Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
Thursday, 31 May 2012
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
|Ocean side, Majuro Atoll (Wikipedia)|
Ford, M. 2012. Shoreline changes on an urban atoll in the central Pacific Ocean: Majuro Atoll, Marshall Islands. Journal of Coastal Research 28: 11-22.
What was learned
The University of Hawaii researcher reports that the rural lagoon shore of Majuro Atoll has been predominantly eroding, but that the ocean-facing shore has been largely accreting, and at a much faster rate. In addition, he finds that "shoreline change within the urban area of Majuro has been largely driven by widespread reclamation for a mix of residential, commercial and industrial activities." Thus, "despite a rising sea level," he finds that "the landmass of Majuro has persisted and, largely because of reclamation, increased in size."
What it means
Ford concludes by noting that as an atoll population increases, "further demands are placed on the limited land available," and he says that in the case of Majuro Atoll, "it is likely that land reclamation will continue to satisfy this demand," noting that "the notion that sea level rise is a singular driver of shoreline change along atolls is spurious," while stating that "adopting such a notion is an impediment to the sustainable management of coastal resources within urban atolls."
Inhabitants of Tuvalu (and other island states) ... take note!
AbstractFORD, M., 2012. Shoreline changes on an urban atoll in the central Pacific Ocean: Majuro atoll, Marshall Islands.
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
|Nature Climate Change|
Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science?
Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried.......
As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased," the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes.
But some of the 16 scientists who signed a letter this January titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" disagree.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, was one skeptical scientist who signed the letter. He said that the finding that skeptics know as much or more about science surprised him "not at all."
Anthony Watts has also a post on this study.....LINK.
Gernany Ditches Green Energy; Will Australia ditch our "There will be no Carbon Tax" Prime Minister?
|Image: Larry Pickering|
German Government May Abandon Green Energy TransitionThe German government no longer believes in the green energy transition. Doubts are growing in the ruling coalition government that the ecological project can succeed.
Will Australia soon see a similar headline:
Australian Government May Abandon Prevaricating PM
The Australian government no longer believes in their prevaricating Prime Minister. If she is deposed before 1st July when her tax on innocent carbon dioxide commences, her well known "There will be no carbon tax under any government that I lead" will be confirmed as the truth!
Sunday, 27 May 2012
A print-ready copy of this issue of "Carbon Sense" can be downloaded from:
With the failure of "Global Warming" the climatists have concocted a new alarm – the soda water scare.
Their computer models are forecasting that the oceans, which weigh 300 times more than all the gases in the atmosphere, are being turned acidic by the 0.0012% (12 parts per million) of man-made additions to the carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere.
CO2 is a natural gas that dissolves in water. The amount absorbed depends upon how much CO2 there is in the air, and the temperature of the water. CO2 dissolves best in cold water and is expelled as the water warms. And far more would be absorbed if there was 100% CO2 in the atmosphere above.
When concentrated CO2 gas is bubbled under high pressure into ice cold water much CO2 dissolves, producing acidic soda water whose pH (acidity) could be as low as 4. This is 1,000 times more acidic than pure water whose pH is a neutral 7.
But oceans are much warmer than that and atmospheric CO2 is at much lower pressure. Therefore in the open ocean, pH seldom gets below 8, ten times more alkaline than pure water.
This weak soda water could only be described as "acidic" by someone pushing an alarmist agenda. There are no measurements that show that the pH of the ocean is changing more now than in the past – only models. In historical terms, atmospheric CO2 levels are now close to record lows. Corals and other ocean life have flourished in atmospheric levels of CO2 far higher than today's.
We are told that the tiny bit of natural soda water in still-alkaline sea water will dissolve corals and shells, kill fish and create oceanic mayhem?
If soda water is so dangerous, then how come people consume it in copious amounts in beer, scotch and fizzy drinks?
All plant life, on land and in water, flourishes if CO2 is added to the currently meagre natural supply. All ocean life depends on the availability of CO2 that feeds algae, plankton and other sea plants.
To suggest that today's minute supply of plant food in the atmosphere will cause an acidity crisis in the oceans is baseless scare mongering. The computer models used to forecast this disaster are no more reliable than those that have failed to forecast global temperatures for the last 15 years.
The soda water scare is not about ocean acidity. It is part of a scheme to drive fishermen from the Coral Sea promoted by the same people who want to force graziers from the grasslands, foresters from the forests and miners from the coal fields.
Like so much in Australia's politicised research industry, too much ocean research focusses on designing computer models to manufacture crises which are then used to justify locking up the Coral Sea and hobbling coastal industries and development.
The new frontiers for ocean research are not along lazy tropical beaches or beside Coral Sea resorts. The secrets to past and future climate changes will be found by real observations in the deep oceans along the mid-ocean rifts where periodic volcanism will have massive effects on oceans, atmosphere and global climates.
For supporting information see:
The Impact of Carbon dioxide
on Climate Change
and Earth’s Plant and Animal Kingdoms
This is a very useful presentation of simple graphs illustrating all aspects of the global warming and carbon demonization scams. Well worth printing in colour for close study:
Saving the Planet?
George Carlin on the Global Warming Scam: "The Planet will be here long after we are gone".
Lord Monckton on Agenda 21
Germany faces some painful Truths on
No modern industrial society can function without reliable electricity supplies; and it cannot compete in the world without low cost energy. Greens pose the greatest threat to reliable low cost electricity supplies.
Germany, more than any other country, has led the green/global warming hysteria. It is therefore appropriate that Germany is now starting to reap the dividends from that destructive chapter – soaring electricity costs and now the real chance of blackouts during the next cold, windless, gloomy winter.
Germany has access to four proven and efficient methods for generating electricity:
- coal (domestic lignite),
- nuclear (domestic and imported from France),
- gas (imported from Russia), and
- hydro (domestic and imported from Scandinavia).
However, German Greens oppose construction of any new coal, nuclear, gas or hydro plant; are forcing the closure of nuclear plants; would like to see closure of coal plants; and oppose exploration for shale gas in Europe.
What do they expect to keep the lights on in Germany? Wind and solar energy.
Fritz Vahrenholt was a hero of the German Greens for decades. He wrote a best-selling book on the dangers of chemicals in the environment, became a "Senator for the Environment", advised Shell on improving its environmental credentials, was CEO of a wind energy company and, until recently, was in charge of the renewable energy division of RWE, Germany's biggest energy company.
However he has suddenly fallen out of favour with the Greens because he wrote a book:
"The Forgotten Sun – Why the Climate Catastrophe is not taking place".
In this book he concludes that the IPCC has underestimated the role of the sun in determining earth's climate, failed to forecast the fact that world temperatures have been on a plateau for 15 years, and ignored the natural 60 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Vahrenholt has also learned some painful practical lessons about green energy.
He relates a story on how RWE invests 1.2 billion euros in renewable energy but that huge investment generates unreliable energy and no profits.
"What Germany is doing now is incredible. Although we get the same amount of sunlight as Alaska, 800 hours a year, we have installed 50% of the global solar PV capacity. With all these solar roofs we generate only 3% of our electricity but it is costing us 8 billion euros a year! And this will go on for twenty years because of the feed-in tariff. One of the arguments is that it’s generating jobs but this is only partly true, because nowadays 85% of the panels are coming from China and the US." He describes the difficulties solar energy causes to the grid, and the negative economics of buying electricity when it is expensive and being forced to sell it, sometimes at negative prices. "Our current approach is a dead end".
Vahrenholt also notes that "Only Europe, Australia and New Zealand are taking measures against carbon dioxide but these countries emit only 14% of the world's total. . . . we're destroying the foundations of our prosperity . . . and putting at risk our automotive, steel, copper, chemicals and silicon industries."
The European Energy Review has a long thoughtful article on the message that Fritz Vahrenholt has for green energy "experts" in Germany (and Australia).
It is well worth reading carefully:
See also: Germany fears de-industrialisation:
The Wheels are coming off the
Wind Energy Gravy Train
Marita Noon, writing in "Right Side News", summarises the sad state of the wind industry:
The wind energy industry has been having a hard time. The taxpayer funding that has kept it alive for the last twenty years is coming to an end, and those promoting the industry are panicking. Perhaps this current wave started when one of Big Wind’s most noted supporters, T. Boone Pickens, said in an MSNBC interview, “I’m in the wind business…. I lost my ass in the business.”
Michael Liebreich of the research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance says, “With a financially stressed electorate, it’s really hard to go to them and say: ‘Gas is cheap, but we’ve decided to build wind farms for no good reason that we can articulate.’”
The Renixx index is the first global stock index of the 30 largest renewable energy companies in the world. This index has lost 90% of its value since 2008. Seventeen companies once in this index have already filed for bankruptcy and fourteen more are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. This is mainly caused by the progressive withdrawal of subsidies.
The Last Word
Three Inconvenient Facts
Providing the Green/Gillard government lasts that long, it appears that the carbon tax will become law on 1st July 2012.
For the first year or so, the promoters and beneficiaries will try to silence all opposition.
The first weapon will be bribery – give a special exemption or handout to everyone who complains.
The second weapon will be threats. Businesses who complain that the carbon tax has forced them to increase their prices will be threatened by government attack dogs.
The third weapon will be government propaganda. Climate commissioners, CSIRO, the ABC, the green politicians and all the alarmist apologists such as Greenpeace and WWF will come up with daily stories of climate scares or green energy subsidies at work.
Sceptic voices such as "Carbon Sense" will struggle to be heard above the din.
But, sitting there, like Vultures on a dead tree watching them struggle in the swamps of reality, are three inconvenient facts:
- There has been no global warming for 14 years:
- There is no evidence that carbon dioxide controls global temperature.
- More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have huge benefits for all life on earth.
Opposition to this massive stupidity will never cease. Please help us spread the word.
Rosevale Qld 4340
“Carbon Sense” is a newsletter produced by the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food.
Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.
For more information visit our web site at www.carbon-sense.com
Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed.
Chairman Viv Forbes MS 23, Rosewood Qld 4340 Australia. firstname.lastname@example.org
Saturday, 26 May 2012
Googling the words Climate Control gives me results for cars from $20,000 to $500,000.
Can some-one please tell me why we have spent research billions around the world in the false illusion that the world can get Climate Control?
Will the Green Gillard Government's tax on carbon dioxide give us Climate Control?
|Table 4's meal is ready!|
SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact. The prices watchdog, the ACCC, will today launch its countdown to the July 1 carbon tax with a special focus on helping small businesses understand their obligations and consumers to be vigilant for false claims.
- Power costs are to rise due to the carbon dioxide tax;
- Shopping centres have flagged rent rises due to the carbon dioxide tax, and
- Council rates are destined to rise due to the carbon dioxide tax.
Friday, 25 May 2012
MAY 25th 2012
SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND CLIMATE CHANGE
The so-called "science" that is currently practised by many climate sciences violates most of the principles of the scientific method.
The scientific method begins with an hypothesis.
"Observations" are then made to try an confirm the hypothesis. As Karl Popper has pointed out, the main object of an observation is the attempt to falsify an hypothesis. If it succeeds in doing so, the hypothesis is false, but if it fails, it means the observation is compatible with the hypothesis but does not prove that it is right.
But first, it is necessary to confirm that the observation is is correctly reported...
I was a forensic scientist for a number of years and I appeared in court on behalf of the New Zealand police. Much effort was exercised to confirm any piece of evidence. When I gave my examination on a police exhibit I had to confirm that this was the item I received. The officer involved gave evidence that this was the item he removed from the crime scene. All evidence has to be checked. Hearsay evidence is not acceptable.
Many "observations" that are used in climate science do not have a known observer who can confirm the observation and many observations are not made by a person at all but by some instrument remote from the human "observer". The instrument may even apply some "correction" of amalgamation procedure which is not always revealed or justified.
A scientific observation is not valid unless it can be repeated by another, unbiased observer. When somebody recently announced the discovery of "cold fusion" there were immediate attempts to repeat the observation which falsified it.
It is not possible to repeat any observation on the climate. All observations are therefore unconfirmed and thus unreliable. If you wish to study climate science you have to abandon the scientific method altogether and seek some other means of making use of unreliable observations without expecting to prove any hypothesis.
The science of meteorology has had to face this limitation from the beginning. It has had to adopt an approach which is essentially unscientific, but which may be practically useful..
This approach is called "validation".
In order to validate a hypothesis the observations must explain all observations that are considered to be reliable. If there are any that disagree they falsify the hypothesis unless thee observations can be questioned. In order to be useful, the hypothesis must successfully predict a range of future observations to a satisfactory degree of accuracy. If this is successful, then the hypothesis can then be usefully employed over this range, but not outside it.
This technique has been adopted by traditional meteorology. It has developed a series of hypotheses about the behaviour of the climate based on measurements of air pressure, wind speed and direction, temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, sunshine hours, cloud formation and a range of other parameters. It is a system of cyclones, anticyclones, high and low air pressure, wind patterns, and precipitation, combined with diurnal and seasonal variations. It is noteworthy that these have not included an influence of atmospheric composition. The results of the hypotheses which have failed to be falsified are the basis of weather forecasts which began locally, but which now cover the entire climate.
These forecasts, which are vital as a guide to our daily existence, are frequently wrong, and become less so over a fairly short period. There are many reasons progress has been relatively modest. The observations cannot be repeated, the system is extremely complex, many aspects of the climate are little understood, and much of the basic science is incomplete, A major problem is our poor understanding of the behaviour of fluids, whose performance over an extended period is so unpredictable that it is considered "chaotic."
The climate pseudo scientists start by throwing out all the scientific results that meteorologists have spent over 200 years accumulating. There is no air pressure, precipitation, wind movement, or cyclones and anticyclones any more. Instead everything now depends entirely on the property the meteorologists found to be useless, atmospheric composition.
They provide a so-called model of the climate which seems to violate most of the laws of physics.
It assumes that the earth is flat, the sun shines with constant intensity, day and night, that all energy exchanges are due to radiation, and the radiant energy entering equals that emerging.
The idea that the energy is currently "balanced" is essential to justify the claim that this idealised climate will be destroyed by increases in greenhouse gases.
There is no part of earth, at any time when input radiation equals output radiation and also never for the entire earth. Every geologist knows that the earth passes through many fluctuations of temperature, over every time scale.
The energy figures in the model are assumed to be constants, whereas each concept is in reality uncertain and variable over every time scale. The latest version of their model is actually unbalanced, with a positive surplus. This fact alone means that the greenhouse hypothesis is falsified from the start. You cannot even study a supposed "equilibrium with varying averages with large uncertainties.
The concealment of uncertainty pervades all the information about the climate. Every piece of "data" is treated as if it were a constant, when it is usually a multiple average that uses an arithmetic mean for populations of individual observations that are far from symmetrical or are so irregular that averages depend on scale and on start and end points.. "Trends" are claimed from inadequately characterised "data" which vary unpredictable over time..
Even if their grossly oversimplified model were genuine, it could not comply with the first, or second laws of thermodynamics because the climate depends on an assumed constant energy supply from the sun, and thus resembles other similar systems like a refrigerator or the human body. It is a perpetual motion machine.
Models are "evaluated": by people with a conflict of interest, but never "validated". No effort is made to check whether they are capable of prediction.
The whole process is supported by governments, electorates, national scientific societies, and even by meteorologists.
It is about time that we returned to the genuine science of meteorology.
"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact" ~Charles Darwin
Sustainability is impossible.
There are only two directions; forward and backward.
Friday, 18 May 2012
|Long Live Science!|
He starts out:
The iconic symbol of the global warming panic may have taken a hit from which it will never recover.Mr Simberg goes through the history, from Mann's original presentation, Al Gore's "Oscar-winning crockumentary to bogus reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." Then he adds:
Unfortunately for those promoting the theory (and the potentially economically catastrophic policy recommendations supposedly supported by it), recent events indicate that the last basis of scientific support for the hockey stick may be crumbling. But to understand this, a little background is necessary.Mann's initial presentation only went back to the beginning of the Little Ice Age. Keith Briffa then announced that the Medieval Warm period didn't exist. Mr Simberg mentions a paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunis and then the hammering the hockey stick took from the work by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
Mr Simberg then writes that the tide finally turned last month....
when the University of East Anglia was finally forced by the British Information Commissioner to at least tell McIntyre which data sets were used in its results. Let’s let blogger “Bishop Hill” (aka Andrew Montford, who has written the book on the subject) tell the rest of the story (and read the whole thing for a detailed description of the deception):
The list of 17 sites that was finally sent to McIntyre represented complete vindication. The presence of Yamal and Polar Urals had already been obvious from the Climategate emails, but the list showed that Briffa had also incorporated the Polar Urals update (which, as we saw above, did not have a hockey stick shape, and which Briffa claimed he had not looked at since 1995) and the Khadtya River site, McIntyre’s use of which the RealClimate authors had ridiculed.
Read More HERE.Although the chronology itself was not yet available, the list of sites was sufficient for McIntyre to calculate the numbers himself, and the results were breathtaking. Firstly, the URALS regional chronology had vastly more data behind it than the Yamal-only figures presented in Briffa’s paperBut what was worse, the regional chronology did not have a hockey stick shape — the twentieth century uptick that Briffa had got from the handful of trees in the Yamal-only series had completely disappeared.
What does this all mean? First, let’s state what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that we know that the planet isn’t warming, and it doesn’t mean that if it is, that we can be sure that it is not due to human activity.
But at a minimum it should be the final blow to the hockey stick, and perhaps to the very notion that bristlecone pines and larches are accurate thermometers. It should also be a final blow to the credibility of many of the leading lights of climate “science,” but based on history, it probably won’t be, at least among the political class. What it really should be is the beginning of the major housecleaning necessary if the field is to have any scientific credibility, but that may have to await a general reformation of academia itself.
Thursday, 17 May 2012
|Is that James Hansen? Or perhaps Tim Flannery?|
As reported by The Hockey Shtick, this new paper shows that the Sun dwarfs the alleged effect of CO2.
A paper recently published in the journal Weather finds that global summer average sunshine [solar short-wave radiation that reaches Earth's surface] dimmed during the period 1958-1983 [prompting an ice age scare], but markedly increased from 1985-2010. The increase in summer average sunshine between those two periods is 6 Watts per square meter, which dwarfs the alleged effects of CO2 by more than 5 times. [Alleged CO2 effect from 1958-2010 was calculated using the IPCC formula 5.35*ln(389.78/315) = 1.14 Watts per square meter]. At one measurement site [De Bilt], summer sunshine increased from 1985-2010 by 15 Watts per square meter, more than 23 times the IPCC alleged forcing from CO2 during the same timeframe [5.35*ln(389.78/346.04) = 0.64 Watts per square meter].
How much longer can the crumbling edifice of the AGW hoax stand up?
Correspondence to: A. J. van Beelen A.J.vanBeelen@uu.nl
© Royal Meteorological Society, 2012 DOI: 10.1002/wea.854
|Brazilian Night Image Wikipedia|
SMH: The Green Gillard government declared victory for a "historic economic reform" today after the Senate finally passed a carbon tax - laws that have created political havoc for four years and have been debated for more than a decade. The government won the historic vote in the upper house 36 to 32.Perhaps they should take note of the Brazilian Government.
(Reuters) - Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff plans to cut and simplify taxes for electricity producers and distributors, two senior officials told Reuters, as part of a strategy to reduce Brazil's high business costs and stimulate its struggling economy.Both governments can't be right.
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
|Coral Reef, China. Image Wikipedia|
In a new peer reviewed paper published in Science China Earth Sciences as reported by CO2 Science,
the authors write that "rising atmospheric CO2 and global warming are regarded as fatal threats to coral reefs," noting that "the IPCC has reported that by the end of this century, coral reefs will be the first ecological system that will become extinct," citing Wilkinson (2004).How can scientists get it so wrong?
Shi, Q., Yu, K.F., Chen, T.R., Zhang, H.L., Zhao, M.X. and Yan, H.Q. 2012. Two centuries-long records of skeletal calcification in massive Porites colonies from Meiji Reef in the southern South China Sea and its responses to atmospheric CO2 and seawater temperature. Science China Earth Sciences 55: 10.1007/s11430-011-4320-0.
The authors write that "rising atmospheric CO2 and global warming are regarded as fatal threats to coral reefs," noting that "the IPCC has reported that by the end of this century, coral reefs will be the first ecological system that will become extinct," citing Wilkinson (2004). However, they say "others contend that rising seawater temperature is conducive to enhanced coral calcification, and increased calcification will be higher than the decline caused by rising CO2," so that "coral calcification will increase by about 35% beyond pre-industrial levels by 2100, and no extinction of coral reefs will occur in the future," citing McNeil et al. (2004).
What it means
It certainly looks like the infamous IPCC has got it all wrong when it comes to predicting the effects of rising temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration on coral calcification rates ... because you better believe that nature's got it right.
Copland, L., Sylvestre, T., Bishop, M.P., Shroder, J.F., Seong, Y.B., Owen, L.A., Bush, A. and Kamp, U. 2011. Expanded and recently increased glacier surging in the Karakoram. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 43: 503-516.
As background material for their enlightening study, the authors write that "the Karakoram mountains of Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and China contain some of the largest non-polar glaciers in the world," noting that they "exist at high altitude (~2500-8600 meters above sea level), and provide a crucial source of water for nearby communities." But are they growing or shrinking, in this supposedly rapidly warming world of ours? That is the question that is on the minds of the inhabitants of those "nearby communities" that depend upon them for their water.
What it means
In concluding, Copland et al. reiterate that contrary to what is often claimed about many of earth's mountain glaciers by the world's climate alarmists, "it is evident that glacier surging is more extensive than previously reported in the Karakoram and that the number of glacier surges has increased recently," driven, as noted above, by positive mass balances.
Read More at CO Science.
Monday, 14 May 2012
This follows previous failed predictions like
- In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water"
- In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."
- In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".
The Daily Telegraph reports:
THE nation's leading climate change expert has again warned of dire weather events - but this time his predictions centre on western Sydney.
In a report to be released today, climate commissioner Professor Tim Flannery said the region's temperatures would rise sharply in coming years, leading to violence and more cases of mental illness.
The commission said western suburbs were suffering from "an urban island heat effect" (UHI) with concrete, buildings and asphalt raising temperatures by 1C to 2C.
|Image: Larry Pickering|
From ABC News:
But a climate scientist with the University of Newcastle, Stewart Franks, says the report tends towards scare mongering.
"The whole thrust of the report is what the climate's going to be going into the future," he said. "Unfortunately we know that the climate models that are used to actually do that job actually don't represent key modes of climate which are very important. I'm thinking specifically things like El Nino and La Nina."Again from the Telegraph:
James Cook University Adjunct Professor Bob Carter, an environmental scientist, rubbished the predictions.
"So what. There is always going to be more or fewer hot days per decade," he said.
He claimed forecasting models to project warming, used by the UN, were wrong and that claims made about the start of this century had proven wrong.
"Those same computer models predicted there would be two-tenths of a degree of warming between the turn of the century and 2010 - in fact we had no warming at all.The worst news is that the Australian taxpayer is still paying this soothsayer. Tim has a house on the Hawkesbury that is just above sea-level.
"If you bring it out to 2012, we have had a slight cooling."
The report predicts by century's end that sea-levels will rise by 1.1 metres, putting more than 40,000 New South Wales homes and 250 kilometres of highway at risk.
Sunday, 13 May 2012
The switch to renewable energy could require more financial sacrifices than previously thought. According to a new study, the green energy transition could cost German consumers up to 60 percent more by 2020 compared to 2011. Overall, the renewables costs may total 175 billion Euros by 2020.And Lawrence Solomon for the Financial Post reports that the US has weathered the worst of the disaster:
A new study suggests that the green energy transition will make electricity significantly more expensive. By 2020, electricity consumers will have to forfeit 21.5 billion Euros in costs caused by the transition to renewable energies. This has been calculated by the energy experts at McKinsey in a recent study. That is 60 percent more than the 13.5 billion Euros consumers had to pay for renewables last year.
McKinsey has also calculated what effect the transition to renewable energy sources will have on the electricity prices. The costs include the difference between the high prices, which are paid for electricity generated by wind and solar power plants based on the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), and the price of electricity at the power exchange. Factored in too are the higher network charges which will finance the additional power lines required. Overall, the renewables cost totals 175 billion Euros between 2011 and 2020, according to the study.
Global-warming-related catastrophes are increasingly hitting vulnerable populations around the world, with one species in particular danger: the electricity ratepayer. In Canada, in the U.K., in Spain, in Denmark, in Germany and elsewhere the danger to ratepayers is especially great, but ratepayers in one country — the U.S. — seem to have weathered the worst of the disaster.
America’s secret? Unlike leaders in other countries, which to their countries’ ruin adopted policies as if global warming mattered, U.S. leaders more paid lip service to it. While citizens in other countries are now seeing soaring power rates, American householders can look forward to declining rates.
Saturday, 12 May 2012
Greens' Communist Manifesto
Our schools have now been dumbing down students for around twenty to thirty years - or perhaps two generations.Only 15% is spent on Espionage as such, the other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures…or psychological warfare – what it basically means is to change the perception of reality…to such an extent that despite their abundance of information, no-one is able to come to sensible conclusions…..it’s a great brainwashing process…divided into four basic stagesThe first one being demoralization – it takes about 15-20 years to demoralize a nation…this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy…
Two generations believing that carbon (dioxide) is a pollutant! Two generations not believing the basics of science.
Let's hope and pray that we can. We must if a rational thinking society is to survive.The process of demoralization is complete and irreversible…you cannot get rid of these people…
If you follow the blogs, read the comments of the demoralised brains of the comment makers, it doesn't matter what evidence is presented, their brains have been so demoralised that they cannot see reason.How to warp the brains of a generation...A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information – the facts tell nothing to him – even if I shower him with information; with authentic proof with documents, with pictures,…..
Take Anna Rose, in the ABC's recent travesty "I can change your (demoralised) mind about climate."
Link to transcript referred to below -Conversation between Anna Rose of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and two scientists, husband and wife team David Evans and Joanne Nova -PDF.
Evans and Nova were, until 2006, in the warmist camp. Then David realised that the evidence didn't add up and it took him a while to convince his Green Party card carrying member wife that the evidence wasn't there.
Anna: You think it's the sun that causes climate change?
Jo: We think that there's a lot of other factors that need to be considered.
Anna: I believe that climate scientists have considered the sun, they've considered orbital changes.
Jo: The IPCC does not include any solar magnetic affects in any of its models. This enormous impact and the results have just come out of CERN recently support it. The empirical evidence suggests that there's a connection between sun spots and the climate but we're not saying - we don't know what causes climate change. We're simply saying there's a lot of other factors and the models ignore them all and then say yes, well we looked at everything and we couldn't explain the warming except for CO2 in our models. It's argument from ignorance, it's a logical fallacy.
Anna: If you're going to say that the majority of the scientific establishment is wrong, that NASA's wrong, that every academy of science is wrong -
Jo: No, we're not, no, we are saying thousands -
David: We're not saying that at all.If Anna had a brain that was working, she would have seen that Joanne had been a very similar idealogue,
When Joanne told her: "I was actually a member of the Australian Greens, it's the only political party I've ever been a member of so I'm like you, Anna in that I am concerned about the environment, I'm concerned about doing things sustainably. I worry about the country that we leave for our kids and, you know, I applaud you for going out there and doing something to follow what you believe in.
I mean congratulations, if only everyone was as active in doing things to make the place - the world a better place and I even spoke on ABC radio about how we should be concerned about carbon dioxide and the feedback effects, as the ocean warms it will release more CO2."
I’ve told this story before but it requires repeating because of awareness of climate science corruption. Even skeptics realize claims of incompetence are inadequate. Official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate science was completely orchestrated for a premeditated result. T.R.Wigley’s 1983 paper “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level” was pivotal in the evolution of climate science corruption. It was a flawed paper that cherry-picked data to claim pre-industrial CO2 level was 270 ppm.
Read more of Dr Ball's expose HERE... including
“Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”Above is his plot comparing 19th century readings with ice core and Mauna Loa data.
The ice core record is shown as a smooth curve achieved by eliminating extreme readings and applying a 70 year smoothing average. Eliminating variability is done with the Mauna Loa and all current atmospheric readings, which can vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day. Information is lost with smoothing. Elimination of high readings prior to smoothing makes loss greater. Statistician William Briggs says you never smooth a time series.
Beck explained that Charles Keeling established Mauna Loa readings using the lowest afternoon measures. Beck notesh/t Marc Morano
“Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2 on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude.”
On one of the blogs pushing the Alarmist line of the hockey team a comment appeared on a post about a paper by Tim Curtin on 12th May:
But if you want to know from where he might otherwise have funded it, you could probably start with the Australian Climate Sceptics party.
[For giggles don't miss this: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/pre-industrial-and-current-co2-levels.html]
I added a reply something similar to this:
I am sure that one of the world's foremost climatologists, Dr Tim Ball, would get a giggle from that comment,but, the moderators denied my right of reply and did not publish my comment.
And they call us deniers?
As treasurer of the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party, I can state that Tim Curtin received no funding from the party.
Thursday, 10 May 2012
|Did Lacis et al try to turn the control knob up to 12 out of 10?|
The links for the article are http://www.tswj.com/2012/761473/ and the journal itself - http://www.tswj.com/contents/
Emeritus Faculty, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
Academic Editor: Donald H. Stedman
Copyright © 2012 Timothy Curtin. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This paper tests various propositions underlying claims that observed global temperature change is mostly attributable to anthropogenic noncondensing greenhouse gases, and that although water vapour is recognized to be a dominant contributor to the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) effect, that effect is merely a “feedback” from rising temperatures initially resulting only from “non-condensing” GHGs and not at all from variations in preexisting naturally caused atmospheric water vapour (i.e., [H2O]). However, this paper shows that “initial radiative forcing” is not exclusively attributable to forcings from noncondensing GHG, both because atmospheric water vapour existed before there were any significant increases in GHG concentrations or temperatures and also because there is no evidence that such increases have produced measurably higher [H2O]. The paper distinguishes between forcing and feedback impacts of water vapour and contends that it is the primary forcing agent, at much more than 50% of the total GHG gas effect.
Read More at Scientific World Journal...That means that controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide is unlikely to be an effective “control knob” as claimed by Lacis et al. (2010).
Climate change is normal. There have always been phases of climate warming, many that even far exceeded the extent we see today. But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling.
Little Ice Age - Global Event
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
I’m very surprised that NASA didn’t make a press release about this, because all that Hansen cares about is good science.
|All is cool!|
Bering Sea Ice (from WUWT)National Weather Service, Anchorage Forecast Office issued this today:
NOAK48 PAFC 032215 PNSAFC
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ANCHORAGE AK 215 PM AKDT THU MAY 3 2012
…RECORD SEA ICE AT PRIBILOF ISLANDS…
THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTREME WINTER FOR SEA ICE IN THE BERING SEA AND NOW WE HAVE BROKEN THE RECORDS FOR MOST NUMBER OF DAYS WITH ICE AT BOTH SAINT PAUL ISLAND AND SAINT GEORGE ISLAND.
METEOROLOGISTS suggested Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery leave weather forecasting to them as the big wet defies his prediction rain would become scarce.Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane were in urgent need of desalination plants.
Four years on, Warragamba Dam is on the verge of overflowing and Brisbane last year endured the worst flooding in almost four decades.
After yesterday discovering Professor Flannery is not a meteorologist, the Weather Channel's meteorologists said it was probably best he left the forecasting to them.
"Perhaps we should call it our new climate," said the Bureau of Meteorology's head of climate analysis, David Jones.
Little Ice Age - Global Event
Medieval Warm Period - Global
Medieval Warm Period Project - CO2 Science
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 1069 individual scientists from 616 research institutions in 45 different countries ... and counting! Our latest Medieval Warm Period Record comes from the Mid-Eastern Tibetan Plateau. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.
Morocco's Green Dream
Maine - No warming in over a century
North Pacifc Hurricanes (link)In another blow to the warmist fallacy that man-made CO2 increases hurricanes or extreme weather, a paper published today in the journal Monthly Weather Review finds, "The 2010 eastern North Pacific hurricane season was one of the least active seasons on record. Only seven named storms developed, which is the lowest number observed at least since routine satellite coverage of that basin began in 1966. Furthermore, only three of those storms reached hurricane status, which is also the lowest number of hurricanes ever observed in the satellite era season."
Polar Bear Numbers (link)A recent aerial survey of Western Hudson Bay polar bears shows the population has increased slightly to about 1,000 animals, according to the Government of Nunavut.
In 2004, a mark-recapture survey done near Churchill, Man., estimated the Western Hudson Bay population at 935 bears, down from 1194 in 1988. A 2006 study hypothesized that if the climate continued to warm, the polar bear population would decline.
Sea Ice Levels
Arctic Sea Ice
|Fine detail of graph 10/5/12 image - Steve Goddard|