We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

“Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” ~Professor Tim Patterson

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

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Anybody see a trend change after Kyoto?

American Physicist asks:

Anybody see a trend change after Kyoto?

  The European countries were flat or dropping well before Kyoto, a natural consequence of slower population/economic growth and increasing efficiency.   You can see where the economic growth is now.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Sea Level Rise ~ a spurious notion?

Ocean side, Majuro Atoll (Wikipedia)
From CO2 Science, a new paper published in the Journal of Coastal Research

Reference
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!

Abstract

FORD, M., 2012. Shoreline changes on an urban atoll in the central Pacific Ocean: Majuro atoll, Marshall Islands.
Majuro is the capital and most populated atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands and is located approximately 3700 km W–SW of Oahu, Hawaii. Like other atolls, Majuro is considered highly vulnerable to sea level rise. One of the widely perceived impacts of sea level rise on atoll islands is widespread chronic erosion. Using a combination of aerial photos and satellite imagery, this study presents an analysis of shoreline change over a 34- to 37-year study period, characterized by rapidly increasing population, coastal development, and rising sea level (3.0 mm y−1). Results show most (93%) urban and rural villages have increased in size over the study period. Shoreline change analysis indicates the urban area has expanded both toward the lagoon and onto the ocean-facing reef flat. Shoreline change within the urban area of Majuro has been largely driven by widespread reclamation for a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial activities. Rural areas of the atoll typically have lower rates of shoreline change relative to those of urban areas. Analysis indicates that the rural lagoon shore is predominantly eroding, whereas the ocean-facing shore is largely accreting. Any shoreline response to sea level rise along the Majuro coast is likely masked by widespread anthropogenic impacts to the coastal system.




Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Scientific Knowledge diminishes AGW hoax fears

Nature Climate Change
Fox News on a paper in the journal 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."

UPDATE

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
From The Berliner Morgenpost (via GWPF)

German Government May Abandon Green Energy Transition

The 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, May 27, 2012

The Soda Water Scare


 Carbon Sense Newsletter

by Viv Forbes

26 May 2012.

A print-ready copy of this issue of "Carbon Sense" can be downloaded from:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/soda-water-scare.pdf



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:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/acid-ocean-bogeyman.pdf

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/05/carbon-dioxide-emissions-facts-ocean-acidification-impact-on-marine-species-overestimated-study-find.html

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/05/the-myth-of-acidification-of-oceans



                                                 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:
http://www.nal-jsc.org/Climate_Change_Symposium_Leighton_Steward_Presentation.pdf



                                                         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

See:  http://www.trevorloudon.com/2012/05/lord-monkton-on-agenda-21-and-environmental-marxism/
And: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7mQ1u230I&feature=em-share_video_user


                                       Germany faces some painful Truths on
                                                             Green Energy


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:
http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/site/pagina.php?id_mailing=272&toegang=7a614fd06c325499f1680b9896beedeb&id=3681

See also: Germany fears de-industrialisation:
http://thegwpf.org/international-news/5796-green-energy-transition-germany-fears-de-industrialisation.html


                                            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.’”

See:
http://www.rightsidenews.info/2012051516225/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/the-wheels-are-coming-off-the-wind-energy-gravy-train.html

                                           Green Companies Crash and Teeter

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.

See: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/worldwide-crash-of-green-energy.html



                                                             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.

See: http://www.infowars.com/australians-face-huge-fines-for-speaking-ill-of-new-carbon-tax/

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:

  1. There has been no global warming for 14 years:
  2. There is no evidence that carbon dioxide controls global temperature. 
  3. 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.

Authorised by:
Viv Forbes
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.   info@carbon-sense.com

        


Saturday, May 26, 2012

Climate Control

I  can buy a new vehicle with Climate Control.


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?

NO!

Cold Cuts? Restaurants face fines

The Telegraph is reporting that:
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. 
How will the ACCC  separate price rises into carbon dioxide tax and non-carbon dioxide tax components?


Friday, May 25, 2012

SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND CLIMATE CHANGE

NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 294

by Vincent Gray - IPCC Expert Reviewer

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. 

Cheers
Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035

"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, May 18, 2012

A new look at an old crock....

Long Live Science!
At PJ Media, Rand Simberg has contributed an article  The Death of the Hockey Stick?


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.
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 shapethe twentieth century uptick that Briffa had got from the handful of trees in the Yamal-only series had completely disappeared.
Read More HERE.
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, May 17, 2012

Finger in the crumbling Dike of the AGW Hoax

Is that James Hansen? Or perhaps Tim Flannery?
Is that James Hansen with his finger in the crumbling dike of the AGW hoax? A new Dutch paper, published in the journal Weather indicates that the sun is responsible for the late twenty century warming. (It's the Sun, Stupid!)

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

Does taxing kill or stimulate an economy.


Brazilian Night  Image Wikipedia
The Green Gillard Government, against their own election promises and even against public opinion are determined to inflict a carbon dioxide tax on Australian citizens. They say that a tax, that will add to the cost of all businesses,  will be good for the economy.
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, May 16, 2012

Coral Reefs Grow - Peer reviewed


Coral Reef, China.  Image Wikipedia

Previously  TCS blog has reported the work of Peter Ridd and Bob Carter on coral reefs. Basically warm is better; in warmer water, corals flourish. However the alarmist hockey team behind the IPCC ARs, tell us the opposite.

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?

Reference
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. 



Background
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.


Growing Glaciers - peer reviewed

How many times are we told that Glaciers are retreating? maybe there is some cherry picking by the alarmist hockey team. A new Peer Reviewed Paper published by  Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research and reported by CO2 Science. - Expanded and recently increased glacier surging in the Karakoram.

Reference
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. 



Background
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, May 14, 2012

Chief Climate Alarmist's latest scare

The Panasonic Prius $180,000 Climate Alarmist Tim Flannery has made another prediction.

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 ... ".
So, what is Flannery's  fresh (flawed?) forecast?

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
Does this mean that the western suburbs  UHI is going to be worse than the UHI in the CBD?

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.
"If you bring it out to 2012, we have had a slight cooling."
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.

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.



See also:

Flannery is no expert!


Sunday, May 13, 2012

Green Energy not cheap - Europe finds

Quelle: ZB
Jurgen Flauger reports in Handelsblatt:
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.

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.
And Lawrence Solomon for the Financial Post reports that the US has weathered the worst of the disaster:

Climate mania impoverishes electricity customers worldwide
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.

 Unfortunately for Australians, we have the Green Gillard Government and spiraling power costs.

H/t Benny Peiser and GWPF.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

How to warp a generation's brains


The Greens' Communist Manifesto

Extracts from the video -below - of a former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov  revealing how the minds of Americans have been demoralised. The same demoralisation has been warping the minds of Australians.

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 stages

The 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…
Our schools have now been dumbing down students for around twenty to thirty years - or perhaps two generations.

Two generations believing that carbon (dioxide) is a pollutant! Two generations not believing the basics of science.

The process of demoralization is complete and irreversible…you cannot get rid of these people…
Let's hope and pray that we can. We must if a rational thinking society is to survive.

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,…..

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.

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."
If she was thinking  she would have thought that Joanne was like herself and would have thought, like the quote from James Lovelock at the head of this page -  "Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?"


Pre-Industrial And Current CO2 Levels Deliberately Corrupted. - UPDATED

Dr Tim Ball writes:
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
Beck found,
“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 notes
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.”
 h/t Marc Morano

UPDATE
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, May 10, 2012

Reducing CO2 emissions - Not an effective control knob

Did Lacis et al try to turn the control knob up to 12 out of 10?
Tim Curtin’s just published paper (in The Scientific World Journal) uses econometrics to test various propositions underlying claims that observed global temperature change is mostly attributable to human-caused greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, and that although water vapour is recognized to be a dominant contributor to the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) effect, its effect is merely as a “feedback” from rising temperatures initially resulting only from GHGs and not at all from variations in the pre-existing natural evaporation that produces most atmospheric water vapour and rainfall.  The paper shows that global warming is not exclusively attributable to GHG like CO2, both because atmospheric water vapour existed before there were any significant increases in GHGs or global temperature and also because there is no evidence that such increases have produced measurably higher volumes of evaporation. Thus reducing emissions of CO2 is unlikely to be the effective climate “control knob” claimed by NASA’s Hansen, Schmidt, and Lacis (2010).

The links for the article are  http://www.tswj.com/2012/761473/ and the journal itself - http://www.tswj.com/contents/ 


Research Article
 ScientificWorldJOURNAL
Applying Econometrics to the Carbon Dioxide “Control Knob”
Timothy Curtin
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.
That means that controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide is unlikely to be an effective “control knob” as claimed by Lacis et al. (2010).

Read More at Scientific World Journal...

CO2 regulate Climate? Sheer Absurdity.

From Pierre Gosselin's NoTricksZone

The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is “Sheer Absurdity” Says Prominent German Meteorologist

Puls: Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power.

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 a global event - peer reviewed

Little Ice Age  - Global Event

Received 8 February 2012; accepted 30 March 2012; published 9 May 2012.
Citation: Orsi, A. J., B. D. Cornuelle, and J. P. Severinghaus (2012), Little Ice Age cold interval in West Antarctica: Evidence from borehole temperature at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09710, doi:10.1029/2012GL051260. 

he largest climate anomaly of the last 1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere was the Little Ice Age (LIA) from 1400–1850 C.E., but little is known about the signature of this event in the Southern Hemisphere, especially in Antarctica. We present temperature data from a 300 m borehole at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide. Results show that WAIS Divide was colder than the last 1000-year average from 1300 to 1800 C.E. The temperature in the time period 1400–1800 C.E. was on average 0.52 ± 0.28°C colder than the last 100-year average. This amplitude is about half of that seen at Greenland Summit (GRIP). This result is consistent with the idea that the LIA was a global event, probably caused by a change in solar and volcanic forcing, and was not simply a seesaw-type redistribution of heat between the hemispheres as would be predicted by some ocean-circulation hypotheses. The difference in the magnitude of the LIA between Greenland and West Antarctica suggests that the feedbacks amplifying the radiative forcing may not operate in the same way in both regions. 

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Global Warming News


Antarctica Cooling

For years we have been told by NASA that the Antarctic Peninsula is the fastest warming place on Earth. But sadly for Al and Jim, over the past decade CRUTEMPv4 shows a decline in temperatures there.
I’m very surprised that NASA didn’t make a press release about this, because all that Hansen cares about is good science.

 

 

Arctic Ice Thickness

All is cool!
Image Wikipedia
CryoSat shows that Arctic sea ice averaged 2.0 meters (6.5 feet) thick in February, 2012. In February 1940, Arctic ice also averaged 6.5 feet thick. Ice thickness is the same as it was 72 years ago.

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.

Drought Predictions:

Tim Flannery 

METEOROLOGISTS suggested Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery leave weather forecasting to them as the big wet defies his prediction rain would become scarce.

In 2007 Professor Flannery said 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.

David Jones

This drought may never break

Richard Macey      January 4, 2008

IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation's most senior weather experts warned yesterday.
"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

Received 8 February 2012; accepted 30 March 2012; published 9 May 2012.
Citation: Orsi, A. J., B. D. Cornuelle, and J. P. Severinghaus (2012), Little Ice Age cold interval in West Antarctica: Evidence from borehole temperature at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09710, doi:10.1029/2012GL051260. 

he largest climate anomaly of the last 1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere was the Little Ice Age (LIA) from 1400–1850 C.E., but little is known about the signature of this event in the Southern Hemisphere, especially in Antarctica. We present temperature data from a 300 m borehole at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide. Results show that WAIS Divide was colder than the last 1000-year average from 1300 to 1800 C.E. The temperature in the time period 1400–1800 C.E. was on average 0.52 ± 0.28°C colder than the last 100-year average. This amplitude is about half of that seen at Greenland Summit (GRIP). This result is consistent with the idea that the LIA was a global event, probably caused by a change in solar and volcanic forcing, and was not simply a seesaw-type redistribution of heat between the hemispheres as would be predicted by some ocean-circulation hypotheses. The difference in the magnitude of the LIA between Greenland and West Antarctica suggests that the feedbacks amplifying the radiative forcing may not operate in the same way in both regions. 

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

Morocco's Green dream fails climate test

An unprecedented cold spell that struck Morocco in February and continues to linger well into March has raised serious questions about the country’s national agricultural development programme, which will fail to achieve its desired results if climate change continues to be mismanaged.
The ‘Green Morocco Plan’ was launched last year with the aim of remedying major obstacles that still hinder development of the agricultural sector, tackling everything from ensuring food security for 32 million Moroccans, to meeting the requirements of European markets, the biggest consumers of Moroccan produce.
However, the Plan does not do a thorough job of diagnosing climate factors, citing only drought, which it considers ‘periodical’, as an impediment to successful farming. The report does not address the sudden and unexpected arrival of cold weather, whose damages have been no less than disastrous.

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