Climate Change Criminals – Its Heads On Poles Time
February 16, 2011 by Tory Aardvark
The great Anthropogenic Global Warming scam was never, at anytime about anything other than wealth redistribution and one world socialist government. The whole Global Warming fairy tale was a simple smoke and mirrors exercise to redistribute wealth, and allow a few unelected people to attain great wealth and power, while removing centuries of hard won democratic freedoms in the name of solving a non-existent crisis.
Climategate and more recently the global collapse of the Green industry bubble have all but destroyed the Church of Climatology. The remaining warming alarmists and their NGO’s like Greenpeace and the WWF are trying a combination of nothing to see here, and business as usual, all the while attempting to smear anyone who does not believe their lies.
The warming alarmists sound increasingly more desperate with each passing day, and rightly so. The Republican success in the US Mid Term Elections in November heralded the announcement that there would investigations in to the so called Climate Science and the GOP wanted “Heads on Poles“.
The idea of accountability, sorry but heads on poles sounds so much better is beginning to catch on around the world, and yes Phil Jones you should be feeling nervous, what happens today in the US, normally happens tomorrow in Britain.
Real science looks at the data corruption with NASA, James Hansen and GISS and how the temperature record has been adjusted to show a warming that simply isn’t there. Real science aptly says “In industry, people would be prosecuted for this sort of blatant shenanigans“. Let’s hope in climate science they are prosecuted.
Jo Nova publicises the formal request for both the BOM and the CSIRO to be audited. With both the BOM and CSIRO having an appalling track record of artificially adjusting the data again to show a non existent warming and making spurious claims about the environment that are far from reality – it is about time they are called to account.
Suite 101 reports; “In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate,New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud“. Yet NIWA continues it’s global warming alarmism claiming the ‘warmest month ever‘ though it seems finally and rationally (and probably prudently) they are holding back on blaming ‘global warming’ and instead are making the sensible claim that it is actually due to the natural, known climate cycle of La Nina.
Yet in the ongoing Climategate/Michale Mann fraud investigation by Cuccinelli Politicians are trying to change the law to thwart the investigation. Shows you how low some senators will sink and what disregard they have for the truth or the law. In other areas politicians are trying to shut down investigations from commissions into government fraud, not that different to an Australian State government dissolved parliament to try and avoid investigation for corruption before an election.
The whole climategate debacle is summed up well by Dr John Costello when he says;
“It is right for scientists to worry about whether that massive and almost instantaneous “kick” to the planet may throw the equilibrium of the biota into complete chaos. It is a valid question, of ultimate global importance—one that most people would have thought would have demanded the most careful, exacting, and rigorous scientific analyses that mankind could muster.
Climategate has shattered that myth. It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their “old boys’ club”, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research”.
H/T Twaki.com
It is worth clicking the link this is a superbly researched article with many links to back up all the points raised.
Nothing symbolises the warming alarmist more than the wind turbine, the supposed source of limitless carbon free (if you ignore manufacture, transportation and erection) electricty.
As the whole AGW scam collapses there are little islands of Climate Religion left, Greenpeace and the WWF are trying business as usual; which these days is starting to look more like the band playing on the Titanic with every passing day. In Britain we have our own little island, its goes by the name of Attila the Huhnatic and publicly he continues to espouse the virtues of Climate Religion, while covertly with little publicity Huhne is cutting the life blood of Climate Religion in Britain, the Quango and the feed in tariff.
Huhne is lagging behind the rest of the world, who are leaving Green investment faster than rats leaving the sinking SS Warming Alarmist
The true state of global confidence and investment in the so called Green industries is best described by John O Sullivan in this post from his blog:
Governments, investors and even the World Bank are rushing for the exits in the Great Escape from the green energy bubble.
Solar energy appears to be the worst affected sector so far. Dow Jones reports on a startling U-turn by Britain’s ultra-green government has caught investors off guard and shock waves across the markets will likely precipitate the further rush from green energy projects to shale gas.
The UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change made the shock announcement as it revealed a comprehensive review of its Feed-in Tariff (FIT) program. Indications from data provider, Prequin are that over $1bn in earmarked funds may be lost as Britain now promises it will only hold tariffs until April 2012.
Green Investors Feeling Betrayed by European Governments
Britain’s decision is another nail in the coffin for Europe’s tottering green energy market. Last year the first of several crushing body blows was dealt to environmentalist dreams when the Spanish government retrospectively cut the value of its tariffs in its own U-turning energy review.
The devastated Spanish Solar Photovoltaic Industry Association, with mass bankruptcies on the cards, is accusing their government of utter betrayal is yet to carry out a threat to sue over the ruling.
As the green house of cards collapses Netherlands-based investment manager DIF and BNP Paribas and venture capitalists such as Future Capital Partners are rumored to be extremely fearful of further repercussions coming at a time when European public opinion is bored and fatigued after two decades of endless global warming hype.
UK Energy Minister Charles Hendry made the starkly ominous admission, “one third of Britons think the science on climate change has been exaggerated.”
Not helping the green cause has been a succession of brutally cold Northern hemispheric winters which an increasing number of scientists fear may be the harbinger of the onset of a mini-ice age.
Abundance of Shale Gas Deflates Green Energy Bubble
Causing green lobbyists and environmentally focused investors to cry bitter into their carrot juice comes the news that China is making its move to become pre-eminent in shale gas investment.
Peter Foster in the Financial Post (February 11, 2011) reports that energy company Encana is to get a proposed $5.4-billion investment by PetroChina in its shale gas operations. The move he says “confirms the soaring importance of a resource that 10 years ago was hardly on the commercial map.”
The market obviously liked the news of the Chinese investment as Encana shares jumped 4.5% to close at $32.02.
Savvy shale gas investors are also looking most eagerly at Canada where the discovery that Quebec has considerable shale gas potential has dealt another blow to the idea that the world’s energy resources are anywhere near a so-called “peak.”
A strident Quebec Oil and Gas Association has hired former Parti Quebecois premier Lucien Bouchard to help lobby for provincial development to exploit the unexpected huge find.
With so many known large deposits of shale gas in countries such as Poland, Germany, France and the U.K. economic strategists are finally waking up to the fact that this monumental new resources could help free Europe from the threat of disruptions from its main natural gas supplier, Russia.
Andrew Orlowski reporting for ‘The Register’ (February 10, 2011) reveals Holland has also joined the rush away from green by becoming the first country to abandon the EU-wide target of producing 20 per cent of its domestic power from renewables. The Dutch are now putting their long-term faith in nuclear. Netherland’s only nuclear reactor, the Borssele plant, scheduled for closure by 2003 is now planned to operate at least until 2034.
World Bank Joins Rush Away from the Green White Elephant
Top line international bankers also appear to be abandoning ‘big green’ according to a report by climate scientist Roger Pielke Jr. who highlights two recent research papers published by influential thinkers inside the World Bank.
Economics papers by Robert Mendelsohn and Gokay Saher (here in PDF) and Medelsohn, Kerry Emanuel and Shun Chonabayashi (here in PDF) chop the legs from under the pro-green Stern Review (2007) and affirm that no human impact may be inferred on global climate.
With economists plainly joining an increasing number of scientists in global warming skepticism its little wonder there’s now a mass flight away from ‘renewables;’ such that both investors and governments are compelled to follow suit in the clearest indication yet that green energy won’t live up to its promises.
The key to long-term economic success now appears to be safely premised once again on solid market innovation, not ideologically driven government subsidies; such subsidized ventures have a long and notorious history as lame duck enterprises. It seems ‘green renewables’ has become the latest of these white elephants.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/3/the-third-world-ambiti on-of-the-uk.html _________________ "Soon after the year 2000 has been written, a law will go forth from America whose purpose will be to suppress all individual thinking. This will not be the wording of the law, but it will be the intent" Rudolf Steiner: Gegenwärtiges und Vergangenes in Menschengeiste (The Present and the Past in the Human Spirit)
David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam
Dr David Evans’ address to the Anti-Carbon-Tax rally, Perth Australia, 23 March 2011.
Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.
Let’s set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid 1990s.
At this point official “climate science” stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.
But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade – yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected”. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.
One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%! The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site, sciencespeak.com. Look at the photos, and you’ll never trust a government climate scientist again.
They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results “global” warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.
Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off.
So it’s a question of trust.
If it really is warming up as the government climate scientists say, why do they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results? And why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources? This is so obviously a scam now.
So what is really going on with the climate?
The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 – 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.
We are now at an extraordinary juncture.
Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!
A carbon tax?
Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the stone age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold – in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!
Sorry, but you’ve been had.
Finally, to those of you who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes carbon dioxide a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.
——————————————————————— ————
Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.
Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science
posted at 6:00 pm on May 15, 2011 by Bruce McQuain
David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.
And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.
The politics:
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet. But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that is false.
The science:
But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]
But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.
The modeling:
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions. Earlier this year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing.
For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data.
Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen reached:
At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:
We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!
Indeed. How extraordinarily unexciting for the proletariat who will be the ones stuck with the bill if these governments ever succeed in finding a way to pass the taxes they hope to impose and extend even more government’s control over energy.
While you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. They’re going to try to punish an industry that is vital to our economy and national security, and much of the desire to do that is based on this false “science” that has been ginned up by government itself as an excuse to control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its use and to pick winners and losers. All based on something which is, according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false.
–
Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington Examiner and the Green Room. Follow him on Twitter: @McQandO
It's time this Government grew up over climate change, says Nigel Lawson
By Political Reporter
Last updated at 4:07 AM on 11th June 2011
The Coalition’s obsession with climate change is damaging Britain’s recovery from recession, former Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson warns today.
Writing in the Daily Mail, Lord Lawson delivers a scathing assessment of David Cameron’s so-called ‘green agenda’ and says it is ‘time this Government grew up’.
Lord Lawson, one of the most respected Tory figures of recent decades, accuses the Prime Minister of risking Britain’s economy to make a ‘symbolic’ point.
In a devastating verdict he writes: ‘The Government’s highly damaging decarbonisation policy, enshrined in the absurd Climate Change Act, does not have a leg to stand on. It is intended, at massive cost, to be symbolic: To make good David Cameron’s ambition to make his administration “the greenest government ever”.
‘My dictionary defines green as “unripe, immature, undeveloped”.’
His comments came after former Civil Service chief Lord Turnbull accused ministers and officials of pandering to global warming ‘alarmists’ and piling huge, unnecessary costs on ordinary families.
Lord Lawson, Chancellor under Margaret Thatcher, goes further today, saying that plastering Britain with wind farms will push up bills to families and businesses without producing any real benefits. The switch to ‘low-carbon’ energy is expected to add £200 to annual energy bills.
He writes: ‘This price increase would be economically damaging at the best of times; and these are not the best of times.’
And he warns the harm to business could be greater still, adding: ‘The economy is already recovering from the recession.
‘However, there is indeed a threat to that recovery and the bitter irony is that this is of the Government’s own making.
‘It is its so-called climate change policy of ‘decarbonising’ the British economy.’
He says it is ‘highly uncertain’ that higher carbon emissions will warm the planet to a dangerous extent and warns it is ‘futile folly’ for Britain to act alone when its emissions are two per cent of the global total.
Last weekend, some 52 (for the most part little known) economists signed a letter to the Observer newspaper calling on the Government to retreat from its commendably firm determination to reduce substantially, during the lifetime of this Parliament, the appalling budget deficit it inherited.
I am reminded of my own time as a Treasury Minister when, in March 1981, no fewer than 364 (rather better known) economists signed a letter to the Times claiming that ‘present policies will deepen the recession, erode the industrial base of our economy and threaten its social and political stability’ and should be abandoned forthwith.
In fact, from that moment, the economy embarked on eight years of uninterrupted growth.
I have no doubt that Chancellor George Osborne will, rightly, ignore the bad advice of the 52, just as we did of the 364. And indeed the International Monetary Fund has sensibly encouraged him to stand firm.
The economy is already recovering, slowly but incontrovertibly, from the recession.
The Government's obsession with green energy could cost the country billions - and scupper its economic recovery
However, there is a threat to that recovery — and the bitter irony is that this is of the Government’s own making.
It is not the very necessary reduction and eventual elimination of the budget deficit. It is the Government’s so-called climate-change policy of ‘decarbonising’ the British economy — the replacement of carbon-based energy with substantially more expensive non-carbon energy, in particular wind power.
The ostensible purpose of this policy is to prevent what is customarily described as catastrophic global warming.
Now, there are at least two major problems with this.
The first, as more and more eminent scientists are finding the courage to point out (the most recent being the distinguished physicist Professor William Happer of Princeton University), is that it is far from clear that there is a serious problem — let alone a catastrophic one — of global warming at all.
My think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has just published a devastating analysis by the former Head of the Civil Service, Lord Turnbull, demanding that politicians ‘stop frightening us and our children’ about the threat of global warming. He calls on Whitehall and ministers to consider the damaging economic impact of blindly following the ‘climate-change agenda’.
While it is scientifically established that increased emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the use of carbon-based energy, such as coal, oil and gas, can be expected to warm the planet, it is uncertain how great any such warming would be, and how much harm, if any, it would do.
The second major problem with the British Government’s policy is that even if it were thought to be desirable to cut back drastically on carbon emissions, this can have an effect only if it is done globally.
For the UK, responsible for 2 per cent of global emissions, to go it alone is futile folly.
And the complete failure of the UN-sponsored environment jamborees — in Cancun last year and Copenhagen the year before — to achieve a global decarbonisation agreement clearly shows that this is not happening and, in my judgment, is not going to happen.
China, the biggest global emitter, has made it clear that it will not accept any restraint on its use of carbon-based energy, as has India. (The annual increase in China’s emissions, incidentally, is greater than the UK’s total emissions.) And the U.S., the second-largest emitter, has made it clear that without China and India on board, there is no prospect of the U.S. signing up to anything.
The plain fact is that the world relies on carbon-based energy simply because it is by far the cheapest available source of energy and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
The major developing countries, in particular, are understandably unwilling to hold back their development and condemn their people to avoidable poverty, by moving from relatively cheap energy to relatively expensive energy.
Yet this is precisely what the present UK Government is committed to.
Alone in the world, we have on our statute book a Climate Change Act. This commits us, unilaterally, to a legally binding process which is already well under way. And eventually — by 2050 — we will have near-total decarbonisation, by switching to an ever more expensive mix of ‘green’ energy sources.
To achieve this, the Government has introduced a range of measures, notably the renewables obligation, which requires electricity suppliers to buy a proportion of their power from renewable sources, chiefly wind power, at huge cost, which is then loaded onto all electricity bills.
Then there are the so-called feed-in tariffs, under which a greatly inflated price is paid to wind-farm owners and others who supply renewable energy to the grid — and again loaded onto our electricity bills.
China, the biggest global emitter and home to this coal-fired power plant, has made it clear that it will not accept any restraint on its use of carbon-based energy
On top of this, there are a number of other price-inflating measures, such as the so-called ‘carbon floor price’ (a commitment to ensure that the price of conventional energy stays high and goes higher, by means of a government levy on firms generating electricity based on the amount of CO2 they produce), which are yet to take effect.
What is doubly unacceptable, however, is that the public is being made to pay for this by stealth. This is why, in the cause of proper transparency, our electricity suppliers should be made to reveal in our utility bills the extent of this hidden tax element, which is costing families an average of £200 more a year.
This price increase would be economically damaging at the best of times; and these are not the best of times. And the damage is all the more serious when other countries are not doing the same.
In recent weeks, spokesmen for both the Engineering Employers’ Federation and the Energy Intensive Users’ Group have warned of investment and jobs going overseas, where energy costs are lower.
They have been joined by spokesmen for the chemical industry and the UK head of Tata Steel (Britain’s largest steelmaker, the former British Steel), which has already announced substantial lay-offs in the UK, partly for this reason. And this week the CBI, at long last, voiced its deep concern.
Stealth: A hidden tax element in electricity bills is costing families an average of £200 more a year
It is curious, to say the least, that a government that came to power saying it wished to rebalance the economy to rely less on financial services and more on manufacturing should be determined to impose the most anti-manufacturing energy policy of any government in British history.
This policy, incidentally, will also greatly exacerbate the problem of ‘fuel poverty’ (officially defined as the number of people who are obliged to spend more than 10 per cent of their household income on fuel), as the charity Age UK has pointed out.
The Government needs all the political support it can get to carry through its economic policies. Its disastrous ‘green’ energy policy can only undermine that support.
The Coalition likes to boast, as did its Labour predecessor which initiated this damaging policy, that the UK is the only country in the world to impose severe and legally binding carbon reduction requirements on its economy.
While this claim is well-founded, ministers might do well to ask themselves why the UK is the only country to do this. The answer, of course, is that no other country has the slightest intention of incurring such pointless and self-inflicted economic harm.
If there is one crumb of comfort, it is that this unilateralism could at last be partially modified.
The Government is reviewing its emissions policy in early 2014 relative to the rest of Europe - but the rest of the world matters too
When the latest set of carbon reduction commitments were announced, the Government conceded, at the insistence of an increasingly worried Treasury, that the matter would be reviewed in early 2014 in the light of what the rest of Europe is doing on this front.
But as the CBI this week pointed out, that is not good enough. First, because a great deal of damage can be done to our still-fragile economy between now and 2014; and, second, because it is not just the rest of Europe that matters but the rest of the world — notably China, the U.S. and India.
The only sensible course would be to suspend this damaging policy, here and now, until such time as a legally binding global agreement has been secured. Meanwhile, as opinion polls show the British people becoming increasingly sceptical of climate-change alarmism, ministers have started to advance two other justifications for this highly damaging policy, both of them entirely bogus.
They claim, first, that policies to promote the replacement of carbon-based energy by (substantially more expensive) renewable energy, notably wind power, will bring great benefit to the British economy and in particular create millions of so-called ‘green jobs’.
This is economic illiteracy of the worst order. As the great 19th-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat pointed out, if jobs are your yardstick, you might as well go round breaking windows so as to create jobs for glaziers.
The former energy secretary says it is time that David Cameron's Government
All the Government is doing is creating uneconomic jobs that require an ever-increasing subsidy at the expense of genuinely productive jobs requiring no subsidy at all.
To engineer, at great cost, a switch from the production of relatively cheap carbon-based energy to very much more expensive renewable energy, may arguably be justified (although I disagree) on climate-change grounds. But it cannot possibly be justified on either employment or broader economic grounds.
The second additional justification the Government gives for abandoning carbon-based energy is ‘energy security’, either on the grounds that the world is fast running out of fossil fuels, or that it would be strategically unwise to depend on an unstable Middle East or an unreliable Russia for our energy needs.
Both these reasons are baseless, and always have been; but this has never been clearer than it is today. I remember when I was Energy Secretary, 30 years ago, being solemnly told by the bosses of Shell and BP that there were only 40 years of commercially extractable oil left in the world.
Yet, 30 years on, we are still being told that there are only 40 years of commercially extractable oil left. There always are, as that is the industry’s planning horizon.
The new development, however — and it is the biggest technological breakthrough to have occurred in the energy sector since the advances that enabled oil and gas to be extracted from the North Sea — concerns the extraction of gas from shale.
Shale is a rock formation which occurs throughout the world and has always been known to contain vast reserves of oil and gas, but extracting it was uneconomic.
So far as shale gas is concerned, that technological problem has been cracked; as a result, the world is now awash with commercially extractable gas — and no longer over-dependent on the Middle East or Russia for its energy supply.
Indeed, the only ‘energy security’ problem we have is caused by the Government’s determination to make us heavily dependent on that most antiquated of energy sources, wind power.
Not only is there the inherently unreliable nature of wind, which sometimes blows and sometimes does not, but it is doubtful if it is practically possible to build and install wind turbines on the massive scale required to meet our energy needs, quite apart from the heavy economic and environmental costs of doing so.
The plain fact is that the Government’s highly damaging decarbonisation policy, enshrined in the absurd Climate Change Act, does not have a leg to stand on.
It is intended, at massive cost, to be symbolic: to make good David Cameron’s ambition to make his administration ‘the greenest government ever’. My dictionary defines green as ‘unripe, immature, undeveloped’. It is time this government grew up.
* Lord Lawson is a former Tory Chancellor and chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade
Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'
By Lewis Page
Posted in Science, 14th June 2011 17:00 GMT
What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.
Average magnetic field strength in sunspot umbras has been steadily declining for over a decade. The trend includes sunspots from Cycles 22, 23, and (the current cycle) 24. Credit: NSO/AAS
Ice skating on the Thames by 2025?
The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.
The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.
This could have major implications for the Earth's climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:
An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.
As NASA notes:
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.
During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.
"This is highly unusual and unexpected," says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. "But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."
NASA - NASA Rocket Launches Scheduled July 5 – 23 www.nasa.gov
Four NASA suborbital sounding rockets carrying experiments to take measurements in the ionosphere will be launched between July 5 and 23 (including weekends) from NASA’s Launch Range at the Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia.
Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavour with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analysing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO_2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Dr. Evans to move from being a warmest to a sceptic.
Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings.
I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, I understand the evidence, I was once an alarmist, but I am now a sceptic.
Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying.
This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.
Let’s set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess which was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction about carbon dioxide being a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planets temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to the extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew.
The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climates models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.
During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves the climate models are fundamentally flawed and they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
At this point official climate science stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory this just happens to keep them in high-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by /dampening /the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbances; otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.
But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise - surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.
They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade yet they have the gall to tell us its worse than expected. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.
One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewerage or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%!
The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site, sciencespeak.com <http://sciencespeak.com> <http://sciencespeak.com/. Look at the photos, and you’ll never trust a government climate scientist again.
They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results global warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.
Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off.
So it’s a question of trust.
If it really is warming up as the government climate scientists say, why they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results and why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources this is so obviously a scam now.
So what is really going on with the climate
The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25-30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.
We are now at an extraordinary juncture.
Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory which is based on a guess about moist air and is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions is to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government how exciting for the political class!
A carbon tax
Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold, in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!
President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic: "What is in Danger is our Freedom; the Climate is Okay."
National Press Club Address by President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus "The mass delusion of climate change."
Vaclav Klaus is one of the worlds leading critics of global warming ideology; he published a book "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" in 2007 & He is currently on a speaking tour of Australia.
New my website http://wakeup2thelies.com
Last edited by item8 on Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Ice age threat should ease EPA global warming regs
The Washington Examiner
Shannon Goessling
Rather than spiraling into a global warming meltdown, we may be heading into the next ice age.
The U.S. National Solar Observatory, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and astrophysicists across the planet report that the nearly all-time low sunspot activity may result in a sustained cooling period on Earth.
The news has sent global warming theory advocates scrambling to discount and explain away the impact on global temperatures. However, the "news" is not really that new.
Many reputable scientists have been warning for decades that we are nearing the end of the 11,500-year average period between ice ages. And the last similar crash in sunspot activity coincided with the so-called "Little Ice Age" in the 1600s that lasted nearly a century.
Despite increasing evidence that "global warming" climate change is not the unified scientific theory it has been promoted to be, vested interests continue to push for stringent limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
Certain investment banks and trading houses that stand to make billions on so-called "carbon credits," and the environmental sociologists who have as a stated purpose to change our way of life, are a powerful bloc.
In the Obama administration, this cabal has a willing "big stick" in the form the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has enacted draconian measures that will, by President Obama's admission, make energy costs "skyrocket."
The subject of intense litigation, the EPA regulations were enacted this year without congressional approval as required by the Clean Air Act and other laws. Estimates put the economic damage of these regulations at $1 trillion over the next 20 years, with a loss of between four and 10 million jobs.
Ironically, the current rush by global warming advocates to uncouple mounting evidence of global cooling from the global warming regime is not the first time they've backpedaled.
As referenced in ongoing litigation, the EPA admitted that generally applicable regulations would lead to "absurd" results, leading the agency to create a so-called "Tailoring Rule."
For example, global warming alarmists admit by their own calculations that reducing carbon emissions among a sample of large U.S. "emitters" to EPA-required levels might reduce the surface temperature by .00071 degree Celsius -- or 70 times lower than what is detectable.
Annual emission reductions sought would be replaced in 13 days by industrial growth in China. "Absurd" is understatement. So how do we handle "global cooling?"
In the 1970s and '80s, climatologists and astrophysicists were setting off alarms about pending global cooling and "the new ice age." Headlines in major weekly news magazines warned of a cooling catastrophe, with experts like famed astronomer Carl Sagan calling on industrialized countries to produce more carbon dioxide to offset the pending disaster.
High-level scientific proposals were advanced to redirect Arctic rivers, clear out swaths of high-density forests to release carbon dioxide, and even salt the Greenland ice caps with black carbon to attract sun melting in a global effort to stave off the impending ice age.
What happens during a "Little Ice Age?" Food-producing land becomes scarcer, food-growing seasons become shorter, and the world becomes a much more arid and less hospitable place. Think food shortages and the social unrest that follows.
The forces at work behind the global warming regulatory regime have, at worst, covered up, ignored and manipulated climate evidence to make the case that humans cause global warming and therefore humans should be punished.
At best, the mainstream scientific community is continuing to weigh the climate data as it becomes available. Caught in the flux are millions of Americans suffering under an economic tsunami that is anything but a theory.
The textbook definition of moving forward with global warming regulations is truly "absurd."
Shannon Goessling is executive director and chief legal counsel for the Southeastern Legal Foundation.
Uploaded by TheYoungTurks on 4 Aug 2011
Fox News hosts are claiming that the Nickelodian show SpongeBob Squarepants is pushing a liberally biased position global warming. Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
Scientists Discover Arctic Temperature Dataset Seriously Flawed, Significant Fabricated Warming Is The Result
August 18, 2011 by POPEYE
Filed under Featured Stories, Science
(C3) Over 2,000 previous peer-reviewed studies are severely tainted with bad data from the often used ERA-40 Reanalysis regarding Arctic region temperature trends. Researchers Screen and Simmonds concluded that this dataset should no longer be relied on in future studies, which implies that many past studies indicating Arctic warming are robustly in error.
Essentially, group-think consensus science by “experts” at its worst: “Hey…why don’t we all use the same computer output for every Arctic study.” Brilliant.
FROM Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.
There is a new paper which is critical of the ERA-40 Reanalysis. This is an important issue as this data set has been used in long-term climate studies; e.g.see which has over 2000 citations in the peer-reviewed literature according to google scholar. The new paper is
Screen, James A., Ian Simmonds, 2011: Erroneous Arctic Temperature Trends in the ERA-40 Reanalysis: A Closer Look. J. Climate, 24, 2620–2627. doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI4054.1.
The abstract reads [highlight added]
“Atmospheric reanalyses can be useful tools for examining climate variability and change; however, they must be used cautiously because of time-varying biases that can induce artificial trends. This study explicitly documents a discontinuity in the 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40) that leads to significantly exaggerated warming in the Arctic mid- to lower troposphere, and demonstrates that the continuing use of ERA-40 to study Arctic temperature trends is problematic. The discontinuity occurs in 1997 in response to refined processing of satellite radiances prior to their assimilation into the reanalysis model. It is clearly apparent in comparisons of ERA-40 output against satellite-derived air temperatures, in situ observations, and alternative reanalyses. Decadal or multidecadal Arctic temperature trends calculated over periods that include 1997 are highly inaccurate, particularly below 600 hPa. It is shown that ERA-40 is poorly suited to studying Arctic temperature trends and their vertical profile, and conclusions based upon them must be viewed with extreme caution. Consequently, its future use for this purpose is discouraged. In the context of the wider scientific debate on the suitability of reanalyses for trend analyses, the results show that a series of alternative reanalyses are in broad-scale agreement with observations. Thus, the authors encourage their discerning use instead of ERA-40 for examining Arctic climate change while also reaffirming the importance of verifying reanalyses with observations whenever possible.”
Text in the paper includes
“ERA-40 has been recently used to assess Arctic temperature trends and their vertical structure. Most notably, ERA-40 formed the basis of a now-controversial examination of central Arctic temperature trends by Graversen et al. (2008). The results of that study have been strongly contested, mainly because of concerns about the accuracy of trends calculated from ERA-40 temperatures (Bitz and Fu 2008; Grant et al. 2008; Thorne 2008; Screen and Simmonds 2010b). Yet, ERA-40 continues to be used for Arctic temperature trend analysis (e.g., Yang et al. 2010). In light of this, we show here—explicitly and more thoroughly than previous studies—that inhomogeneities in ERA-40 lead to a poor representation of Arctic temperature trends, particularly in the mid- to lower troposphere, and we demonstrate that its continued use for this purpose is problematic.”
Such an error not only affects the Arctic troposphere, but necessarily must effect the entire northern hemisphere jet stream. It is the poleward to equatorward layer average temperature gradient which causes this wind, as we discuss, for example, in
Pielke, R.A. Sr., T.N. Chase, T.G.F. Kittel, J. Knaff, and J. Eastman, 2001:Analysis of 200 mbar zonal wind for the period 1958-1997. J. Geophys. Res., 106, D21, 27287-27290 [we used the NCEP Reanalysis in our study]
and
Christy, J.R., B. Herman, R. Pielke, Sr., P. Klotzbach, R.T. McNider, J.J. Hnilo, R.W. Spencer, T. Chase and D. Douglass, 2010: What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979? Remote Sensing, 2(9), 2148-2169.
The authors of the Journal of Climate paper [Screen and Simmonds] are commended for alerting everyone to this serious error.
Sorted, it was aliens that wiped out the dinosaurs _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN
By IBTimes Staff Reporter | September 1, 2011 1:31 AM EDT
Global warming and climate change are phenomena that broke the bonds of scientific circles to emerge as a matter of debate between "believers" and "skeptics." Countless studies validating and denying global warming have seen the light of the day, providing fodder for more, often somewhat bitter debates. Within the past month, Nobel Prize winner and leading climate change "alarmist" Al Gore has called those who deny global warming akin to "racists," and "pseudo-scientists," and accused media of manipulating evidence about global warming.
(Photo: CERN)<br>CERN, which created and operates the colossal Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
Enlarge
(Photo: CERN)
CERN, which created and operates the colossal Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
Related Articles
Hurricane Katia’s Path Uncertain, New Tropical Threat Arises in Gulf of Mexico [PHOTOS]
Headless Remains of Aussie Outlaw Ned Kelly Identified Ending 130-Year Mystery
Related Topics
NASA
Global warming
Al Gore
Climate Change
Nobel Prize
IBTimes Today's Headline
Most important and popular Headlines Sample
Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now.
CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.
"Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth," Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment.
Must Read
Saudi Prince Sattam Bin Abdul Aziz (R) and Prince Turki Al FaisalSaudi Arabia Expected to Raise Oil Prices
HP TouchPadHP TouchPad Sale: More Coming with Additional Functions
Like us on Facebook
Theories which said that sun and cosmic rays are primarily responsible for climate changes were proposed, as early as 1996, by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a scientific conference in the UK.
Within a day, chairman of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible."
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, whose research has suggested a possible link between the interaction of the solar wind and cosmic rays, and downplays the significance of CO2 emissions, in global warming, welcomed the new results, saying that they confirm research carried out by his own group.
"CERN's CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don't understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a "significant" one according to CERN," David Whitehouse, of The Observatory said.
CERN's CLOUD is headed by Jasper Kirkby, who said in 1998 that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature, which made global warming alarmists restless. "The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes' groundbreaking theory," Lawrence Solomon says.
"Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth - in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia - always knew that Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases," Nigel Calder, well-known science writer wrote about the CERN findings. "In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk - and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise."
(Reuters) - The mystery of Earth's missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported on Sunday.
Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going, especially over the last decade, when greenhouse emissions kept increasing but world air temperatures did not rise correspondingly.
The build-up of energy and heat in Earth's system is important to track because of its bearing on current weather and future climate.
The temperatures were still high -- the decade between 2000 and 2010 was Earth's warmest in more than a century -- but the single-year mark for warmest global temperature was stuck at 1998, until 2010 matched it.
The world temperature should have risen more than it did, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research reckoned.
They knew greenhouse gas emissions were rising during the decade and satellites showed there was a growing gap between how much sunlight was coming in and how much radiation was going out. Some heat was coming to Earth but not leaving, and yet temperatures were not going up as much as projected.
So where did the missing heat go?
Computer simulations suggest most of it was trapped in layers of oceans deeper than 1,000 feet during periods like the last decade when air temperatures failed to warm as much as they might have.
This could happen for years at a time, and it could happen periodically this century, even as the overall warming trend continues, the researchers reported in the journal Nature Climate Change.
"This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean," NCAR's Kevin Trenberth, a co-author of the study, said in a statement. "The heat has not disappeared and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences."
Trenberth and the other researchers ran five computer simulations of global temperatures, taking into account the interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans and sea ice, and basing the simulations on projected human-generated greenhouse gas emissions.
These simulations all indicated global temperature would rise several degrees this century. But all of them also showed periods when temperatures would stabilize before rising. During these periods, the extra heat moved into deep ocean water due to changes in ocean circulation, the scientists said.
(Reporting by Deborah Zabarenko in Washington, editing by Chris Wilson)
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Britain is set to suffer a mini ice age that could last for decades
Monday October 10,2011
By Laura Caroe
BRITAIN is set to suffer a mini ice age that could last for decades and bring with it a series of bitterly cold winters.
And it could all begin within weeks as experts said last night that the mercury may soon plunge below the record -20C endured last year.
Scientists say the anticipated cold blast will be due to the return of a disruptive weather pattern called La Nina. Latest evidence shows La Nina, linked to extreme winter weather in America and with a knock-on effect on Britain, is in force and will gradually strengthen as the year ends.
The climate phenomenon, characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the Pacific, was linked to our icy winter last year – one of the coldest on record.
And it coincides with research from the Met Office indicating the nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters.
The prediction, to be published in Nature magazine, is based on observations of a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which may, over a long period, trigger Arctic conditions for many years.
Although a connection between La Nina and conditions in Europe is scientifically uncertain, ministers have warned transport organisations and emergency services not to take any chances. Forecasts suggest the country could be shivering in a big freeze as severe and sustained as last winter from as early as the end of this month.
La Nina, which occurs every three to five years, has a powerful effect on weather thousands of miles away by influencing an intense upper air current that helps create low pressure fronts.
Another factor that can affect Europe is the amount of ice in the Arctic and sea temperatures closer to home.
Ian Currie, of the Meterological Society, said: “All the world’s weather systems are connected. What is going on now in the Pacific can have repercussions later around the world.”
Parts of the country already saw the first snowfalls of the winter last week, dumping two inches on the Cairngorms in Scotland. And forecaster James Madden, from Exacta Weather, warned we are facing a “severely cold and snowy winter”.
Councils say they are fully prepared having stockpiled thousands of tons of extra grit. And the Local Government Association says it had more salt available at the beginning of this month than the total used last winter.
But the mountain of salt could be dug into very soon amid widespread heavy snow as early as the start of next month. Last winter, the Met Office was heavily criticised after predicting a mild winter, only to see the country grind to a halt amid hazardous driving conditions in temperatures as low as -20C.
Peter Box, the Local Government Association’s economy and transport spokesman, said: “Local authorities have been hard at work making preparations for this winter and keeping the roads open will be our number one priority.”
The National Grid will this week release its forecast for winter energy use based on long-range weather forecasts.
Such forecasting is, however, notoriously difficult, especially for the UK, which is subject to a wide range of competing climatic forces.
A Met Office spokesman said that although La Nina was recurring, the temperatures in the equatorial Pacific were so far only 1C below normal, compared with a drop of 2C at the same time last year.
Research by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that in 2010-11 La Nina contributed to record winter snowfalls, spring flooding and drought across the world.
Jonathan Powell, of Positive Weather Solutions, said: “The end of the month and November are looking colder than average with severe frosts and the chance of snow.”
However, some balmy autumnal sunshine was forecast for this week.
ClimateGate 2.0: 5,000 New Emails Confirm Pattern of Deception and Collusion by Alarmists
Posted on 11/23/2011 by papundits
Almost exactly two years since damning email messages were released from Great Britain’s University of East Anglia showing a pattern of deception and collusion between scientists involved in spreading the global warming myth, a new batch of such correspondence has emerged that seems destined to get as little press coverage as the original ClimateGate scandal did in November 2009.
James Delingpole reported in Britian’s Telegraph Tuesday:
Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011′ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.
The BBC is reporting that these email messages also come from UEA, and number around 5,000. The entire set is available at MegaUpload.
As you might imagine, climate realists across the globe are beginning to sift through these messages. Our friend Tom Nelson has already uncovered some whoppers:
<3066> Thorne:
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. [...]
<2884> Wigley:
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 [...]
<4923> Stott/MetO:
My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement ["probably the warmest of the last millennium"] in or whether I should remove it in the anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.
<3062> Jones:
We don’t really want the bs and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff. [...]
<3373> Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. [...]
<4369> Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.
Of course, the “Mike” and “Michael” being regularly disparaged by his peers is Michael Mann, the creator of the thoroughly-debunked Hockey Stick graph which so much of this myth is dependent on.
As physicist Lubos Motl notes, these messages “surely show that Michael Mann is a fraudster even according to most of his colleagues.”
Also for those not connecting the names, Jones is the infamous Phil Jones of UEA. Speaking of which:
<2440> Jones:
I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process
<2094> Briffa:
UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.
… <1577> Jones:
[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
Briffa of course is Keith Briffa, the man exposed to have manipulated tree ring data in order to assist Mann’s Hockey Stick charade.
As previously stated, realists from around the world are just starting to go through all these thousands of messages, and it will likely be days if not weeks before we know everything they contain.
Regardless, people that have been pushing back on this myth for years are beginning to weigh in.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee issued the following statement Tuesday:
“Even before the Climategate emails were released in 2009, the so-called ‘consensus’ peddled by the IPCC was already shattered,” Senator Inhofe said. “Nevertheless, the Obama administration is moving full speed ahead to implement global warming regulations that will impose the largest tax increase in American history, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.
“Remember, the Obama EPA is basing these regulations on its endangerment finding, which relies on the flawed science of the IPCC. Now a recent report by the EPA Inspector General has revealed that EPA cut corners in the process leading up to the endangerment finding: it shows that EPA did not engage in the required record-keeping procedures or conduct an independent review of the science underpinning these costly regulations. If the first Climategate scandal – and the over one hundred errors in the IPCC science that were revealed in its wake – were not enough, the apparent release of the Climategate 2.0 emails is just one more reason to halt the Obama EPA’s job killing global warming agenda.
“The crisis of confidence in the IPCC translates into a crisis of confidence in the EPA’s endangerment finding. The IPCC science has already disintegrated under the weight of its own flaws, and I believe it will only be a matter of time before the endangerment finding follows suit. It’s time for the Obama administration to stop trying to resurrect policies that are all pain for no gain, and get to work on reviving our economy.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell issued the following statement Tuesday:
“If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate e-mails, the new batch of e-mails that appeared on the web today make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response,” said Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center on Energy and Environment.
“Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars,” said Ebell.
And Climate Depot’s Marc Morano wrote Tuesday:
“It appears that Climategate 2.0 has arrived to drain what little life there was left in the man-made global warming movement.
“The new emails further expose the upper echelon of the UN IPCC as being more interested in crafting a careful narrative than following the evidence. The release of thousands of more emails is quite simply another victory for science.”
As this is just the beginning of this latest round of email messages from UEA, readers are advised to stay tuned to NewsBusters for regular updates as well as to see how the global warming-loving media are responding.
UPDATE
Tom Nelson has found some remarkable observations concerning these email messages from warmist David Appell:
On a second reading of the stolen UAE emails leaked today, and just reading the README file emails, these sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating…The original release of emails 2 years ago had a significant impact. My guess is that these are going to throw the science off-kilter for perhaps the rest of this decade, and may well lead some people to rethink how they are doing business (including certain journalists).
Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Climategate 2.0: Read 20 ‘Juicy’ emails – ‘They validate EVERYTHING the skeptics have been saying’
More devastating Climategate e-mails were released today. We’ve covered juicy ones in the posts listed below. More on the way. Read ‘em all. They validate EVERYTHING the skeptics have been saying. Viva les sceptiques!
Alarmist introspection admits dishonesty on hockey stick
Jones laments blogsites as allowing deniers to find one another
Systematic deletion of e-mails
How Phil Jones misleads journalists
Santer angry over not being able to silence skeptics
Mann says true temp anomaly not known well
Silence of the alarmists
Wigley accuses ‘Mike’, other IPCC-ers of deception, dishonesty
Spun science isn’t going to end well
Department of Energy involved in hiding temperature data?
Jones advises e-mail deletion to avoid FOIA
Mann says Curry not helping ‘the cause’
‘All models wrong’
IPCC models not worth a darn
Hulme hired to be the hand of God
Praying for the ‘Day After Tomorrow’ to work
Catholicism an ‘extreme’ religion?
Mann a dead-ender
Mann paper slammed by colleague as ‘pathetic’
‘Hockey stick’ debunking confirmed
Hide the dissent
Feelings more important than truth
Kjellén has a better name for global warming
Jones bans dissent on extreme weather
Medieval Warm Period tough to erase
Mann said skeptics ‘losing’
Climategate 2.0?
Most of us have heard of "ClimateGate" and the leaked documents from "climate scientists" around the world, including Michael Mann from Penn State University who we mentioned got a free pass from their Regents and another $2 Million Grant from Obama Stimulus AFTER having been exposed as a complete fraud with his "enhanced" Hockeystick Chart" - enhanced, as it "if the results don't match the pre-determined and desired outcome, keep changing the numbers until it does"
For the Record, we believe in clean air and pollution control, which should be an ongoing concern and effort of governments and industries in concert.
I am proud to be one of the 32,000 Scientists, PHD's, Engineers and Technicians who have signed the Petition to force the EPA into independent 3rd party review of their proposed regulation schemes which can not be supported by anything other than their "consensus" (2500 captive employees within the government)
We do NOT buy into Global Warming which is a completely different conversation and which had to be changed to Climate Change when the damned snow kept coming down a few years back - The entire charade of Climate Change as the political tool it is today, is a direct result of that same 1989 Rio Accord where Bush 41 signed away the Sovereignty of the United Sates in servitude to the United Nations as the AlGore alarmists and opportunists now get their World Mandate
The linked website below is provided as a research resource for reviewing the recently leaked climate communications. Every effort has been made to redact personal contact information such as email addresses and telephone numbers, and we will continue to tune the software to improve the quality of the results as we go forward
This database was assembled in a very short space of time, and at present only provides the most rudimentary tools for exploring this vast trove of material. We will be improving the quality of the search tools and adding further metadata to the database over the course of the next few weeks.
here are a few examples of information transmitted in those "climategate" emails;
<#1939> Thorne/MetO: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 theuncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary ....
<#3066> Thorne: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.
<#1104> Wanner/NCCR:In my [IPCC-TAR] review ... - I criticized ... the Mann hockeystick ... My review was classified "unsignificant" even I inquired several times. Now the internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.
<#0714> Jones:Getting people we know and trust into IPCC is vital - hence my comment about the tornadoes group.
<#0813> Fox/Environment Agency:if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.
<#1682> Wils:[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably ...
<#0850> Barnett:[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
<#3115> Mann:By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<#5294> Schneider:Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they are forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy
<#1577> Jones:[FOI, temperature data]Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
Here is the link to some 5000 of the approximate 220,000 emails that were hacked from these "scientist's" computers ...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum