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
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

Sunday, December 30, 2012

EPA's carbon regs not based on sound science - d'Aleo.

In the USA, their Environmental Protection Agency has decreed the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases must be treated as pollutants. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the federal D.C. Circuit Court, which initially ruled in favor of the EPA.

Joe d'Aleo is a certified consulting meteorologist, a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and co-founder of  The Weather Channel. He is a regular contributor to the respected ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project.

The Washington Examiner has published an Op Ed:

EPA's carbon regs not based on sound science

If allowed to stand, the very existence of the EPA's Endangerment Finding requires regulation that would significantly increase U.S. fossil fuel and electricity prices -- negatively affecting job creation as well as energy, economic and national security.

To many scientists, this situation seems incredible, given the ample evidence that the EPA's finding is flawed. In its finding, the EPA claimed with 90 to 99 percent certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the 20th century resulted from human activity. The EPA bases its finding upon three "lines of evidence," none of which hews to the most credible empirical data available.
The Three Lines of Evidence:
  1. EPA claims that the global average surface temperature has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last 50 years
  2. EPA argues that in the tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising carbon concentrations
  3. EPA relied upon climate models predicated on this theory.

First,

The EPA claims that the global average surface temperature has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last 50 years, in large part due to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. But "global warming" has not been global, nor has it even set records in the regions where warming has occurred. For example, over this time period, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend, and the Antarctic was cooling. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the tropics. But over the last 130 years, the 1930s still has the most U.S. state high temperature records.

Second, 
The EPA argues that in the tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising carbon concentrations. This is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently derived empirical data sets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature, and thus no difference in trend by altitude.

Third, 
The EPA relied upon climate models predicated on this theory. All of these models fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000, although the global average surface temperature has actually been flat. This is not surprising because the EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests.
Mr d'Aleo finishes with the logical conclusion:
....if the EPA's three lines of evidence are so easily refuted, then the EPA's strong claim of causality, that higher carbon (dioxide) emissions affect sea levels and severe storm, flood and drought frequency, is on ever shakier ground. This is an inevitable problem when a person or agency tries to prove too much.



Hitler, Parncutt and Extermination

Google Maps
Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born Dictator whose supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II, including 6 million Jews and 5 million "non-Aryans" whose systematic extermination was ordered by him or by his close subordinates. (Wikipedia)

Professor Parncutt is an Australian-born neo-nazi who, in an article published on the University of Graz's website has called for the death of Pope Benedict. From Graz to Hitler's birthplace of Braunau am Inn (see right) is less than three hours. (If Professor Parncutt wants to kill something, please let it be the al in his country of birth.)
Karl-Franzens-University officials who were bombarded with complaints have now taken the article off-line and confirmed that the article represented the private opinion of Music Professor Richard Parncutt, and not that of the University.

In the article the professor argues that the refusal of the Vatican to advocate contraception made Pope Benedict responsible for the future death through aides of millions of people. The only reasonable reaction that was the death sentence for mass murder – he argued. (Link)
Professor Parncutt
(digitally enhanced)
He had previously called for the death of man-made global warming realists; people he called by the term deniers which is understood to be a not-so-subtle reference to Holocaust deniers. He has since made a retraction (27-28 December 2012) : (link)
"I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases..."
Oh well, that should make it OK, shouldn't it?

Except that, the retraction was on the 27-28 December 2012 , whilst the call for the death of the Pope was on the 29th December.

Stay tuned for another retraction.

H/t Roger C

Peer Reviewed Paper finds climate models exaggerate projected warming

Geophysical Research Letters
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L24705, 5 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2012GL053650 

Temperature dependent climate projection deficiencies in CMIP5 models (link)

Key Points
  • GCMs suffer from temperature-dependent biases
  • This leads to an overestimation of projections of regional temperatures
  • We estimate that 10-20% of projected warming is due to model deficiencies
Jens H. Christensen
Danish Climate Centre, Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark
Fredrik Boberg
Danish Climate Centre, Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark

Monthly mean temperatures for 34 GCMs available from the CMIP5 project are compared with observations from CRU for 26 different land regions covering all major land areas in the world for the period 1961–2000 by means of quantile-quantile (q-q) diagrams. A warm period positive temperature dependent bias is identified for many of the models within many of the chosen climate regions. However, the exact temperature dependence varies considerably between the models. We analyse the role of this difference as a contributing factor for some models to project stronger regional warming than others by looking at the entire ensemble rather than individual models. RCP4.5 temperature projections from all GCMs for two time periods (2021–2050 and 2071–2100) are compared against a linear fit to the 50% warmest months from the respective q-q plot for each model and region. Taken together, we find that in general models with a positive temperature dependent bias tend to have a large projected temperature change, and these tendencies increase with increasing global warming level. We argue that this appears to be linked with the ability of models to capture complex feedbacks accurately. In particular land-surface atmosphere interactions are treated differently and with different degree of realism between models.  

H/t Hockey Shtick  and Climate Depot

Friday, December 28, 2012

Greetings from Vincent and Mary Gray.



Vincent Gray regularly writes the NZClimate Truth Newsletters. Today we present something different.  Season's Greetings from Vincent - and co-written by his wife Mary. I am sure that Vincent will soon be back analyzing the IPCC's AR5.


SEASON'S GREETINGS 2012

From Vincent & Mary Gray

Dear Family & Friends,  Vincent Gray regularly writes his

Our very best wishes to you and yours for a wonderful holiday season and a healthy happy New Year. For once it’s Mary who is beginning the Season’s Greetings because Vincent has been so very busy commenting on the latest IPCC report which is due in by 30/11/12, and we only returned from our latest trip (to Ethiopia plus a cruise) on 2/11/12.

Everyone asks “Why Ethiopia?” and I reply “Because I had never been there.” As a Life Member of the United Nations Association I have been trying to have visited up at least half of the 192 members, and even make it an even 100, which I now have more than done because the cruise took us to more than six new countries, the small island states on the east coast of Africa. However Ethiopia is a special country, really the
Picture of St George underground rock hewn
church
Cradle of Humanity with 4 million year old Lucy’s remains in the National Museum.

It has a fascinating history and is one of the few African countries which has never been colonised the Italians tried in the 1930s but World War Two ended that effort.


The srelae



are even more spectacular than Italy’s with fantastic Christian churches carved out of cliffs and the world’s largest stelae as part of the remains of the Aksumite kingdom which reigned from 400 BC to 500 AD and introduced Christianity to Africa. 










So on the 24th of September we flew from Wellington to Addis Ababa on an Emirate Airways very fine plane, via Auckland, Sydney,

The total travel time was more than 24 hours and we were totally exhausted on arrival, the evening of the start of the Exodus two week tour of Ethiopia. They are the company which took us to Cuba in ’11 and North Africa in ’10 and we like them. There were only 17 in the tour group: 8 British, 4 New Zealand (the other couple were a New Zealand judge and his wife). 2 US ladies, one Australian, one Canadian, one South Africa and Gabriel our Ethiopian guide and the driver were in a good sized bus so we could each have a window seat if we wanted We stayed in very good hotels (bed & breakfast) and generally went out for dinner as a group to see the current town. When the group went off to trek to see the source of the Nile, or a mule trek in a tropical forest etc we happily stayed with the bus driver and wandered a bit on our own. We visited what remains of the Queen of Sheba’s palace, and saw the excavation work of German archaeologists on some of the churches. One monastery involved a boat trip on Lake Tana. We encountered several troupes of baboons and saw many strange birds.

After that we went back to Dubai and joined the Costa NeoRomantica. This a huge Italian cruise liner capable of nearly 1800 passengers. It is NEO because it was refurbished after a 1990 fire. It sailed from from Savona in Italy around the world and we joined the bit that went from Dubai to Mauritius. There was an immediate disappointment as we did not have an Indian visa. We had been told it was available “on arrival” but this meant “at an airport” not from a ship, so we missed Mumbai and Cochin .We also missed Diego Suarez in Madagascar which they decided was too rough.

It was a very nice cabin and all the facilities were luxury and the food was plentiful but too Italian. The TV put on three full length operas from Verona; Nabucco, Otellho (by Verdi) and Romeo and Juliet by Gounod. The scenery was just scaffolding.




In 21 days, 14 were “at sea” so we only visited on 7 of them They were Fujairah (an Emirate), Maldives, Seychelles, Reunion and Mauritius. Both the Maldives and the Seychelles have over a thousand atolls that have been fought over by Portugal, France and Britain and are now independent. Reunion and Mauritius are volcanic. Reunion is part of Metropolitan France (1) and independent Mauritius is mainly Indian. Mary had enquired with the Servas organisation we belong to about members in the countries we visited. And we met one in Addis Ababa another in Mauritius and no less than 8 who laid on a welcome in the central park of Victoria the capital. The bulk of the passengers were Italian, French, German and our language skilss were found to be lacking. We were lucky with our dinner companions, a British couple who were from Brisbane. The ship was very Italian and so was the entertainment. They spent most time on deck soaking in the sun. I got the impression everybody was economosing because of the European crisis. Most of the luxury facilities, the casino, the special restaurants, the shops were half empty.

We are both somewhat more decrepit than when we started. I now need a walking stick but Mary buzzes around all the time.

I have had to give up playing the saxophones, clarinet and bassoon as my lip and fingers are not up to it. I sill try to have a go on the piano.

My computer self destructed. I think I must have ben hacked. I was suddenly asked for my “profile”, and my files could not be accessed. My computer friend tried everything but eventually gave up. Windows 7 computers were going for a good price and I am stiil having difficulties with my new one. One thing I have already noticed is the aggressive attitude of advertisers who try every trick to get you to buy things and dominate the search results.

This has led to a long delay in getting off this letter so we apologise most profusely and hope you did not think we had departed. I was 90 years old this year amd it is Marys turn next year, when we hope to have a joint celebration.

I am still going on Climate Change. I am the only hostile commentator on the latest IPCC Report who comments on every Chapter. They all used to be secret, but last year someone pulled the Official Information Act and they had to publish both comments and their usual non-response. This time they will not only will they have to publish, they will have to answer. But there are none. There is no evidence that extra carbon dioxide is harming the climate and I now believe there never wll be. But lots of people still believe there is and it is only slowly dawning on them. Temperatures are not rising and neither is the sea level.

I still run a small U3A Group called “Current Issues’”. I still watch recorded movies as the ordinary TV programmes are hopeless. I read Ëngland Made Me by Graham Greene , Doctor Zhivago, and Lady Anna by Trollobe on th cruise.

I sign off with two family pictures, one with Josephine and Jonathan, and
Thomas’s birthday party.






Thursday, December 27, 2012

Bethlehem and the rat-hole problem



Originally posted on WUWT on Christmas day, and by the Lord Monckton Foundation (link) on Boxing day, this article by Lord Monckton explores the notion, and ways, of providing alarmists with a face saving way to bow out of the CAGW scam so as to minimise the time involved in the transition to a post CAGW scare world. 
Lord Monckton at Doha.


Bethlehem and the rat-hole problem 


By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley 

In the closing minutes of the final plenary of the U.N.’s Doha climate summit, when no one else had anything further to add, I spent a few seconds telling the delegates something that the bad scientists and the malicious media have done their level best to conceal. There has been no global warming for 16 years. 

In the real world, this surely welcome news would have been greeted with cheers of relief and delight. Since the beginning of 1997, despite the wailing and gnashing of dentures among the classe politique, despite the regulations, the taxations, the carbon trades, the windmills, the interminable, earnestly flatulent U.N. conferences, the CO2 concentration that they had declared to be Public Enemy No. 1 has not stabilized. It has grown by one-twelfth. 

Yet this startling growth has not produced so much as a twentieth of a Celsius degree of global warming. Any warming below the measurement uncertainty of 0.05 Cº in the global-temperature datasets is statistically indistinguishable from zero. 

The much-vaunted “consensus” of the much-touted “ensembles” of the much- heralded modelshas been proven wrong. The much-feted modelershad written in 2008 that their much-cited “simulations” ruled out, to 95% confidence, intervals of 15 years or more without global warming. To them, 16 years without warming were as near impossible as makes no difference. 

Yet those impossible years happened. However, you would never have known that surely not uninteresting piece of good news from reading the newspapers or watching ABC, BBC, CBC, NBC, et hoc genus omne. The media are not in the business of giving the facts or telling the truth any more. 

Precisely because journalists no longer bother to provide the inconvenient truth to their audiences, and because they are no longer willing even to provide the people with the straightforward facts without which democracy itself cannot function, the depressingly ill-informed and scientifically-illiterate delegates in Doha can be forgiven for not having known that global warming stopped a long while back. 

That is why they should have been excited and delighted when they heard the news nearly all of them for the very first time. 

But this was the alternative reality that is the corrupt, self-serving U.N. Howls, hoots and hollers of dismay and fury greeted my short, polite announcement. This absurdly inappropriate reaction raises a fascinating question. 

How are we to dig a rat-hole wide enough to allow the useful idiots and true-believers to escape as each passing year makes it more and more obvious that their fatuous credo has all the plausibility of the now somewhat discredited notion that the world was to be snuffed out at this year’s winter solstice? 

Every student of the arts of diplomacy in the civil-service and staff colleges of the U.K. hears much about the rat-hole problem. How does one let the other side off some hook on which they have imprudently impaled themselves, while minimizing their loss of face? 

A cornered rat will fight savagely, even against overwhelming odds, because it has no alternative. Give the rat a way out and it will instinctively take it. 

The first step in digging a diplomatic rat-hole is to show that one understands how one’s opponents came to make their mistake. One might make a point of agreeing with their premise in the present instance, the long-proven fact that adding a greenhouse gas to an atmosphere such as ours can be expected, ceteris paribus, to cause some warming. 

Then one tries to find justifications for their standpoint. There are five good reasons why the global warming that they and we might have expected has not occurred for 16 years: natural variability in general; the appreciable decline in solar activity since the Grand Maximum that peaked in 1960; the current 30-year cooling phase of the ocean oscillations, which began late in 2001 with the transition from the warming phase that had begun in 1976; the recent double-dip la Niña; and the frequency with which supra-decadal periods without warming have occurred in the instrumental record since 1850. 

The next trick is to help them, sympathetically, to focus the blame for their error on as few of their number as possible. Here, the target is obvious. The models are to blame for the mess the true-believers are in. 

We must help them to understand why the models got it so very wrong. This will not be easy, because nearly all of our opponents have no science or math at all. 

We can start our deconstruction of the models by pointing out that given the five good reasons why global warming might not occur for 15 years or more at a time – the modelers’ ruling out periods of 15 years or more without warming shows they have given insufficient weight to the influence of natural variability. We can poke gentle fun at their description of CO2 as “ the tuning-knob of the climate”, and help them to put things into perspective by reminding them that Man has so far altered only 1/10,000 of the atmosphere, and may alter 1/3000 of it by 2100. 

We cannot altogether avoid the math. But we can put it all in plain English, and we can use logic, which is more accessible to the layman than climatological physics. Here goes. 

The fundamental equation of climate sensitivity says temperature change is the product of a forcing and a climate-sensitivity parameter. 

The modellers’ definition of forcing is illogical; their assumptions about the value of the climate-sensitivity parameter are not Popper-falsifiable; and their claims of reliability for their long-term predictions are empirically disproven and theoretically insupportable. Let us explain. 

The IPCC defines a forcing as the net down-minus-up flux of radiation at the tropopause, holding surface temperature fixed. Yet forcings change that temperature. A proposition and its converse cannot simultaneously be true. That is the fundamental postulate of logic, and the models’ definition of forcing manifestly offends against it. 

No surprise, then, that since 1995 the IPCC has had to cut its estimate of the CO2 forcing by 15%. The “consensus” disagrees with itself. Note in passing that the CO2 forcing function is logarithmic: each further molecule causes less warming than those before it. Diminishing returns apply. 

We can remind our opponents that direct warming is little more than 1 Cº per doubling of CO2 concentration, well within natural variability. It is not a crisis. We can explain that the modelers have imaginatively introduced amplifying or “positive” temperature feedbacks, which, they hope, will triple the direct warming from CO2. 

Yet this dubious hypothesis, not being Popper-falsifiable, is not logic and, therefore, not science. If a hypothesis cannot be checked by any empirical or theoretical method, it is not stricto sensu a hypothesis at all. It is of no interest to science. 

Not one of the imagined feedbacks is empirically measurable or theoretically determinable to a sufficient precision by any method. As an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, I have described its strongly net-positive feedback interval as guesswork and that, in logic and therefore in science, is exactly what it is. 

There is a powerful theoretical reason for suspecting that the modellers’ guess that feedbacks triple direct warming is erroneous. The climatic closed-loop feedback gain implicit in the IPCC’s climate-sensitivity estimate of 3.3[2.0, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling falls on the interval 0.62[0.42, 0.74], though you will find no mention of the crucial concept of loop gain either in the IPCC’s documents or – as far as I can discover in any of the few papers that discuss the mathematics of temperature feedbacks in the climate object. 

Process engineers building electronic circuits, who invented feedback mathematics, tell us any loop gain much above zero is too near the singularity at a loop gain of 1 in the feedback-amplification equation. At a gain as high as is implicit in the models’ climate-sensitivity estimates, the geological record would show violent oscillations between extremes of warming and cooling. 

Yet for 64 million years the Earth’s surface temperature has fluctuated by only 3%, or 8 Cº, either side of the long-run mean. These fluctuations can give us an ice-planet at
one moment and a hothouse Earth the next, but they are altogether too small to be consistent with a feedback loop gain anywhere near as close to the singularity as official estimates imply, for homeostatic conditions prevail. 

The atmosphere’s lower bound, the ocean, is a vast heat-sink 1100 times denser than the air. Since 3000 bathythermographs were deployed in 2006 no significant ocean warming has been found. 

The upper bound of the atmosphere is outer space, to which any excess heat radiates harmlessly away. 

Homeostasis, then, is what we should expect, and it is what we get. Accordingly, the climatic loop gain far from being as impossibly high as the IPCC’s central estimate of 0.62 cannot much exceed zero, so the warming at CO2 doubling will scarcely exceed 1 Cº. 

It is also worth explaining to our opponents the fundamental reason why models cannot do what the modelers claim for them. The overriding difficulty in attempting to model the climate is that it behaves as a chaotic object. We can never know the values of its millions of defining parameters at any chosen moment to a sufficient precision to permit reliable projection of the bifurcations, or Sandy-like departures from an apparently steady state, that are inherent in all objects that behave chaotically. Therefore, reliable, very-long-term prediction of future climate states is known a priori to be unavailable by any method. 

The modelers have tried to overcome this constraint by saying that the models are all we have, so we must make the best of them. But it is self-evidently illogical to use models when reliable, very-long-term weather forecasting is not available by any method. 

This fundamental limitation on the reliability of long-term predictions by the models known as the Lorenz constraint, after the father of computerized or “numerical” weather forecasting, whose 1963 paper Deterministic Non-Periodic Flow founded chaos theory by examining the behavior of a five-variable mini-model of the climate constructed as a heuristic tells us something more, and very important, about the climate. 

Bifurcations (or, in our opponents’ intellectual baby-talk, “tipping-points”) in the evolution of the climate object over time are not a whit more likely to occur in a rapidly-warming climate than in a climate which like our own is not warming at all. 

Sandy and Bopha, and the hot summer in the U.S., could not have been caused by global warming, for the blindingly obvious reason that for 16 years there has not been any.
However, there are many variables in the climate object other than CO2 concentration and surface temperature. Even the tiniest perturbation in any one of these millions of parameters is enough, in an object that behaves chaotically, to induce a bifurcation. 

Nothing in the mathematics of chaos leads one to conclude that “tipping-points” are any more likely to occur in response to a large change in the value of one of the parameters (such as surface temperature) that describe an object than in response to an infinitesimal change. 

The clincher, in most diplomatic discussions, is money. Once we have led our opponents to understand that there is simply no reason to place any credence whatsoever in the exaggerations that are now painfully self-evident in the models, we can turn their attention to climate economics. 

Pretend, ad argumentum, that the IPCC’s central estimate of 2.8 Cº warming by 2100 is true, and that Stern was right to say that the GDP cost of failing to prevent 3 Cº warming this century will be around 1.5% of GDP. Then, at the minimum 5% market inter-temporal discount rate, the cost of trying to abate this decade’s predicted warming of 0.15 Cº by topical, typical CO2-mitigation measures as cost- ineffective as, say, Australia’s carbon tax would be 48 times greater than the cost of later adaptation. At a zero discount rate, the cost of action will exceed the cost arising from inaction 36 times over. 

How so? Australia emits just 1.2% of Man’s CO2, of which Ms. Gillard aims to cut 5% this decade. So Australia’s scheme, even if it worked, would cutting just 0.06% of global emissions by 2020. In turn, that would cut CO2 concentration from a predicted 410 μatm to 409.988 μatm. It is this infinitesimal change in CO2 concentration, characteristic of all measures intended however piously to mitigate future warming that is the chief reason why there is no economic case for spending any money at all on mitigation today. 

The tiny drop in CO2 concentration would cut predicted temperature by 0.00006 Cº. This pathetic result would be achieved at a cost of $130 billion, which works out at $2 quadrillion/Cº. Abating the 0.15 Cº warming predicted for this decade would thus cost $317 trillion, or $45,000/head worldwide, or 59% of global GDP. 

Mitigation measures inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective: measures expensive enough to be effective will be unaffordable. Since the premium exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure. That is a precautionary principle worthy of the name. 

When the child born in Bethlehem ~2012 years ago grew up, He told His audience the parable of the prodigal son, who had squandered his inheritance but was nevertheless welcomed by his father with a fatted calf when he returned and said he was sorry. 

However vicious and cruel the true-believers in the global-warming fantasy have been to those few of us who have dared publicly to question their credo that has now been so thoroughly discredited by events, we should make sure that the rat-hole we dig for their escape from their lavish folly is as commodious as possible. 

If all else fails, we can pray for them as He prayed looking down from the Cross on the world He had created. 

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Global Warming: Science Fiction Solutions to a Fictional problem


Global Warming: Science Fiction Solutions to a Fictional problem

by NCTCS Secretary Anthony COX

===============================================================

in response to an opinion piece in the Newcastle Herald by Kerryn Brent and Jeffrey McGee


Coal at Newcastle Docks awaiting export.
Image credit - GJB
You have to wonder about a scientific theory which proposes such solutions as changing the refractive index of the atmosphere to block the sun’s rays; or dumping billions of tonnes of iron ore in the ocean to absorb more carbon dioxide [CO2].

But that is what man-made global warming, AGW, suggests. I suppose we could get used to a pink/white sky and the Australian iron ore industry would like the ocean dumping idea.

At least Kerryn Brent and Jeffrey McGee in their article on AGW don’t agree with such alarming proposals. However they do subscribe to the latest alarming predictions that AGW will cause temperatures to rise by 4 to 6 degrees.

No confidence at all can be given to such temperature predictions. The reason for this is that the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] could not even predict temperature trends from 1990 to 2012.

The first IPCC report, FAR, came out in 1990. That report predicted a temperature increase ranging from 0.2 to 0.5C per decade depending on the level of CO2 increase, with the highest predicted trend of 0.5C per decade occurring with the highest rate of increase in CO2 levels.

The rate of increase in CO2 has exceeded the predicted highest increase in CO2 made by the IPCC in 1990. However the actual temperature increase has been either 0.14C per decade as measured by the leading land based temperature record, HadCrut, or 0.17C per decade as measured by the satellite service, UAH.

According to the IPCC the temperature increase should have been at least 0.5C per decade when in fact it was 0.14-0.17C per decade, which is less than 30% of what it should have been.

If the premier body supporting AGW is so wrong with its original predictions why should we take its new predictions seriously?

Even the new IPCC report which has had its draft, AR5, released, shows that the original temperature predictions were wrong. Figure 1.4 from AR5 clearly shows predictions about temperature made by the IPCC in 1990, and indeed in all the following reports, have been above actual temperatures:


In addition there has been no temperature increase since 1998. 1998 is significant because it was the year when the world experienced a powerful El Nino. It was also the year when world conditions probably changed from warm and dry to cooler and wet with more storms like the Pasha Bulker episode.

The AR5 also considers that the influence of the sun on temperature as well as natural variation such as El Nino may play a bigger role in determining temperature [Chapter 7, page 43].

AGW is a theory which has been around for over 20 years. All theories must adjust to the facts. If the IPCC can now take a measured view about other possible explanations for climate change without resorting to unhelpful exaggerations then other commentators should as well.

===============================================================

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Santa Baby...Bring Me Coal

This seems even more relevant than it did a year ago

Katie Kieffer  wrote in TownHall.com
I want a coal plant for Christmas, and not because I’m a naughty girl. I want lots of coal so I can power up the high-tech toys Santa is bringing me, including an electronic robot maid that cooks and cleans, a 32-meter-wide TV and a modern, coal-fired steam locomotive that allows me to bypass the TSA Grope Squad when I travel cross-country.
OK, so Santa probably won’t be sending a full-size, coal-fired train down my chimney. But, like many of you, I may be getting small electronics of Christmas (or Hanukkah). As millions of us ring in the New Year by adding new gadgets to the power grid, we need to make sure we have ample electricity to fire up our cutting-edge iPads, TVs, sound systems and smartphones. Americans get almost half of their electricity from coal. I think coal is a wonderful source of energy and we need to continue producing it.
This month, the EPA is expected to announce a set of new smog regulations that will clamp down on power companies. “Not so fast,” cautions the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NAERC)—a panel of volunteer industry experts that the government designates to ensure and improve reliability in the electric power grid.
Katie says that President Obama maintains that Americans can wean themselves from coal and oil. Environmental activists are "fighting hard for new regulations that will quickly force the coal industry out of business."

New rules from the EPA  that require coal plants to dramatically reduce emissions are causing job losses, coal plants shutting down and the loss of billions of dollars.
NAERC warns that the EPA’s strict regulations will cause up to 600 large power plants across the country to shut down for months while they adopt the new rules and will force numerous older plants to shut down indefinitely because they won’t be able to afford compliance. The result will be power blackouts across the country plus additional power grid instability in drought-prone areas like Texas due to new EPA cooling water rules.
So, the government’s own designated industry experts are warning us that the EPA’s smog rules will have big costs: Soaring energy prices, frequent blackouts and job loss. And the EPA can hardly cite the “public health dangers” of greenhouse gases with a straight face when internal government probes reveal that the EPA has altered, withheld and distorted its scientific findings in order to sell the notion that greenhouse gas emissions harm humans.

The EPA has no alternate plan for the replacement of coal. Like here in Australia the technology has got cleaner over the years.

The wealthier a country becomes, the cleaner it becomes. This month, the Global Carbon Project released a study showing that developing countries like India and China account for the majority (57 percent) of global greenhouse emissions.
Only rich economies can afford to develop the latest clean technology. Before we can afford the costs associated with developing the supposedly cleaner technology behind solar and wind, we need to revive our rapidly deteriorating economy. And by “revive,” I mean continue developing fuels like coal that will prevent power blackouts, create jobs and lower the cost of energy. Minimal smog is a small price to pay for a safe and reliable power grid and a healthy, growing economy
Santa baby, there's one thing I really do need, the deed, to a coal mine, Santa baby, so hurry down the chimney tonight.

Katie Kieffer is a conservative multimedia personality, writer and public speaker who runs KatieKieffer.com.

Friday, December 21, 2012

The IPCC are NOT Telling you the truth!

Graph from Climate4You
As atmospheric CO2 rises constantly, Global temperature
descends...then rises....then descends.
Corellation?        Busted!
If you think that the Alarmists and the IPCC are telling you the truth, check the reality from these sites:

For a summary of all the current date, go to Professor Ole Humlum/s Climate4You site:


Also, a great site to see all that statistics is a site called OPEN MIND - link:

The links cover - inter alia
  • Surface temperatures:
  •  Satellite-based atmospheric temperature
  •  Sea Ice
  • Sea Level
  • Snow Cover
  • Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)
  • Greenhouse Gases


If the Alarmists and the IPCC actually used the REAL DATA, they would have to admit that their scare tactics were not working and that the man-made AGW hypothesis had been falsified.