An exercise in futility...Lord Monckton

Science establishes the “global warming” scare is over. The warming effect of CO₂ is now measured at less than one-sixth of the IPCC’s central estimate: i.e. a “climate sensitivity” of a harmless 0.5 C° at CO₂ doubling, not the 3.3 C° the IPCC thought (Flag 1).

Adaptation as and if necessary would be vastly cheaper than mitigation. Even if the IPCC’s 3.3 C° climate sensitivity (down from 3.5 C° in 2001 and 3.8 C° in 1995) were right, the world would have to forego 2 trillion tonnes of CO₂ emission to prevent 1 C° of warming (Flag 2) – a robust figure that has been kept out of the debate till now. The world emits just 30 billion tonnes of CO₂ a year, so even if the entire carbon economy were shut down it would take 67 years to prevent 1 C° of warming. To prevent the 3.4 C° warming the IPCC predicts for this century, make that 227 years without any transportation or fossil-fueled electricity. Carbon mitigation would accordingly be the least cost-effective use of taxpayers’ money ever. Adaptation would be orders of magnitude cheaper, but still unnecessary.

World “government” is unnecessary and would destroy democracy and markets. Even if mitigation were needed and might work, the UN secretariat’s plan (Flag 3) to establish a world “government” – the Copenhagen draft names “government” as the first of three purposes of the unelected sovereign entity the UN wants you to subject Canada’s democratic constitution to – would subordinate our democracy to a complex, costly, multi-tentacled oligarchy which the UN says will rule governments, economies, and markets worldwide and pre-empt national taxes at will. A “facilitative” (i.e. enforcement) mechanism will include technical panels with the power to order governments how to conduct their economic affairs.

Lord Monckton’s remarkable, impeccably-referenced presentation provided a wealth of economic and scientific detail on which the media are silent. Recent peer-reviewed science and climate data have made the IPCC’s assessment reports out of date by establishing that – The oceans, where all parties agree 80-90% of all heat held in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases must go, show no net accumulation of heat energy in 70 years and slight cooling for 6 years, demonstrating that “global warming” is not manmade (Douglass & Knox, 2009).

Surface temperature is near-solely determined not by CO₂ concentration changes but by how much sunlight actually strikes the Earth’s surface (Soon, 2009).

If the “global warming” that ceased in the mid-1990s resumes, the resulting increase in cloud cover will offset the warming, not amplify it as the IPCC had thought (Spencer, 2008). The tropical upper air, predicted by the IPCC to warm at thrice the surface rate if we caused “global warming”, has warmed no faster than the surface, because subsidence drying is carrying water vapor to lower altitudes where it causes less warming (Douglass et al., 2008). Measured climate sensitivity is less than one-sixth of the IPCC’s central estimate. Its models all predict that as the Earth warms less radiation will escape to space, but the measured reality is that more radiation gets out, so less warming arises. Climate sensitivity of 0.5 C is thus determined (Lindzen & Choi, 2009). End of scare.

To support his contentions you might want to read on, in order to avail yourselves of more details on the science.

Flag 1

How measured outgoing radiation

determines low climate sensitivity

Reality vs. predictions: All UN models (11 of them shown in red) predict that as sea surface temperature rises the outgoing radiation escaping from the Earth to space diminishes because temperature feedbacks cause water vapor – the most significant greenhouse gas - to accumulate in the atmosphere. However, direct measurement using the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Satellite (green) shows that as temperature rises more outgoing radiation, not less, escapes to space.

Each point on the ERBE observed-data scatter-plot represents a period during which the change in sea surface temperature was sufficient to prevent spurious results (known as “noise”). The point is placed at the intersection of the observed sea-surface temperature change (horizontal axis) and of the corresponding change in the flux of outgoing radiation measured by the ERBE satellite (vertical axis). Each point on the models’ scatter-plots represents a period identical to that which is used in the observed-data scatter-plot. The sea-surface temperature change over each relevant period is then input to the model to “force” it. The model then predicts how much outgoing radiation will escape to space in response to the input amount of temperature change.

The substantial discrepancy between what the models predict and and what is measured in reality occurs because the IPCC incorrectly assumes that the most important of the temperature feedbacks that reinforce any initial warming as the planetary surface warms – the increase in water vapor concentration – will occur at all altitudes, whereas recent results (Paltridge et al., 2009) have demonstrated that subsidence drying carries any additional water vapor to lower altitudes, where it has less warming effect because at lower altitudes the sheer quantity of pre-existing water vapor is sufficient to ensure saturation of the principal radiation-absorption wavelengths of water vapor. Hence the model-predicted tripling of the tropical surface warming rate at altitude is not observed (Douglass et al., 2008).

Simple calculation based on the observed discrepancy between the models’ predictions and measured reality establishes that the warming to be expected if CO₂ concentration doubles – the “climate sensitivity” – will be just 0.5 C°, not the 3.3 C° that the IPCC takes as its current central estimate.

Flag 2

Why carbon mitigation cannot be cost-effective

2 trillion tonnes of CO₂ emissions must be foregone

to prevent just 1 C° of “global warming”

An exercise in futility: The table demonstrates how many tonnes of CO₂ emissions must be foregone to prevent just 1 C° of “global warming”, on the assumption that the IPCC’s climate sensitivity prediction – a warming of 3.4 C° during the 21^st century – will actually occur unless efforts at mitigation are made.

The 21^st-century increase in CO₂ concentration that is predicted to occur under the IPCC’s A2 emissions scenario (which conforms most closely to today’s emissions) is divided by the IPCC’s prediction of 21^st century “global warming” on that scenario, yielding a CO₂ concentration increase of 140 ppmv per Celsius degree mitigated. This value is multiplied by the measured quantity of CO₂ emissions per part per million by volume of CO₂ increase over the past 30 years – i.e. 14,150 million tonnes of CO₂ (excluding transient volcanic effects). Accordingly, the emissions cuts necessary for achievement of a 1 C° cooling are 2 trillion tonnes. This value is essential to evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of climate mitigation.

The relationship between changes in CO₂ concentration and changes in surface temperature is not linear, as assumed in this calculation, but logarithmic. Therefore, if the calculation were extended over a longer period than a century – the current standard time-horizon for IPCC calculations – an even greater tonnage of CO₂ emissions would have to be foregone to achieve each subsequent 1 C° reduction in surface temperature.

If, as Flag 1 demonstrates, climate sensitivity is less than one-sixth of the UN’s central estimate, then the quantity of carbon emissions foregone to prevent 1 C° of warming would rise from 2 to 12.5 trillion tonnes. The world only emits 30 billion tonnes a year. Therefore, even an outright ban on the use of all fossil fuels worldwide would take 67-417 years to prevent 1 C° of warming, and the same outright ban would take 227-1417 years. The cost would be nothing less than the destruction of around three-quarters of the world economy: the climatic value would be negligible, and would not occur in time to make any difference.

Therefore mitigation is inescapably cost-ineffective, even if the most drastic measures are taken. Mitigation must fail.fos

Open minded they are not

The scene was a scientific workshop set up to discuss the science of global warming. It took place in a non-Western country and was convened by the country's Academy of Sciences. Delegates came from all over the world. Yet the delegation from one major Western power behaved in a most undiplomatic fashion. The way the science was being presented was inconvenient to their political agenda, so they tried to get the scientists they disagreed with silenced. The organizers refused, so the delegation went to its government to exert political pressure. The organizers still refused, so the delegation disrupted the conference. When it became apparent they weren't going to get their way, they walked out.The chairman of the conference told the press that the leader of the disruptive delegation "had brought several scientists along with him and he insisted that the program should include among the speakers only those scientists and no other. So, he came over, selected scientists at his discretion, scientists who were to be given the floor in his opinion and scientists who were to be denied an opportunity to speak." A top official of the host government commented, "For some participants the main goal was the search for the truth, understanding of real processes. Other people had the task of disrupting the seminar, so that other people who were seeking the truth could not do so."

Yet another example of arrogant America disrupting the world's attempts to solve the climate change program? No. The delegation in question was that of the United Kingdom, and the conference was that held last week in Moscow, hosted by the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The British delegation was led by Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to Her Majesty's government. Sir David has gone on record as saying that, "Global warming is worse than terrorism." As far as Sir David and Tony Blair's government is concerned, there should be no need for any further scientific debate on global warming. They have taken the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and cheerfully conflated it with the debatable argument that it will be catastrophic for mankind unless we suppress energy use now.

The religious fervor with which Tony Blair's government is acting on this belief has many Britons unnerved. Dr. David Bellamy, one of the titans of the British environmental movement, wrote in the Daily Mail that he considers global warming alarmism "poppycock." Analysts predict a 40 percent rise in electricity prices as a result of the government's energy suppression policies. British manufacturers foresee having to put thousands out of work as they lose out in competitiveness to overseas suppliers. The Times's economics editor has written that the environmentalists pushing these policies "are like the medieval monks who favored self-flagellation as the road to virtue. For a Government to enshrine such thinking in policy is truly perverse."

In equally medieval fashion, adherents of the environmentalist religion have launched an inquisition against scientific views that they consider heretical. Hence, Sir David's outrageous behavior at the Moscow conference. On learning of the program arranged by the Russian Academy, he proposed a different program that would censor the voices of scientists who do not believe global warming is a worse threat to the world than terrorism. Such delegates included Paul Reiter of the Paris-based Pasteur Institute, who presented the predominant view of the world's malaria experts that global warming is not a major factor in the increasing incidence of vector-borne diseases.

Sir David even got British foreign secretary Jack Straw to intervene on his behalf. It did no good. The Russian Academy, used to seeing dissent crushed for political means, refused to kowtow to Sir David's demands. So, in the words of Russian economic adviser Andrei Illarionov, "Other attempts were made to disrupt the seminar. At least four times during the course of the seminar ugly scenes were staged that prevented the seminar from proceeding normally. As a result we lost at least four hours of working time in order to try to solve these problems." The disruption was serious enough that at the press conference one questioner asked why the security guards did not handle the situation.

Sir David apparently walked out with his delegation in mid-answer to one question. Commenting on this display, Illarionov said, "It is not for us to give an assessment to what happened, but in our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government, and the reputation of the title 'Sir' has sustained heavy damage."

If Americans had behaved this way, the world would be full of stories charging America with arrogance, boorishness, and disdain for the spirit of free inquiry. Yet Sir David King continues on his way, the Torquemada of the global-warming inquisition.

Sir David King’s Queenie Fit
Shutting down dissent.

By Iain Murray

“Margaret Thatcher” comments on the “Idiocracy of the New Millennium”

Comments by “Margaret Thatcher” in the Economist

Well, the voting gap is closing fast. But not fast enough. I suppose the Greenpeace-bots, taking their emailed marching orders from Greenpeace Director Mr Liepold, are fizzling out. [Or perhaps it is due to the Economist’s very user-unfriendly website.]

This debate was based on a preposterous question, which could have been better framed by a moron advised by idiots. But in reality, the question was deliberately framed by intelligent people with an agenda, in order to appeal to the unthinking eco-Luddites who wouldn’t know “carbon” [by which is meant carbon dioxide, a gas] from their craniums. Idiocracy rules the new millennium.

There is no way the average person would voluntarily give up his or her electricity in the false hope of a slightly cleaner environment. Thus, the bogus question before the house, made intentionally vague in order to be palatable to do-gooders everywhere.

Further, it is ethical for each side to select their spokesperson. But that was not allowed. Ms Amy has done a fine job of appearing somewhat less left of center than Liepold, but she was selected specifically for that purpose by exactly the same people who selected Liepold and the Moderator.

And as many commentators have pointed out, the Moderator is heavily biased in favor of the question. Thus, all three are of the same general opinion, only separated by a degree.

None of the three are permitted to take the position that the use of fossil fuels has greatly increased human health and life-span, and have taken much of the drudgery out of life. Those believing that we should stop using fossil fuels should do their laundry for a few weeks using a washboard. And for the men, try baling hay by hand for even six hours. You will bow down in grateful praise of fossil fuels.

The ethical course of action would be to allow each side to select their spokesperson, and to have a black and white question such as: “This house believes that every citizen must immediately forfeit their fossil fueled transportation, and all electricity derived from fossil fuels.”

Of course that would result in a very heavy preponderance of No votes; thus, the loaded question in the current debate, which is vague enough to appeal to wishful thinkers raised on television, Hollywood, the BBC and People magazine.

It will be quite a spectacle watching the tax sucking elite jetting first class to Copenhagen from around the world, feasting on caviar, lobster and brie, clinking their champagne glasses whilst toasting their commitment to everything “green” � just so long as being green means that we working stiffs must give up much more of our earnings to these doubleplusungood scam artists, who could not care less about their “carbon footprint,” as they party the week away in gluttonous luxury that would excite even the most depraved ancient Roman senator, whilst promoting fads that will grind the poor into even more abject poverty, and reassuring each other that they are being good and saintly for doing so.

The UN’s shenanigans will be on the world’s stage for all to see, and will elevate “hypocrisy” to a new level. And now, with carbon credits selling for under ten pence - just 1/70th of their price last spring - they can buy cheap “carbon” indulgences to salve their guilty consciences as they connive to make our lives more miserable, based on the repeatedly falsified notion that CO2 is harmful. See comments here. Note: This may not be the real Margaret Thatcher but likely reflects her opinion. In her later years despite suffering from small strokes after 2002, as a scientist, she followed this issue closely and felt strongly the issue no longer represented the true scientific picture but had been politicized.

United Nations Pulls Hockey Stick from Climate Report

The discovery of a Wikipedia graphic in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium must have been embarrassing as it shows the sort of sloppy science that is going into “official” publications.

In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell. The problem with the graph in the upper right of page 5 of the UNEP report is that it itself has not been peer reviewed nor has it originated from a peer reviewed publication, having its inception at Wikipedia.

So the graph used by the IPCC showing CO2 rise causing temperature rise was a fake? Who could have guest that one. Again thanks to Steve Mcintyre..a good Canadian and just in time for the Copenhagen big lie conference. Cool Aid time?

President Obama Keeps Repeating Climate Falsehoods

He ignores the fact the scientist who claimed a global temperature rise of circa 1 degree C since pre-industrial times refuses to disclose his data or method. He ignores recent global temperature decline as CO2 levels increase in contradiction of IPCC assumptions. IPCC is the sole source of his claim of warming and sea level rise, but all previous predictions have been wrong. He repeats errors already exposed and ignores newly exposed errors. If he is unaware of this information, he displays incompetence. If he is aware, he is perpetuating a massive deception.Ironically, Obama made one accurate comment, “The security and stability of each nation and all peoples—our prosperity, our health, our safety—are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.” It’s true as long as leaders ignore the evidence and accept incorrect corrupt science to destroy economies with disastrous, unnecessary policies. Disseminating and repeating false information for political purposes is the definition of propaganda.

The 1970s Ice age scare

They say the MWP was not global?

We are continuously being told by the proponent of the broken hockey stick that the MWP was not global but only a NH blip!. ...last time I check the pacific was not in the Northern hemisphere.


A new 2,000-year-long reconstruction of sea surface temperatures (SST) from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) suggests that temperatures in the region may have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today.
The IPWP is the largest body of warm water in the world, and, as a result, it is the largest source of heat and moisture to the global atmosphere, and an important component of the planet’s climate. Climate models suggest that global mean temperatures are particularly sensitive to sea surface temperatures in the IPWP. Understanding the past history of the region is of great importance for placing current warming trends in a global context.

The Yamal implosion

Climate

There is a great deal of excitement among climate sceptics over Steve McIntyre's recent posting on Yamal. Several people have asked me to do a layman's guide to the story in the manner of Caspar and the Jesus paper. Here it is.

The story of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick reconstruction, its statistical bias and the influence of the bristlecone pines is well known. McIntyre's research into the other reconstructions has received less publicity, however. The story of the Yamal chronology may change that.

The bristlecone pines that created the shape of the Hockey Stick graph are used in nearly every millennial temperature reconstruction around today, but there are also a handful of other tree ring series that are nearly as common and just as influential on the results. Back at the start of McIntyre's research into the area of paleoclimate, one of the most significant of these was called Polar Urals, a chronology first published by Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. At the time, it was used in pretty much every temperature reconstruction around. In his paper, Briffa made the startling claim that the coldest year of the millennium was AD 1032, a statement that, if true, would have completely overturned the idea of the Medieval Warm Period. It is not hard to see why paleoclimatologists found the series so alluring.

Keith BriffaSome of McIntyre's research into Polar Urals deserves a story in its own right, but it is one that will have to wait for another day. We can pick up the narrative again in 2005, when McIntyre discovered that an update to the Polar Urals series had been collected in 1999. Through a contact he was able to obtain a copy of the revised series. Remarkably, in the update the eleventh century appeared to be much warmer than in the original - in fact it was higher even than the twentieth century. This must have been a severe blow to paleoclimatologists, a supposition that is borne out by what happened next, or rather what didn't: the update to the Polar Urals was not published, it was not archived and it was almost never seen again.

With Polar Urals now unusable, paleclimatologists had a pressing need for a hockey stick shaped replacement and a solution appeared in the nick of time in the shape of a series from the nearby location of Yamal.

The Yamal data had been collected by a pair of Russian scientists, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, and was published in 2002. In their version of the data, Yamal had little by way of a twentieth century trend. Strangely though, Briffa's version, which had made it into print before even the Russians', was somewhat different. While it was very similar to the Russians' version for most of the length of the record, Briffa's verison had a sharp uptick at the end of the twentieth century -- another hockey stick, made almost to order to meet the requirements of the paleoclimate community. Certainly, after its first appearance in Briffa's 2000 paper in Quaternary Science Reviews, this version of Yamal was seized upon by climatologists, appearing again and again in temperature reconstructions; it became virtually ubiquitous in the field: apart from Briffa 2000, it also contributed to the reconstructions in Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, Moberg et al 2005, D'Arrigo et al 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006 and Hegerl et al 2007, among others.

When McIntyre started to look at the Osborn and Briffa paper in 2006, he quickly ran into the problem of the Yamal chronology: he needed to understand exactly how the difference between the Briffa and Hantemirov versions of Yamal had arisen. McIntyre therefore wrote to the Englishman asking for the original tree ring measurements involved. When Briffa refused, McIntyre wrote to Science, who had published the new paper, pointing out that, since it was now six years since Briffa had originally published his version of the chronology, there could be no reason for withholding the underlying data. After some deliberation, the editors at Science declined the request, deciding that Briffa did not have to publish anything more as he had merely re-used data from an earlier study. McIntyre should, they advised, approach the author of the earlier study, that author being, of course, Briffa himself. Wearily, McIntyre wrote to Briffa again, this time in his capacity as author of the original study in Quaternary Science Reviews and he was, as expected, turned down flat.

more...

Breaking news : the stick is dead

The sheer effrontery and gall appears to be breathtaking.

The Briffa temperature graphs have been widely cited as evidence by the IPCC, yet it appears they were based on a very carefully selected set of data, so select, that the shape of the graph would have been totally transformed if the rest of the data had been included.JNOVA

one of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit. Two posts ago, I observed that the number of cores used in the most recent portion of the Yamal archive at CRU was implausibly low. There were only 10 cores in 1990 versus 65 cores in 1990 in the Polar Urals archive and 110 cores in the Avam-Taymir archive. These cores were picked from a larger population - measurements from the larger population remain unavailable. One post ago, I observed that Briffa had supplemented the Taymir data set (which had a pronounced 20th century divergence problem) not just with the Sidorova et al 2007 data from Avam referenced in Briffa et al 2008, but with a Schweingruber data set from Balschaya Kamenka (russ124w), also located over 400 km from Taymir.

Given this precedent, I examined the ITRDB data set for potential measurement data from Yamal that could be used to supplement the obviously deficient recent portion of the CRU archive (along the lines of Brifffa’s supplementing the Taymir data set.) Sure enough, there was a Schweingruber series that fell squarely within the Yamal area - indeed on the first named Khadyta River - russ035w located at 67 12N 69 50Eurl . This data set had 34 cores, nearly 3 times more than the 12 cores selected into the CRU archive. Regardless of the principles for the selection of the 12 CRU cores, one would certainly hope to obtain a similar-looking RCS chronology using the Schweingruber population for living trees in lieu of the selection by CRU (or whoever).

The Arctic ice “is melting far faster than had been previously supposed,”

If you’re confused by stats on Arctic melting, you have lots of company. Arctic stats are easy to misunderstand because the Arctic environment is unlike our own — the Arctic magnifies the changes we experience in the temperate regions. In summer, our days get longer and theirs get really, really long, just as in winter, when our days gets shorter, theirs all but disappear. By analogy, the Arctic also magnifies temperature variations, and resulting changes to its physical environment.

In the Arctic, the ice has indeed been contracting, as the global warming doomsayers have been telling us. But it has also been expanding. The riddle of how the Arctic ice can both be contracting and expanding is easily explained. After you read the next two paragraphs, you’ll be able to describe it easily to your friends to set them straight.

Each winter, the Arctic ice pack rapidly expands and each summer it rapidly contracts, as you can see thanks to photos from a Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency satellite that tracks the changes in the ice pack. On its website, you can also get data showing the area of sea ice for every month going back to 2002.

Exile for Non-Believers

So now we have a group of biologists, who effectively make recommendations about global energy sources without considering the evidence, the criticisms, or allowing anyone to speak in opposition.

This is the state of modern “science”, and it is not the pinnacle of critical thinking that we are led to believe.

US-EU rift clouds climate summit

A growing rift between the US and Europe is overshadowing Tuesday’s United Nations climate change summit in New York, further damping hopes for a breakthrough at the Copenhagen talks in December.

Connie Hedegaard, the Danish environment minister, lowered expectations, saying: “Things are looking difficult and too slow, that is the fact.”

I say Obama will compromise.. remember in 12 days the Olympic committee will announce who will get the Games from Copenhagen Denmark. Chicago is on a the list and Obama want the games. Copenhagen talks in December will need the US to be on board if it is to succeed. a deal in the making?

Denmark's wind energy failure

OK. That's been done — by the establishment think tank CEPOS, and you can read it here. The answer is that the president's (repeat) claim that "Denmark produces almost 20 percent of their electricity through wind power" is false. Denmark actually produces much less of its own electricity from wind, as low as 4 percent depending on the year, with the recent average of 9.7 percent. This despite a massive buildout of what they flatteringly call the "wind carpet," on some of the most hospitable terrain for wind power in the world.
It is also in return for its households paying the highest eletricity rates in Europe. With a substantially lower per-capita energy use. That means, to get half of what Obama seeks, the U.S. would have to carpet itself twice over — which means lots of windmills where birds fly and Kennedys live — and pay Danish-style rates.
Oh. Wait. That still won't do it. Apparently Denmark's experience isn't even scalable to Scanadanavia. It turns out that, if the Norwegians and Swedes tried to replicate Denmark's expensive folly, well, it would blow the system up. Here's why. Denmark took advantage of long-since-paid-for interconnectors between Jutland and Norway, and the island on which Copenhagen sits and Sweden. It made a political decision that windmills would be their "national champion" industry, and as you will hear to no end throughout the Copenhagen COP, a big part of their national identity. So they built a lot of windmills, and started a mythology.

NOAA: Warmest Global Sea-Surface Temperatures for August and Summer

AMS Fellow and CCM, Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP has this to say about it:.

Icecap Note: to enable them to make the case the oceans are warming, NOAA chose to remove satellite input into their global ocean estimation and not make any attempt to operationally use Argo data in the process. This resulted in a jump of 0.2C or more and ‘a new ocean warmth record’ in July. ARGO tells us this is another example of NOAA’s inexplicable decision to corrupt data to support political agendas.
http://www.icecap.us/

Only in Climate Science Can You Play With a Broken Hockey Stick

What Was The Climate Hockey Stick?

It was warmer 1000 years ago than in the late 20^th century. Existence of this Medieval Warm Period (MWP) contradicted the claim that post-industrial human CO2 was causing unprecedented warming. As Thomas Huxley said, “The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” Solution? Eliminate the fact. Professor Deming reported receiving an email that said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” Deming didn’t name the sender, but we now know it was Jonathan Overpeck, a lead author of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Boston College Professor Philip Altbach provides one reason why they’ve succeeded.“Corruption in higher education is not a topic much discussed in academic circles. Academic institutions see themselves as somehow above the baser motivations and lower instincts of other elements of society. And society generally believes that universities are somehow special institutions imbued with the virtues of integrity.”

Concern about this in the UK led to the “UK Panel for Research Integrity”. The objective: “A new watchdog to promote research integrity was launched this week with a scathing attack on the “good chaps” network and general complacency in universities that has allowed fraud and misconduct to gain a foothold in the UK academic sector.” (Source:)

Playing with a broken ice hockey stick is a minor penalty. A lifetime ban is required when scientists play repeatedly with broken research hockey sticks, especially when they drive unnecessary, devastating economic and energy policies and provide false academic justifications for politicians. “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” is an anonymous but pungent truism.

The Great Copenhagen Liar’s Conference

Now, keep in mind that a couple of hundred, perhaps a thousand or more diplomats, scientists, and environmentalists are going to gather in Copenhagen for the single purpose of extending or expanding the Kyoto Protocols that are based on the assertion that the Earth is warming even though it is not.

Moreover, the IPCC will announce that, if the industrialized nations do not dramatically reduce the production of “greenhouse gases” (carbon dioxide), we are all doomed. In the United States, the Cap-and-Trade bill which passed the House by a slim margin will be up for consideration in the Senate. It is based on the global warming lie. It will drive up the cost of energy for all Americans and basically wreck the economy!

The Pompous fools

There was a special dinner at some point, and the head of the theology place, a very nice, very Jewish man, gave a speech. It was a good speech, and he was a very good speaker, so while it sounds crazy now, when I'm telling about it, at that time his main idea sounded completely obvious and true. He talked about the big differences in the welfare of various countries, which cause jealousy, which leads to conflict, and now that we have atomic weapons, any war and we're doomed, so therefore the right way out is to strive for peace by making sure there are no great differences from place to place, and since we have so much in the United States, we should give up nearly everything to the other countries until we're all even. Everybody was listening to this, and we were all full of sacrificial feeling, and all thinking we ought to do this. But I came back to my senses on the way home.

The next day one of the guys in our group said, "I think that speech last night was so good that we should all endorse it, and it should be the summary of our conference."

I started to say that the idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there's only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn't take into account the real reason for the differences between countries -- that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to grow food and to do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn't the stuff, but the power to make the stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn't understand it. They didn't understand technology; they didn't understand their time.

The conference made me so nervous that a girl I knew in New York had to calm me down. "Look," she said, "you're shaking! You've gone absolutely nuts! Just take it easy, and don't take it so seriously. Back away a minute and look at what it is." So I thought about the conference, how crazy it was, and it wasn't so bad. But if someone were to ask me to participate in something like that again, I'd shy away from it like mad -- I mean zero! No! Absolutely not! And I still get invitations for this kind of thing today.

When it came time to evaluate the conference at the end, the others told how much they got out of it, how successful it was, and so on. When they asked me, I said, "This conference was worse than a Rorschach test: There's a meaningless inkblot, and the others ask you what you think you see, but when you tell them, they start arguing with you!"

Even worse, at the end of the conference they were going to have another meeting, but this time the public would come, and the guy in charge of our group has the nerve to say that since we've worked out so much, there won't be any time for public discussion, so we'll just tell the public all the things we've worked out. My eyes bugged out: I didn't think we had worked out a damn thing!

Finally, when we were discussing the question of whether we had developed a way of having a dialogue among people of different disciplines -- our second basic "problem" -- I said that I noticed something interesting. Each of us talked about what we thought the "ethics of equality" was, from our own point of view, without paying any attention to the other guy's point of view. For example, the historian proposed that the way to understand ethical problems is to look historically at how they evolved and how they developed; the international lawyer suggested that the way to do it is to see how in fact people actually act in different situations and make their arrangements; the Jesuit priest was always referring to "the fragmentation of knowledge"; and I, as a scientist, proposed that we should isolate the problem in a way analogous to Galileo's techniques for experiments; and so on. "So, in my opinion," I said, "we had no dialogue at all. Instead, we had nothing but chaos!"

Of course I was attacked, from all around. "Don't you think that order can come from chaos?"

"Uh, well, as a general principle, or..." I didn't understand what to do with a question like "Can order come from chaos?" Yes, no, what of it?

There were a lot of fools at that conference -- pompous fools -- and pompous fools drive me up the wall. Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools -- guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus -- THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn't a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible! And that's what I got at the conference, a bunch of pompous fools, and I got very upset. I'm not going to get upset like that again, so I won't participate in interdisciplinary conferences any more.

The Thermostat Hypothesis

Every heat engine has a throttle. The throttle is the part of the engine that controls how much energy enters the heat engine. A motorcycle has a hand throttle. In an automobile, the throttle is called the gas pedal. It controls incoming energy.

The stability of the earth’s temperature over time (including alternating bi-stable glacial/interglacial periods), as well as theoretical considerations, indicates that this heat engine we call climate must have some kind of governor controlling the throttle.

While all heat engines have a throttle, not all of them have a governor. In a car, a governor is called “Cruise Control”. Cruise control is a governor that controls the throttle (gas pedal). A governor adjusts the energy going to the car engine to maintain a constant speed regardless of changes in internal and external forcing (e.g. hills, winds, engine efficiency and losses).

We can narrow the candidates for this climate governing mechanism by noting first that a governor controls the throttle (which in turn controls the energy supplied to a heat engine). Second, we note that a successful governor must be able to drive the system beyond the desired result (overshoot).

(Note that a governor, which contains a hysteresis loop, is different from a negative feedback. A negative feedback can only reduce an increase. It cannot maintain a steady state despite differing forcings, variable loads, and changing losses. Only a governor can do that.

Arctic Temperature Reporting In The News Needs A Reality Check

There new articles that claim the Arctic is rapidly warming. These articles are an excellent examples of the cherrypicking of particular published papers to promote the very narrow perspective of the journalists.

These include

An Associated Press news article by Randolph E. Schmid titled “Arctic reverses long-term trend”.

A New York Times article by Andrew C. Revkin titled “Humans May Have Ended Long Arctic Chill”.

The Schmid article has the text

“The most recent 10-year interval, 1999-2008, was the warmest of the last 2,000 years in the Arctic, according to the researchers led by Darrell S. Kaufman, a professor of geology and environmental science at Northern Arizona University.

Summer temperatures in the Arctic averaged 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) warmer than would have been expected if the cooling had continued, the researchers said.

The finding adds fuel to the debate over a House-passed climate bill now pending in the Senate. The administration-backed measure would impose the first limits on greenhouse gases and eventually would lead to an 80 percent reduction by putting a price on each ton of climate-altering pollution.”

Revkin reinforces this extreme view in his September 3 2009 article with his figure of 2000 years of Arctic surface temperatures, with each decade having the same temporal resolution as the last 10 years.

The publication of these news articles are clearly meant to influence the political process, as evident in the last paragraph, where Schmid writes “The finding adds fuel to the debate over a House-passed climate bill now pending in the Senate.”

The documentation of their biased reporting is easy to show. For example, they do not report on observational data which does not show this rapid recent warming; e.g. see that the current high latitude temperatures are close to the longer term average since 1958

The Danish Meteorological Institute Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2008 [and thanks to the excellent weblog Watts Up With That for making this easily available to us!]

There are also peer reviewed papers which show that the Schmid and Revkin articles are biased; e. g. see

i) the areal coverage of the coldest middle tropospheric temperatures (below -40C) have not changed radically as shown in the Revkin figure; see

Herman, B., M. Barlage, T.N. Chase, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2008: Update on a proposed mechanism for the regulation of minimum mid-tropospheric and surface temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D24101, doi:10.1029/2008JD009799.

and

ii) there is a warm bias in the Arctic surface temperature measurements when they are used to characterize deeper atmospheric warming; see

Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., accepted.

At least the news Editors of the newspapers are starting to recognize that these journalists are presenting slanted news. The Schmid article appeared only on page 12 of my local newspaper.

New Peer-Reviewed Study Shows Arctic COOLING Over last 1500 years!

New Arctic Study published in Climate Dynamics, and the work was conducted by Håkan Grudd of Stockholm University’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology - Published online: 30 January 2008

Excerpt: “The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ‘Medieval Warm Period’ is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetraäsk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.” < >

“The new Torneträsk summer temperature reconstruction shows a trend of -0.3°C over the last 1,500 years.” Paper available here: & Full Paper (pdf) available here:

A New “Hockey Stick”

The Washington Post is touting a new study purporting to show an Arctic temperature “Hockey Stick.” But the study appears to contradict numerous previous Arctic studies and scientists are already challenging the premise and claims of the new study. The study in under fire for basing key results and conclusions on Penn State Professor Michael Mann's discredited “Hockey Stick” temperature graph. (Editor's Note: Mann just recently attempted to invent a hurricane "Hockey Stick" as well. )

The new study claims to show “human-generated greenhouse gas emissions have helped reverse a 2,000-year trend of cooling in the Arctic, prompting warmer average temperatures in the past decade that now rank higher than at any time since 1 B.C.,” according to a September 3, 2009 article by the Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin. The study will appear in the September 3, 2009 online version of the journal Science. The lead author was Northern Arizona University professor Darrell S. Kaufman.

UN chief visits 'doomsday' seed vault in Arctic

How did the Egyptians, Mayas, Aztec, etc did it?
How deep in the permafrost they they have to dig? Baskets of seed left in caves and tombs survived just fine. let's all remember what UN chief Ban Ki-moon said last 2 weeks .http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=557
The twit is "very much alarmed" by the rapid rate of melting ice. " ?? what does he think happened to Arctic summer sea ice in Summer? He is pulling out of the alarmist hat every imaginary rabbits he can. "This is alarming" "this is alarming" .

will the EPA jump at the opportunity ?

The guys over at http://thechillingeffect.org/2009/08/25/cowardly-epa-ducks-biggest-biz-group-on-global-warming/ offer their take on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s wonderful petition of the EPA demanding a bit of a trial on the premise for its “endangerment” finding that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real, threatening, and proven - or sufficiently proven to justify regulation, even if nothing the U.S. can do through regulation would do anything about the purported warming.

The EPA is of course ducking the opportunity to finally and for the first time make its case. To this point, they have appealed to authority of the IPCC, which says on its web page that it doesn't perform any research. That should tell you as much as you need to know about their confidence in the case: it’s nonexistent, and they are filled with terror over the thought of having to defend their stance.

Thank God For Carbon

acidifying oceans, dying coral reefs, more frequent droughts, are all based on simulations carried out on very large computer models of the world’s climate. All the models are constructed on the assumption of global warming caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. These climate models have suffered major credibility setbacks in recent years.
They have been unable to predict the temperatures we have actually experienced,
particularly since 1998, as temperatures have remained stationary or, as in the last
two years, declined by 0.7 °C, despite increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Furthermore, there have been major changes in the model predictions, but these
have not diminished the faith of the global warmers (or carbonistas), nor of the policy makers who follow them. Early predictions included the idea of ever-increasing temperatures (as in the notorious hockey stick graph), but now we are told that global warming has been delayed until 2015.
The satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) measurements taken of tropospheric temperatures in the tropical regions have shown no increase in the last ten years.
Every climate model requires these particular temperatures to increase with increasing
atmospheric carbon dioxide.
It has been admitted by some of the climate modellers connected to the IPCC that
their simulations cannot describe in any detail clouds or cloud formation. The type and extent of cloud cover over the earth has a very large impact on radiation input to the earth from the sun and on the earth’s radiation to space. Th is is, therefore, a damning admission from within the global-warming community.

ICSC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PRESENTATION - CO2 AND WAXMAN-MARKEY

http://www.nccoal.org/pdf/Harris_Presentation_090713.pdf

NSIDC on arctic ice: It is now unlikely that 2009 will see a record low extent

Daily Arctic sea ice extent on August 17 was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). The orange line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that day. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.

Seven arrested in suspected carbon tax fraud

"Those arrested are believed to be part of an organized crime group operating a network of companies trading large volumes of high-value carbon credits," it said.

"It is thought that the proceeds of this crime have then been used to finance lavish lifestyles and the purchase of prestige vehicles."

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake."

Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled "Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts," which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the "Hardtalk" program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

"I don't think it will be melting by 2030. ... That may have been a mistake," he said.Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing "misleading information" and using "exaggeration and alarmism."

Leipold's admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.

Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization's practice of "emotionalizing issues" in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

"We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. ... The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model," Leipold said. "If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary."

Who is Really Making Up the Facts

“When I asked Chu about the earth-is-cooling argument, he rolled his eyes and whipped out a chart showing that the 10 hottest years on record have all been in the past 12 years and that 1998 was the hottest. He mocked the skeptics who focus on that post-1998 blip while ignoring a century-long trend of rising temperatures: “See? It’s gone down! The earth must be cooling!” But then he got serious, almost plaintive: “You know, it’s totally irresponsible. You’re not supposed to make up the facts."”

Four months till the end of the world

"We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet."

How did a nut job like this ever become UN Secretary-General?

The New Politics, A Speech by carl Pope

* Increasing Mining Royalties and Grazing Fees on public lands -- "Mining claims on federal lands are property rights. The current grazing fee formula takes account of a permitee's private property rights."
* Blocking Interior Secretary Babbitt's Grazing Regulations --"Grazing permits result from pre-existing property rights. These rights are well documented throughout western water and land-use law."
* Mojave National Monument -- "Thousands of mining claims, numerous operating mines, and grazing permits would be included inside the boundaries of the new parks and wilderness areas.... Property rights supporters sparked significant opposition."
* Forest Service Road Budget -- "To reduce the Forest Service roadbuilding budget by $11.9 million. In addition to timber producers, these roads have multiple uses; private property inholders, mining claimants, grazing permittees and recreationists use them as well. Without access, private property is worthless...."
* National Biological Survey Volunteers -- Rep. Billy Tauzin offered an amendment forbidding the National Biological Survey from using volunteers. "Defenders of private property voted yes. Volunteers could have self interested motives to find endangered species and would be much harder to control through civil service regulations than federal employees."
* Mining Law Repeal -- "The General Mining Law of 1872 provides incentives to encourage people to discover and develop minerals .... The bill would radically change this system..."
* Montana Wilderness -- "Rep. Pat Williams' bill would create new wilderness areas in Montana totaling 1.6 million acres. Mining and other activities would be prohibited within these areas..."

Chevy Volt's "230 MPG" Propaganda

The Chevy Volt gets 230 MPG? Really? Using GM's "calculations" if you drive under 40 miles per day, you will get infinite MPG! The reality is that the Chevy Volt runs 40 miles on battery power, then a gasoline generator kicks in and you average around "40 MPG". However, I will wait for the real MPG rating as the Prius's initial 60 MPG rating was a lie - try 45 MPG. But what does a plug-in electrical charge (which is not free) have to do with MPG? Absolutely nothing, it is pure propaganda using it to calculate "MPG". How dishonest has Government Motors become to sell a car that only the mathematically challenged would buy? Apparently a sucker is born every minute...

Dangerous Deception?

Motive
It is difficult and dangerous to impute motive. How and why a person acts in a certain way is usually difficult to determine. A particular course of action may be taken with the best of intentions yet cause considerable problems. However, certain actions although not definitive may expose the motive.

Arctic Ice Changes in past 3 years due to 'shifting winds'

Arctic Ice Changes in past 3 years due to 'shifting winds' - The Star Canada - July 28, 2009 - Excerpt: Oceanographer and Arctic researcher Jane Eert said "dramatic [Arctic ice] changes in the past three years are the result of shifting winds." "Enormous amounts of ice have 'been exported from the Arctic,' driven by winds that are shifting," according to Eert. Eert noted that climate models have many woes. "The guys who are running the long-term climate models have a tough problem," Eert says. "They're looking at really long time scales, and as result they can't look at a lot of details for each year. In order to get the results before you die, you have to fudge some things. And what they fudge is the small-scale stuff. But it turns out that probably the small-scale stuff is important and fudging it gives you wrong answers." [...] Jane Eert is science coordinator of the Three Oceans Project, a federal study of Canada's Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans. [...] A physical oceanographer, Eert leads the scientific team aboard The Louis. It's her 10th voyage on the ship since 1999. Between 10 and 15 per cent of the Arctic Ocean is what Eert calls a data hole. It will take years' more research to fill it in with solid information, she adds. After years of reports that vast areas of Arctic ice are melting as the seawater below, and air above, warm up, scientists have discovered that dramatic changes in the past three years are the result of shifting winds, perhaps caused by climate change. Enormous amounts of ice have "been exported from the Arctic," driven by winds that are shifting as the climate changes, which pushed the ice into ocean currents that delivered it to the North Atlantic, Eert says. "The multi-year ice in the polar pack didn't melt in the Arctic Ocean,'' she says. "It moved out and what's left in the Arctic is thinner than it was." That doesn't mean some Arctic ice isn't disappearing altogether, just that the process is not as simple as some reports suggest, Eert says. Old ice that has shifted south from Greenland may have a counter-effect on the climate, which is just one of the many pieces of a very complex jigsaw puzzle that scientists are trying to piece together as they attempt to predict the effects of global warming.

North Pole expedition finds 'ice 100% thicker than expected' - April 28, 2009Excerpt: Surprising results - In Canada, "Polar 5", a research aircraft (see 27 hi-res pictures), has ended its recent Arctic expedition today. During the flight, scientists were measuring the ice thickness in regions that have never been overflown before. The result: the sea ice is apparently thicker than the scientists had suspected. Under normal conditions, the ice is formed within two years and ends up being slightly above 2 meters of thickness. "Here, the thickness was as high as four meters," said the spokesperson for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven. According to the scientists, this conclusion seems to contradict the warming of the ocean water.

Danish Meteorological Institute records show: No Arctic Warming Since 1958! - 'Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than now' - May 13, 2009 - Excerpt: The Danish Meteorological Institute has records going back to 1958 and GISSTEMP has even longer records. Below is a visual comparison of DMI 1958 Arctic temperatures vs. 2009, showing that temperatures have hardly changed since the start of their record.[...] Below is an overlay directly showing that 2009 temperatures (green) are similar to 1958 (red) and close to the mean. Temperatures have warmed since the start of the satellite record, but they cooled even more between 1940 and 1980. Everyone (including NSIDC) quietly acknowledges that most of the Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than now – so they shift the warming argument to the Alaska side. However, that argument also has problems. Alaska temperatures rose at the positive PDO shift in 1977, and have cooled again with the recent negative PDO shift – as seen below. 2008 was notable in that Alaska glaciers started to increase in size.

Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history.

HEAT WAVES – ARE THEY BECOMING MORE COMMON?

THE CLAIMS

The UN, NOAA and the EPA in their analyses made the following claims:

Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed in the last 50 years. Globally, cold days, cold nights, and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent.

Severe heat waves are projected to intensify in magnitude and duration over the portions of the U.S. where these events already occur, with potential increases in mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly, young and frail.

REALITY

There is no indication that record heat is increasing in frequency, in fact the data shows a precipitous decline in the number of heat records in recent decades. The early 20th century dominates the heat statistics for the United States and the world.

The presumption that global heat waves and extremes have increased in frequency is not supported by the official government data. NOAA’s NCDC shows that record high temperature by continent have occurred mainly in the 1880s and early 1900s, with only 1 post 1950 (Antarctica in 1974).

In the United States, there has been almost a total absence of new statewide records. There was no evidence of extreme warming based on temperature extremes. This analysis using NOAA data was compiled by InfoPlease through 2004 and updated with NOAA record page.

The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far - Trillions to come

• The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
• Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
• Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
• Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
• The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

Analysis of Alarmism: Ocean acidification

What is Ocean Acidification?

Oceans absorb or release CO2 primarily determined by the amount in the atmosphere and the water temperature. The argument is that regardless of what the air temperature does increased CO2 amount in the atmosphere due to human activity guarantees more going into the oceans. This change results in a change in water chemistry reflected in one measure, the pH.

A solution has a pH level that is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity. The pH scale is from 0 to 14 and a measure of 7 is neutral. The scale is created relative to standard solutions and agreed on internationally. Above 7 the solution is more alkaline and below 7 it is more acid. The oceans are considered to have a pH of 8.2 with a variance of 0.3, so it is an alkaline solution.

The claim of ocean acidification is based on estimates and computer models; these use the very questionable pre-industrial atmospheric level of CO2 to calculate an increase of about 0.1 pH units. Of course, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attributes the CO2 increase to human production, which is wrong because the global carbon cycle is very vague about sources, storage and length of time in each condition. For example, the error in the estimate of CO2 from the oceans each year is greater than the total human contribution.

Temperatures are normal, it’s the Politics that are Wrong

In a massive irony President Obama spoke of global warming at the G8 on July 8, the same day his political hometown of Chicago recorded the coldest July 8 in 118 years.

Global temperatures are declining but politicians keep speaking of warming. After sea level rise the biggest alarmism and misinformation is about global temperatures. Unlike sea level threats temperature data is more easily understood and difficult to ignore, but that doesn’t stop extremists or politicians with a narrow political agenda.

A few events are easily dismissed as weather, but a pattern indicates a climate trend. Reports of record cold began in the Southern Hemisphere 20 years ago but became global over the last 10 years. This contradicts predictions of warming and indicates the claimed cause of human produced CO2 is wrong.

Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists

Shoreline change, Eustasy, Isostasy

Global warming alarmists often exploit the determination of what is happening along a shoreline or on ocean islands. Shorelines change over time due to the water rising or falling, scientifically called eustasy, or the land rising or falling called isostasy. It is difficult to separate one from the other in some locations, but in most it is clear. A classic example exploited by alarmists is along the Gulf of Mexico. Here the land is sinking as the continent adjusts to the removal of massive ice sheets but it appears the sea is rising. At the other end of the continent the land is rising as evidenced by the hundreds of shorelines around Hudson Bay.

History

Sea level has risen as the vast continental glaciers formed during the last ice age melted. It was some150 meters (490 feet) lower 18,000 years ago and has risen since that time. The massive glaciers were built up by water evaporating from the oceans and accumulating as snow on the land that changed to ice. Melt began 18,000 years ago but most occurred from 15,000 to 8000 years ago and sea level rose at an average rate of 14 mm a year. From 3000 to 100 years ago the rise was approximately 0.2 mm. Now sea level rise is directly and simplistically linked to melting glaciers and in turn linked to global warming.

Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam

In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called Limits to growth. The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.

Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Climate modeling simulations run by the IPCC, shown in Figure 5.1, suggest to them that natural forcings alone cannot explain the observed warming (for the globe, the global land, and global oceans) and that the observed warming can only be reproduced with models that contain both natural and anthropogenic forcings. This, however is contrary to the findings of Scafetta and others (2008 and 2009) and for the reasons discussed in the previous entry do not appear to apply to satellite data for the period 1978-2008.




Analyses of paleoclimate data show that CO2 increases follow temperature increases rather than the other way around (Fischer et al., 1999) and (Caillon, 2003). This strongly suggests that CO2 may not be causing higher temperatures, but rather that higher temperatures cause a rise in CO2 levels (which is logical given the reduced capacity of water to hold CO2 at higher temperatures).

Cap and Trade; a Solution to a Non-existent Problem with Devastating Consequences

An energy policy built on the lie that human CO2 is causing global warming is likely to fail. It is a bigger lie when CO2 is incorrectly called carbon. The policy is guaranteed to fail when proposed energy alternatives cannot fulfill needs and will cause economic slowdown, decreased competitiveness and further economic decay.

On June 26, the US House of Representatives passed a Bill titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act by a scant 219 to 212 votes. The title is misleading. It appeals to patriotism, which Samuel Johnson said is the last refuge of a scoundrel. “Clean Energy” really means without producing CO2, which incorrectly assumes it is a pollutant. Security means eliminating imported energy, but the nation is less secure with a weakened economy guaranteed under provisions of the Bill. It is more commonly, but equally incorrectly, called the Carbon Cap and Trade Bill. Carbon is not CO2 but this is only one of the deceptions. Hopefully, enough Senators will understand and reject the Bill when they vote in the fall.

President Obama frantically pushed his energy policy as resistance developed. He wrapped it in promises of green jobs; profits from industry creating renewable clean energy; a stop to “bubble or bust” economic cycles; and all at no cost to the taxpayers because “polluters” pay the bill.

EUROPE'S GREEN SUICIDE: TRADE UNION WARNS OF MASSIVE JOB LOSSES

Some 800,000 jobs across Europe will be wiped out following the adoption of EU climate change legislation last year, warned Poland's Solidarność trade union.

Jaroslaw Grzesik, deputy head of energy at Solidarność, said Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and the Czech Republic would suffer most because of their reliance on coal for electricity production.

"We're going to lose jobs in states where coal is used," Grzesik told a conference organised by Confrontations Europe, a think-tank, citing EU countries located on the bloc's eastern border. "But Germany, the UK and Scandinavia will also suffer," he told the conference, held on 23 June in Brussels.

Poland relies on coal for 58% of its overall energy needs (the figure jumps to 95% for electricity) compared with 26.2% for Denmark and 23.6% for Germany, according to 2006 statistics from the European Commission. Estonia (56%) and the Czech Republic (45%) are also heavy coal users.

HOW THE UK MET OFFICE IS UNDERMINING ITS CREDIBILITY

As CA readers know, Phil Jones keeps his CRU data secret. Embarrassingly, the UK Met Office relies on this secret data and says that it is unable to provide this supporting data for the most relied upon temperature data set in the world. Their statements in response to FOI requests as to what they actually hold seem contradictory, but most recently they state that they do not hold original data, but only the "value added version" provided to them by Phil Jones. Whether they are entitled to keep the "value added version" secret is something that their FOI officer is presently considering.

Recently, Anthony Watts discovered that the Honolulu Observatory data, which NOAA and NASA lost track of in the 1980s, continued to the present day.

Anthony observed the substantial difference between trends at Honolulu airport and at more rural sites.

When I've done previous benchmarking of GISS data, I've usually tried to use relatively isolated stations so that the effect of data inclusions and exclusions could be simplified. Since Hawaii is relatively isolated, it seemed like it would be an interesting exercise to look at the Hawaiian gridcell, to get a preview of whether the "discovery" of a long data set might have an impact at the gridded level.

As so often, when one goes down a climate science rabbit hole, wonderland awaits.

£5,000 POWER BILLS SHOCK

will hit a shocking £5,000 a year to strike a blow to millions of struggling families, experts warned last night.

Consumer champions said the massive sum was a “wake-up call”, marking the end of cheap electricity and gas.

Bills will rise by up to 42 per cent ayear over the next decade - with the biggest single increase an eye-watering £1,280.

Security trumps environment as Obama gives green light to US consumption of Alberta’s oil.

President Obama, in close discussions with Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is to give the green light for US consumption of oil sand oil, or rather the import of fuels considered among the “dirtiest” in the fuel market. In a meeting last week, President Obama decided that the Canada’s oil sands represented an important part of national security supplies for petroleum in America’s near future.

In the House, It's Peterson vs. Climate Bill

The resistance to the climate bill from Mr. Peterson and other farm-state Democrats has exposed divisions within the majority party over whether Congress should attempt such far-reaching and potentially costly environmental legislation at the same time it is trying to overhaul the U.S. health-care system.

Mr. Peterson, who was first elected to Congress in 1990, wants the party's leaders to soften the climate bill's impact on coal-burning power plants, scale back existing regulation of ethanol, and make other changes that, if adopted, could steer huge sums of money to farmers who engage in environmentally friendly practices.

With Republicans expected to oppose the measure en masse, the votes of Farm Belt Democrats are critical to the House climate bill's future. But some of the changes Mr. Peterson wants could make it less palatable to Democrats who are more liberal.

Lugar, Others Raise Climate Change Questions

As House Democrats struggle to come up with enough votes to pass their climate change bill that so far lacks changes demanded by farm state members, Lugar alludes to problems in the senate. “To say the least, the data, the metrics of the Chinese measurement of what is occurring with regard to CO2 in the atmosphere, are not necessarily suspect, it’s just simply, the basis for what’s called a ‘baseline’ by one of our witnesses, don’t exist.”

EU leaders postpone decision on climate change aid

EU leaders on Thursday postponed a decision on climate change aid for the poorest nations, a move slammed by environmentalists.

"The main principles of contribution should be the ability to pay and the responsibility for emissions," the European leaders said in a statement issued during a summit in Brussels

"All countries, except the least developed, should contribute to the financing of the fight against climate change in developing countries," the text added.

But there were no concrete commitment or firm figures.

The EU "recognises the scale of the effort required" and would therefore contribute "a fair share of international public support for action for mitigation and adaptation, in particular for the least developed coutries," the 27 heads of state and government said in their statement.

Russia offers climate goal with no real bite

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia plans to release 30 percent more greenhouse gases by 2020 under an emissions target scheme announced on Friday by President Dmitry Medvedev. The plan would reduce emissions by 10-15 percent from Russia's emissions in 1990 when it was part of the Soviet Union and its emissions were far higher than they are today.

Gross Misuse of Science to Achieve a Political End

How can they list naturally occurring gases as pollutants? Because they claim they are causing global warming and climate change, but those are natural processes. There is no evidence that they are due to greenhouse gases at all except in the completely contrived computer models and broadcast in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CO2 is essential to life and not causing warming or climate change. In every record for any time period and any duration temperatures change before CO2 not as assumed in the theory that human CO2 is the cause. Methane is only 0.00017 percent of all atmospheric gases and 0.36 percent of greenhouse gases so of little or no consequence. More important, the atmospheric levels have dropped for 14 of the last 15 years.

The Nobel prize doesn't always go to the most deserving!

The Nobel prize doesn't always go to the most deserving!!!!!!! See below and you will see why:* Irena Sendler There recently was a death of a 98 year-old lady named Irena. During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in theWarsawGhetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an 'ulterior motive'... She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German.) Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack, (for larger kids.) She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises. During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs, arms and beat her severely. Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it and reunited the family. Most of course had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted. Last year Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize ... She was not selected. *Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming. GOD BLESS HER May she rest in Peace

Nansen Corrects Sea Ice Data – Sea Ice Extent Now Greater, Near Normal for Most of April/May

Interest in sea ice extent continues to run high, but there remains differences between different groups such as NSIDC and Cryosphere Today, which have both been plagued with SSMI sensor problems from the DMSP F13 satellite. NANSEN may have had the same issues with SSMI/F13, and if they did, they seem to have gotten them under control, possibly by switching to SSSMI/F17 as NSIDC did.

For example here is a page that NANSEN maintains that shows the differences between the newer AMSRE (that JAXA uses) and the SSMI. One of the images is an AMSR minus SSMI, and it looks like the two different satellites/sensors are in pretty good agreement, with areas along the ice edge (where ice/water boundaries are rapidly changing) showing noise differences where you would expect them to.

A New Metric for Amplification

BSTRACT: A new method is proposed for exploring the amplification of the atmosphere with respect to the surface. The method, which I call "temporal evolution", is shown to reveal the change in amplification with time. In addition, the method shows which of the atmospheric datasets are similar and which are dissimilar. The method is used to highlight the differences between the HadAT2 balloon, UAH MSU satellite, RSS MSU satellite, and CGCM3.1 model datasets.