgeNow.info yielded headlines of news stories last week that included “Record Cold—Millions of Americans hit by Propane Shortage”; “Ice and Snow Closed Texas highways This Morning”; “Ice-cover Shuts Down Work on New Hudson River Bridge” — and so you understand this is a global phenomenon — “Kashmir—Heaviest January Snowfall in a Decade”;“Heavy Snowfall Sweeps Eastern Turkey”; “Romania—Heavy Snowfall and Blizzard”; and “Bangkok Suffers Coldest Night in Three Decades—Death Roll Mounts.”

    20140301-170104.jpg

    Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo of WeatherBell Analytics and editor of http://www.icecap.us says that, as the President addresses the nation on Tuesday, every State will have freezing temperatures and parts or all of 27 States will be below zero.

    All this is occurring as President Barack Obama is anticipated to talk about “climate change,” and a warming Earth, during his Tuesday State of the Union speech. He will be speaking to the idiots who still think the Earth is warming because they are too stupid or lazy to ask why it is so cold.

    Michael Bastasch, writing for The Daily Caller on Saturday, confirmed D’Aleo’s and other meteorologist’s forecasts. “The bitter cold that has hit the U.S. East Coast is expected throughout February, and on Jan 28—the day of the address—the Mid-Atlantic region is expected to be hit with freezing cold air that could drive temperatures below zero in big cities among the I-95 corridor.”

    Washington, D.C. will be one of those cities, but as Bastasch reported, “Environmentalists and liberal groups are urging Obama to use the speech to reaffirm his commitment to fighting global warming. ‘President Obama should rank the battle against climate change as one of his top priorities in his State of the Union speech next week’, said Center for Clean Air Policy president Ned Heime.”

    For environmentalists, it does not matter if the real climate is a deep cold. They committed to the lies about global warming in the late 1980s and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change (IPCC) has maintained the hoax ever since. Along the way we learned that the computer models on which it based its assertions and predictions were rigged and bogus, but that has not deterred the IPCC which is now referring to a “pause” in global warming. This is lying on a global scale.

    It was the environmental group Greenpeace that put out a television advertisement featuring a Santa Claus telling children that he might have to call off Christmas because the North Pole was melting. How malicious can they get? When a group of global warming scientists and tourists took a ship to the Antarctic to measure the “melting” ice down there, the ship got caught in the ice — which also resisted the efforts of two icebreaker ships to rescue them.

    We are dealing with environmental groups, the IPCC, and government leaders like Obama for whom the telling of huge and blatantly obvious lies about global warming is nothing compared to the billions generated by the hoax for the universities and scientists that line their pockets supporting it and industries that benefit by offering ways to capture carbon dioxide or conserve energy by first banning incandescent light bulbs.

    The “pause” has lasted now for17 years and, as is the case with all climate on the Earth, the reason is the Sun.

    20140301-170431.jpg

    A report published by CBN News noted that, “The last time the sun was this quiet, North America and Europe suffered through a weather event from the 1600s to the 1800s known as ‘Little Ice Age’ when the Thames River in London regularly froze solid, and North America saw terrible winters. Crops failed and people starved.”

    Jens Pedersen, a senior scientist at Denmark’s Technical University, said that climate scientists know the Earth stopped warming 15 years ago. But the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which Pedersen is an expert reviewer, suppressed a recent report from its own scientists that the UN’s climate model has been proven wrong.

    “Global warming is nowhere to be found,” said David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Colorado, in a January 16 commentary in The Washington Times. “As frigid conditions settled over the nation, global-warming alarmists went into full denial mode,” adding that “weather extremes also seem to bring out the lunatic fringe.” That is why the public is being told that cold weather has been caused by global warming!

    Whatever the President has to say about “climate change” should be taken as just one more example of 5 years of lies to advance policies that have nothing to do with the welfare of Americans needing jobs or the execrable Obamacare attack on the U.S. healthcare system.

    The cold reality may well be a Superbowl played on another day and a President for whom the truth is incidental to his shredding of the U.S. Constitution, the increase in the nation’s ever-growing debt, a lagging economy, and his intention to bypass Congress rather than working with it.

    That kind of thing will put a chill up any American’s spine if you think about it.

    © Alan Caruba, 2014



  • The Heating and Cooling of the Atmosphere of the Earth

    Written by Karl L. Erdman Ph.D. Professor Emeritus UBC

     

    Abstract:

    The unrealistic picture of the regulation of the temperature of the earth that has led to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has arisen because of a misunderstanding of how the energy arriving from the sun heats the earth. It was postulated that radiation arrives at the surface, heats it, and then the atmosphere is heated from the warmed surface by direct transfer of some of the energy by means of conduction, convection, and evaporation. The majority of the energy was thought to be transferred by radiation which was trapped by the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere in a layer at some distance from the surface. It was then thought to be re-radiated from this layer and equal amounts were radiated outward into space and back to the surface. The surface was postulated to be heated additionally by “backradiation” from this “blanket”. According to the progenitors of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) the surface is heated above the temperature calculated from the simplistic model used to define the black body temperature of the surface. In this note is a short description of what constitutes a black body and explains why the earth is not one and why the presence of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to a drop in the temperature at the surface rather than a rise.

    The detailed description outlines how the energy from the surface is transported to the level at which the radiation temperature measured from space corresponds to the physical temperature measured by the use of radiosondes and how this altitude if determined by energy arriving from the sun. It explains how the fraction of the energy arriving at the surface that is transformed into heat, and does not enter the atmosphere by physical means but leaves the surface by infrared radiation, is converted near to the surface into heat by means of the principal greenhouse gases, water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). The measured results of the variation of the surface temperature with the increased concentration of the “greenhouse gases,” of which water vapor contributes 95% to the so-called greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide only 4%, show that the temperature is lowered with an increase in their concentration rather than raised, and so if we wish to regard it as a blanket, it is an unusual one since it cools rather than heats. The idea that increasing the concentration of CO2 will warm the surface is not only wrong but has been experimentally determined to be a bit of malicious nonsense.

    Although it is not discussed in this note, there is little difficulty in explaining how ice ages could occur with 4000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is an inverse correlation between high levels of it in the atmosphere and the surface temperature.

    The Important Physical Concepts

    The energy to heat the atmosphere arrives principally from the Sun, and the energy removed from it when it cools, is radiated into the cosmos. The average temperature of the surface is determined by a number of physical processes involving the transformation of the energy into various different forms and its storage at various stages of its passage between where it was created in the center of the sun by thermonuclear fusion and its dissipation into the universe after it leaves the surface of the earth. Its passage through the atmosphere is facilitated by radiation, conduction, and convection and temporary storage by the excitation of atoms and molecules into states of higher energy, and /or motion, and the energy stored and released during the changes in the state of the solids, liquids and gases that constitute the outer surface layer of the earth.

    The initial difficulty we have in the description of the process is due to the changes in scale during the description, as we trace the path of the energy flow. As an illustration, if we think of the earth as a solid ball that is about 20 cm in diameter the atmosphere in which everything that we will be considering in this description takes place, from the bottoms of the oceans to the top of the atmosphere, is only a 1/2mm thick layer on the surface of the ball, about the thickness of a coat of paint. Even a big weather event such as a hurricane would only be a spot on this surface layer perhaps 4 mm in diameter. The “rivers” in this surface layer which distribute a lot of energy, such as the jet streams in the atmosphere, or the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean are like thin strings of woolen yarn embedded in the layer.

    The mechanisms for the various methods of energy transfer are seemingly un-related. The way that energy is transferred by radiation requires an understanding of the quantum mechanical description of nature as the energy is transmitted in bundles called photons whose motion is described using formulae governing the passage of electromagnetic waves. Most of the energy that arrives at the earth from the sun is carried by photons and the amount of the energy in an individual photon depends on the frequency of the electromagnetic wave used in the description of its motion. Ultra violet radiation is described by high frequency photons and infra red radiation is described by low frequency photons. The old scientific idea that heat (and cold) was transferred by an invisible fluid called caloric refuses to go away and many of the mistakes made in the description of energy transfer by radiation is the persistence of this description in our thinking, in spite of the fact that it leads us to the wrong conclusions.

    When the theory of atomic structure of the elements was developed, which is now the basis of all chemistry and solid state physics, it completely changed the way that we think about the ways that energy is stored in those bodies in specific discrete amounts. The picture of the energy stored as heat in a gas is due to the kinetic energy of the molecules and so it can change in a more continuous fashion. It has altered the picture of how energy is absorbed and emitted.

    As an example, visible light can pass right trough glass as there are no energy levels in the atoms and molecules in the glass that can accept the specific energy carried by the photons in the visible spectrum. On the other hand carbon in its normal state has all sorts of energy levels that cover the band of energy carried by the visible light and so all photons of varying energy can be absorbed and carbon appears black. We call it a black body. The surface of the earth is not a true black body as 30% of the energy that falls on it is not absorbed but is reflected but many of the physical descriptions of energy transfer can be done using the formulae and ideas developed for black body radiation using the appropriate approximations.

    If we heat up the carbon, we are putting energy into it in the form of heat which is how we describe it as the energy in the motion of the molecules. Atoms and molecules, and indeed the lattice of a crystal, can store energy by being raised into higher states of excitation. The carbon can radiate energy as atoms change from states of higher energy to states of lower energy by emitting photons whose energy is specific to the energy difference between those two states. We detect these photons as electromagnetic radiation and the amount of energy carried by each photon is described by what we call the color of the light. Photons carrying a lot of energy are at the violet end of the spectrum and photons carrying a lot less energy are at the red end of the spectrum.

    If the way the way the carbon atoms are linked together as a solid body is changed those energy levels disappear and then photons can pass through the piece of solid material made of that same element without absorption. We then have a transparent lump of solid carbon which we call a diamond and it is no longer a black body like a lump of coal. In other arrangements when the photon is travelling through a medium it encounters a region where instead of being transmitted without absorption it is reflected or scattered like electromagnetic radiation, also without absorption.

    The Application of the Concepts to Energy Transfer

    The first idea that is an important addition to the above picture is that the surface of the earth is not a black body and the atmosphere surrounding the earth certainly is not as there is no physical association between the molecules and atoms. The emitted radiation comes from various locations that are all at different temperatures, as is also true of the radiation emitted from the sun. All parts of a “truly” black body are all at the same temperature and the spectrum of energies that are emitted has a characteristic shape that is only a function of the temperature at which the energy levels in the body are populated. By looking at the shape of the spectrum we describe its temperature in terms of the equations that are used to define black body radiation and so we say that the body has a certain black body temperature which is measured from absolute zero using the Kelvin temperature scale where the object whose temperature is being measured has no energy whatsoever. Such a region does not exist in our universe except perhaps in black holes which we do not yet completely understand.

    The length of time that the quantized energy is stored in the higher energy levels in the atoms and molecules is very short. The de-excitation time is determined statistically as in all such decay processes described by quantum mechanics. There is a half life associated with the event. The half life is the time for ½ of all of the excited states to decay to lower energy so when an atom or molecule is raised to a state of higher energy by the absorption of a photon it can emit a photon, with the same energy as it absorbed, in a period of time after its absorption determined by the half life of that excited state. For the infra red photons absorbed by the so-called greenhouse gases that time is quite short, the order of a millisecond which is 1 thousandth of a second. The time that the energy can be stored is thus very short, and the idea that “greenhouse gases” store heat as radiation is rubbish.

    But the energy in an excited state can also be lost by heating up another atom or molecule by a collision between the excited atom and one of the other atoms around it, which are a hundred times more numerous. Energy can be transferred from the excited state into kinetic energy of the other atom or molecule in the collision. The transfer can go in either direction but the change in the kinetic energy of the gas molecule has to be exactly right for transferring the energy to the excitation or it won’t take place, just like it was for the photons passing through the materials.

    We can now estimate the length of time required for a collisional de-excitation of an energy level by looking at the collision rate between the molecules. First the speed of molecules in a gas is determined by the temperature and at our normal room temperature is about 400 meters per second. We can also get a rough idea of the average distance between the molecules or atoms since we know that a molar volume contains 6 x 1023 molecules. The distance between two molecules is thus about 0.3 x 10-8 meters and so the time between collisions is about 1 millionth of the length of time it takes for the emission of the radiation from the excited state.

    As a result very little of the infrared radiation that is emitted from the surface of the earth that is absorbed by the “greenhouse gases” is re-radiated. Since these gases have their highest density near the surface of the earth, and 95% of them are molecules of water and only 4% of carbon dioxide, adding a little carbon dioxide will not change the rate very much. Almost all of the energy lost from the surface by radiation is transformed into heat in the oxygen and nitrogen that constitutes 99% of the atmosphere and whose density decreases exponentially with the altitude, as also does the temperature.

    At the surface of the earth, where the collision rate is high, the excited “greenhouse gases” don’t have time to radiate the energy before it is transferred to the oxygen and nitrogen, which cannot radiate it because it is all in the form of heat (the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules). The hot gases then carry the stored energy upwards where the collision rate progressively decreases and more and more energy can escape into space by radiation by the “greenhouse gases” at the rate controlled by the energy transfers that can occur at that temperature and pressure. When the rising gases reach 10 km in height, about half of the energy is being lost by radiation to space. The fractional rate of conversion of the heat to excitation increases as the pressure continues to drop (at 20 km altitude the pressure is 1/20 of its value at the surface) and the temperature is 70° colder.

    The calculated black body temperature of the earth as measured from space is made up of the sum of the spectra emitted at various intensities from various altitudes at which the heat in the gas is transferred to the excitation of the atoms and molecules that do the radiating. There is no real radiating surface and only a small fraction (about 6%) of the infra red radiation leaving the atmosphere comes from a region near the surface where the rate of capture of the higher energy infrared radiation by the “greenhouse gases” is low.

    In his paper entitled Climate Thermodynamics, Claes Johnson outlines how the heat energy captured by the oxygen and nitrogen is distributed throughout the atmosphere. It is here that the third effect that influences the temperature happens. The fractional concentration of all of the gases except water is relatively constant from the surface to a height of 100 km. The molar concentration ratio of water to carbon dioxide decreases from 50:1 to nearer 1:1. The thermodynamic lapse rate of the temperature in the atmosphere is determined by the concentration of water vapor which changes from a value of 5.5°C per kilometer where the humidity is high to 10°C per km at about 10 km in altitude, where it is almost the same as for a dry atmosphere.

    At this altitude called the tropopause another mechanism begins to become important. The energy from the sun carried by the ultra violet end of its pseudo black body spectrum (high energy photons) is augmented by the presence of high energy ions. The energy of the ultra violet photons is sufficiently high that they no longer require vacant energy states in atoms to be captured by the atoms and molecules in the gases as they can ionize atoms. Along with the flux of incoming high energy ions they can be absorbed in the atmosphere at that altitude by producing chemical reactions such as converting oxygen to ozone and producing a large variety of other compounds that aid in the formation of clouds, among other effects. The table shows how the ozone concentration suddenly increases at this altitude.

    Ozone Concentration and Altitude

    The next graph is a collection of all of the parameters describing the properties of the atmosphere from the ground to a height of 100 km at which the atmosphere is considered to have ended. An inspection of this picture shows that the lapse rate that was defined by the thermodynamics of the atmosphere ends at the level called the tropopause. The temperature of the atmosphere no longer is decreasing with the altitude but is steady and even beginning to rise. The altitude at which this happens is determined by the energy that is being deposited by the absorption of the high energy ultra violet photons and the ions being emitted by the sun. We can even see this visually when the surface of the sun is highly active and an unusually large cloud of ions impacts the atmosphere. The radiation emitted by the excited atoms appears in the Technicolor display we call the Aurora Borealis or Aurora Austrialis (or Northern Lights). The green color in the display is due to the radiation from an excited state in Oxygen.

    Atmospheric Properties at Various Heights

    By looking at this graph we can also see that using the temperature at the tropopause as our reference, the temperature at the surface depends on the lapse rate (the line representing the temperature that begins at the tropopause and ends at the surface). For a low lapse rate the temperature at the surface is lower and for a high lapse rate the temperature of the surface is higher.

    The next two graphs of measured lapse rates show how changes in the lapse rates change the temperature at the surface. The altitude at which this happens can be seen on the graphs of the temperature of the atmosphere as a function of altitude measured by radiosondes in different parts of the world, during existing local atmospheric conditions. The first measurements were taken at a location in Australia and shows what happens if there are more “greenhouse gases” near the surface, there is more water vapor in the air on the wet day and the temperature at the ground is lower. In the theory of AGW a small increase in the concentration of CO2 is amplified by an increase of water vapor, and the temperature is supposed to increase. Instead in the measured data the temperature falls when the concentration is increased and the theory of AGW is hopefully dead at last.

    Arid v Humid  Atmospheric Temp Profile

    The measurements displayed of two temperature vs altitude sets of data taken in two different locations in the United States at the same latitudes at the same time is even more illuminating. They show how the surface temperatures are different although they begin at the same temperature at the same high altitude and how this high altitude is the same as it was in Australia. The temperature was lower in Little Rock because the air had a higher humidity than in the desert at Las Vegas. It is easy to understand why jungles are cooler than the deserts just next door particularly if the horizontal and vertical scales in our climate graphs are kept in mind.

    Radiosonde Data Las Vegas v Little Rock

    The last and even more interesting correlation is that of the changes in the average temperature of the climate and the sunspot numbers which is now easy to understand. In the next two graphs we can see the correlation between the changes in the temperature of the earth and the sun spot cycles strength over a 130 year period.

    NOAA NCDC Annual Global Temp Change

     

    Variation of sunspot numbers since 1880

    There is an obvious correlation between the drop in the average temperature of the earth and the low point in the sun spot numbers and the increase in temperature during the high numbers. Historically the last two major cold periods in the climate (the Maunder minimum and the little ice age) were accompanied by a major decrease in the number of sun spots. The sun spot number in this last cycle (not displayed in this graph) is lower then it has been in 100 years and the winter temperatures in Europe have dropped.

    As was discussed above, the height of the tropopause, which determines the altitude at which the lapse rate in the atmosphere begins, and consequently determines the temperature at the surface, is the height from which the average temperature of the earth is defined. Radiosonde measurements show that the height of the tropopause varies as a function of latitude but also is determined by the activity of the sun. This varies from high activity when the sunspot number is high to low activity when the sunspot numbers are low. Not only is the magnitude of the magnetic field of the sun connected to the number of sun spots, which affects the number ions from the sun that can reach the earth, but also the ultra violet flux from the sun is strongly influenced by the sunspot number. The change in level of the atmosphere at which energy from the sun is deposited was discussed above and the evidence for the definition of this altitude is displayed by the measurements of the ozone levels.

    A Quick Review

    The objection to the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), which depends on the transmission of energy by radiation in the atmosphere, has caused much controversy concerning the behavior of the so-called greenhouse gases. It has led to the implementation of draconian policies to attempt to control the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This article describes the physical processes involved in the manner that the energy produced in the sun warms the earth. The supposed trapping of the energy arriving on the earth by “greenhouse gases” is shown only not to lead to incorrect results but to be deficient in accounting for the lack of correlation between the theory and measured temperature variations on the surface of the earth. The theory is clearly wrong as the mechanisms postulated for the transmission and transformation of the energy in the atmosphere contravene the basic laws of both thermodynamics and how energy is transmitted by electromagnet radiation, which are explained in this note.

    The energy flux arriving from the sun is converted into heat in the atmosphere by several different physical processes. It is then distributed throughout the atmosphere according to the laws of thermodynamics used to describe the behavior of the atmospheric gases, which also determine the lapse rate. The relatively small concentration of CO2 has a minor influence in the transformation of the surface radiation into heat in the atmosphere. The lapse rate determines how much the temperature of the atmosphere increases toward the surface from the altitude at which the tropopause begins. The height of the tropopause is determined mainly by the flux of ions and ultraviolet radiation arriving from the sun and their ability to ionize the gases in the atmosphere. The tropopause is the beginning of the altitude in the atmosphere at which the ozone in the atmosphere is created. The height of the tropopause and the lapse rate determine the temperature at the surface.

    The “greenhouse gases” convert the energy carried by the infrared radiation emitted from the surface into heat in the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas (water vapor) that produces 95% of the “greenhouse effect” near the surface is also the component in the atmosphere that sets the lapse rate. The supposed amplification of AGW by the increase in the concentration of water vapor by an increase in the concentration of CO2 is contradicted by the measurements taken by radiosondes of temperature changes in the atmosphere, which clearly show that an increase in the concentration of water vapor causes the temperature of the surface to fall rather than rise.

    The hot blanket of the friends of AGW has been discovered to be a cold blanket by those who took the trouble to go outdoors and take a few measurements. The theory of AGW is dead at last. The science fiction that led to its creation is being exposed. There will be no celebration at the burial. The damage it has done is measured in the hundred of billions of dollars wasted in a futile attempt at correcting a problem that does not exist by raising irrational fears about the use of coal and oil and gas and instituting crash programs for the creation of alternative sources of energy. It has been done by promulgating scenarios of death and destruction by a non existent physical phenomenon and attempting to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a necessary gas for plant growth, and helps in the cooling of the atmosphere rather than warming it. How stupid can we be!



  • A chill in the air for crony climate cash?

    Posted on by admin

    Written by Larry Bell, cfact.org

    While Europeans bail on climate, Washington presses full speed ahead toward the iceberg!

    The past 17 years of flat global temperatures are creating a big chill for lots of global warming doom-premised industries. Those experiencing cold sweats must certainly include legions of climate scientists who have come to depend upon the many tens of billions of taxpayer bucks for studies that would have little demand without a big crisis for the public to worry about….

    20130501-193736.jpg

    Cooler temperatures blow ill winds for government bureaucrats, crony-capitalist rent-seekers, and other hucksters whose ambitions depend upon hot air. Even Western Europe, the cradle of carbon-caused climate craziness and cap-and-trade corruption, is feeling a cold draft. As Alister Doyle, reporting from Reuters in Oslo, recently observed: “Weak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governments’ willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming”….

    Gosh…Where Did All of Those Expensive Climate Models Go Wrong?

    ….There is good reason for this cooling climate consternation. As David Whitehouse at the Global Warming Policy Foundation points out: “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change.” Whitehouse notes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997. He goes on to say: “If the standstill (lower temperatures) continues for a few more years, it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime.” (Since 1997, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 370 ppm to 390 ppm.)

    These observed developments have prompted the U.K.’s Met Office Climate Center (the national weather service) to quietly revise its projections. They now say: “The latest decadal prediction suggests that the next five years are likely to be a little bit lower than predicted from the previous prediction.” The predicted increase from 2013 through 2017 was 0.43º C above the 1971-2000 mean, while the previous prediction said temperature would increase 0.54º C from 2012 through 2016. Simply stated, it will be cooler than they expected!

    The London Daily Mail published a chart that, as they say, “reveals how [the IPCC’s] ’95% certain’ estimates of the Earth heating up were a spectacular miscalculation.” Comparing actual temperatures against the IPCC’s 95% certainty projections, the lines track closely until recent years, at which point the line representing the observed temperatures “is about to crash out of” the boundaries of the lowest projections. They were supposed to climb sharply after 1990.

    Whereas the IPCC has predicted that temperatures will rise by 3º C by 2050 if CO2 doubles from pre-industrialized levels of 1750, The Research Council of Norway plugged in real temperature data from 2000 to 2010 and determined that doubling would cause only a 1.9º C rise. Another study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences links temperature changes from 1750 to natural changes (such as sea temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean) and suggests “…the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of 2 in the second half of the 20th century”….

    Within the past two years, at least seven peer-reviewed studies published in the scientific literature have concluded that the influence of doubling the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is likely to be substantially lower than IPCC has determined and have ruled out the high-end projections.

    James Annan, formerly a strong defender of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed alarmist “hockey stick” graph and an expert on “climate sensitivity” to CO2 and other influences, recently concluded in his blog that the IPCC is increasingly acting in a wholly unscientific manner. He referred to a list of scientists polled as largely constituting “the self-same people responsible for the bogus analyses [he] criticized over the years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now”.

    Annan also said: “Since IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported ‘this is what we think, because we asked our pals’…having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing ‘la la la I can’t hear you’”….

    Well Then, If IPCC Is Wrong, What About Those Recent Heat Waves?

    Reacting to hot temperatures in much of the U.S. last summer, former NASA employee and eternal anti-fossil fuel activist James Hansen warned us that August was “the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet.” Echoing this, Al Gore lamented on his website, “dirty weather is created by “dirty energy” …” a lot of people are saying out loud, ‘I’m too hot!’ “. Even NOAA said that the lower 48 had seen the warmest year on record in 2012.

    Yet as well-known Climate Depot blogger Marc Morano, recognizes: “NOAA can only claim that 2012 was the warmest single year on record through statistical tricks … including “adjusting” raw data and adding data to the overall data set from stations that did not exist when the record first started being recorded. Absent these illegitimate actions, the measured temperatures from the 1930′s still match or exceed the measured temperatures from the 1990′s and 2000′s.”

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, we haven’t heard much in the media about the fact that in June last year, 46 U.S. cities, including some in the Deep South, set or tied record lows … or that Alaska, which isn’t part of the lower 48, has been reporting some of the coldest winters on record since 2000. According to the Alaska Climate Research Center at University of Alaska-Fairbanks, that record has held true for 19 of 20 National Weather Stations sprinkled from one corner of the state to another.

    The New York Times breathlessly reported: ”The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year’s 55.3º F average [in the contiguous United States] demolished the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.” But somehow they didn’t see fit to mention that 2008 was 2º cooler than 2006, or that 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 were all cooler than 1998 by a larger margin than 2012 was hotter than 1998. And, by the way, don’t forget that the U.S. isn’t the globe. Those contiguous states, which omit Alaska and Hawaii, represent only 1.58% of the Earth’s surface.

    During most of the 2011-2012 winter, the Bering Sea witnessed an ice extent between 20% to 30% above the 1979 to 2000 average, with the highest February expanse ever measured. James Taylor reported that Antarctic sea ice also set record, with the largest amount of ice ever recorded occurring on day 256 of the 2012 calendar year. In fact Antarctic sea ice has been growing ever since satellites first began measuring it 33 years ago, and the expanse exceeded the 33-year average throughout 2012.

    Hot and Cold Blasts from the Past; Be Careful What You Wish For

    Much of recent warming alarmism centered upon a temperature trend that began in the 1980′s, occurring less than a decade after our planet came out of a three-decade cooling trend that led many to fear a coming Ice Age. As climatologist Patrick Michaels recalls: “When I was going to graduate school, it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start. I had trouble warming up to that one too.” Referring to recent alarmism, he observes: “This (greenhouse hysteria) is not the first climate apocalypse, but it’s certainly the loudest”….

    It might be worth mentioning that some heavyweight U.S. solar physicists are once again predicting that Planet Earth may very well be heading into a period of protracted cooling due to a lengthy spell of low sunspot activity…potentially another “Little Ice Age”. This announcement that came from scientists at the U.S. National Solar Observatory and U.S. Air Force Laboratory was based upon three different analyses of the Sun’s recent behavior.

    One of the world’s leading solar scientists, Habibiullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian Academy of Sciences Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg and director of the Russian segment of the international Space Station, agrees that Planet Earth may be in for a long cold spell. He points out that deep cold periods have occurred five times over the last 1,000 years. Each is correlated with declines in solar irradiance, much like we are experiencing now.

    Dr. Abdussamatov believes: “A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions. The common view of Man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect.” He predicts that a new Little Ice Age will commence around 2013/2014, the depth of the decline will occur around 2040, and a deep freeze will last for the rest of this century….

    Let’s accept the fact that climate changes for many reasons without permission or help from us…it always has…always will…and not always for the worse. And let’s be skeptical about advice from alarmists who obviously depend upon scare tactics to sell us a hot bill of goods.

    ————–

    Excerpted from Forbes online, April 30, 2013. For the full article, please go to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/30/global-warming-alarm-continued-cooling-may-jeopardize-climate-science-and-green-energy-funding/



  • Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays

    Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere.

    cerncloudres

    Written by Geoff Brumfiel

    It sounds like a conspiracy theory: ‘cosmic rays’ from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe’s high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

    The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.

    For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet’s atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.

    The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.

    Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.

    Polarizing lens

    “People are far too polarized, and in my opinion there are huge, important areas where our understanding is poor at the moment,” says Jasper Kirkby, a physicist at CERN. In particular, he says, little controlled research has been done on exactly what effect cosmic rays can have on atmospheric chemistry.

    To find out, Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD). The team fills a custom-built chamber with ultrapure air and chemicals believed to seed clouds: water vapour, sulphur dioxide, ozone and ammonia. They then bombard the chamber with protons from the same accelerator that feeds the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s most powerful particle smasher. As the synthetic cosmic rays stream in, the group carefully samples the artificial atmosphere to see what effect the rays are having.

    Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

    Scientists on both sides of the debate welcome the findings, although they draw differing conclusions. “Of course there are many things to explore, but I think the cosmic-ray/cloud-seeding hypothesis is converging with reality,” says Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, who claims a link between climate change and cosmic rays.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Others disagree. The CLOUD experiment is “not firming up the connection”, counters Mike Lockwood, a space and environmental physicist at the University of Reading, UK, who is sceptical. Lockwood says that the small particles may not grow fast enough or large enough to be important in comparison with other cloud-forming processes in the atmosphere.

    “I think it’s an incredibly worthwhile and overdue experiment,” says Piers Forster, a climatologist at the University of Leeds, UK, who studied the link between cosmic rays and climate for the latest scientific assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change. But for now at least, he says that the experiment “probably raises more questions than it answers”.

    Kirkby hopes that the experiment will eventually answer the cosmic-ray question. In the coming years, he says, his group is planning experiments with larger particles in the chamber, and they hope eventually to generate artificial clouds for study. “There is a series of measurements that we will have to do that will take at least five years,” he says. “But at the end of it, we want to settle it one way or the other.”

    • References
    1. Kirkby, J. et al. Nature 476, 429-433 (2011). | Article |


  • Cold kills more than heat & the Hockey Stick that wasn’t

    Posted on by admin

    Morano appeared on Canda’s Sun TV to discuss why winter cold is killing many times more Britons than heat. He also addresses the stunning admission that a widely publicized study claiming unprecedented warming in the past 100 years was not “statistically robust”–another way of admitting that their conclusions are scientifically baseless.



  • Cooling, not warming, kills civilizations!

    Posted on by admin

    The historical record is both clear and consistent: civilizations build during warming, fall apart during cooling.

    Written by

    Author Eugene Linden writes books on the far edge of the environmental movement. He recently wrote, a bit hysterically, in The Daily Beast: “we need leaders with the courage to steamroll the deniers and the vested interests . . . Climate change is a civilization killer, and if we go on down the climate rapids…” I am not sure what “steamrolling” entails; but I do know, that the warmer periods are the civilization savers.

    Clearly, Linden knows exactly nothing about the forces that have killed off every culture prior to our own—most of them for centuries at a time and many of them permanently. With few exceptions, the hundreds of failed cultures collapsed in the “little ice age” phases of the natural 1,500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycle. No one has dared disagree on that.

    Did the Greenland Vikings die out during the warmth of the Medieval Warming, or did they disappear after the arrival of the Little Ice Age, when vicious winter temperatures fell more than 4° C? Even the Inuit disappeared!

    Did the Viking raiders terrify Europe for 250 years during the long warmth of the climatically stable Roman Warming—or during the advancing sea ice and the desperate drop in Scandinavia’s codfish catch during the Dark Ages that followed?

    Egypt’s fabulous Nile River culture has been regarded as humanity’s most sustainable—but the Old Kingdom collapsed for centuries at 2200 BC, the Middle Kingdom again collapsed for more centuries at 1640 BC, and the New Kingdom fell in desperate famine at 1085 BC. Each collapse period marked the onset of a “little ice age” when the Nile floods failed.

    The fabulous temples and their supporting rice culture at Angkor Wat collapsed twice. They built a thriving culture during Roman Warming and lost everything to the Dark Ages. During the Medieval Warming the temples we see today were built; the civilization disappeared forever during the Little Ice Age. The great cathedrals of Europe and the Sun Temple in India were also built during the Medieval Warming.

    The Fordham University Medieval Sourcebook estimates the population of Europe at 27 million during the Roman Warming, 18 million during the Dark Ages, 73.5 million in the Medieval Warming, and 50 million during the Little Ice Ages. Tell us again what kills civilizations, Mr. Linden.

    Warming always brings more vegetation, which in ancient history meant more game animals for the hunting bands. Warming produced long, sunny summers and lots of grain as civilization settled into farming—until the famines of the next little ice age.

    The warmings and coolings of our 1500-year cycle last only about 500–750 years. But Mother Earth’s most “recent” long-term warming was called the Holocene Optimum. It lasted from 9,000–5,000 BC, with the Arctic about 4 degrees C warmer than today, and Siberian winters 3–9 degrees warmer than today. The Arctic Ocean was virtually ice-free, according to the Norwegian Geological Survey. Glaciers melted in the Alps and the Andes, and both the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps show the shift. Now that is a warming, and all the species living today went through it.

    Oddly enough, NOAA is on record now saying, “In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven“astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”

    Can we ask “why not?” Dr. Phil Jones, the man-made warmist guru from Britain’s University of East Anglia told the BBC that the global warmings during 1860–1880 and 1915–1940 were not caused by CO2 (which didn’t surge until after 1940). He says only the 1976–1998 warming was man-made—then he admits that the three periods are “statistically indistinguishable.”

    So how do we know that the sun, which causes our days and nights, our summers and winters, and our 90,000-year Ice Ages, and 4,000-year warmings does not also control the 1,500-year climate cycle? Seabed sediments show the cycle goes back at least one million years!

    Did the sun that warmed us up from the Little Ice Age suddenly take a vacation about 1975—and if so, why?

     



  • Global Warming was never about climate change!

    “Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” – IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer

    Written by Larry Bell

    20130223-024124.jpg

    President Obama has put salvation from dreaded climate catastrophes on his action agenda hot list. During his second inaugural address he said: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagrees with this assessment, saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

    This sort of scary presidential prognostication isn’t new. He previously emphasized at the Democratic National Convention that global warming was “not a hoax,” referred to recent droughts and floods as “a threat to our children’s future,” and pledged to make the climate a second-term priority.

    As much as I hate to nit-pick his doomsday scenarios, it might be appropriate to correct a few general misconceptions before getting back to that “overwhelming judgment of science” stuff.

    Regarding wildfires, for example, their numbers since 1950 have decreased globally by 15%. According to the National Academy of Sciences, they will likely continue to decline until around mid-century.

    As for those droughts, a recent study published in the letter of the journal Nature indicates that globally, “…there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.” And as the UN Climate panel concluded last year: “Some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”

    Also, by the way, global hurricane activity, measured in total energy (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), is actually at a low not encountered since the 1970s. In fact, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century. Wilma, the last Category 3 or stronger storm, occurred more than seven years ago.

    But supposing these recent circumstances were different … because after all, climate really does change. Even virtually all of those whom the President claims “deny” that “overwhelming science” recognize this. (If climate didn’t change, would we even need a word for it?)

    The larger issue has to do with just how many of those who stoke the global warming alarm fires have real confidence in that “science.” So let’s briefly review just a few candid comments that some of them have offered on this topic. These are but a very small sampling of my favorites.

    How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas

    The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.

    Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

    Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the UN Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

    Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

    In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

    Speaking at the 2000 UN Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

    How Some Key IPCC Researchers View Their Science

    For starters, let’s begin with two different views by some of the same researchers that are reported in the same year regarding whether there is a discernible human influence on global climate.

    First, taken from a 1996 IPCC report summary written by B.D. Santer, T.M.L Wigley, T.P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba: “…there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols…from geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change…These results point towards human influence on climate.”

    Then, a 1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this: “Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic [human] signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it with…general [climate] circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected.”

    In other words, these guys, several of whom you will hear from later, can’t say with confidence whether or not humans have had any influence at all…or even if so, whether it has caused warming or cooling!

    IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

    The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

    Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journalNature.com, admitted: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

    Christopher Landsea, a top expert on the subject of cyclones, became astounded and perplexed when he was informed that Trenberth had participated in a 2004 press conference following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season which had announced, “Experts warn that global warming [is] likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Since IPCC studies released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a global warming-hurricane link, and there was no new analysis to suggest otherwise, he wrote to leading IPCC officials imploring: “What scientific, refereed publications substantiate these pronouncements? What studies alluded to have shown a connection between observed warming trends on Earth and long-term trends of cyclone activity?”

    Receiving no replies, he then requested assurance that the 2007 report would present true science, saying: “[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have come to a conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community.” After that assurance didn’t come, Landsea, an invited author, resigned from the 2007 report activity and issued an open letter presenting his reasons.

    Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments

    A note from Jones to Trenberth: “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.”

    Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews: “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”

    Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”

    Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

    Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

    A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

    A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

    Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

    Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

    Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

    Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…”

    In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

    Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

    Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

    One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

    The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science

    As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed onFox Business News in January 2011: “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”

    When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”

    Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, The Population Bomb, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”

    Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well-intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.

    The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill.”

    Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.

    It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.



  • 16 years without warming

    December 1, 2012 by Lord Christopher Monckton

    DELEGATES at the 18th annual UN climate gabfest at the dismal, echoing Doha conference center – one of the least exotic locations chosen for these rebarbatively repetitive exercises in pointlessness – have an Oops! problem.

    No, not the sand-flies. Not the questionable food. Not the near-record low attendance. The Oops! problem is this. For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming. At all. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

    20121202-091724.jpg

    The equations of classical physics do not require the arrow of time to flow only forward. However, observation indicates this is what always happens. So tomorrow’s predicted warming that has not happened today cannot have caused yesterday’s superstorms, now, can it?

    That means They can’t even get away with claiming that tropical storm Sandy and other recent extreme-weather happenings were All Our Fault. After more than a decade and a half without any global warming at all, one does not need to be a climate scientist to know that global warming cannot have been to blame.

    Or, rather, one needs not to be a climate scientist. The wearisomely elaborate choreography of these yearly galah sessions has followed its usual course this time, with a spate of suspiciously-timed reports in the once-mainstream media solemnly recording that “Scientists Say” their predictions of doom are worse than ever. But the reports are no longer front-page news. The people have tuned out.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.

    IPeCaC is about to churn out yet another futile tome. And how will its upcoming Fifth Assessment Report deal with the absence of global warming since a year after the Second Assessment report? Simple. The global-warming profiteers’ bible won’t mention it.

    There will be absolutely nothing about the embarrassing 16-year global-warming stasis in the thousands of pages of the new report. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

    Instead, the report will hilariously suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade.

    No, that is not a typesetting error. The new official meme will be that if it had not been for all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s. Yeah, right.

    If you will believe that, as the Duke of Wellington used to say, you will believe anything.

    The smarter minds at the conference (all two of us) are beginning to ask what it was that the much-trumpeted “consensus” got wrong. The answer is that two-thirds of the warming predicted by the models is uneducated guesswork. The computer models assume that any warming causes further warming, by various “temperature feedbacks”.

    Trouble is, not one of the supposed feedbacks can be established reliably either by measurement or by theory. A growing body of scientists think feedbacks may even be net-negative, countervailing against the tiny direct warming from greenhouse gases rather than arbitrarily multiplying it by three to spin up a scare out of not a lot.

    20121202-092435.jpg

    IPeCaC’s official prediction in its First Assessment Report in 1990 was that the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.

    But the real-world, measured outturn was 0.14 Cº/decade, and just 0.3 Cº in the quarter of a century since 1990: less than half of what the “consensus” had over-predicted.

    In 2008, the world’s “consensus” climate modelers wrote a paper saying ten years without global warming was to be expected (though their billion-dollar brains had somehow failed to predict it). They added that 15 years or more without global warming would establish a discrepancy between real-world observation and their X-boxes’ predictions. You will find their paper in NOAA’s State of the Climate Report for 2008.

    By the modelers’ own criterion, then, HAL has failed its most basic test – trying to predict how much global warming will happen.

    Yet Ms. Christina Figurehead, chief executive of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, says “centralization” of global governing power (in her hands, natch) is the solution. Solution to what?

    And what solution? Even if the world were to warm by 2.2 Cº this century (for IPeCaC will implicitly cut its central estimate from 2.8 Cº in the previous Assessment Report six years ago), it would be at least ten times cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to warming’s consequences the day after tomorrow than to try to prevent it today.

    It is the do-nothing option that is scientifically sound and economically right. And nothing is precisely what 17 previous annual climate yatteramas have done. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.

    This year’s 18th yadayadathon will be no different. Perhaps it will be the last. In future, Ms. Figurehead, practice what you preach, cut out the carbon footprint from all those travel miles, go virtual, and hold your climate chatternooga chit-chats on FaceTwit.