How They, the Politicians, Are Turning Off the Lights in America AND Europe

Our “intelligent” politicians continue in an accelerated speed to deindustrialize America and Europe. And to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars of OUR money to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the Computer Models.

These climate models who cannot predict the weather 2 weeks from now, or how the weather was 2 weeks ago.

And these are the models they want us to believe that they can “predict” the temperature within a tenth of a degree in 100 YEARS!

The never ending story of the giant swindle that’s called cap and trade, carbon trading, CDM etc continuous with ever more revelations of the blatant corruption in the system.

As I have said in many of my posts: The cap- and trade scheme is a giant swindle where BOTH buyer AND Seller benefits from cheating. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. At normal peoples expense.

And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.

So we are talking about 0,03%.

Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.

I have written extensible about the UN pack, this traveling circus that flies around the globe in first class, or private jet, stay in hotel rooms at £400-500 per night in spa resorts, and get wined and dined at expensive restaurants.

All of this of course paid by us, the normal people.

While they at the same time preach austerity, frugality and sacrifice from us, the taxpayers.

This blatant hypocrisy is so mind numbing that it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these people have the power to force us to obey them.

They are a truly parasitic class in the sense that Karl Marx wrote about it.

How ironic that today most of this class is leftists and so called “liberals”.

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

And that the politicians love this Global Warming Hysteria because they can tax everyone to death, and introduce new fees etc with the “motivation” that “they” are “saving” the planet from the Global Warming treat.

Of course they don’t sacrifice anything themselves- se the glaring example of Al Gore who preaches frugality to the masses while he himself gladly continues with his great and energy rich lifestyle – they ONLY LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN and BURDEN of this sacrifice.

The sad part about this Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, is the press and medias role in censoring and intimidating everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

And their willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria. Not to mention their part in covering up the Giant Difference between what these high priests says and what they actually do. A total and utter shame for what journalism should be about.

These people – Global Warming Alarmists – TOTALLY without any sense of proportions, priorities and what is important for the survival of the human race and the Earth - We have entrusted to rule our countries?

As I said in my post The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!:

“So if the Global Warming Hysterics want to succeed the formula is very simple:

Start civil wars, Support dictators, Oppress ALL political freedoms and rights, and keep the people in TOTAL poverty.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, will you succeed in reducing mankind to enough poverty and slavery to be able to succeed in this “worthy” goal to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

They, the Dictators, are great at reducing EVERYTHING, including CO2 emissions.”

Se my posts:

Any reduction of CO2 emissions is considered a fantasy by China – the Biggest CO2 emitter in the World

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic

World’s Largest Auditor of Clean-Energy projects was suspended by UN inspectors because they had NO qualifications and did NO vetting

Cap and trade – What food, clothes, travel etc is the common people to be without?

Why Obama is losing it – He forgot the wellbeing of the normal people

Temperature measurements since 1701 Refute Human caused temperature fluctuations – Open letter from 67 German scientists

Cap and trade scheme defeated – And It should have been because it’s insane

Existing measurement methods are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions CO2 trends

The blatant hypocrisy from the UN pack and their jet set allies

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!

How can the Scientific Community Still Allow the Parody of “science” called Global Warming Hysteria?

See all my posts on Carbon Trading here:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/carbon-trading/

See all my posts on Climate Models here:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/klimatmodeller/

Here some more examples of this political driven complete destruction of our economies:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/berry-e1.1.1.html

How They Are Turning Off the Lights in America 

by Edwin X Berry

On October 31, 2009, the once largest aluminum plant in the world will shut down. With it goes another American industry and more American jobs. The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company in Montana will shut down its aluminum production because it cannot purchase the necessary electrical power to continue its operations.

How did this happen in America? America was once the envy of the world in its industrial capability. America’s industrial capacity built America into the most productive nation the world had ever known. Its standard of living rose to levels never before accomplished. Its currency became valuable and powerful, allowing Americans to purchase imported goods at relatively cheap prices.

America grew because of innovation and hard work by the pioneers of the industrial revolution, and because America has vast natural resources. A great economy, as America once was, is founded on the ability to produce electrical energy at low cost. This ability has been extinguished. Why?

Columbia Falls Aluminum negotiated a contract with Bonneville Power Administration in 2006 for Bonneville to supply electrical power until September 30, 2011. But, responding to lawsuits, the 9th US Circuit Court ruled the contract was invalid because it was incompatible with the Northwest Power Act. Therefore, the combination of the Northwest Power Act and a US Circuit Court were the final villains that caused the shutdown of Columbia Falls Aluminum.

But the real reasons are much more complicated. Why was it not possible for Columbia Falls Aluminum to find sources of electricity other than Bonneville?

We need to look no further than the many environmental groups like the Sierra Club and to America’s elected officials who turned their backs on American citizens and in essence themselves, for they too are citizens of this country. These officials bought into the green agenda promoted by the heavily funded environmental groups. Caving to pressure, they passed laws and the environmental groups filed lawsuits that began turning off the lights in America. The dominos stated to fall.

They began stopping nuclear power plants in the 1970’s. They locked up much of our coal and oil resources with land laws. They passed tax credits, which forces taxpayers foot the bill for billionaire investors to save taxes by investing in less productive wind and solar energy projects.

In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency called a meeting of atmospheric scientists and others with environmental interests. I remember well the meeting I attended in the San Francisco Bay Area. The meeting was in a theater-like lecture room with the seating curved to face the center stage and rising rapidly toward the back of the room. Attending were many atmospheric scientists whom I knew from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute and some local colleges.

The room became silent when a man walked up to the lectern. He told us that the next big national problem was global warming. He explained how human carbon dioxide emissions were trapping the earth’s radiation like a greenhouse and causing the atmosphere to heat beyond its normal temperature. He said this will lead to environmental disasters. He finished by saying the EPA will now concentrate its research funding toward quantifying the disasters that would be caused by our carbon dioxide.

The room was silent. I was the first to raise my hand to ask a question, ”How can you defend your global warming hypothesis when you have omitted the effects of clouds which affect heat balance far more than carbon dioxide, and when your hypothesis contradicts the paper by Lee in the Journal of Applied Meteorology in 1972 that shows the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse?”

He answered me by saying, ”You do not know what you are talking about. I know more about how the atmosphere works than you do.”

Not being one to drop out of a fight, I responded, ”I know many of the atmospheric scientists in this room, and many others who are not present but I do not know you. What is your background and what makes you know so much more than me?”

He answered, ”I know more than you because I am a lawyer and I work for the EPA.”

After the meeting, many of my atmospheric science friends who worked for public agencies thanked me for what I said, saying they would have liked to say the same thing but they feared for their jobs.

And that, my dear readers, is my recollection of that great day when a lawyer, acting as a scientist, working for the federal government, announced global warming.

Fast forward to today. The federal government is spending 1000 times more money to promote the global-warming charade than is available to those scientists who are arguing against it. Never before in history has it taken a massive publicity campaign to convince the public of a scientific truth. The only reason half the public thinks global warming may be true is the massive amount of money put into global-warming propaganda. The green eco-groups have their umbilical cords in the government’s tax funds. Aside from a few honest but duped scientists living on government money, the majority of the alarms about global warming – now called ”climate change” because it’s no longer warming – come from those who have no professional training in atmospheric science. They are the environmentalists, the ecologists, the lawyers and the politicians. They are not the reliable atmospheric scientists whom I know.

Nevertheless, our politicians have passed laws stating that carbon dioxide is bad. See California’s AB32 which is based upon science fiction. (For readers who take issue with me, I will be happy to destroy your arguments in another place. In this paper, we focus on the damage to America that is being caused by those promoting the global-warming fraud.)

In the year 2000, America planned 150 new coal-electric power plants. These power plants would have been ”clean” by real standards but the Greens managed to have carbon dioxide defined legally as ”dirty” and this new definition makes all emitters of carbon dioxide, including you, a threat to the planet. Therefore, using legal illogic, the Sierra Club stopped 82 of these planned power plants under Bush II and they expect it will be a slam-dunk to stop the rest under Obama.

And now you know the real reason the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company had to shut down. America stopped building new power plants a long time ago. There is now no other source where the company can buy energy. Our energy-producing capability is in a decline and it is taking America with it.

I used to belong to the Sierra Club in the 1960’s. It used to be a nice hiking club. In the late 1960’s the Sierra Club began turning its attention toward stopping nuclear power. Then I quit the Sierra Club. It continues to prosper from the many subscribers who think they are supporting a good cause. What they are really supporting is the destruction of America brick by brick. The Sierra Club and similar organizations are like watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside. They are telling us we have no right to our own natural resources, and in doing so they are sinking America.

Inherent in ecology are three assumptions: ”natural” conditions are optimal, climate is fragile, and human influences are bad. Physics makes no such assumptions. By assuming climate is fragile, the global warming supporters have assumed their conclusion. In fact, the climate is not fragile. It is stable. The non-adherence to physical logic in the global-warming camp is what makes many physical scientists say that global warming is a religion.

So we have a new age religion promoted by environmentalists, incorporated into our laws and brainwashed into our people that is now destroying America from the inside.

Like a vast ship, America is taking a long time to sink but each day it sinks a little further. The fearsome day awaits, when America, if not quickly recovered by its real citizens, will tilt its nose into the water to begin a rapid and final descent into oblivion … her many resources saved for whom?

October 24, 2009

Edwin X Berry, PhD [send him mail] is an atmospheric physicist and certified consulting meteorologist with Climate Physics, LLC in Montana. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2009 Edwin X Berry, PhD

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59S37920091029

Europe metals producers warn of relocation

Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:01am EDT 

By Martin Roberts

MADRID (Reuters) – European non-ferrous metals producers may move to countries where environmental legislation is less strict unless the impact of forthcoming measures is reduced, an industry spokesman said on Thursday.

Javier Targhetta, president of Eurometaux, said the industry was concerned over high and unpredictable power costs, the added cost of a new emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2013 and a new registry of chemicals, amongst other issues.

Industry group Eurometaux estimates non-ferrous metals makers directly and indirectly employ one million people in Europe, and contribute 2 percent of its economic output.

”Without satisfactory solutions in these areas, the European industry’s competitiveness will be seriously affected by the market and regulatory advantages of emerging countries,” Targhetta told journalists.

Electricity accounts for an average of 35 percent of production costs for non-ferrous metals — 60 percent for aluminum — and producers say big differences in policy between European countries and lack of interconnection make power more expensive.

Targhetta was particularly concerned over what he said was the reluctance of utilities to sell power for terms of three years or more following deregulation for heavy users in Spain last year.

”This increases long-term insecurity and leads to a halt in investment. If we carry on like this, the industry is destined to disappear,” he said.

ETS COSTS

Eurometaux estimates a new phase of the ETS could hike its power costs by an unsustainable 150-200 million euros ($221.1-294.8 million), and may prompt ”carbon leakage,” or relocation to countries where emission costs are low or nil.

”Carbon will still be produced, it will still be producing the greenhouse effect, but a European plant will have been lost,” Targhetta said.

Under the current ETS scheme, national governments give heavy industry a quota of free permits, many of which have been resold at a profit. But many firms will have to buy permits at auction from 2013.

Also of concern were the potential costs of an EU law called Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACh), which is designed to protect the public and the environment from potentially harmful materials found in manufactured goods.

Targhetta, who is also president of Atlantic Copper, part of Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., estimated that gathering information for REACh had cost the copper industry alone 8 million euros.

”Measures like this are being pioneered in the European Union, which entails a special challenge,” he said.

(Reporting by Martin Roberts. Editing by David Brough)

EUROMETAUX WARNS OF THE RISKS OF DELOCALIZATION

http://www.eurometaux.org/files/DelocOct09-094008A.pdf

 Hundreds to lose jobs with Anglesey Aluminium closure

http://www.theonlinemail.co.uk/bangor-and-anglesey-news/local-bangor-and-anglesey-news/2009/08/19/hundreds-to-lose-jobs-with-anglesey-aluminium-closure-66580-24467566/

“Rather than take £48m offered by the government to keep producing metal, the company has chosen to wield the axe on over 400 job which will devastate the island economy for years to come.

Last week, Anglesey Aluminium announced that it would go ahead with plans of mothballing the aluminium smelter on September 30.

On that day, the cut price electricity deal which has powered the smelter lines will run out.

The major sticking point for Anglesey Aluminium has been the inability to re-negotiate another cut price energy deal for the smelter which uses around 12% of Wales’ electricity supply daily.”

“Following meetings in Cardiff last month it emerged that Anglesey Aluminium could continue to operate with 250 workers up until the end of December 2010, when the present Wylfa Nuclear power station is due to stop producing electricity.”

See also:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/07/a-tale-of-two-overkills/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Global Warming Appetizer – October 2009 3rd Coldest for US in 115 Years

Another update:

                 October 2009 3rd Coldest for US in 115 Years

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

                                 2009 Temperature

 

                                        North Plate, NE

 

                                        Kansas City, MO

                                          Boston, MA

                                        Concord, NH

                                         Bismarck, ND

                                            Pierre, SD

                                          Pocatello, ID

                                              Wausau, WI

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Winter_of_0910.pdf

See also

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/07/october-2009-3rd-coldest-for-us-in-115-years-what-about-the-upcoming-winter/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Global Warming Appetizer – Coldest October in many years and record snow Part 2

An update: Here’s more of the same from New Zealand, Montana ,Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

Thank GOD for that Global Warming!

It’s official: October was frigid

http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/otago/80633/it039s-official-october-was-frigid

By Rebecca Fox on Wed, 4 Nov 2009

The Regions: Otago | News: Dunedin | Weather

Chilly weather kept temperatures down to record low levels across Otago last month, with Dunedin experiencing its coldest October since records began about 60 years ago.

Nationally, it was the coldest October in 64 years, with an average temperature of 10.6degC (1.4degC) below the long-term average) and record low temperatures recorded in many areas, including Otago, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) climate summary says.

Temperatures were more than 2degC below average throughout South Island eastern and alpine areas, climate scientist Georgina Griffiths said.

Queenstown recorded its lowest mean minimum temperature for October since records began in 1873, with a mean temperature of 2.8degC, 1.6degC below normal.

Dunedin also recorded its lowest mean minimum for the month since records began in 1947, shivering in 4.1degC (0.8degC below normal).

The city was the coldest of New Zealand’s six main centres, with a record mean temperature of 9degC (1.5degC below normal).

It was also a dry month, with Dunedin the only main centre to experience below-normal rainfall of 40mm – only 60% of normal. The rest recorded about 170% of normal rainfalls.

In the extreme low mean maximum daily temperatures Dunedin at Musselburgh recorded its lowest at 12.8degC (2degC below normal) and the airport its fourth lowest of 14degC (2degC below). Oamaru recorded its second lowest at 13.4degC (2.6degC below) and Balclutha its lowest since records began 45 years ago with 13degC (2.5degC below).

The lowest October temperature of -5.5degC was recorded at Ranfurly on the 5th but it was not a record for the town.

Records were broken for extreme low daily minimum temperatures at Dunedin airport (-3.3degC on the 7th), the lowest since records began in 1947 and Queenstown (-3.5degC on the 5th), the lowest since 1871.

CHILLING OUT

 • Dunedin the coldest of New Zealand’s six main centres.

• Lowest mean maximum daily temperatures recorded at Dunedin 12.8degC, 2degC below normal.

• Queenstown recorded its lowest mean minimum temperature for at least 130 years.

Montana snowpack way above usual

http://m.billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_647639f2-c837-11de-a3a4-001cc4c002e0.html

LORNA THACKERAY Of The Gazette Staff | Posted: Monday, November 2, 2009 10:10 pm | No Comments Posted

Billings didn’t take a serious hit from the October storm. But some surrounding areas and the mountains of central and Eastern Montana were buried, forming the foundation of the season’s snowpack.

”Pretty much in Eastern Montana, we’re running above where we usually are this time of year,” said Roy Kaiser from his Bozeman office of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Kaiser is Montana’s snowpack guru.

He keeps track of Snotel measuring sites throughout the state and issues river forecasts based on snowpack.

”This is the best start we’ve had in the last four years,” he said. ”On the Yellowstone, we’re seeing what we would usually see in mid-November.”

Very early snowpack numbers show that snowpack on the upper Yellowstone River basin, which stretches from Yellowstone Park to Custer, is 170 percent of normal.

The lower Yellowstone, from Custer to the confluence of the Missouri, is at 169 percent of average.

The Smith, Judith and Musselshell basins are in the best shape, with 416 percent of the normal snowpack. Western Montana didn’t start the snow season as well. Snowpack is 53 percent of normal on the Bitterroot and 31 percent of normal on the lower Clarks Fork.

Despite above-average precipitation in October – 1.45 inches compared with the normal 1.26 inches – Billings made little headway in a year-to-date moisture deficit of 3.36 inches. Just 10.09 inches of precipitation has fallen this year.

In October, measurable precipitation fell on 11 days. Trace amounts of snow fell on eight days.

October was made colder by winterlike winds, Meier said. Average wind speed for the month was 11.2 mph. The strongest sustained wind was 37 mph on Oct. 27. The highest gust, 44 mph, blasted Billings the same day.

Wind this time of year normally would be associated with warmer temperatures, but October again proved contrary.

”Most of the windy days last month happened on northwest-wind days, when the storm track brought cold weather from Canada,” he said. ”It was more typical of things we might see in December or January.”

http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/search/label/Record%20Cold

Monday, November 2, 2009

Record Monthly Temperatures and Snowfall in October

Midnight Update: October was the second coldest in Denver:

THE MONTH’S AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS ONLY 42.9 DEGREES WHICH MOVED OCTOBER 2009 INTO THE 2ND COLDEST OCTOBER IN DENVER WEATHER HISTORY.
THE COLDEST OCTOBER WAS A VERY FRIGID 39.0 DEGREES WHICH WAS RECORDED IN 1969.
THERE WERE 17 DAYS WHEN THE LOW TEMPERATURES WERE 32 DEGREES OR LOWER WHEREAS
THE NORMAL AMOUNT IS ONLY 9.  THREE HIGH TEMPERATURES
DID NOT MAKE IT TO THE FREEZING MARK WHICH IS 3 ABOVE NORMAL.

Original post:
Several monthly cold temperature and snowfall records were set or approached for October in Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas:

Wyoming:
CHEYENNE WY SET NEW RECORDS FOR COLD AND SNOW DURING THE MONTH OF  
OCTOBER 2009.  A TOTAL OF 28.0 INCHES OF SNOWFALL WAS MEASURED  
DURING THE MONTH…WHICH SET A NEW RECORD FOR THE MOST SNOWFALL EVER  
RECORDED IN CHEYENNE DURING OCTOBER.THE OLD RECORD WAS 23.1 INCHES  
WHICH FELL IN 1906. 
 
CHEYENNE ALSO SET A NEW RECORD FOR THE COLDEST AVERAGE TEMPERATURE  
FOR THE MONTH.  THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR OCTOBER 2009 WAS 37.0  
DEGREES WHICH JUST EDGED OUT THE PREVIOUS LOWEST OCTOBER AVERAGE OF  
37.1 DEGREES SET IN 1969. 

Oklahoma:
THE AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE AT THE TULSA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT  
FOR OCTOBER 2009 WAS 55.9 DEGREES WHICH WAS 6.7 DEGREES BELOW  
NORMAL. THIS TIES WITH OCTOBER 1925 FOR THE COLDEST OCTOBER ON  
RECORD. THE DAILY HIGH TEMPERATURES WERE THE PRIMARY FACTOR IN THIS  
RECORD SETTING EVENT. THE OBSERVED AVERAGE DAILY MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE  
OF 64.5 DEGREES WAS 9.5 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL…WHILE THE DAILY  
AVERAGE MINIMUM OF 47.2 DEGREES FELL SHORT BY 3.9 DEGREES. THERE  
WERE 8 DAYS IN THE MONTH WHERE THE AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE WAS AT  
OR ABOVE NORMAL…WITH THE REMAINING 23 DAYS FALLING BELOW NORMAL BY  
-5 TO -18 DEGREES. THE WARMEST TEMPERATURE WAS 84 DEGREES OCCURRED  
ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH…WITH THE COLDEST READING OF 35  
DEGREES OBSERVED ON THE 18TH OF OCTOBER. THERE WERE 284 HEATING  
DEGREES DAYS DURING THE MONTH WHICH WAS ABOVE NORMAL BY 132 DEGREES

South Dakota:
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AT THE RAPID CITY  
AIRPORT SOUTH DAKOTA WAS 38.7 DEGREES. THE PREVIOUS RECORD FOR  
OCTOBER WAS 39.0 DEGREES BACK IN 2002. 

Nebraska:
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2009 IN  
SCOTTSBLUFF WAS 40.5 DEGREES.  THIS SET A NEW RECORD FOR THE LOWEST  
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN SCOTTSBLUFF FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER.  THE  
PREVIOUS RECORD WAS 40.8 DEGREES WHICH OCCURRED IN 1925. 

THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2009 IN CHADRON  
NEBRASKA WAS 40.0 DEGREES.  THIS SET A NEW RECORD FOR THE LOWEST  
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED IN CHADRON FOR THE MONTH OF  
OCTOBER.  THE PREVIOUS RECORD WAS 40.8 DEGREES WHICH OCCURRED IN  
2002. 

OCTOBER WAS A HISTORIC MONTH FOR SNOWFALL IN NORTH PLATTE. DURING THE  
MONTH…30.3 INCHES OF SNOW FELL WHICH WAS A WHOPPING 29.2 INCHES  
ABOVE THE NORMAL OF 1.1 INCHES. THE 30.3 INCHES WAS ALSO 1.9 INCHES  
ABOVE THE SEASONAL NORMAL OF 28.4 AND WE HAVEN’T EVEN REACHED WINTER  
YET! SNOWFALL RECEIVED IN OCTOBER 2009 BROKE THE OLD MONTHLY RECORD  
OF 15.7 INCHES WHICH FELL IN 1969. CONSIDERING ALL MONTHS…OCTOBER  
2009 WILL GO DOWN AS THE SNOWIEST MONTH EVER FOR NORTH PLATTE. THE  
30.3 INCHES RECEIVED…BROKE THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 27.8 INCHES  
RECORDED IN MARCH 1912. IN ADDITION TO THE TWO MONTHLY RECORDS FOR  
SNOW…FOUR DAILY SNOWFALL RECORDS WERE BROKEN AND ONE RECORD WAS  
TIED. THESE ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW.  
 
DAILY SNOWFALL RECORDS IN OCTOBER 2009 FOR NORTH PLATTE 
 
DATE        AMOUNT          PREVIOUS RECORD AND YEAR 
 
 9           2.0                    0.1/1932 
10          11.8                    1.3/1987 * 
13         TRACE                  TRACE/1969 & 
22           4.2                    4.0/1906 
30           7.3                    4.0/1991   

Kansas:
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN GOODLAND KANSAS DURING THIS PAST 
OCTOBER WAS 43.7 DEGREES. THIS WAS THE COLDEST AVERAGE TEMPERATURE  
ON RECORD FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER. THE PREVIOUS RECORD WAS 44.3  
DEGREES SET IN OCTOBER 1925. 

…SECOND COOLEST OCTOBER AT WICHITA’S MID-CONTINENT AIRPORT 
 
OCTOBER 2009 FINISHED OUT THE MONTH BY GOING DOWN IN THE RECORD 
BOOKS AS THE SECOND COOLEST OCTOBER ON RECORD.  THE AVERAGE MONTHLY 
TEMPERATURE WAS 51.2 DEGREES WHICH IS 7.4 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL. 
THIS BEATS OUT THE PREVIOUS SECOND PLACE HOLDER FOR OCTOBER FROM 
1917 WHICH HAD AN AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE OF 51.9 DEGREES.  THE 
COOLEST OCTOBER ON RECORD IS 49.0 DEGREES SET IN 1925.

Meanwhile, monthly high temperature records were set in Florida:

AN ALL-TIME HOTTEST OCTOBER RECORD WAS SET IN MIAMI WITH AN AVERAGE  
TEMPERATURE OF 82.4 DEGREES FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER. THIS WAS 3.6  
DEGREES ABOVE AVERAGE, AND BROKE THE PREVIOUS WARMEST OCTOBER RECORD  
OF 82.05 DEGREES SET IN 2002. MIAMI OBSERVED 14 DAYS OF TEMPERATURES  
REACHING 90 DEGREES OR HIGHER, WHICH TIED THE RECORD FOR MOST NUMBER  
OF 90-PLUS DEGREE DAYS SET BACK IN 1989.  
 
MOORE HAVEN RECORDED A TOTAL OF 18 DAYS OF TEMPERATURES REACHING AT  
LEAST 90 DEGREES. THIS BROKE THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 16 DAYS SET IN  
1986. LABELLE REGISTERED 22 DAYS OF 90-PLUS DEGREE TEMPERATURES, ONE  
DAY SHORT OF THE RECORD SET IN 2002. 

The National Climatic Data Center reports that 1,344 daily lowest minimum temperature records were set in October, and 616 daily highest maximum records were set.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Global Warming Appetizer – Coldest October in many years and record snow

Sydney’s Coldest October in 17 years

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/sydneys-coldest-october-in-17-years/12983

“Based on maximum temperatures and averaging 21.4 degrees, we have now seen our coldest October in 17 years.”

Sheridan on track for record cold October

http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=11419040

SHERIDAN, Wyo. (AP) – This month is on track to be the coldest October on record in Sheridan.

The National Weather Service says the average temperature in Sheridan so far this month has been 37.2 degrees. The previous coldest October in Sheridan was in 1969, when the average was 38.5 degrees.

Daytime high temperatures topped 60 degrees only three times this month, also a record.

Sheridan’s coldest temperature this month was a record low of 5 degrees on Oct. 9. The previous record for that date was 16 degrees, set in 1993.

Inner Mongolia’s Cold Snap Brings First Snow To Beijing

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=451514

A cold snap from inner Mongolia has brought the first snow to Beijing early dawn Sunday, two months ahead of winter.

According to Beijing Meteorological Department senior engingeer Zhang Mingying, cold snap of level 6-7 landed northern China yesterday, causing a 10 to 16 degree sharp drop of temperature in Beijing and Hebei, Jilin and Liaoning provinces.

”It is unusual for cold snap of this level to occur in October…this is the first time that Beijing is swept by cold snap in October since the 1970s,” he added.

Snow shifts east, paralyzing plains

http://www.wtvr.com/health/kdvr-snow-story-102909,0,1202500.story

DENVER – After pounding Colorado’s Front Range and metropolitan Denver for more than two days with snow, a powerful Winter Storm pushed into eastern Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas Thursday evening.

The snow and wind created blizzard conditions and forced the closure of several major highways, including Interstate 70 which was shut down from Aurora to the Kansas state line.

Also closed were I-76 from Brighton to Neb., US 34 from Brush to Neb., CO 71 from Neb. to Ordway, CO 61 from Sterling to Otis, and CO 59 between I-76 and Yuma.

LIVE TRAFFIC CAMS & ALERTS

The storm was the biggest October snowmaker in the Denver area since 1997, said Byron Louis, a weather service hydrologist in Boulder. It also broke records for total October snowfall in Wyoming.

”The track of this storm was more indicative of March and April heavy storm event,” FOX 31 Chief Meteorologist Dave Fraser said. ”A two day event of this magnitude is certainly an oddity for October and may be an indication of the winter to come, which is a scary thought.”

18 inches fell in Boulder, 37″ in Conifer, 23″ in Parker, 16″ in Aurora, 43″ in Pinecliffe, and 16″ in Castle Rock. Denver had received 14 inches of snow by Thursday evening with very little additional accumulation forecast.

Hundreds of schools in metro Denver stayed closed Thursday, but the University of Colorado in Boulder and Colorado State University in Fort Collins, where 17.5 inches fell, reopened a day after sending students home early.

Many schools opted to close Friday as well, however, some administrators planned to wait until morning to gauge conditions.

VIEW CURRENT CLOSINGS/DELAYS

Denver-based Frontier Airlines canceled 44 flights in and out of Denver International Airport due to ”ground blizzard” conditions. Other flights were delayed by up to four hours. United Airlines, the airport’s dominant carrier with about 400 flights per day, canceled half its flights Thursday to prevent delays and cancelations from spilling over into Friday, spokesman Charlie Hobart said.

Airport spokesman Chuck Cannon said crews were using 174 pieces of snow-removal equipment to keep runways and taxiways clear as they dealt with severe wind gusts. The airport received at least 16 inches of snow with 5-foot snow drifts east of Denver, the weather service said.

”It drifts and it blows and it cuts visibility. It just creates problems and safety is the big issue.” Cannon said. Travelers were urged to check flight status with their airlines before driving to DIA.

A Blizzard Warning was in effect for northeastern Colorado through 9 a.m. Friday.

Denver foothills get up to 4 feet of snow

http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/10/31/

Denver_foothills_get_up_to_4_feet_of_snow/

Arizona gets some interesting new minimum high records

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/29/12266/

From the “weather is not climate department”….whether it is cold or snow, long lived records keep falling, and recently in large numbers.

Today, new “minimum high” records fell in a traditionally warm southwest state.

Flagstaff, and Prescott, Williams, and Winslow Arizona all significantly bested the old records set on this date.

The “cold war” hits home – October in like a lion, out like a fridge

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/25/the-cold-war-hits-home-october-in-like-a-lion-out-like-a-fridge/

 

Cold start to fall continues, 252 more low temperature records set in the USA this week

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/252_new_usa_lows/

More new record lows, lowest max temperature, and snowfall this week. The new low records outnumber the high records. There were an impressive number of Lowest Max Temperature records

Here’s a listing of the record events by category:

Record Events for Sat Oct 17, 2009 through Fri Oct 23, 2009
Total Records:	2682
Rainfall:	812
Snowfall:	72
High Temperatures:	152
Low Temperatures:	252
Lowest Max Temperatures:	1129
Highest Min Temperatures:	265

All-time October low recorded in Bavaria

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20091020-22693.html

Meteorologists on Tuesday morning recorded the lowest ever October temperature in Germany, as the mercury dipped to a chilly -24.3 degrees Celsius in Bavaria’s Berchtesgaden national park.

October Cold Snap Sets 82-Year Record

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/october.cold.record.2.1247099.html

High On Tuesday Was Only 47 Degrees

October in Chicago is usually equal parts balmy T-shirt weather and nippy light jacket temperatures, but if it’s felt more like winter coat weather this year, it’s not your imagination. Chicago has spent the last 17 days with below-average temperatures, and a high of a mere 47 degrees made Tuesday the coldest Oct. 13 in 82 years, CBS 2’s Mary Kay Kleist says.

Comparing temperatures for the first 14 days of October 2008 to this year seems like comparing the tropics to the tundra.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Våra politiker har som vanligt ingen aning om någonting – I det här fallet vindkraft

Som jag har skrivit om vad det gäller FRA lagen, IPRED, ACTA, Datalagringsdirektiv, Telekompaket etc etc. så visar det sig gång på gång att våra riksdagsledamöter inte har en aning om vad de egentligen röstar på. De röstar som de blir tillsagada och följer partistyrelsens och partipiskans order.

Och nu visar det sig att de bara rakt av kopierar text och felaktiga fakta från en påhittade lobbyorganisation och presenterar det hela SOM SINA MOTIONER.

De gör inte ens den mesta elementära fakta koll om organisationen eller det som står i texten.

NOLL KOLL!

OCH DE VÄGRAR ATT SOM VANLIGT TA NÅGOT SOM HELST ANSVAR FÖR NÅGONTING!

När jag tänker på det så borde detta väl vara åtalbart enligt den IPRED lag som de själva röstade igenom som ”Illegal Textdelning”. Och därmed så kan vi stänga av deras Internet uppkoppling enligt samma lag. Plus naturligtvis böter på sisådär 10 miljoner kr per person för presumtiva förlorade intäkter a la skivindustrins argument.

Som sagt – Det är ”värdiga” representanter vi har i riksdagen. Och dessa personer bestämmer över oss, det svenska folket, och avgör våra fri- och rättigheter och vårt ekonomiska välstånd.

Se mina inlägg om vindkraft här:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/vindkraft/

Artikeln här:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article5991551.ab

Publicerad: 2009-10-21

    Med en riggad lyxfest avslöjade Aftonbladet/200 sekunder för några veckor sedan hur riksdagsledamöter låter sig bjudas av pr-konsulter och lobbyister.

     I dag kan vi berätta hur mäktiga företag och organisationer, med välbetalda pr-konsulter i ryggen, styr de folkvalda att driva deras frågor.

     Flera ledamöter skrev under en fejkad motion från vår påhittade stiftelse.

    Den fejkade motionen skickades till politiker från alla olika partier.

Så lätta är de att lura

Politiker för faktafel vidare – utan att kola

Hur lätt är det att styra de folkvalda i Sveriges riksdag?

Aftonbladet hittade på en intresseorganisation och skrev ett fejkat motionsförslag med faktafel.

Sex ledamöter gick i fällan.

För att testa hur lätt det är för lobbyister att få makt i riksdagen skapade Aftonbladet den påhittade stiftelsen Välj vindkraft.

Vi skickade ut färdiga motionsförslag med krav på att regeringen slopar uttagsskatten för kooperativ vindkraft.

Sex socialdemokratiska ledamöter använde sig av vårt material när de lämnade sina motioner till riksdagen. Ingen av dem har kontrollerat stiftelsen eller brytt sig om att prata med de kontaktpersoner Aftonbladet angivit på den fejkade hemsidan.

Inklusive faktafel

Det handlar om två motioner – den ena har undertecknats av fyra ledamöter och den andra av två.

Hela stycken har kopierats och ett faktafel om energimängd, som vi hade preparerat texten med, slank med i båda motionerna.

Förre socialministern Berit Andnor (S), ordförande i konstitutionsutskottet, har skrivit under en av motionerna.

– Det är klart att jag beklagar om det är en uppgift som är felaktig, säger hon.

Stefan Wikén (S) var den som satte ihop motionen. I dag är han ångerfull:

– Jag kan bara beklaga att jag inte har faktakontrollerat ordentligt.

Marie Nordén (S), som också skrev under, tycker det hela är olyckligt.

– Vi får ta på oss att vi använde en felaktig siffra. Det är jättetråkigt att det blev så med tanke på att det är en viktig fråga. Det är klart att det här kanske underminerar hela vår motion.

Den andra motionen består nästan bara av text som har kopierats från påhittade Välj vindkraft.

En av undertecknarna, Renée Jeryd (S), är lite frågande när Aftonbladet kontaktar henne.

– Jaha, ja, nu är det inte jag som…jag la ju ett förslag till vindkraft…till skatteutskottet och sen redigerade de politiska tjänstemännen det.

Brukar ni bara kopiera?

– Nej, jag tycker inte jag har kopierat det där utan jag har utgått i från mina kunskaper om vindkraft.

Motionsförslaget som påhittade Välj vindkraft skickade ut innehöll sakfel som också har kom med i motionen?

– Ja, då är jag missinformerad då.

Känner press

Renée Jeryd försvarar sig med att hon känner sig pressad av media.

– Problemet är ju att ni granskar hur många motioner vi skriver. Och den som inte skriver några motioner är en lat riksdagsman.

Hur då menar du?

– Det är en tävling i vem som skriver mest motioner för att på något sätt blidka media.

– Jag tycker att det blir en stress och hets.

Christian Oskarsson (S), som undertecknat motionen tillsammans med Renée Jeryd, säger:

– Det här området är väldigt aktuellt just nu och vi har väldigt mycket kontakter och folk som uppvaktar oss. Då kan det vara lätt att det också slinker igenom någonting, en siffra som inte stämmer eller så.

Richard Aschberg

Elisabeth Marmorstein

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Global Ocean Heat Content dropping, in some cases rapidly

Some new and interesting updated data on Global Ocean Heat Content. 

It was KNMI (The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) that updated the NODC (National Oceanographic Data Center) data.

Also note that these updates ARE NOT AVAILABLE on the NODC’s website:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

Graphs here:

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/update-of-nodc-levitus-et-al-2009-ohc.html

KNMI data here:

http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

Se also:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/09/ocean-heat-content-dropping/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

The IPCC’s Fabrication of Atmospheric CO2 ‘Residency Time’

More on the IPCC and their falsifying of data to suit their Global Warming Hysteria. This time it’s about Atmospheric CO2 ‘Residency Time’ (the time CO2 remains in the atmosphere before being recycled by the oceans).

IPCC put a value of 100 years when all other scientific studies show a value of 5-15 years.

“In order for increased human CO2 emissions to cause accelerated global warming, the climate models need to assume that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a very long time, up to 100+ years. Since the IPCC’s task is to prove any global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, they decided to proclaim that CO2 was long-lived in the atmosphere – a fabricated assumption.

They did this despite the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed studies (and corroborating empirical measurements) finding that CO2 in the atmosphere remained there a short time. Literally, a fabricated assumption, driven by political agenda, became a cornerstone of fraudulent climate model science. As a result, billions spent on climate models that are unable to predict climate with any accuracy.”

Book here:

http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253581727&sr=8-1

See also:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/09/the-liberal-attack-on-science-acorn-style-the-ipcc-fabrication-of-atmospheric-co2-residency-time.html

Bigger graph here

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

             Maximum residence time of Atmospheric CO2

                                    

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic 2

Here are some more on the same theme as my last post. This time from Barry Moore

Isn’t good that the science is “settled” and that there is NOTHING to discuss. And that to EVEN ask these questions is beyond heresy “it’s completely immoral, even, to question now”. (Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!)

Yes that the brilliant state of science today (How can the Scientific Community Still Allow the Parody of “science” called Global Warming Hysteria?)

And thank God for the media and its CENSORING AND INTIMIDATING OF EVERYONE WHO HAS OPPOSED THIS Global Warming HYSTERIA.

Article here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-barry-moore/

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic: Barry Moore

Posted by Barry Moore, September 21st, 2009 – under Opinion.

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports are a collection of mind numbing statistics from which they claim “solid scientific proof” that man made CO2 is causing global warming. From these statistics empirical formula have been generated which form the basis of the computer programs that are then used to “prove” the empirical formula.

This is circular logic and the output of a computer cannot be used to prove the validity of its programming inputs.

The only way an empirical formula can be validated is by experimental results or by strict mathematical proof based on accepted scientific laws.

Not one of the predictions made by some 29 computer programs in the past 10 to 15 years even remotely resembles the climate of the past 10 years. 

The IPCC assessment reports do not contain any mathematical analysis based on the laws of physics to support their formulae or hypothesis.   We are reduced to statistical correlation between the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the average global temperature.

Yet consider the number of factors that can affect the global temperature:

1. The suns radiation entering the top of atmosphere (TOA)

2. Infrared radiation leaving the TOA.

3. Cloud cover which has 3 different components – high, mid and low level cloud.  These three components have a distinctly different effect on the incoming and outgoing infrared and visible light energies.

4. Ocean surface temperature.

5. Volcanic ash suspension in the atmosphere.

6. Smoke from forest fires, human emissions and fly ash.

7. Carbon dioxide content.

8. Water vapour content.

9. Other trace gasses with resonant frequencies in the IR spectrum.

10. Cosmic radiation that influences low level cloud formation and stratospheric trace gases.

Listed above are 13 variables and this is not a complete list.  But it does demonstrate that the average global temperature is a result of many different factors some of which vary significantly in a short period of time (weeks) some in a medium period of time (years) and some long term (decades). In addition many of these factors are interrelated.

In order to separate any one of the factors statistically and determine its effect one must be able to quantify all the others.  Of course we are not even close to being able to do this, so to determine the effect of CO2 is mathematically impossible by statistical analysis.

In fact we only have data on some of the above variables since the weather satellites started to orbit the earth in 1979 and sea temperatures have only been accurately monitored worldwide since the Argo buoy programme became fully operational in 2003.

According to the satellite data, since 1979 there has been no significant increase in global temperature.  We have had 20 years of increasing temperature and 10 years of decreasing temperature, while the CO2 content has shown a uniform increase.  Hence there is no correlation.  If there was, I would ask the question: “Is the CO2 causing a temperature change or is the temperature change causing a CO2 change?”

********************

Barry Moore lives in Calgary.

Originally from the UK, Mr Moore graduated in London in 1960 with an honours degree in mechanical engineering before working for 13 years in nuclear research in eastern Canada. In 1981 he moved west to Calgary and joined the oil industry becoming an instrumentation and controls specialist.  

Mr Moore became interested in the Kyoto Accord about 12 years ago – just wanting to find out the truth.  In the process he has read thousands of technical papers and articles covering the full range of technologies, political and economic aspects of this very diverse and complex subject.

Read more from Mr Moore here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/barry-moore

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic

A very good general description of why the Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with facts and science, as I have stated many many times – it’s all about a political agenda, by Michael Hammer.

“If I adopt this 10:1 ratio by looking at the last 100 years worth of data I find 1910-1940 temperatures rising while CO2 was not.  1940 to 1975 temperatures falling while CO2 rising, 1975 to 1998 temperatures rising while CO2 rising and 1998 to 2009 temperatures falling while CO2 rising.   Three quarters of the period shows no correlation or negative correlation with CO2 and only one quarter shows positive correlation.  I do not understand how one can claim a hypothesis proven when ¾ of the data set disagrees with it.  To me it is the clearest proof that the hypothesis is wrong.”

“I have looked at the raw temperature record for the USA (USHCN data) and the Bureau of Meteorology data for Victoria, Australia.  Both show fluctuations of temperature with time but zero underlying trend for the last century.  By contrast, the official IPCC endorsed data shows a strong underlying upwards trend.  When I investigate why the difference, I find that the raw data has been adjusted for several supposed factors and every one of these adjustments created a warming trend.  This implies that the claimed warming trend is due to the adjustments, not the raw data.  In any less controversial scientific issue, such a result would be viewed with the greatest possible scepticism and would be extremely unlikely to be accepted.

When I examine the raw temperature data record for cities compared with nearby suburban or rural areas, I find an extremely high signature of urban heat island effect.  Yet the people doing the temperature adjustments claim that urban heat island effects are negligible and do not require correction.  This is despite the fact that a significant proportion of the measurement stations are in cities.”

“Looking further at the claim of warming ocean temperatures.  Late last century it was realised that the method of measuring ocean temperatures was extremely inaccurate and unreliable.  To overcome that, a sophisticated, global system of buoys was designed and implemented at very considerable cost and effort.  These buoys repeatedly dive down to measure temperatures  and then resurface to report back findings  This network is called the Argo network and it became operational in 2003.  Since becoming operational, it has shown ocean cooling.  Yet the scientists who claim ongoing ocean warming exclude the Argo data and the satellite data instead relying entirely on the earlier poor reliability methods.

The same scientific community which claimed a method was inaccurate and unreliable, designed and implemented  a new high accuracy measurement system, are now rejecting the new high accuracy data in favour of the older data they themselves viewed as unreliable.  How can that be justified?  Why is the data from the older less reliable method correct, while results from the new, high accuracy methodology are wrong?  What does that say about the scientists who designed the Argo system but apparently don’t trust its output?  To me it suggests selecting data to prove a favoured hypothesis, commonly called cherry picking.”

“FROM a slightly different but related perspective, I see the AGW story continuously changing.  When one measure no longer trends the wanted way, a change is made to a new measure (change from surface to ocean temperatures and ocean acidity).  In one report, an effect is claimed to be negligible when that suits the hypothesis yet the same measure is later used as a reason to explain away embarrassing trends (Solar influence and ocean currents).  All the observed effects are very moderate (less than 0.5C) if present at all yet hysteria is generated on the basis of hypothesised extreme future outcomes (up to 6C rise and 10 meter sea level rises).  Outcomes far enough in the future so as to be un-testable yet close enough to impact people being born today.  Claims based on abstract models that fail even short term validation tests.   As a practicing scientist, I have seen this scenario more than once before, changing benchmarks and indicative parameters, rewriting predictions and predicted causes after the event, excusing erroneous predictions.  These are clear signs of propping up a false hypothesis.”

“There is another very serious unintended consequence that I would like to raise here; one that concerns me very deeply.  When I listen to the public AGW debate  I hear very high profile politicians and prominent public figures calling for people who openly disagree with AGW to be put on trial for treason.  I hear many cases of people losing their jobs because of voicing sceptical opinions.  I hear prominent global warming advocates refusing to enter into debates or trying to avoid debates by claiming the science is settled, and by claiming we do not have time, we have only weeks to act.  I hear AGW advocates resorting to personal attacks against people who disagree rather than addressing the technical issues they raise.

I hear AGW proponents claiming to be the under funded underdogs, fighting to protect the planet against greedy capitalists, yet the reality is their funding is at least 1000 times greater than the sceptics funding.  I see many reports of scientists refusing to release their workings, thus preventing review of their methodology, despite the fact that their work was funded by public money.

I see how the established media abandons balance in reporting by strongly favouring proponents of AGW, ignoring or denigrating sceptics and forcing most onto blog sites like this one.  I hear some environmental groups and activists publicly claim that its OK and even necessary to exaggerate the threat so as to get the public to engage. I see the courts condoning acts of vandalism and even violence against essential public infrastructure.  I see high profile public figures supporting such acts and claiming them to be reasonable and justified.

In short I see our society abandoning some of our most vital democratic freedoms over this hysteria:  Free speech, impartial enforcement of the law, balance in reporting, freedom of information.  These are freedoms our forebears gave their lives to bequeath to us, they are our most valuable inheritance and we seem to be throwing them away over an unproven hysterical hypothesis.

More recently I have read articles from England advocating individual ration cards for petrol, heating oil, gas, electricity.  Is water and food next?  War time austerity as an ongoing future way of life?  A return to the agrarian poverty of the middle ages?  I note the new film “Not evil just wrong” has had to be distributed via the internet rather than traditional media.  One step from distribution through an underground network?  Will that apply to all future sceptical writing?   What about other writing contrary to the popular opinion of the day?

These are the issues that differentiate between a free democracy and a totalitarian regime and the further one goes down this path the harder it is to pull back.  History has shown us that the disease is far easier to acquire than to get rid of.”

Article here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-michael-hammer/

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic: Michael Hammer

Posted by Michael Hammer, September 21st, 2009 – under Opinion.

I HAVE been asked several times ‘why am I so sceptical of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis’?  There are many reasons, some of which I have documented in previous articles at this weblog, but these have relied on sometimes complex calculations which I admit can be difficult to appreciate.  So I would like to outline here a few of my reasons based only on simple consistency with the AGW proponents’ own data.

1.  The AGW movement claims there has been a global temperature rise of 0.5C over the last 60 years and that this is due to increasing CO2.  Both AGW proponents and sceptics accept that the relationship between energy retained and CO2 concentration is logarithmic (a constant increase in retained energy for each doubling of CO2).  The AGW movement data also shows that since 1900 CO2 has risen by very close to half a doubling  over this 60 year period.

IPCC have claimed in their 4th assessment report (summary for policy makers), that the most likely temperature rise by 2070, when CO2 will have risen by a further half doubling to twice the level in 1900, is a further 3C rise  (page 12).  Why would the first half doubling give 0.5C rise while the second half doubling gives 3C or 6 times as much rise?

2.  One claim I have heard is that it takes the climate a long time to respond to the change in CO2 concentration and we have not yet seen the entire rise from the first half doubling.  The same IPCC 4th assessment report (page 12, 13 and 14) indicates that if CO2 were stabilised at the current level, the temperature would rise by a further 0.2C over 2 decades stabilising at 0.7C above the 1900 level.

If the current temperature rise is not yet at the equilibrium level then for the business as usual scenario the temperature rise by 2070 will also not be at the equilibrium level.  Yet the IPCC data suggests the equilibrium rise from the first half doubling is not even one quarter of the less than equilibrium rise from the second half doubling.  To me this is illogical.

3.   IPCC claim an increase in retained energy of around 3.7 watts/sqM for each doubling of CO2 (1.66 watts/sqM for the current rise page 4).  They admit this is much too small to result in a 3+ degree temperature rise.  The large temperature rise is based on claims of very large net positive feedback in the climate system.  

Yet, every natural stable system I can think of exhibits net negative feedback.   Indeed the terms stability and negative feedback are synonymous since negative feedback is what causes stability.  By contrast, positive feedback causes instability (such as tipping points where a large change in output occurs for a small change in input).   Stability does not mean zero change, it means the response to changes in input are small enough and sufficiently controlled so as to not cause system destruction or runaway.  If you want to argue that the climate system is not stable then I would why it has remained conducive to continued life on this planet for billions of years.  This is despite all the change in CO2 levels, volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output and orbital changes over the millennia.  To me, that is a very good definition of climate stability.

4.  The AGW modellers claim cloud feedback is positive.   AGW advocates seem to divide clouds into two categories, low clouds and high clouds.  Every report I have read acknowledges that low clouds cause cooling.  With regard to high clouds there is some dispute but the AGW modellers claim they cause warming.  Further they claim a warming planet results in a bias away from low clouds and towards high clouds thus exacerbating  warming, hence contributing to positive feedback.

At the same time they claim constant relative humidity in their models.  This means that as the temperature rises, more water must be evaporating.  Now unless we want to predict that the amount of water in the atmosphere is going to continuously rise until the oceans are suspended over our heads, more evaporation must imply more precipitation ie: more rain.  However, rain only comes from low clouds not high clouds, so more rain means more low cloud mass not less low cloud mass.  This contradicts the previous position.  If the claim is that both increase, then that means significantly more cloud mass in total.  Clouds are the biggest contributor to Earth’s albedo (the fraction of incoming solar energy reflected back out to space).  Rising total cloudiness means increasing albedo and the albedo is very strongly cooling.  The albedo already causes 100 watts/sqM to be reflected away from Earth.  To cancel out the entire impact claimed by IPCC for doubling CO2 only requires an increase in cloudiness from 60% to 62.4%.

An increase in temperature, leading to more evaporation, in turn leading to more cloudiness which reduces the solar input to Earth thus reducing temperatures is a description of negative feedback not positive feedback.

5.  The claimed “proof” of positive feedback is a model prediction of a hot spot in the tropics at mid troposphere levels.  However all the experimental evidence from many, many measurements has failed to find any evidence of such a hot spot.  In science, a clear prediction that is falsified experimentally means the underlying hypothesis on which the prediction is based is wrong.

6.  The reports documenting man’s CO2 emission use some scarily large numbers but these have to be viewed in the light of the overall system size.  For example, a million dollars is an extremely large amount of money for a private individual but it is almost petty cash for a government.  If we want to put the numbers into perspective we need to relate them to the size of the system.  Why not express CO2 quantities in terms of how many PPM 1 year’s emissions will raise or lower the atmospheric CO2 level (if all of it stayed in the atmosphere).  We could call that PPM equivalents.

In those terms, human emissions amount to about 2.7 PPM equivalents.  Now NASA have published a diagram showing annual CO2 transfers for the planet.  This shows terrestrial plants absorbing about 61 PPM equivalents.  We know that both rising CO2 and rising temperature favour faster plant growth.  That’s why horticulturalists artificially raise CO2 levels in glass houses to about 1000 PPM.  It is also why plants grow faster in the tropics than in cooler locations on earth.  More to the point, a recent study showed average plant growth has accelerated by about 6% over the last 30 years.  A 6% increase in plant growth means a 6% increase in absorbed CO2, from 61PPM equivalents to 64.7 PPM equivalents.  This means that human emissions have increased by 2.7 PPM equivalents but plants have increased their absorption by an extra 3.7 PPM equivalents over the same period.  The increased plant growth is consuming more than 100% of human emissions.  Is there another (natural) factor contributing to CO2 increases?

This response, more CO2 leading to faster plant growth which in turn consumes more CO2 is another example of the widespread bias towards negative feedback I alluded to earlier.   Apart from which, is increased plant growth and thus agricultural productivity bad?  I would have thought it was highly desirable.

7.  The AGW hypothesis is based on temperature rises between about 1975 and 1998 or about 25 years worth of data.  This is claimed to be definitive yet the last 10 years worth of data shows falling global temperatures.  This is claimed to be a short term aberration and of no consequence.  I do not see how 25 years can be considered definitive beyond dispute while 10 years of data is a short term aberration, too short to be significant.  I would have thought at least a 10:1 ratio would be necessary to make such a claim.

8.  If I adopt this 10:1 ratio by looking at the last 100 years worth of data I find 1910-1940 temperatures rising while CO2 was not.  1940 to 1975 temperatures falling while CO2 rising, 1975 to 1998 temperatures rising while CO2 rising and 1998 to 2009 temperatures falling while CO2 rising.   Three quarters of the period shows no correlation or negative correlation with CO2 and only one quarter shows positive correlation.  I do not understand how one can claim a hypothesis proven when ¾ of the data set disagrees with it.  To me it is the clearest proof that the hypothesis is wrong.

9.  For the last 10 years the global temperature data shows either no atmospheric temperature rise or indeed a falling global temperature.  Recently this has been claimed to be due to a combination of a quiet sun and changes in ocean circulation superimposed on the underlying warming trend.  The further claim is that when these effects reverse, warming will start again with a vengeance.

If these natural processes can cancel out the impact of AGW then they are as powerful as AGW.  If they can overwhelm the impact of AGW to cause cooling they are more powerful, yet IPCC and other AGW proponents have claimed in previous assessment reports that solar influences are only a minor contributor compared to CO2.

The  sun was unusually active during the latter half of the 20th century in contrast to its current inactivity and the ocean circulation was the opposite of what is now happening.  Thus the natural effects claimed to be causing cooling now would have been causing warming in the late 20th century.  If these natural effects are as large as the AGW impact then they would have caused half the observed 20th century warming.  If the natural effects now outweigh the AGW impact to cause cooling then they would have been responsible for more than half the observed 20th century warming.

This is not only in contradiction of the earlier IPCC claims, it also means that the actual impact of CO2 increases since 1900 is much less than the claimed 0.5C.  At most 0.25C and possibly much less even than that.

If in fact the temperature returns to the long term average over the next few years (as seems to be increasingly likely), it suggests that these natural processes were responsible for essentially all the observed temperature changes over the 20th century with negligible impact from CO2 changes.

10.  I have looked at the raw temperature record for the USA (USHCN data) and the Bureau of Meteorology data for Victoria, Australia.  Both show fluctuations of temperature with time but zero underlying trend for the last century.  By contrast, the official IPCC endorsed data shows a strong underlying upwards trend.  When I investigate why the difference, I find that the raw data has been adjusted for several supposed factors and every one of these adjustments created a warming trend.  This implies that the claimed warming trend is due to the adjustments, not the raw data.  In any less controversial scientific issue, such a result would be viewed with the greatest possible scepticism and would be extremely unlikely to be accepted.

When I examine the raw temperature data record for cities compared with nearby suburban or rural areas, I find an extremely high signature of urban heat island effect.  Yet the people doing the temperature adjustments claim that urban heat island effects are negligible and do not require correction.  This is despite the fact that a significant proportion of the measurement stations are in cities.

Such a clear factor not corrected for while other more subtle claimed factors are corrected casts further doubt on the correction protocol.  If there is an upwards bias in the corrections, it means the claimed warming trend is exaggerated and may in fact not exist at all.

11.  The mainstream media keep reporting that the current situation is increasingly dire and is much worse than even the previous pessimistic projections.  When I examine this statement I find that previous projections predicted rapid atmospheric warming during the last 10 years whereas in fact we have had cooling.  They predicted rapid increase in rate of rise of sea level when in fact the rate of sea level rise has recently declined.  They predicted a very rapid increase in Arctic summer sea ice loss whereas in fact, for the last 2 years, it has been increasing.  They predicted a rapid rise in hurricane incidence and severity when in fact there has been a decline.  To me the media’s many claims are not supportable.  I also consider it to be beyond simple error.  At best it is unpardonable gross carelessness in checking the data they are reporting and at worst it is deliberate bias in reporting.

12.  More recently, in response to the data showing no warming for the last 10 years, I have seen new claims that global land temperatures are now deemed irrelevant.  The newly discovered measure of importance is the rise in ocean temperature, since it is now claimed that this is by far the largest planetary heat sink.  If that claim is true, it makes all the previous data claiming to show strong global warming over the period 1975 to 1998 also irrelevant.  To suggest that from 1975 to 1998, the energy went into warming the land and air and then abruptly in 1998 it stopped doing that and the heat instead went into heating the oceans is, to me, completely absurd.  Nature simply does not work that way.  It is like claiming you put the kettle on, for the first minute the energy goes into heating the water and then abruptly it stops heating the water and starts heating the room instead.

13.  Looking further at the claim of warming ocean temperatures.  Late last century it was realised that the method of measuring ocean temperatures was extremely inaccurate and unreliable.  To overcome that, a sophisticated, global system of buoys was designed and implemented at very considerable cost and effort.  These buoys repeatedly dive down to measure temperatures  and then resurface to report back findings  This network is called the Argo network and it became operational in 2003.  Since becoming operational, it has shown ocean cooling.  Yet the scientists who claim ongoing ocean warming exclude the Argo data and the satellite data instead relying entirely on the earlier poor reliability methods.

The same scientific community which claimed a method was inaccurate and unreliable, designed and implemented  a new high accuracy measurement system, are now rejecting the new high accuracy data in favour of the older data they themselves viewed as unreliable.  How can that be justified?  Why is the data from the older less reliable method correct, while results from the new, high accuracy methodology are wrong?  What does that say about the scientists who designed the Argo system but apparently don’t trust its output?  To me it suggests selecting data to prove a favoured hypothesis, commonly called cherry picking.

Some sites are talking about “correcting” the Argo data.  Why should a carefully thought out, brand new, high accuracy system already require adjustment to its outputs?  Was a mistake made in the design?  Why are the proposed adjustments again in the direction of exacerbating the claimed warming?  When the raw data contradicts the hypothesis yet the “adjustments and corrections” all reverse that result so as to support the championed hypothesis, it’s time to start worrying.

14.  What mankind is doing by consuming fossil fuels is recycling CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere but got trapped in the distant past.  Is there a “correct” level of CO2?  What I have read suggests that the Earth was a more verdant place before the CO2 got locked up in fossil fuels.  Would the Earth be more or less pleasant a place if the carbon currently locked up in fossil fuels were again available to the biosphere.  Not just for humans but for all living things, plants and animals.  Surely we should consider that before we pick some arbitrary recent point in time and declare that the CO2 level at that time is the ideal to be maintained at all costs.

FROM a slightly different but related perspective, I see the AGW story continuously changing.  When one measure no longer trends the wanted way, a change is made to a new measure (change from surface to ocean temperatures and ocean acidity).  In one report, an effect is claimed to be negligible when that suits the hypothesis yet the same measure is later used as a reason to explain away embarrassing trends (Solar influence and ocean currents).  All the observed effects are very moderate (less than 0.5C) if present at all yet hysteria is generated on the basis of hypothesised extreme future outcomes (up to 6C rise and 10 meter sea level rises).  Outcomes far enough in the future so as to be un-testable yet close enough to impact people being born today.  Claims based on abstract models that fail even short term validation tests.   As a practicing scientist, I have seen this scenario more than once before, changing benchmarks and indicative parameters, rewriting predictions and predicted causes after the event, excusing erroneous predictions.  These are clear signs of propping up a false hypothesis.

There does seem to be clear evidence that temperature changed several times over the 20th century both up and down.  There is far less evidence for any underlying upwards trend due to CO2 and many reasons to question the data analysis that tries to demonstrate such a trend.

One of the arguments I often hear is “well even if AGW is not absolutely proven we should take action just in case its correct” – the precautionary principle.  I see two reasons to disagree with that.

Firstly, if rising CO2 should bring about some warming it is by no means certain that this would be catastrophically bad or for that matter whether it would be bad at all.  It seems quite likely to me that the cure would be worse than the disease.

Secondly, and to me much more importantly, there is another issue we need to consider and that is the law of unintended consequences.  Briefly this states that whenever you take action there will always be consequences you did not consider in advance and did not intend.  Since there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right there is a better than 50:50 chance that these consequences will be bad.  If the original action is based on a false premise it greatly increases the risk of bad unintended consequences.  The precautionary principle is based on the belief that there is no down side to taking action.  The law of unintended consequences tells us that there is always a down side and the cost versus benefit always needs to be carefully evaluated before acting.

We are already seeing some very bad unintended consequences of the action taken so far over global warming.  The government driven initiative to use less fossil fuel by diluting it with ethanol is causing massive forest clearing the Amazon basin (to grow the ethanol feedstock) and is very significantly raising food prices causing even worse starvation in 3rd world countries.  Terrible as it is, this has not greatly impacted on western society but the next phase most certainly will.

There is another very serious unintended consequence that I would like to raise here; one that concerns me very deeply.  When I listen to the public AGW debate  I hear very high profile politicians and prominent public figures calling for people who openly disagree with AGW to be put on trial for treason.  I hear many cases of people losing their jobs because of voicing sceptical opinions.  I hear prominent global warming advocates refusing to enter into debates or trying to avoid debates by claiming the science is settled, and by claiming we do not have time, we have only weeks to act.  I hear AGW advocates resorting to personal attacks against people who disagree rather than addressing the technical issues they raise.

I hear AGW proponents claiming to be the under funded underdogs, fighting to protect the planet against greedy capitalists, yet the reality is their funding is at least 1000 times greater than the sceptics funding.  I see many reports of scientists refusing to release their workings, thus preventing review of their methodology, despite the fact that their work was funded by public money.

I see how the established media abandons balance in reporting by strongly favouring proponents of AGW, ignoring or denigrating sceptics and forcing most onto blog sites like this one.  I hear some environmental groups and activists publicly claim that its OK and even necessary to exaggerate the threat so as to get the public to engage. I see the courts condoning acts of vandalism and even violence against essential public infrastructure.  I see high profile public figures supporting such acts and claiming them to be reasonable and justified.

In short I see our society abandoning some of our most vital democratic freedoms over this hysteria:  Free speech, impartial enforcement of the law, balance in reporting, freedom of information.  These are freedoms our forebears gave their lives to bequeath to us, they are our most valuable inheritance and we seem to be throwing them away over an unproven hysterical hypothesis.

More recently I have read articles from England advocating individual ration cards for petrol, heating oil, gas, electricity.  Is water and food next?  War time austerity as an ongoing future way of life?  A return to the agrarian poverty of the middle ages?  I note the new film “Not evil just wrong” has had to be distributed via the internet rather than traditional media.  One step from distribution through an underground network?  Will that apply to all future sceptical writing?   What about other writing contrary to the popular opinion of the day?

These are the issues that differentiate between a free democracy and a totalitarian regime and the further one goes down this path the harder it is to pull back.  History has shown us that the disease is far easier to acquire than to get rid of.

*******************

Notes and Links

Michael Hammer graduated with a Bachelor of Engineering Science and Master of Engineering Science from Melbourne University.  Since 1976 he has been working in the field of spectroscopy with the last 25 years devoted to full time research for a large multinational spectroscopy company.

To read more from Mr Hammer click here and scroll down:  http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/michael-hammer/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Any reduction of CO2 emissions is considered a fantasy by China – the Biggest CO2 emitter in the World

Some Chinese wisdom for our own Global Warming Hystric politicians and media to ponder. And hopefully BEFORE our politicians have sacrificed our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars of OUR money to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the Computer Models.

“A 2C rise in global temperatures will not necessarily result in the calamity predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), China’s most senior climatologist has told the Guardian.”

”There is no agreed conclusion about how much change is dangerous,” Xiao said. ”Whether the climate turns warmer or cooler, there are both positive and negative effects.”

“Even with weather satellites and sophisticated simulation software, Xiao is not overly optimistic about accuracy the initial results.

Climate prediction has only come into operation in recent years. The accuracy of the prediction is very low because the climate is affected by many mechanisms we do not fully understand.”

“As the biggest carbon emitter in the world, China will certainly be pressured on carbon emission from developed countries. Currently China is at the peak of economic development and any reduction of carbon emissions is considered a fantasy by Chinese experts.“

“Emission rights are development rights”

“The IPCC’s estimate of a global temperature increase of 2.5 degrees C due to CO2 emissions increase is an average value obtained by some meteorologists through multiple model calculations. Ding’s report found that there is no solid scientific evidence to strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations. Some geologists believe that global temperature is related to solar activities and glacial periods. At least human activity is not the only factor to cause the global temperature increase. Up to now not a single scientist has figured out the weight ratio of each factor on global temperature change.

However, the massive propaganda “human activity induced the global temperature increase” has been accepted by the majority of the society in some countries, and it has become a political and diplomatic issue. Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiation table? The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries, and for keeping their own advantageous positions.”

Article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/17/climate-rise-fears-china

Also see  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/18/chinese-climate-wisdom/

China’s top climatologist stays cool over 2C rise. It is too early to determine the level of meteorological risk posed by global warming, says the director-general of the Beijing Climate Centre

Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 September 2009 15.48 BST

A 2C rise in global temperatures will not necessarily result in the calamity predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), China’s most senior climatologist has told the Guardian.

Despite growing evidence that storms in China are getting fiercer, droughts longer and typhoons more deadly, Xiao Ziniu, the director general of the Beijing Climate Centre, said it was too early to determine the level of risk posed by global warming.

”There is no agreed conclusion about how much change is dangerous,” Xiao said. ”Whether the climate turns warmer or cooler, there are both positive and negative effects. We are not focusing on what will happen with a one degree or two degree increase, we are looking at what level will be a danger to the environment. In Chinese history, there have been many periods warmer than today.”

The IPCC warns a 2C rise substantially increases the risks of floods, drought and storms.

Whether a 2C rise turns global warming into global burning has emerged as one of the most contentious issues in advance of the Copenhagen summit.

The G8 and EU want the world to set 2C as a ceiling by 2050, but China is sceptical. A senior government adviser said yesterday that the target of two degrees was unrealistic and would not give developing nations room to grow.

Xiao said China had started its own climate modelling programme for the next 100 years aimed at predicting the point when global warming will result in environmental collapse.

His centre will also release yearly climate predictions for China. Even with weather satellites and sophisticated simulation software, Xiao is not overly optimistic about accuracy the initial results.

”Climate prediction has only come into operation in recent years. The accuracy of the prediction is very low because the climate is affected by many mechanisms we do not fully understand.”

China’s growing influence in climate studies was recognised this year when the World Meteorological Organisation selected Beijing as a co-host of the Asian Climate Centre. Alongside Tokyo, it will be responsible for monitoring and predicting changes in weather patterns and their impact on natural disasters, water resources and soil quality.

Even at current levels of warming, the centre has collected a strong body of evidence that climate change is wreaking havoc in China.

A report provided by the centre to the Guardian shows rainfall coming in shorter, fiercer bursts, interspersed by protracted periods of drought, particularly in the north. Water supplies have been badly affected. The Yellow river watershed has suffered a continuous drought since 1965 and it is getting worse, it said. Almost half the serious droughts of the past 60 years have occurred since 1990.

”Due to climate change, drought disasters come more frequently and across a wider area,” the report noted.

Since 1950, Beijing has had an average of 36 rainy days a year, but not once in the past decade has that figure been reached. In 2007, the northernmost province of Heilongjiang reported a summer drought, which is almost unheard of in what is usually a flood season. Glaciers are melting at an accelerating rate.

A ferocious storm on 10 May this year broke records in Gaoqing, Shandong, with nearly 19.7cm of water dumped from the skies in one day. On the edge of the Gobi desert in Xilin Haote, Inner Mongolia, 5.6 cm of rain fell on 27 June 2008 – the most since a monitoring station was established in the area fifty years earlier.

Summer is coming earlier and hotter across swaths of the North. Of the many records broken this year, the most dramatic was in Shijiazhuang Hebei where the temperature soared to 30C on 17 March, more than six degrees higher than the previous high for that day.

Near the border with Siberia, the counties of Yilan and Yichun have experienced the hottest May in history and searing heat of more than 40C is now commonplace in many areas of the north.

”I think it is the responsibility of scientists to have a sense of crisis. We should study whether climate change threatens human survival,” says Xiao. ”But I believe humans are wise creatures. With wisdom and effort, we will prevent disaster. There is always hope.”

Founded in 1995 as a national level organisation, the centre’s 150 staff compile data from four Chinese weather satellites, thousands of national monitoring stations and a regional network of meteorological organisations.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

 

Article here:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2319

Original Chinese article here:

http://www.edu.cn/re_dian_tui_jian_1279/20090907/t20090907_405060.shtml

Posted on Sep. 17, 2009

By Energy Tribune

China Fights Back: Scientists Find ””””no solid scientific evidence to strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations””””

On the way to the December climate conference in Copenhagen, Chinese scientists are tackling the issue of carbon emissions. To our knowledge this is the first time that this has happened. Until now, China has been sheepish or even defensive as to how they would address carbon dioxide emissions. Considering the strict media controls in China on anything that is published (the government owns all publishing houses) the article below should be viewed as reflecting the views of the Chinese government. China is now questioning the motives of the countries who are promoting limits on carbon dioxide and it sees those limits as an attempt by the developed world to stifle China’s economic growth.

Below is an abridged English translation of an article by Wang Jing that appeared in China’s Science Times on September 7, 2009.

The upcoming Copenhagen United Nations Climate Change Conference in December will have a deep impact on the economic development of every country. Many major, economically strong, countries will come together to discuss climate change and craft a greenhouse gas emission agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, signed in December 1997.

As the biggest carbon emitter in the world, China will certainly be pressured on carbon emission from developed countries. Currently China is at the peak of economic development and any reduction of carbon emissions is considered a fantasy by Chinese experts.

But what kind of gesture should Chinese make at the Copenhagen conference? How can China fight for its right to emit while continuing to develop its economy?

Recently, Ding Zhongli, an academician and the vice president of the Science Academy of China, published a research paper titled “2050 Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Control: Emission Rights Calculation for Each Country” on Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences (Vol. 39, No.8, 1009 -1027, 2009). That paper detailed the historical CO2 emission data of developed countries and their economic development and provides fresh thinking on how China can win the argument during the carbon emission negotiations.

Emission rights are development rights

All developed countries, without exception, became developed through high-speed industrial growth, and that growth inevitably resulted in intense utilization of fossil energy and massive CO2 emissions. In the US, CO2 annual per capita emissions increased by an average rate of 5 percent during 1901 to 1910; Germany averaged 9.9 percent during 1947 to 1957; Japan averaged 12 percent during 1960 to 1970. Therefore, emission rates correlate with development rates and emission rights are development rights. However, in exactly the era that China puts its full effort on economic development, some developed countries are proposing CO2 emission cuts.

The IPCC’s estimate of a global temperature increase of 2.5 degrees C due to CO2 emissions increase is an average value obtained by some meteorologists through multiple model calculations. Ding’s report found that there is no solid scientific evidence to strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations. Some geologists believe that global temperature is related to solar activities and glacial periods. At least human activity is not the only factor to cause the global temperature increase. Up to now not a single scientist has figured out the weight ratio of each factor on global temperature change.

However, the massive propaganda “human activity induced the global temperature increase” has been accepted by the majority of the society in some countries, and it has become a political and diplomatic issue. Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiation table? The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries, and for keeping their own advantageous positions.

Cumulative emission per capita reflects more fair and justified principle

… Ding’s research shows that cumulative emission per capita indicates the economic level of a country. By 1960, US emission per capita was 234.48 tC (tons of carbon); Britain’s level was 177.17 tC; Canada’s level was 149.49 tC; and France’s level was 73.56 tC. However, the cumulative emission per capita for China was only 24.14 tC from 1900 to 2005. China’s GDP per capita in 2005 was much lower than that of the average of the developed countries in 1960.

If the global temperature increase indeed is the result of human activity, controlling the CO2 concentration should be the historical responsibility of each country that has already emitted CO2. About 70 to 80 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been emitted by the developed countries. The cumulative emission per capita from Britain and US is about 1,100 tC, the cumulative emission per capita from China and India are only 66 tCO2 and 23 tCO2, respectively. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the historical emission of the developed countries directly resulted in the global temperature increase, if the claimed correlation is to be accepted.

Nevertheless, after emitting greenhouse gases for over a century and imagining a horrible consequence, the developed countries now strongly require that the developing countries also bear the historical responsibility. As is well known, the long time biggest emitter, the US first refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and then asked that China provides its emission reduction goal. On June 27, 2008, the then-British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said in Tokyo that to avoid the risk of extreme climate change, all countries have to adjust their national economic structure. But only the promise of change by the developed countries is not enough for developing countries. It is truly hegemony.

Internationally there are two ways to control atmospheric CO2 concentration, one is to emphasize on reduction of emissions, another is to emphasize emission quotas. … Ding’s research indicates that whenever there are conflicts between the international climate framework and US domestic economic development, the climate policies are adjusted to protect the economic development and business interests. Since the 1950s, US academics led in global climate change studies and have made significant contributions on this issue. However, the US government policy started to change in the late 1980s. The first Bush administration appeared sluggish on the climate issue. The climate policy of the Clinton administration was active internationally, but inactive internally. The second Bush administration became even more hesitant and instead of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, they structured a replacement for Kyoto Protocol “Clear Skies & Global Climate Change Initiatives” to put the US in a good position for economic development. Therefore, it is necessary for China to insist on emission quotas to ensure a continuous economic development.

The G8 meeting held in Italy in July 2009 proposed to reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent globally and by 80 percent for G8 countries by 2050. … It looks like the developed countries contribute more on reducing emission, but if using 1900 level as the baseline, the average cumulative emission per capita for G8 countries is 356.58 tC, compared to 59.95 tC per capita for all the other countries. Ding’s calculations indicate that the average cumulative emission per capital of G8 countries from 1990 to 2050 would be 3 times more than that of other countries. Therefore, the G8 proposal is extremely unfair….

Currently the need for fossil energy in China is enormous. China can use the “cumulative emission quota per capita” strategy to gain favorable status. Ding’s research categorized countries with population over 300,000 into four different groups according to four indices:

due quota between 1900 and 2050,

actual emission between 1900 and 2005,

2005 emission level, and

emission average increase rate from 1996 to 2005.

He concluded that although China is in the group that needs to reduce the emission increase rate, China can strive for more emission rights since China could get over 30 percent of the global emissions quota.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

 

World’s Largest Auditor of Clean-Energy projects was suspended by UN inspectors because they had NO qualifications and did NO vetting

The never ending story of the giant swindle that’s called cap and trade, carbon trading, CDM etc continuous with ever more revelations of the blatant corruption in the system.

As I have said in many of my posts: The cap- and trade scheme is a giant swindle where BOTH buyer AND Seller benefits from cheating. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. At normal peoples expense.

The latest episode of “The Sopranos” is the news that the BIGGEST company that is supposed to do the vetting, verifying and checking of the projects BEFORE THEIR APPROVAL is now suspended by it’s UN masters.

As it turns out (surprise, surprise) the staff of SGS lacks skills, knowledge and where under “external influence”.

And these guys spends billions of $ of our tax money

About 150 million tonnes of carbon units (CER- Certified Emission Reductions) were issued by UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) on SGS recommendation. This is almost 50% of the total carbon credits issued by UNFCCC, since the start of the scheme in 2005.

One reason why the global head of SGS resigned was because of the severe criticism that SGS faced after recent blatant display of non-professionalism in evaluating projects.

Se also the interesting report by WWF and Öko Institute for Applied Ecology of these companies. And the abysmal scores they where given in this report (May 27).

On a scale of A (best) to F (very bad), both DNV and SGS received an F!

According to one of the authors of the report, Lambert Schneider of the Öko Institute, another major problem is that auditors are ”caught in an inherent conflict of interest. They should serve as the extended arm of the EB (CDM Executive Board ) but are paid by the project developers.” (se my lines above: The cap- and trade scheme is a giant swindle where BOTH buyer AND Seller benefits from cheating. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. At normal peoples expense.)

And these companies where “entrusted” to spend  $billions of our money.

The report here:

“A rating of Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) Accredited under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)”

http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/902/2009-020-en.pdf

Se among other my posts:

Cap and trade – What food, clothes, travel etc is the common people to be without?

The blatant hypocrisy from the UN pack and their jet set allies

Cap and trade scheme defeated – And It should have been because it’s insane

The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!

Se also my posts on carbon trading here:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/carbon-trading/

 

Article here:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/

natural_resources/article6832259.ece

From The Sunday Times September 13, 2009

Carbon-trading market hit as UN suspends clean-energy auditor

Danny Fortson, Georgia Warren

The legitimacy of the $100 billion (£60 billion) carbon-trading market has been called into question after the world’s largest auditor of clean-energy projects was suspended by United Nations inspectors.

SGS UK had its accreditation suspended last week after it was unable to prove its staff had properly vetted projects that were then approved for the carbon-trading scheme, or even that they were qualified to do so.

The episode will be embarrassing for European lawmakers in the run-up to the global climate summit in Copenhagen, where they will attempt to lure big polluters such as America and China into a binding agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol. SGS is the second such company to be suspended – Norway’s DNV was penalised last November for similar infractions.

The EU’s carbon-trading system, which puts a price on pollution through carbon permits that can be bought and sold, is the key element in Europe’s fight against climate change.

About a fifth of the $100 billion of credits traded annually come from projects funded under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The heavily criticised programme allows industrialised countries to offset their pollution by buying “certified emission reductions credits” generated by low-car-bon schemes in the developing world. China and India are the biggest generators of the credits: more than 900 projects are now running, producing billions of credits, with thousands more in the pipeline.

Critics say the system is not sufficiently policed and allows western polluters to buy their way out of more costly carbon-cutting measures.

All such schemes must first be approved by organisations such as SGS. DNV was the single biggest auditor until it was suspended last year, when much of its workload was shifted to SGS, which was simply unable to cope.

Simon Shaw, chairman of EEA Fund Management, a backer of emission-reduction projects and an investor in Climate Exchange, the carbon-trading platform, said: “There was obviously a lack of resources. We knew this was coming.”

UN inspectors said they found six irregularities in a recent spot check. The firm has now rectified these, but remains suspended until the UN verifies sufficient changes have been made. SGS could not be reached for comment.

Lawmakers are expected to reform the CDM in Copenhagen in December. A research firm that tracks trends in clean energy and carbon trading has been put up for sale with a £30m-£40m price tag. New Energy Finance was set up in 2004 by Michael Liebre-ich, a former McKinsey consultant who owns a key stake.

Its backers include former Reed Elsevier boss Sir Crispin Davis and Mike Luckwell, a one-time investor in Hit Entertainment. The corporate finance firm Quayle Munro was brought in to advise on options after takeover approaches were received.

Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

This first global CO2 map released from GOSAT – Very interesting results!

An interesting initial analysis from GOSAT CO2 data.

The satellite was launched on January 23 this year. Data is currently in the preliminary stages of being calibrated and validated. And the initial data is just from April 20-28 this year.

As you can se from the map below China, India, South-eastern Europe, the Mideast and Africa have the majority of the CO2 hotspots.

And NONE OF THESE COUNTRIES HAVE SIGNED THE KYOTO TREATY, OR HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO REDUCE CO2

And look at Sweden! Not a spot, nothing!

 

And for that “worthy goal” our politicians want to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the Computer Models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.

 Initial Analysis here:

http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/eng/result/download/GOSAT_L2_20090528_en.pdf

 Bigger map here:

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/05/img/20090829_ibuki_1Le.jpg

 Se also

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/13/some-results-from-gosat-co2-hot-spots-in-interesting-places/

 “The Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) Project is a joint effort promoted by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).

Analyses of GOSAT observation data will make it possible to ascertain the global distributions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) and the geographical distribution of and seasonal and inter-annual variations in the flux (i.e., emission and absorption) of greenhouse gases.”

http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/index_e.html

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Cap and trade – What food, clothes, travel etc is the common people to be without?

As said in many of my posts: The cap- and trade scheme is a giant swindle where BOTH buyer AND Seller benefits from cheating. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. At normal peoples expense.

And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.

So we are talking about 0,03%.

Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.

Here is some more on that subject by Viv Forbes how asks “Our politicians should be asked, individually, what food, mineral products and travel they propose doing without in order to meet the 2020 cuts specified in their Ration-and-Tax Schemes.”

A very good question which our “dear” politicians will not and can not answer.

Se my posts on carbon trading here:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/carbon-trading/

Article here:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14645

Our politicians should be asked what effect these measures and our local Ration-N-Tax Schemes

ETS will kill Tourism, Transport and Trade

 By Viv Forbes  Saturday, September 12, 2009

Emissions trading schemes proposed for the western world will guarantee another global financial crisis for tourism, transport and world trade.

All carbon control schemes have at their core two essential features aimed at reducing man’s production of the harmless gas, carbon dioxide. Firstly, increasingly severe rationing of carbon dioxide (CO2) releases. And secondly, taxes on all permitted emissions and punitive taxes on any excess. They are all Ration-and-Tax Schemes and they will all enforce arbitrary reductions by 2020.

But not one car, truck, bus, train, plane or ship can move without producing CO2. There is no possibility that this will change significantly before the doomsday year of 2020, just a decade away. Therefore neither Australia nor New Zealand can cut CO2 emissions by 2020 without slowly strangling all those industries that rely on moving people or goods.

Our politicians should be asked, individually, what food, mineral products and travel they propose doing without in order to meet the 2020 cuts specified in their Ration-and-Tax Schemes.

Australia and New Zealand comprise four lonely islands in the vast southern oceans which stretch from Africa to South America. However, world population, political power and finance are concentrated far away in the Northern Hemisphere.

Apart from a few stock horses used by drovers, the occasional sailing yacht, some suburban bicycles and some hydro power that moves trains, our transport fleets rely totally on petrol, diesel, gas and coal. There are no solar powered aeroplanes or sail powered ocean liners – all produce CO2.

Neither country can import tourists, get mineral and food products to their cities or export goods to world markets without producing CO2.

Already France has introduced travel rationing using a carbon tax and the UK Institute for Public Policy says that “the government may need to introduce carbon rationing to cut pollution from everyday activities such as filling up the car, using electricity and flying abroad for holidays”. A UK government committee even proposes that airline taxes should be raised progressively to “a level that would put people off flying”.

Our politicians should be asked what effect these measures and our local Ration-N-Tax Schemes will have on the South Pacific tourist industries.

And why are Australian politicians rushing to construct transport infrastructure for trucks, trains, planes and ships if all of these industries are going to be subject to mandatory rationing and taxes – no additional infrastructure or jobs are needed for a world in which tourism, transport and trade are doomed to contract.

It is a sad indictment of business, media, opposition parties and union leaders in Australia and New Zealand that so few are asking these vital questions.

The Ration-N-Tax Schemes will have zero beneficial effects but, they will cause crippling contraction and job losses in our backbone industries.

This is the real global warming crisis.

Viv Forbes, Chairman,The Carbon Sense Coalition, has spent his life working in exploration, mining, farming, infrastructure, financial analysis and political commentary. He has worked for government departments, private companies and now works as a private contractor and farmer.

Viv has also been a guest writer for the Asian Wall Street Journal, Business Queensland and mining newspapers. He was awarded the “Australian Adam Smith Award for Services to the Free Society” in 1988, and has written widely on political, technical and economic subjects.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

How can the Scientific Community Still Allow the Parody of “science” called Global Warming Hysteria?

It has always baffled me that all the good scientists out there mostly in silence allow the shenanigans and charlatans of there craft to destroy the creditability of science as a whole.

A very good description in today’s The Australian of the sad state of the so called “science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria. And the medias and politicians roll in spreading this gospel.

And the censorship and intimidation from the press, media, politicians and fellow “scientists” of everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

Article here

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26056202-7583,00.html

Global warming hotheads freeze out science’s sceptics

Christopher Pearson | September 12, 2009

GARTH Paltridge was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO’s division of atmospheric research before becoming the director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and chief executive of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre.

His latest sceptical contribution to the debate on the dangers of carbon dioxide is a book, endearingly titled The Climate Caper.

Paltridge gives a crisp summary of the physics and economics of climate change, but I want to focus here on his account of the new green religion. ”Perhaps the most interesting question in all this business is how it can be that the scientific community has become so over-the-top in support of its own propaganda about the seriousness and certainty of upcoming drastic climate change. Scientists after all are supposed to be unbiased in their assessment of a problem and are expected to tell it as it is. Over the centuries they have built up the capital of their reputation on just that supposition. And for the last couple of decades they have put that capital very publicly on the line in support of a cause which, to say the least, is overhung by an enormous amount of doubt. So how is it that the rest of the scientific community, uncomfortable as it is with both the science of global warming and the way its politics is being played, continues to let the reputation of science in general be put at considerable risk because of the way the dangers of climate change are being vastly oversold?”

Part of the answer lies in the way institutions find ways to silence their employees. Paltridge himself was involved in setting up the Antarctic research centre in the early 90s with the CSIRO. As he recalls: ”I made the error at the time of mentioning in a media interview — reported extensively in The Australian on a slow Easter Sunday — that there were still lots of doubts about the disaster potential of global warming. Suffice it to say that within a couple of days it was made clear to me from the highest levels of CSIRO that, should I make such public comments again, then it would pull out of the process of forming the new centre.” The CSIRO, it turned out, was in the process of trying to extract many millions of dollars for further climate research at the time.

Almost the only scientists at liberty to speak their minds are retirees, such as William Kininmonth and Paltridge himself. He gives an example, Brian Tucker, a former chief of CSIRO’s Atmospheric Research Division. Tucker was ”a specialist in numerical climate modelling and therefore knew better than most where the bodies are buried in the climate change game. He kept remarkably quiet about his worries on the matter. Then he retired, and for four or five years thereafter was the bane of the global warming establishment because of his very public stance against many of its sacred cows.” Eventually he was marginalised by being described as ”one of the usual suspects, who was now out of date and in any event was probably on the payroll of industry”.

Another eye-opener is the story of how a committee of the Australian Academy of Science was dissuaded from its plans to respond to the Garnaut Report. Paltridge says: ”While the committee was aware of all the ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ of 100-year prediction of rainfall, it was aware too of the delicacy of saying so in an Academy response. But if indeed there is something of the order of a 50-50 chance that the forecasts supplied to Garnaut were nonsense, then it seems reasonable that the fact should be made known in plain English …” Academy members met Garnaut and ”rumour has it that sometime during the meeting Professor Garnaut became very sympathetic to the need for vast new resources to address the need for basic research … In the end it seems that the idea of a response to the Garnaut Report was dropped altogether.”

Eventually the academy came out with a statement of priorities for climate research, which contained a brief reference to the fact that the rainfall projections Garnaut relied on were problematical, but most of the public were none the wiser.

Paltridge says that behind the climate change debate there are two basic truths seldom articulated. ”The first is that the scientists pushing the seriousness of global warming are perfectly well aware of the great uncertainty attached to their cause. The difficulty for them is to ensure that the lip service paid to uncertainty is enough to convince governments of the need to continue research funding, but is not enough to cast real doubt on the case for action. The paths of public comment and official advice on the matter have to be trodden very carefully. The second basic truth is that there is a belief among scientific ‘global warmers’ that they are an under-funded minority among a sea of wicked sceptics who are extensively funded by industry and close to Satan. The difficulty for them is to maintain a belief in their own minority status while insisting in public that the sceptics, at least among the ranks of the scientifically literate, are very few.”

The Royal Society did its own reputation a disservice by sending a letter to Exxon-Mobil oil corporation declaring an anathema on dissident climate research. It said: ”To be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give the people the final push they need to take action and we can’t have people trying to undermine it.”

Paltridge says: ”The staggering thing is that the society, which in other circumstances would be the first to defend the cause of free inquiry … seemed not to be able to hear what it was saying.”

He takes a gloomy view of the likelihood that the political class will soon come to its senses. ”One suspects that a fair amount of the shrillness of the climate message derives from a fear that something will happen to prick the scientific balloon so carefully inflated and overstretched over the last few decades. But the IPCC doesn’t really need to worry. The difficulty for the sceptics is that credible argument against accepted wisdom requires, as did the development of the accepted wisdom itself, large-scale resources which can only be supplied by the research institutions. Without those resources, the sceptic is only an amateur who can quite easily be confined to outer darkness.”

In the last chapter, Paltridge lists some hidden agendas. ”There are those who, like president (Jacques) Chirac of France, look with favour on the possibility of an international de-carbonisation regime because it would be the first step towards global government. There are those who, like the socialists before them, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between individual nations. There are those who, like the powerbrokers of the European Union, look upon such action as a basis for legitimacy. There are those who, like bureaucrats the world over, regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of power which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions. More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Washington Post’s Own Meteorologist goes Against the newspapers Official line of promoting Global Warming Hysteria

More and more people have had enough of the religious gospel that most of the mainstream media is spreading. AT THE SAME TIME AS THESE MEDIA IS CENSORING AND INTIMIDATING EVERYONE WHO HAS OPPOSED THIS HYSTERIA.

A truly “worthy” goal for the organizations and companies whose goals was supposed to protect and enhance freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Talking about the ultimate betrayal of all that good and independent journalism was supposed to be.

One such brave man is Washington Post own meteorologist Matt Rogers, (former director of Weather for MDA EarthSat Weather); who have had enough of his own papers spreading of this hysteria.

In his own words here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/09/

a_skeptical_perspective_on_glo.html

A Skeptical Take on Global Warming

This Capital Weather Gang blog entry is written with considerable trepidation given the politically-charged atmosphere surrounding human-induced global warming.

I am a meteorologist with a life-long weather fascination. As I’m sure you know, meteorology is an inexact science due to the large number of variables involved in predicting and understanding the weather. I frequently say that weather forecasting is a humbling endeavor, and I have learned to respect its challenges. From this perspective, you might be able to better understand why I wince when hearing pronouncements such as ”the science is settled”, ”the debate is over”, or even the ”the temperature in the 2050s is projected to be…” I realize that forecasting climate and weather are different, but both involve a large number of moving parts.

There are numerous reasons why I question the consensus view on human-induced climate change covered extensively on this blog by Andrew Freedman. But for this entry, I scaled them down to ten:

(10) Hurricanes: One of the strongest value propositions presented for fighting global warming is to slow tropical cyclone intensity increases. Katrina was cited as a prime example. But the storm only made landfall as a category three (five being strongest) and affected a city built below sea level. Stronger storms have hit North America before, but the Katrina route and the weak levees made this situation much worse. I follow global hurricane activity closely and earlier this summer, we reached a record low. Florida State has a site that tracks global hurricane activity here. Since the 1990s, this activity has been decreasing, which goes against what we were told to expect on a warming planet.

(9) Ice Caps: In 2007, the Northern Hemisphere reached a record low in ice coverage and the Northwest Passage was opened. At that point, we were told melting was occurring faster than expected, and we needed to accelerate our efforts. What you were not told was that the data that triggered this record is only available back to the late 1970s. Prior to that, we did not have the satellite technology to measure areal ice extent. We know the Northwest Passage had been open before. In Antarctica, we had been told that a cooling of the continent was consistent with global climate models until a recent study announced the opposite was true. The lack of information and the inconsistencies do not offer confidence.

(8) El Niño: This feature in the Tropical Pacific Ocean occurs when water temperatures are abnormally warm. Some climate change researchers predicted that global warming would create more and stronger El Niño events like the powerhouse of 1997-98. Indeed in 2006, esteemed climate scientist James Hansen, predicted this. But we are now about to complete an entire decade without a strong El Niño event (three occurred in the 1980s-1990s). So the more recent 2007 IPCC report backtracked from Hansen’s prediction, noting that there were too many uncertainties to understand how El Niño will behave with climate change. Recent research speaks to how important El Niño is to climate. In the past two decades, these warm El Niño and opposite cold La Niña events have accentuated the global temperature peaks and valleys highlighting the importance of natural variability and the limitations of the science.

(7) Climate Models: To be blunt, the computer models that policy-makers are using to make key decisions failed to collectively inform us of the flat global land-sea temperatures seen in the 2000s (see more on this in item 5 below). The UN IPCC did offer fair warning of model inadequacies in their 2007 assessment. They mentioned a number of challenges, which is wholly reasonable since countless factors contribute to our global climate system–many of them not fully understood. My belief is that they are over-estimating anthropogenic (human) forcing influences and under-estimating natural variability (like the current cold-phase Pacific Decadal Oscillation and solar cycles). The chaos theory describes why it is far more difficult to project the future than climate scientists may realize (I give them a break here since climate modeling is in its relative infancy). We poor hapless meteorologists learned the chaos theory lesson long ago.

(6) CO2 (Carbon Dioxide): The argument that the air we currently exhale is a bona fide pollutant due to potential impacts on climate change flummoxes me. CO2 is also plant food. Plants release oxygen for us, and we release CO2 for them. Over the summer, CO2 reached almost .04% of our total atmosphere as reported here. Because CO2 is but a sliver of our atmosphere, it is known as a ”trace gas.” We all agree that it is increasing, but is there a chance that our estimate of its influence on the Greenhouse Effect is overblown given its small atmospheric ratio?

(5) Global Temperatures: As a meteorologist, verification is very important for guiding my work and improving future forecasts. The verification for global warming is struggling. Three of four major datasets that track global estimates show 1998 as the warmest year on record with temperatures flat or falling since then. Even climate change researchers now admit that global temperature has been flat since that peak. As shown above, the CO2 chart continues upwards unabated. If the relationship is as solid as we are told, then why isn’t global temperature responding? I’m told by climate change researchers that the current situation is within the bounds of model expectations. However, when I look at the IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1 report, I can see that without major warming in the next 1-2 years, we will fall outside those bounds. This is why I believe James Hansen is predicting a global temperature record in the next two years.

(4) Solar Issue: Look for this issue to get bigger. Our sun is currently becoming very quiet. Not only is the number of sunspots falling dramatically, but the intensity of the sunspots is weakening. The coincident timing of major solar minimums with cooler global temperatures (such as during the Little Ice Age) suggests that maybe the sun is underestimated as a component for influencing climate. The second half of the twentieth century (when we saw lots of warming) was during a major solar maximum period- which is now ending. Total solar irradiance has been steady or sinking similar to our global temperatures over much of this past decade. Indeed, recent research has suggested the solar factor is underestimated (here and here). Perhaps one day, we’ll have a different version of James Carville’s famous political quote…something like ”It’s the sun, stupid!”

(3) But what about…? Ultimately after I explain my viewpoint on climate change, I get this question: ”But what about all this crazy weather we’ve been having lately?” As a student of meteorology, we learned about amazing weather events in the past that have not been rivaled in the present. Whether it was the 1900 Galveston Hurricane, the 1889 Johnstown Flood, or even the worst tornado outbreak in history (1974), we have and will continue to see crazy weather. Very few statistics are available that correctly show an increase in these ”crazy” events.

(2) Silencing Dissent: I believe the climate is always changing. But what percentage of that change is human-induced? Like most, I believe that a more balanced energy supply benefits us politically due to the reduced reliance on foreign sources and benefits us locally due to improved air quality. But several times during debates individuals have told me I should not question the ”settled science” due to the moral imperative of ”saving the planet”. As with a religious debate, I’m told that my disagreement means I do not ”care enough” and even if correct, I should not question the science. This frightens me.

(1) Pullback: Does climate change hysteria represent another bubble waiting to burst? From the perspective of the alarmism and the saturation of the message, the answer could be yes. I believe that when our science or economic experts tend to be incorrect, it usually involves predictions that have underperformed expectations (Y2K, SARS, oil supply, etc). Can we think of any other expert-given, consensus-based, long-term predictions that have verified correctly? Not one comes to mind. I believe that predictions of human-caused climate change will continue to be overdone, and we’ll discover that natural factors are equally and sometimes even more important.

Let me end by offering all the appropriate disclaimer information. I respect Andrew Freedman and his beliefs. We have had a number of discussions both publicly and privately regarding our differing viewpoints, and he has been nothing but respectful and professional. The viewpoints presented in this entry are my own and do not represent the Capital Weather Gang, the Washington Post, or my company, the Commodity Weather Group.

By Matt Rogers |  September 10, 2009; 10:00 AM ET

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Why Obama is losing it – He forgot the wellbeing of the normal people

I am here going to present polls, statistics etc that you would find it very hard to find in the Swedish press and media, which are singing in the Obama hallelujah choir.

Forgetting that they are supposed to be “journalists”, not spin doctors.

As with the Global Warming Hysteria, they have sadly betrayed everything that good and independent journalism should stand for.

Obama went to the presidential election promising change and portraying himself as a moderate politician and pragmatist. The problem was that most of the American people never understood how radical that change was meant to be.

But his radical policies have finally caught up with him and the normal American people have taken notice.

-The stimulus package of $787 billion which have hardly stimulated anything, let alone created any jobs.

- The Cap and trade bill that meant that the Blue Dog democrats lost their credibility among their voters.

And now the Obama health care plan which is going to cost bare minimum a $1 trillion and more likely $2 trillion during the next 10 years.

As a consequence the budget deficit is running wild under Obama – The deficit in 2008 was $455 billion. At the end of this year it has soared to almost $1.6 trillion. That my folks are a quadrupling IN ONE YEAR. A new world record!

Currently, the U.S. Debt is estimated at EST 4 pm today: $11,803,653,380,955.

Your share of today’s public debt is: $38,398

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

And as a consequence of this awakening to what change means in Obama speak, the normal American people have started to react. Look at this chart over health care and the drastic difference in just 6 months:

 

And look at this chart of independents. They were the ones that made Obama and the democrats victory so big (together with all disgruntled republicans) because most of them voted for the democrats. And they played a KEY ROLE in tipping some swing states. And look at this chart and the drastic difference in just 6 months:

 

 

And then there is the Gallup poll that shows that more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal.

The news isn’t just that self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals nationwide. That’s old news. The big news from Gallup is that conservatives outnumber liberals in every state in the union, including supposedly very liberal Vermont and Massachusetts. (Look at the chart below)

The strength of ”conservative” over ”liberal” vividly apparent in Gallup’s state-level data, where a significantly higher percentage of Americans in most states, even some solidly Democratic ones, call themselves conservative rather than liberal.

“Despite the Democratic Party’s political strength (majority in Congress and in state houses across the country), more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal. While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level. Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”

Gallup poll here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx

 

And then there are the Obama Czars, more than 35+ of them:

Obama and the Left

The lesson of the rise and fall of Van Jones., SEPTEMBER 8, 2009, 5:49 A.M. ET

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574399452969175732.html#printMode

“As a candidate, Barack Obama was at pains to offer himself as a man of moderate policies, and especially of moderate temperament. He said he would listen to both the right and left, choosing the best of each depending on ”what works.” He sold himself as a center-left pragmatist. When his radical associations—Reverend Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers—came to light, Candidate Obama promptly disavowed them. Now comes Mr. Jones, with a long trail of extreme comments and left-wing organizing, who nonetheless became the White House adviser for ”green jobs.” This weekend he too was thrown under the bus.

“However, Mr. Jones wasn’t some unknown crazy who insinuated himself with the Obama crowd under false pretenses. He has been a leading young light of the left-wing political movement for many years. His 2008 book—”The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems”—includes a foreword from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and was praised across the liberal establishment.

Mr. Jones was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which was established, funded and celebrated as the new intellectual vanguard of the Democratic Party. The center’s president is John Podesta, who was co-chair of Mr. Obama’s transition team and thus played a major role in recommending appointees throughout the Administration. The ascent of Mr. Jones within the liberal intelligentsia shows how much the Democratic Party has moved left since its ”New Democrat” triangulation of the Clinton years.

Mr. Jones’s incendiary comments about Republicans and his now famous association with a statement blaming the U.S. for 9/11 had to have been known in some White House precincts. He was praised and sponsored by Valerie Jarrett, who is one of the two or three most powerful White House aides and is a long-time personal friend of the President.

Our guess is that Mr. Jones landed in the White House precisely because his job didn’t require Senate confirmation, which would have subjected him to more scrutiny. This is also no doubt a reason that Mr. Obama has consolidated so much of his Administration’s governing authority inside the White House under various ”czars.” Mr. Jones was poised to play a prominent role in disbursing tens of billions of dollars of stimulus money. It was the ideal perch from which he could keep funding the left-wing networks from which he sprang, this time with taxpayer money.”

“Mr. Sirota is speaking for many on the movement left who believe they helped to elect Mr. Obama and therefore deserve seats at the inner table of power. They are increasingly frustrated because they are discovering that Mr. Obama will happily employ ”movement progressives,” but only so long as their real views and motivations aren’t widely known or understood. How bitter it must be to discover that the Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck, who drove the debate about Mr. Jones, counts for more at this White House than Mr. Sirota. “

“….but the rise and fall of Mr. Jones is one more warning that Mr. Obama can’t succeed on his current course of governing from the left. He is running into political trouble not because his own message is unclear, or because his opposition is better organized. Mr. Obama is falling in the polls because last year he didn’t tell the American people that the ”change” they were asked to believe in included trillions of dollars in new spending, deferring to the most liberal Members of Congress, a government takeover of health care, and appointees with the views of Van Jones.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6+USA” rel=”tag”>miljö USA</a>

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Temperature measurements since 1701 Refute Human caused temperature fluctuations – Open letter from 67 German scientists

The opposition to the Global warming Hysteria is growing among scientists, who no longer are afraid of speaking their mind. Regardless of the censorship and intimidation from the press, media, politicians and fellow “scientists” of everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

So, as a complement to my resent posts here comes more than 67 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their opposition to the man-made global warming hysteria in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Among the more than 67 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

“History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time.” 

“A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.”

“More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. “

“In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. …..Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming.”

Original open letter in german here:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-anzeige/klimawandel-offener-brief-an-kanzlerin-merkel-temperaturmessungen-ab-1701-widerlegen-anthropogen-verursachte-temperaturschwankungen/

Open letter in english here:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Merkelbrief_Englisch_-1.pdf

Signed by:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Unterzeichner_30.8.09.pdf

Temperature measurements here:

 http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Kernaussagen_2.pdf

    Temperature measurements from 46 stations since 1700

                     Temperature changes in Berlin since 1701

                   Temperature changes between 1870 to 2008

   Temperature changes on continents between 1860 to 2001

     Temperature changes in regions between 1860 to 2001

                     CO2 measurements between 1900 to 1960

           CO2 measurements in Liege between 1883 to 1884

Sea level changes in the North sea during the last 3000 years

                    Changes in IPCC prognosis on sea level rise

   Infrared radiation from the sun between 1600 and 2000

 

Open Letter – Climate Change

Bundeskanzleramt

Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel

Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1

10557 Berlin

#

Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a

E-mail: limburg@grafik-system.de

Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.

 The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world’s best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed – under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe

Universität. – GH – Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

#

Dr. Holger Thuß

EIKE President

European Institute for Climate and Energy

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

 

Klimawandel: Offener Brief an Kanzlerin Merkel – ”Temperaturmessungen ab 1701 widerlegen anthropogen verursachte Temperaturschwankungen”

In einem offenen Brief an die Physikerin und Kanzlerin Frau Dr. Merkel fordern über 280 Wissenschaftler und engagierte kompetente Bürger, die Kanzlerin möge sich nicht länger den offensichtlichen Fakten gegenüber verschließen und von der Pseudoreligion der anthropogenen Erwärmung ablassen. Dazu gehört auch, sich nicht länger von Leuten, wie dem Kanzlerinberater und PIK Chef Prof. Dr. Schellnhuber, täuschen zu lassen. Derselbe Schellnhuber, der öffentlich etwas anderes sagt, als in wissenschaftlichen Zirkeln. Öffentlich tut er seine Verzweiflung über die ”Klimakatastrophe” kund: So im ZEIT-Interview :”Manchmal könnte ich schreien” (DIE ZEIT: 26.03.2009) und darin auf die Frage zur Entwicklung an der Klimafront: ”Und wie ist die Lage?” Sch.: ”Verdammt ungemütlich… Viele Worst-Case-Szenarien werden von der Wirklichkeit übertroffen.” Doch in einem erst vor kurzem erschienenen Aufsatz zur menschgemachten Klimakatastrophe schreibt er als Mitautor ” Bei den allermeisten Stationen stellten wir keine Anzeichen für eine globale Erwärmung der Atmosphäre fest. Ausnahmen sind Bergstationen in den Alpen” Schellnhubers Äußerungen sind bipolar. Je nachdem, wer Auftraggeber ist. Für Kanzlerin Dr. Merkel werden Katastrophen benötigt. Im Wissenschaftsbericht stellt er die Lage so dar wie sie ist. Von Klimakatastrophe keine Spur.

Betrifft: Klimawandel – ein offener Brief

Sehr verehrte Frau Bundeskanzlerin,

 aus der Geschichte können wir lernen, dass oft der Zeitgeist die Entwicklung der Gesellschaften bestimmt hat; mancher hatte schlimme oder gar schreckliche Auswirkungen. Die Geschichte lehrt uns auch, dass politisch Verantwortliche nicht selten verhängnisvolle Entscheidungen getroffen haben, weil sie inkompetenten oder ideologisierten Beratern gefolgt sind, und das nicht rechtzeitig erkannten. Außerdem lehrt uns die Evolution, dass die Entwicklung zwar viele Wege beschreitet, die meisten aber in Sackgassen enden.  Keine Epoche ist vor Wiederholungen gefeit.

Politiker suchen zu Beginn ihrer Laufbahn ein Thema, mit dem sie sich profilieren können. Als Umweltministerin haben Sie das verständlicherweise auch getan. Sie haben den Klimawandel entdeckt, und er wurde Ihnen zur Herzensangelegenheit. Dabei ist Ihnen ein folgenschwerer Fehler unterlaufen, was angesichts dieses Metiers gerade Ihnen als Physikerin nicht hätte passieren dürfen. Sie haben den Klimawandel als menschengemacht anerkannt und teure Strategien zur Vermeidung des sogenannten Treibhausgases CO2 als Handlungsmaxime verinnerlicht, ohne vorher in wirklich kontroversen Diskussionen prüfen zu lassen, ob auch die früheren Temperaturmessungen und viele weitere relevante Klimafakten diese Annahme überhaupt rechtfertigen. Tatsächlich tun sie es nicht!

 Bei einer umfassenden Prüfung, die wegen der Bedeutung für uns alle zwingend erforderlich gewesen wäre,  hätte sich schon vor der Gründung des IPCC gezeigt, dass wir keine CO2-kausal begründbare globale Erwärmung haben, sondern periodische Temperaturschwankungen normalen Ausmaßes. Dementsprechend hat sich die Atmosphäre seit 1998 – also seit 10 Jahren – nicht weiter erwärmt und seit 2003 wird es sogar wieder deutlich kühler. Keines der teuren Klimamodelle hat diese Abkühlung prognostiziert. Laut IPCC hätte es weiter und unvermindert wärmer werden müssen.

Aber, was wichtiger ist, anthropogenes CO2 spielt dabei keinerlei erkennbare Rolle. Der vom CO2 absorbierbare Strahlungsanteil ist bereits durch die gegenwärtige Konzentration nahezu ausgeschöpft. Selbst wenn CO2 eine Wirkung hätte und alle fossilen Brennstoffvorräte verbrannt würden, bliebe die zusätzliche Erwärmung langfristig auf den Bereich von Zehntelgraden beschränkt.

 Das IPCC hätte diesen Sachverhalt auch feststellen müssen, hat jedoch bei seiner Arbeit 160 Jahre Temperaturmessungen und 150 Jahre CO2-Bestimmungen außer Acht gelassen und damit jeden Anspruch auf Wissenschaftlichkeit verloren. Die wesentlichen Aussagen zu diesem Thema sind als Kernaussagen beigefügt.

Inzwischen wurde die Überzeugung vom Klimawandel und dessen menschlicher Urheberschaft  zu einer Pseudoreligion entwickelt. Ihre Verfechter stellen nüchtern und sachbezogen analysierende Realisten, zu denen ein Großteil der internationalen Wissenschaftlerelite gehört, bedenkenlos an den Pranger. Im Internet findet man zum Glück zahlreiche Arbeiten, die detailliert nachweisen, dass es keinen durch anthropogenes CO2 verursachten Klimawandel gibt. Gäbe es das Internet nicht, könnten sich die Klimarealisten kaum Gehör verschaffen, denn ihre kritischen Beiträge werden nur noch selten veröffentlicht.

Die deutschen Medien nehmen in der Ablehnung solcher Beiträge einen traurigen Spitzenplatz ein. Beispiel: Im März diesen Jahres fand  in New York die 2. Internationale Klimakonferenz der Klimarealisten statt. An dieser wichtigen Konferenz nahmen ca. 800 führende Wissenschaftler teil, darunter viele der weltbesten Klimatologen bzw. Fachleute verwandter Disziplinen.  Während die US-Medien und hier nur die Wiener Zeitung ausführlich darüber  berichteten, haben bei uns Presse, Fernsehen und Radio geschwiegen. Es ist bitter, feststellen zu müssen, wie sich unsere Medien weiterentwickelt haben: In früheren Diktaturen wurde ihnen mitgeteilt, was nicht berichtenswert sei, heutzutage wissen sie es leider ohne Anweisungen.

Meinen Sie nicht auch, dass Wissenschaft nicht nur die Suche nach der Bestätigung einer These ist, sondern vor allem die Prüfung, ob das Gegenteil die Realitäten besser erklärt? Wir ersuchen Sie daher, Frau Dr. Merkel, Ihre Position zu diesem Komplex gründlich zu überdenken und ein vom Potsdamer Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (PIK) unabhängiges ideologiefreies Gremium einzuberufen, in dem kontroverse Argumente offen ausgetragen werden können. Wir Unterzeichner wollen hierzu gerne unsere Hilfe anbieten.

 Wir verbleiben mit freundlichen Grüssen

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe.  Universität. – GH -  Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

Dr. Holger Thuß EIKE Präsident Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Die Kernaussagen können als pdf Datei herunter geladen werden s.u.

* in der Physical Review E68, 046133 (2003) ,** Interview Die Zeit

Mitunterzeichner: (wer gern zusätzlich unterschreiben möchte verwende bitte die Kommentarfunktion dazu)

Wissenschaftler

1 Prof. Dr. Hans-Günter Appel Hütteningenieur und Werkstoffwissenschaftler.

2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Prof .für  Ökonometrie und angewandte Mathematik VizeDekan der Universität Poznan   Polen

3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Leiter des Instituts für Schwingungstechnik, FH Düsseldorf   bis zum Ruhestand 2002

4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Geschäftsführer / Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH – Environmental Services

5 Dipl.Biologe Ernst Georg Beck

6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Dipl.Physiker

7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Biologe ehem. MdL BW Grüne

8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Biochemiker

9 Dr.Ing. Ivo Busko Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V.  in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Institut für Technische Physik

10 Dr. Ing. Gottfried Class nukleare Sicherheit, Kernfusion, Thermohydraulik, physikalische Chemie

11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Kernphysiker Thermodynamiker, Energietechniker

12 Dr. rer. nat. Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energieexperte

13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze

14 Dr. rer. nat. Siegfried Dittrich Physikochemiker

15 Dr.rer.nat. Theo Eichten Diplom-Physiker

16 Oliver Elias Agentur Ute Nicolai

17 Ferroni Ferruccio Zürich Präsident NIPCC-SUISSE

18 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agrarbiologe, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay

19 Dr. rer..nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Dipl. Geologe

20 Dr. rer.nat. Josef Große- Wördemann Physikochemiker

21 Dr. rer. nat. Günther Hauck Dipl.-Chem.  

22 Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Detlef Hebert ehem. Fakultät für Chemie und Physik Institut für Angewandte Physik

23 Dipl. Geologe Heinisch Heinisch

24 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Dipl. Chemiker

25 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Uni-Münster Institut für Physikalische Chemie 

26 Dipl. Geologe Andreas Hoemann Dipl. Geologe

27 Dr. rer. nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker

28 Dr. rer.nat. Bernd Hüttner Theor. Physiker

29 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein dipl. Physiker & Geograph

30 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH

31 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster Agrarwissenschaftler

32 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemiker Forschung

33 Dr. rer. nat Norbert Kunert Dipl. Geologe

34 Dr. rer. nat. Peter Kuzel Diplomchemiker  

35 Drs.oek. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert reviewer, Dipl. Kfm.

36 Dr. rer.nat Ludwig Laus Dipl. Geologe

37 Dr. rer.nat. Rainer Link Physiker

38 Dipl. Pysiker Alfred Loew

39 Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke Dipl. Physiker HTW Saarbrücken

40 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg Universitätsprofessor (A.D.) für Meteorologie und Klimatologie 

41 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologe

42 Diplom-Meteorologe Dieter Niketta

43 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Leiter ehem. des Geol.-Paläont. Museums der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster 

44 Dr. rer.nat. Wolfgang Poppitz Chemiker

45 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus-Eckart Puls Dipl. Meteorologe

46 Prof. Dr. Dieter Pumplün Mathematik

47 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Hochschule OWL Abt. Höxter 

48 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser UNI Regensburg

49 Dipl. Physiker Wolfgang Riede Dipl.-Phys. ETH, DLR Stuttgart

50 Dipl.-Ing. Wolfgang Sander

51 Diplom- Mineralogin Sabine Sauerberg Geowissenschaftlerin

52 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemiker

53 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien Hochschullehrer i.R.

54 PD Dr.habil.Dr.rer.nat. Eckhard Schulze Dipl.Pys., Med. Physik

55 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Dipl.-Geologe

56 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physikochemiker

57 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Diplomchemiker

58 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Gutachter

59 Dr.phil. Dipl. Meteorologe Wolfgang Thüne Umweltministerium Mainz

60 Dr. rer. oec., Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energiewirtschaftler, Institut für Energetik, Leipzig

61 Dipl. Meteorologe Horst Veit

62 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe ehem. Hauptgeschäftsführer DVS

63 Dipl. Geograph Heiko Wiese Geographie, Meteorologie, stud. Wetterbeobachter)

64 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologe

65 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Dipl Geologe

66 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Bodenkunde

67 Dr.rer.nat. Mathias Zucketto

Besorgte engagierte Bürger

212 namen

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Climate Model biases are still a serious problem says IPCC scientist

At least some of the scientist and Global Warming Hysterics are starting to come to their senses.  And backing of from the all familiar mantra “The science is settles, there is nothing to discuss. it’s completely immoral, even, to question now”.

“Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts,” said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.

So could some please “inform our “dear and intelligent” politicians before they succeed in destroying our freedom, wealth and economic living standard.

See also all my posts on climate models:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/klimatmodeller/

And temperature data

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/temperaturdata/

And IPCC

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/ipcc/

 And PDO and NDO

The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic

NO correlation between the shifts in the net flow of heat in oceans and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration

If ALL human activities CEASED in Alaska TODAY the effect on global temperature in 2100 would be 0,001 C

 CO2 monthly mean at Mauna Loa leveling off, dropping?

All Oceans are steadily cooling

 Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This

Se also:

No climate model had ever been validated!

A Climate of Belief – The Story of Climate models!

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models

Climate computer models wrong on Mars, as on Earth

Fatal Errors in IPCC’S Global Climate Models

Validation, Evaluation and Exaggeration from the IPCC

The IPCC must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices!

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS,

The Globe is Cooling and the temperatures keep going down

Global Warming Hysteria – Governments AND Media Together Close Down The Debate

Documenting the global warming fraud – “Getting Rid” of the Medieval Warming Period

Omoraliskt att tänka självständigt!

Article here

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

World’s climate could cool first, warm later

17:56 04 September 2009 by Fred Pearce, Geneva

Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world’s top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter ”one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

”People will say this is global warming disappearing,” he told more than 1500 of the world’s top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN’s World Climate Conference.

”I am not one of the sceptics,” insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. ”However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.”

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.

Nature vs humans

This is bad timing. The UN’s World Meteorological Organization called the conference in order to draft a global plan for providing ”climate services” to the world: that is, to deliver climate predictions useful to everyone from farmers worried about the next rainy season to doctors trying to predict malaria epidemics and builders of dams, roads and other infrastructure who need to assess the risk of floods and droughts 30 years hence.

But some of the climate scientists gathered in Geneva to discuss how this might be done admitted that, on such timescales, natural variability is at least as important as the long-term climate changes from global warming. ”In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year,” said Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office.

Cold Atlantic

Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. ”But how much? The jury is still out,” he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. ”The oceans are key to decadal natural variability,” he said.

Another favourite climate nostrum was upturned when Pope warned that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. Preliminary reports suggest there has been much less melting this year than in 2007 or 2008.

In candid mood, climate scientists avoided blaming nature for their faltering predictions, however. ”Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts,” said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.

The world may badly want reliable forecasts of future climate. But such predictions are proving as elusive as the perfect weather forecast.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

The blatant hypocrisy from the UN pack and their jet set allies

I have written extensible about the UN pack, this travelling circus that fly around the globe in first class, or private jet, stay in hotel rooms at £400-500 per night in spa resorts, and gets wined and dined at expensive restaurants.

All of this of course paid by us, the normal people.

While they at the same time preach austerity, frugality and sacrifice from us, the taxpayers.

This blatant hypocrisy is so mind numbing that it would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that these people have the power to force us to obey them.

They are a truly parasitic class in the sense that Karl Marx wrote about it.

How ironic that today most of this class is leftists and so called “liberals”.

Below is an article by Lorrie Goldstein where he makes the same observations.

As I said in my posts:

The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!

”So if the Global Warming Hysterics want to succeed the formula is very simple:

Start civil wars, Support dictators, Oppress ALL political freedoms and rights, and keep the people in TOTAL poverty.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, will you succeed in reducing mankind to enough poverty and slavery to be able to succeed in this “worthy” goal to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

They, the Dictators, are great at reducing EVERYTHING, including CO2 emissions.

And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.

So we are talking about 0,03%.

Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.”

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!

”Environmentalism is an anti-human, anti-science-and-technology religion which has gripped the world. It worships a nebulous undefined indefinable entity called The Environment which has some of the characteristics of the Christian Heaven, is an ideal place, existing somewhere on the earth, but without humans. It is a jealous God, demanding ever increasing sacrifices to satisfy its demands.”

The essential dogma of Environmentalism is the belief that humans are destroying the earth, or, as they prefer it, the planet.. Evolution is invariably harmful, and is exclusively conducted by humans. It must be prevented at whatever cost.

”The environment” is envisaged as one or more ”ecosystems”, patterned on the Garden of Eden,  unchanging, static, ”balanced” associations of organisms which are ”fragile”, and ”threatened” by evolution, which is wielded exclusively by humans, whose every activity ”damages” this idyllic  paradise. Evolution has to be stopped, or even reversed.”

The necessary and universal mechanism of evolution, the extinction of organisms which can no longer survive, to be replaced by the newcomers, is seen as evil. ”Endangered species” have to be preserved at all costs, and the newly evolving ones exterminated as pests.

Sustainability is the reverse of evolution. It is a bedfellow with conservatism and conservation.  People dislike change, so we must stop it.

Humans, like other creatures, survive by modifying the world in our favour. There is therefore something to be said for maintainability, such as measures to keep fish stocks at a reasonable level, or to preserve the fertility of soil, but retainability, keeping things the same for its own sake, is futile. Evolution happens whatever you try to do to stop it. Sustainable development is an oxymoron, a contradiction.

The Precautionary Principle does the reverse. The greatest precautions and the greatest costs are to be taken when the risk is small or even zero. All risks are exaggerated and the highest cost and greatest inconvenience are always chosen.

Developments in technology are always harmful and dangerous, and must be prevented. This applies particularly to Genetic Modification and Nuclear Power..

Instead of choosing the cheapest alternative of an action, environmentalists insist on the most expensive, because the Environment requires it. This may take the form of protracted legal cost for permission, or the use of unnecessarily expensive technology.

Thus vehicles must burn biofuels which raise the price of food and increase poverty. An extreme example is the use of hydrogen in vehicles. This is expensive, inconvenient and dangerous, so we must do it.

Reverse economics is now being applied internationally. The disasters caused by environmentalism such as the high cost of energy and food, are being tackled by the least effective method, the printing of money. This is the policy which led to the downfall of the German Weimar Republic, and is the cause of the current disaster in Zimbabwe.

The advertising industry has softened up the public to accept the most outrageous swindles by endless repetition, the use of phony logic and the endorsement by celebrities. Science is in decline and is being taken over by the pseudoscience of the environment. It has thus become possible to put over on the public the most outrageous spin ever. They have selected, distorted and fabricated scientific results to justify the environmentalist creed with huge success. Everything can be ”linked” with  disaster  whatever the probability.

They get repeated free advertising in nearly all media and ”debate” no longer exists. Every event is referred to environmentalist priests for comment. Other comments are not welcome. Some people make a lot of money out of it.”

Al Gore, James Hansen – Carbon Communists

“From Fridays Pravda. Pravda, (Пра́вда) means truth. All this was a big joke during communist time when Pravda was the official mouthpiece of the party, together with Izvestia (Известия) which means ”delivered messages”.

Well, it now makes a good point about the blatant hypocrisy from the high Priests of the Global Warming religion, which I have been saying all the time:

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

And that the politicians love this Global Warming Hysteria because they can tax everyone to death, and introduce new fees etc with the ”motivation” that ”they” are ”saving” the planet from the Global Warming treat.

Of course they don’t sacrifice anything themselves- se the glaring example of Al Gore who preaches frugality to the masses while he himself gladly continues with his great and energy rich lifestyle – they ONLY LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN and BURDEN of this sacrifice.

The sad part about this Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, is the press and medias role in censoring and intimidating everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

And there willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria. Not to mention their part in covering up the Giant Difference between what these high priests says and what they actually do. A total and utter shame for what journalism should be about.”

Se also my posts:

Miljökonferensen på Balis stora miljökostnader

Miljökonferensen på Balis verkliga inre liv

Öppet brev till FN och konferensen på Bali

Realpolitik i klimat dimmorna

Hycklaren Al Gore VÄGRAR att följa sina egna råd

Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint – continuation!

Al Gore’s Enormous Carbon Footprint!

Al Gores energislösande hem

Al Gores energislösande resande

Obamas Big Carbon Footprint

Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism

Scare the wits out of people with Global warming, then make money off their fear.

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!

The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!)

Local and global environmental policy is lead by a coterie of fanatics and their powerful opportunistic bedfellows

“Sustainability” and Carbon Taxes runs amok in my town

Climate of Fear – 5!

Svindeln och fusket med utsläppsrätter!

EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!

 

Article here:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/08/23/10569871-sun.html

Orgies of consumption

UN climate conferences pull together jet-setters in far flung exotic locales. What a load of hot air

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Last Updated: 23rd August 2009, 4:59am

One of the most reliable ways to determine whether people are behaving hypocritically is to examine what they do as opposed to what they say.

Using that standard, the thousands upon thousands of jet setters who, year in and year out, attend never-ending United Nations climate change conferences in some of the world’s most popular and exotic locales, define the word ”hypocrite.”

This includes everyone from UN officials, to politicians, bureaucrats, celebrities, high-flying global ”green” entrepreneurs and environmentalists.

If everyone in the world would or could generate the massive carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions this crowd does as they jet in and out of Bali, Copenhagen, Bonn, Barcelona, Bangkok, Paris, Vienna, Valencia, Sydney, Rio De Janeiro, Washington, New York, Montreal, Anchorage and on and on, the Hollywood disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow would have been a documentary.

That is, if you believe the hysteria these same people incessantly spout about how the world will rapidly come to an end in an Armageddon of weather extremes, unless everyone massively reduces their carbon footprint and leads simpler lives … except them.

The next orgy of UN-inspired carbon-emitting will come in Copenhagen from Dec. 7-18, ostensibly aimed at developing a successor agreement to the Kyoto accord, when an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 UN hangers-on will descend upon Denmark’s capital, once again making airline reservations, five-star hotel rooms and rented SUVs an endangered species.

The only good news for the planet is the Danish foreign ministry recently cancelled 20,000 overnight hotel reservations in advance of the conference because not as many people as initially thought may turn up. But don’t hold any tag days for the conference just yet — the Copenhagen Post reports the government remains confident the other 100,000 overnight stays it has pre-booked will be filled.

During a previous UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia in December, 2007, Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, estimated the 10,000 climate change revellers staying in one of the world’s most exotic — and hottest — tourist locales, emitted enough GHG during their 12-day stay to nearly match what the African nation of Chad (population 10 million) emits in a year.

The UN claimed the emissions were only half that, or, as The Associated Press reported, the equivalent to what a modern Western city of 1.5 million people, say Marseille, emits in a day.

The point is, you can’t fool the planet. Flying, air conditioning, caravans of SUVs shuttling around VIPs, exotic food and drink ordered up in five-star hotels (often on the public’s dime) all create GHG emissions, regardless of whether the person doing it is the CEO of an oil company, or a diplomat who’s ”concerned” about climate change.

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer has been asked about this huge disconnect between what these UN conferences preach and what they do, but sees no problem at all.

”Wherever you held it, people would still have to travel to get there,” he said in Bali. ”The question is perhaps: Do you need to do it at all? My answer to that is yes.”

Fine. My answer is ”no.”

No, the UN doesn’t need to stage these orgies of consumption in the name of moderation.

It isn’t necessary in the age of instant global communications and it’s obscene during a world-wide recession.

The last refuge of these scoundrels is that they buy ”carbon offsets” to reduce their carbon footprint to zero, a claim so absurd to anyone who understands the science of global warming, it’s beyond laughable.

Once you emit a greenhouse gas, there’s no way to put the genie back in the bottle. The only way not to emit it, is not to emit it.

That’s just the inconvenient truth.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL COOLING – This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling

“This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling. The only time that there was a decrease in emissions was from 1979 to 1982 when the world was warming.

The only part of the Earth’s thermal radiative spectrum that is affected by CO2 is the 14.77micron band, but Arrhenius, unaware of this fact used measurements limited to only 9.7microns and therefore was not actually measuring the effect from CO2.

It is easily demonstrated that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Over the three years from 1979 to 1982 when CO2 emissions were decreasing due to the rapid increase in the price of oil that drastically reduced consumption, there was no change in the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 proving that humans were not the primary source for the increase in concentration.”

“Comparing climate alarmist Hansen to Cassandra is WRONG. Cassandra’s (Greek mythology) dire prophecies were never believed but were always right. Hansen’s dire prophecies are usually believed but are always wrong (Prof. Laurence Gould, U of Hartford, CT)

”The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken

Here are some revealing quotes from some environmentalists. They are SOOOO humane are they not:

”The First Global Revolution” (1991, p. 104) published by the ”Club of Rome”: ”In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.

—David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.

—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS

—Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.

—Lamont Cole

Poverty For “Those People”

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.

—Carl Amery

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

http://www.pushback.com/environment/EcoFreakQuotes.html

Article here:

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/08/anthropogenic-global-cooling-email-from.html

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL COOLING?

An email from Norm Kalmanovitch [kalhnd@shaw.ca]

There is a very good case to be made for anthropogenic global cooling from CO2 emissions. The beginning of rapid increases in global CO2 emissions started in 1945 with the rapid increase in post war industrialization that has seen CO2 emissions rise from under 4gt/year in 1945, to over 31.5gt/year today. This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling. The only time that there was a decrease in emissions was from 1979 to 1982 when the world was warming.

This forms a positive correlation of sufficient statistical significance to make a reasonable case for this relationship to be valid. Although correlation is not causation, there is nothing in the current science literature database that demonstrates any contrary evidence so based solely on ”peer reviewed” science literature (as is the case for AGW), this hypothesis could be taken as valid.

The original paper on this topic by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 can be shown to be in error because at the time quantum physics had not yet revealed the physical process of interaction between the Earth’s radiative energy and atmospheric CO2.

The only part of the Earth’s thermal radiative spectrum that is affected by CO2 is the 14.77micron band, but Arrhenius, unaware of this fact used measurements limited to only 9.7microns and therefore was not actually measuring the effect from CO2. He also used an experimental source for thermal radiation that was at 100°C, and the radiative spectrum from this source includes the 4.2micron wavelength band of CO2 that is not part of the Earth’s radiative spectrum, so he was not measuring the actual effect from the thermal radiation from the Earth.

In 1970 the Nimbus 4 satellite measured the Earth’s radiative spectrum showing that the spectral band affected by CO2 had a deep notch in it centred on 14.77microns. This deep notch demonstrated that well over 90% of the possible effect had already been achieved from just the 325ppmv atmospheric concentration of CO2, so further changes in concentration would have only minor effects, and increases in CO2 concentration could neither be responsible for either global warming or global cooling of any significant degree.

While CO2 concentration increases can be demonstrated to have little further effect on global temperatures, this has no bearing on CO2 emissions because there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration, and CO2 emissions may alter the global temperature by processes other than changes to the greenhouse effect. It is easily demonstrated that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Over the three years from 1979 to 1982 when CO2 emissions were decreasing due to the rapid increase in the price of oil that drastically reduced consumption, there was no change in the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 proving that humans were not the primary source for the increase in concentration.

The science literature data base is filled with articles about global warming and CO2, but none of these articles actually relate CO2 emissions to global warming, and just falsely assume that emissions and concentration are interchangeable. All of the articles are based on projections from climate models, which also make this false assumption about emissions and concentration, and these models have yet to demonstrate a result that matches physical observation. This is because models use a contrived CO2 forcing parameter that was clearly not designed on any physical basis either experimental or empirical. In fact there is nothing in all the global warming literature, even the articles about polar bears and melting ice, that can refute the anthropogenic global cooling hypothesis.

Even though there is nothing in the literature data base that can refute the hypothesis of anthropogenic global cooling, the hypothesis can be clearly shown to be false by strict adherence to science protocol and the scientific method. There is clear observational evidence that the Earth warmed from 1975 to 1998 as emissions increased, so even though the world cooled for more years than it warmed with increasing CO2 emissions, these 23 years provide observations contrary to the hypothesis that can’t be explained by the hypothesis, and therefore the hypothesis must be abandoned.

Another hypothesis that explains the current global cooling is based on solar cycles and their effect on solar output and changes to the Earth’s albedo from cloud cover. The driving mechanism for this is not fully understood, but to date there is absolutely no contrary evidence to the overall hypothesis. There is in fact clear supportive evidence including observational evidence from a project called Earth Shine which measures the Earth’s albedo by its reflection on the moon. The albedo measurements show reducing albedo concurrent with global warming, changing to increasing albedo concurrent with global cooling in 1998. (Figure 2 page 21). See here (PDF).

This is the way science is supposed to work, and while it is a simple matter to falsify the Anthropogenic Global Cooling hypothesis, it should be far easier to falsify the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, because everything stated in the theory is contrary not only to observation, but contrary to established physical principles and physical laws as well. The fact that AGW still exists as a valid hypothesis seven years after the Earth started to cool in spite of the continued rapid increase in global CO2 emissions, is testament to how easy it is to misinform the public with well executed propaganda and media control.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

The Met Office building is one of the MOST POLLUTING public buildings in the UK

A £30 million supercomputer, designed to predict climate change, has been named as one of Britain’s worst polluters. Also notice that the Met Office plays an active roll in spreading the Global Warming Hysteria.

There’s an old saying that’s comes to mind: Sweep around your own front door before you try to sweep around others

Story here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6098859/The-Met-Office-super-computer-by-numbers.html

”The Met Office super computer by numbers

A £30 million supercomputer, designed to predict climate change, has been named as one of Britain’s worst polluters in the latest embarrassment for the Met Office.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

Published: 12:11PM BST 27 Aug 2009

Here is a rundown of the Met Office super computer by numbers:

:: The £30 million computer – more powerful than 100,000 standard PCs – was installed in the Met Office’s new £80 million headquarters in May.

:: It is capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second to feed data to 400 scientists.

:: The computer uses 1.2 megawatts of energy to run – enough to power a small town.

:: In terms of pollution the computer produces 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.

:: This makes the Met Office building one of the most polluting public buildings in the UK as 75 per cent of its carbon footprint is produced by the super computer.”

And here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6812355.ece

”Climate change supercomputer makes Met building one of Britain’s most polluted

Jenny Booth

The Met Office’s new supercomputer has scored it’s second own goal since it was unveiled with much fanfare in May.

After tempting the nation into holidaying in Britain by wrongly forecasting a ”barbecue Summer”, it has now earned the Met Office’s Exeter headquarters the shame of being named as one of the most polluting buildings in Britain.

By the time it reaches peak performance in 2011 the £30 million machine’s massive processing power – it can perform 125 trillion calculations per second – will require 1.2 megawatts of power to run, enough energy to power a small town.

As a result it will contribute 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the problem of global warming every year.

That places the Met Office HQ close to the top of the list of carbon emitters – 103rd out of 28,259 UK public buildings assessed for their carbon footprint by the Department of Communities and Local Government.”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

NO correlation between the shifts in the net flow of heat in oceans and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration

A very interesting study by David Douglass, professor of physics and Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Rochester. They have studied the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans and its effects on the global climate.

 “These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth’s climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.

…,the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring ”warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

”An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed,”

Se also my posts:

The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic

If ALL human activities CEASED in Alaska TODAY the effect on global temperature in 2100 would be 0,001 C

CO2 monthly mean at Mauna Loa leveling off, dropping?

Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This

The Press release:

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3420

August 14, 2009

Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies

Physicists at the University of Rochester have combed through data from satellites and ocean buoys and found evidence that in the last 50 years, the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans has changed direction three times.

These shifts in the balance of heat absorbed from the sun and radiated from the oceans correlate well with past anomalies that have been associated with abrupt shifts in the earth’s climate, say the researchers. These anomalies include changes in normal storm intensities, unusual land temperatures, and a large drop in salmon populations along the western United States.

The physicists also say these changes in ocean heat-flow direction should be taken into account when predicting global climate because the oceans represent 90 percent of the total heat in the earth’s climate system.

The study, which will appear in an upcoming issue of Physics Letters A, differs from most previous studies in two ways, the researchers say. First, the physicists look at the overall heat content of the Earth’s climate system, measuring the net balance of radiation from both the sun and Earth. And second, it analyzes more completely the data sets the researchers believe are of the highest quality, and not those that are less robust.

”These shifts happened relatively abruptly,” says David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. ”One, for example, happened between 1976 and 1977, right when a number of other climate-related phenomenona were happening, such as significant changes in U. S. precipitation.”

Douglass says the last oceanic shift occurred about 10 years ago, and that the oceans are currently emitting slightly more radiation than they are receiving.

The members of the team, which includes Robert Knox, emeritus professor of physics at the University, believe these heat-flux shifts had previously gone unnoticed because no one had analyzed the data as thoroughly as the Rochester team has.

The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat. In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring ”warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

”An interesting aspect of this research is that no reference to the surface temperature itself is needed,” says Knox. ”The heat content data we used, gathered by oceanographers, was gleaned from temperature measurements at various ocean depths up to 750 meters.” The team also found that the radiative imbalance was sufficiently small that it was necessary to consider the effect of geothermal heating. Knox believes this is the first time this additional source of heat has been accounted for in such a model.

The team notes that it’s impossible to predict when another shift might occur, but they suspect future shifts might be similar to the three observed. Both Douglass and Knox are continuing to analyze various climate-related data to find any new information or correlations that may have so far gone unnoticed.

 See also

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

PDO INDEX Monthly data here 1900-2009:

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/evidence-that-ocean-net-heat-flow-is-connected-with-climate-shifts-co2-not-correlated/

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/the-oceans-as-a-calorimeter/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Cap and trade scheme defeated – And It should have been because it’s insane

The Australian senate voted down the governments Cap and Trade scheme (42 to 30).

As said in many of my posts: The cap- and trade scheme is a giant swindle where BOTH buyer AND Seller benefits from cheating. It’s an open invitation to fraud and manipulation. At normal peoples expense.

And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.

So we are talking about 0,03%.

Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.

If you go through all my posts in this blog you are going to find eminent examples of all these different stages of the Global Warming Hysteria.

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

And that the politicians love this Global Warming Hysteria because they can tax everyone to death, and introduce new fees etc with the “motivation” that “they” are “saving” the planet from the Global Warming treat.

Of course they don’t sacrifice anything themselves- se the glaring example of Al Gore who preaches frugality to the masses while he himself gladly continues with his great and energy rich lifestyle – they ONLY LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN and BURDEN of this sacrifice.

The sad part about this Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, is the press and medias role in censoring and intimidating everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

And there willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria. Not to mention their part in covering up the Giant Difference between what these high priests says and what they actually do. A total and utter shame for what journalism should be about.

These people – Global Warming Alarmists – TOTALLY without any sense of proportions, priorities and what is important for the survival of the human race and the Earth - We have entrusted to rule our countries?

Below is the speech of Senator Nick Minchin, Leader of the Opposition

Se my posts:

Existing measurement methods are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions CO2 trends

Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet! We’re really in a CO2 famine now.

The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!

The Origin and Life Cycle of Junk Science – OR Global Warming Hysteria

Global Warming Hysteria – It’s all about the money, YOUR money

The environmentalists want to change us and our behaviour – Their ambition is to control and manipulate us

It’s not going to be cheap, easy or quick!

If ALL human activities CEASED in Alaska TODAY the effect on global temperature in 2100 would be 0,001 C

Want to wreck the environment? Have a baby!

Se also all my many posts on carbon trading:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/carbon-trading/

 

Australia: Senators dump emissions scheme

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10590689&ref=rss

It should have been defeated because it’s insane

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/

it_should_have_been_defeated_because_its_insane/

UPDATE

A terrific speech against Rudd’s scheme by Senator Nick Minchin, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who truly does think it’s insane:

“Not only is the timing of this legislative initiative to be condemned, so too should the very name given to this package of legislation be condemned by this parliament… For no more than base political purposes, the government has called its emissions trading scheme a ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’. This is of course the perpetuation of a cruel hoax on the Australian people, childishly simplistic and misleading. The scheme proposed does not deal with carbon. It purports to deal with something quite separate—carbon dioxide emissions—and the scheme does not deal with pollution.

Whatever the climatic role of human induced emissions of CO2, CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant. CO2 is, as we know, a clear, odourless, colourless gas vital to life on earth… Indeed the Rudd government knows it too. Its own environment department’s website has a link to the official Australian National Pollutant Inventory, which lists 93 pollutants. Surprise, surprise, carbon dioxide is not listed among them….

It is also typical of this deceitful and spin-driven government to so cynically misrepresent the nature of carbon dioxide. Of course this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming… The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century…

Australia contributes a little over one per cent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. If we were to completely shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, Australia’s  CO2 emissions would be fully replaced by China within nine months. It is indisputably the case that nothing Australia does on its own can have any impact whatsoever on the earth’s climate. The deceit perpetrated by climate change fanatics that an Australian ETS will save the Barrier Reef is utterly contemptible…

The cruel joke is that all those thousands of jobs to be destroyed by Labor’s CPRS will be in vain, because this scheme will make absolutely no difference to the global climate

At least a quarter of Rudd’s front bench will know every word of this to be true, and yet they do not speak. One day, when this insanity has finally blown itself out, they will have to account – to themselves as much as to the rest of us – for their failure to defend not just reason but the best interests of their country. “

Tuesday, 11 August 2009 THE SENATE 1 CHAMBER SPEECH

Date Tuesday, 11 August 2009 Source Senate

Page 70 Proof Yes

Questioner Responder

Speaker Minchin, Sen Nick Question No.

Senator MINCHIN (South Australia) (7.32 pm)—

The government this week are asking the Senate to support passage of a package of no less than 11 separate bills, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills, to give effect to their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as they call it. This scheme represents one of the most dramatic and far-reaching interventions into the Australian economy ever proposed by an Australian government. Its passage and entry into force would have enormous impacts on the Australian economy and the economic circumstances of millions of Australians.  The government knows there is no Senate majority for this legislation, yet it is determined on what is nothing more than a cynical political exercise.  This legislation should be withdrawn for a number of reasons. Firstly, it proposes a scheme which will not commence operation for another two years. There is absolutely no justification for the government’s insistence that the parliament deal with it now.  Secondly, the government is seeking to legislate an emissions trading scheme for Australia well in advance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen in December, which will determine the extent to which, if any, the world is prepared to act in concert on CO2 emissions.

It is utter folly for Australia to legislate a scheme prior to the Copenhagen conference. And, thirdly, the United States, currently the biggest emitter, is currently considering the issue of an ETS. It is, in our view, cynically irresponsible to propose that the Australian parliament lock in an Australian ETS prior to the US —as I said, the biggest emitter of CO2—before it determines whether or not it will commit to an ETS and, if so, the nature and design of such a scheme.  For these reasons, the opposition condemns the government for its naked political opportunism in forcing the parliament to consider its so-called CPRS at this time. Not only is the timing of this legislative initiative to be condemned, so too should the very name given to this package of legislation be condemned by this parliament. It is regrettably typical of this spindriven government to use such a grotesquely Orwellian approach to the description of this legislation. For no more than base political purposes, the government has called its emissions trading scheme a ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’.

This is of course the perpetuation of a cruel hoax on the Australian people, childishly simplistic and misleading. The scheme proposed does not deal with carbon. It purports to deal with something quite separate—carbon dioxide emissions—and the scheme does not deal with pollution.  Whatever the climatic role of human induced emissions of CO2, CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant. CO2 is, as we know, a clear, odourless, colourless gas vital to life on earth.  Indeed, CO2 is essential to a healthy environment.  One of the most cynical and deceptive manoeuvres of the climate change fanatics is to seek to convince people that CO2 emissions are pollution, to demonise CO2 per se. Anyone with any understanding of science knows this to be a complete falsehood.  Indeed the Rudd government knows it too. Its own environment department’s website has a link to the official Australian National Pollutant Inventory, which lists 93 pollutants. Surprise, surprise, carbon dioxide is not listed among them. Mind you, after this speech, I bet some poor public servant will be bullied into adding CO2 to the list. So even the government’s own official list of pollutants, all 93 of them, does not include carbon dioxide.

It is also typical of this deceitful and spin-driven government to so cynically misrepresent the nature of carbon dioxide. Of course this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming. I want to commend Senator Fielding for his questioning of the government over the causes of global warming. The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20^th century.  No-one, of course, disputes the reality of climate change. Of course the climate is constantly changing —it always has; it always will—but the main drivers of the small degree of warming that occurred in the 20^th-century and the extent to which we should be concerned about it are hotly disputed in scientific circles. One of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, Professor Richard Lindzen of Tuesday, 11 August 2009 THE SENATE 2 CHAMBER the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently observed:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.  The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.

That is Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, who I suspect knows a little bit more about this subject than Senator Penny Wong. On Tuesday, June 23, writing in the Australian, Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at Flinders University, in Adelaide, reinforced this:

Repeatedly in science we are reminded that happenings in nature can rarely be ascribed to a single phenomenon. For example, sea levels on our coasts are dependent on winds and astronomical forces as well as atmospheric pressure and, on a different time scale, the temperature profile of the ocean.  Now, with complete abandon, a vociferous body of claimants is insisting that CO2 alone is the root of climatic evil.  I fear that many supporters of this view have become carried away by the euphoria of mass or dominant group psyche.  Scientists are no more immune from being swayed by the pressure of collective enthusiasm than any other member of the human race.

To acknowledge the reality of continuing scientific debate is not to say that Australia should not act in concert with other nations to give the planet the benefit of the doubt and to seek a global agreement to contain CO2 emissions. To the extent that anthropogenic CO2 emissions may be a cause of the limited global warming that has occurred, and to the extent that that warming is considered to be damaging, internationally coordinated measures to contain emissions at the least possible cost may be warranted. Indeed, as someone trained in economics, I proclaim the virtue of an approach based on ensuring the most cost-efficient use of finite resources. The world has not measured up to that standard in relation to its use of energy. But, given the continuing scientific debate, it is especially important that a country like Australia only take steps in relation to CO2 emissions that are in concert with the rest of the world and clearly involve the least cost and most economically efficient means of CO2 containment.

The government’s CPRS clearly fails that test. The case against this scheme was convincingly made by my colleague the member for Goldstein, Mr Robb, in his speech on this bill in the House of Representatives.  I also commend the work of my coalition colleagues on the Economics Legislation Committee in their reports on these bills and of Senator Xenophon on his minority report, which is a well-argued condemnation of this CPRS. I should also make mention of the critical analysis of this CPRS undertaken by the Select Committee on Climate Policy, chaired by my colleague Senator Colbeck, which exposed the CPRS’s many, many flaws.

Not enough is made of the reality of Australia’s circumstances in the consideration of measures to contain anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Australia contributes a little over one per cent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. If we were to completely shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, Australia’s CO2 emissions would be fully replaced by China within nine months. It is indisputably the case that nothing Australia does on its own can have any impact whatsoever on the earth’s climate. The deceit perpetrated by climate change fanatics that an Australian ETS will save the Barrier Reef is utterly contemptible. The manic determination of the government to impose this scheme on Australia also ignores the reality of the Australian economy.  Australia’s economy and our higher standard of living have been built upon our access to relatively cheap and abundant supplies of energy generated by coal-fired power stations. This is regrettably not well understood in this parliament let alone in the wider community. It was my privilege to serve as Minister for Industry, Science and Resources for three years in the Howard government, an experience which reinforced this fundamental reality about Australia: all the great manufacturing and value-added industries of Australia, which this Labor government professes a commitment to, have been built on and are sustained by access to cheap, reliable energy derived from coal. That is why an ETS, essentially an energy tax, is such a threat to this country. As Terry McCrann so accurately said in the Australian of 20-21 June:

… an ETS threatens to kill the Australian economy. It is a direct attack on our core comparative advantage: bluntly, the production of CO2.

Power generated from cheap and abundant coal is a, perhaps the, core building block of both our standard of living and our entire economy.

That is a reality which this government wilfully ignores. What we see here is a Labor government sacrificing workers in energy-intensive industries on the altar of green votes. The cruel joke is that all those thousands of jobs to be destroyed by Labor’s CPRS will be in vain, because this scheme will make absolutely no difference to the global climate.

 Tuesday, 11 August 2009 THE SENATE 3 CHAMBER Most Australians clearly do not understand what an emissions trading scheme is, how it would work and what its consequences would be. That is perfectly understandable. I suspect most of the Labor caucus has no idea, either. Essentially it will be a very substantial tax on energy, and that is why Labor’s flawed CPRS is such a threat to our economy, dependent as it is on relatively cheap supplies of energy. Hence the utter folly of Australia designing and implementing this scheme ahead of the rest of the world.  Labor’s CPRS is a serious threat to many regional economies and the jobs they support, and I commend Senator Fiona Nash for her eloquent espousal of their cause. In my own state of South Australia it is estimated that it will cost 2,000 jobs by 2020 in the minerals industry alone. As a senator for South Australia, I do not see how I can possibly vote for this legislation, nor do I see how any government senators representing South Australia can vote for it. While the financial capitals of Melbourne and Sydney may relish the creation of a new financial instrument to be traded by 20-something bankers, the people of a state like mine will pay the price in a higher cost of living, in industries and jobs destroyed and in a reduction in competitiveness—all for zero environmental gain.  

It is also reprehensible that Labor would seek to legislate this serious attack on the Australian economy at a time when, as Mr Rudd constantly reminds us, we face a very serious set of economic circumstances.  Mr Rudd loves to remind us of the seriousness of the so-called GFC and its threat to Australia. Indeed, it is his justification for the most massive explosion in government spending, government deficits and government debt seen since the 1930s. Yet, while talking endlessly about our serious economic situation, he seeks to fit Australia up with a set of concrete boots called his CPRS. As Geoff Carmody, one of Australia’s most eminent economists, wrote in the Financial Review on 23 June this year:

The CPRS is ‘the GST from hell’, delivering negative protection. Why should any country unilaterally tax its exports and effectively subsidise its imports, for no global emissions reduction?

At a time when policy should be wholly directed at maximising the efficiency, productivity and international competitiveness of the Australian economy, Mr Rudd seeks to impose a unilateral massive new tax on Australian industry and consumers which will damage our economy and do nothing to combat global warming. The government’s pursuit of this legislation at this time is nothing more than an act of vanity on the part of Mr Kevin Rudd. This most vain of prime ministers wants to strut the stage at Copenhagen in December with a legislated ETS in his back pocket. He and his government propose to sacrifice Australia’s national interest on the altar of his vain desire for international acclaim from the vast UN bureaucracy being built around climate change policy.  The Australian parliament should not even be considering legislation for an ETS until we know the outcome of the UN’s Copenhagen conference and the US Senate’s consideration of the Waxman- Markey bill. The Australian people agree with this view. An Australian Newspoll conducted on the weekend of 24 to 26 July showed that 53 per cent of Australians wanted their government to either delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme until after the Copenhagen conference or not introduce an emissions trading scheme at all. On that basis, and for the reasons I have outlined to the Senate tonight, I urge the Senate to reject this package of bills.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Existing measurement methods are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions CO2 trends

Some interesting conclusions from the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate – National Academy of Sciences regarding monitoring CO2 emissions around the world.

“..current methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions have limitations for monitoring a climate treaty. National emission inventories, required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, are self-reported and are not required regularly for all countries. Verification requires checking these self-reported emissions estimates. However, independent data against which to verify the statistics used to estimate CO2 emissions, such as fossil fuel consumption, are not available. Existing instruments and methods for remote monitoring of atmospheric CO2 are not able, with useful accuracy, to distinguish fossil fuel emissions from natural fluxes or to verify trends in fossil fuel emissions, such as reductions against a baseline.”

“However, estimated changes in atmospheric CO2 abundance due to fossil fuel sources are confounded by errors in the reconstruction of atmospheric transport, by sparse CO2 observations, and by the much larger changes due to biological sources and sinks.4 Because of these complications, the tracer-transport inversion method is currently able to estimate emissions with a useful accuracy only for some large continents.”

“The existing atmospheric CO2 sampling network of ground stations, aircraft, and satellites is not well designed for estimation of emissions from large local sources distributed around the globe.”

“Monitoring urban and power plant emissions from space is challenging and has not been demonstrated.”

“The committee’s analysis suggests that existing measurement methods alone are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions trends.”

Which means that there would be no way to verify that countries around the world are complying with emissions limits that may be set by an international treaty.

You can read the letter here:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12723#toc

You can download the PDF here:

http://cart.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?record_id=12723

Major General Charles F. Bolden, Jr.

Administrator

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

300 E Street, SW

Washington, DC 20546

Dear General Bolden:

A National Research Council committee is conducting a study on how well greenhouse gas emissions can be measured for treaty monitoring and verification. The committee’s analysis suggests that NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), which failed on launch in February 2009, would have provided proof of concept for spaceborne technologies to monitor greenhouse gas emissions, as well as baseline emissions data. This letter focuses on the capabilities of an OCO and currently deployed satellites that measure atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and their potential role in monitoring and verifying a greenhouse gas treaty.1

 The committee’s study is focused on emission estimates of the greenhouse gases resulting from human activities (e.g., fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture) that have the greatest potential to warm the planet and in particular on CO2 (see Attachment B for the committee charge). The committee is currently in the analysis and writing phase, with the expectation that its report will be delivered in December 2009. We are writing you now because a decision on replacing OCO will be made in the coming months,2 before our final report is completed.

Current proposals for an OCO reflight focus on the original scientific objectives of studying natural CO2 sources and sinks.3 In addition, it is important to consider the potential contribution of an OCO-like instrument for treaty monitoring and verification. Such capabilities may be an important consideration in treaty discussions at the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

If a treaty is negotiated in the coming months, monitoring and verification will initially have to rely on current capabilities and on measurement enhancements that can be deployed quickly. As the committee’s final report will describe in more detail, current methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions have limitations for monitoring a climate treaty. National emission inventories, required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, are self-reported and are not required regularly for all countries. Verification requires checking these self-reported emissions estimates. However, independent data against which to verify the statistics used to estimate CO2 emissions, such as fossil fuel consumption, are not available. Existing instruments and methods for remote monitoring of atmospheric CO2 are not able, with useful accuracy, to distinguish fossil fuel emissions from natural fluxes or to verify trends in fossil fuel emissions, such as reductions against a baseline.

Atmospheric CO2 measurements by ground stations, aircraft, and satellites can be combined with atmospheric circulation models to infer emissions from the land surface, a method known as tracer-transport inversion. The principle is that an emission source located between two sites will cause the abundance of the gas to be higher at the downwind site than at the upwind site by an amount proportional to the source strength. However, estimated changes in atmospheric CO2 abundance due to fossil fuel sources are confounded by errors in the reconstruction of atmospheric transport, by sparse CO2 observations, and by the much larger changes due to biological sources and sinks.4 Because of these complications, the tracer-transport inversion method is currently able to estimate emissions with a useful accuracy only for some large continents. The method’s accuracy could be improved by expanding the CO2 sampling network on the ground and from space, and OCO was in fact designed to improve tracer-transport inversions.

 A complementary approach to tracer-transport inversion is to measure the increased atmospheric abundance on top of large local sources such as cities or power plants. The majority of fossil fuel emissions emanate from such sources and would likely be a target of mitigation measures. These large sources increase the local CO2 abundance in the atmosphere by 1-10 ppm, a signal large enough to overwhelm the signal from natural sources and sinks, reducing this source of uncertainty.5 Because the increased abundances are largest over the source of emissions and disperse within a few tens of kilometers, they can usually be attributed unambiguously to their country of origin. Statistical or systematic sampling of CO2 from large local sources would thus support treaty verification by providing independent data against which to compare trends in emissions reported by countries, at least for the fossil fuel emissions from cities and power plants.

 The existing atmospheric CO2 sampling network of ground stations, aircraft, and satellites is not well designed for estimation of emissions from large local sources distributed around the globe. Ground stations and aircraft were purposefully deployed away from large fossil fuel sources to better detect natural sources and sinks, but could be deployed to monitor CO2 emitted from selected cities and power plants. However, this would require international cooperation and such nationally operated stations would still have the verification challenges associated with selfreporting.

 Satellites obviate these problems. As shown in Attachment A, Japan’s GOSAT is the best available spaceborne measurement of CO2, although it is not optimal for monitoring emissions by large fossil fuel sources. It has lower uncertainty and higher spatial resolution than SCIAMACHY, AIRS, or IASI, and it senses near the surface where emission signals are largest, unlike AIRS and IASI. However, the CO2 signal produced by the emissions of a large power plant is typically too small to measure with GOSAT.6 In contrast, OCO would have enabled monitoring of CO2 emissions from such local sources.6 No other satellite has its critical combination of high precision, small footprint, readiness, density of cloud-free measurements, and ability to sense CO2 near the earth’s surface (Attachment A). In particular, its 1- to 2-ppm accuracy and 1.29 × 2.25-km sampling area would have been well matched to the size of a power plant.6

 OCO would have had limitations for monitoring CO2 emissions from large sources in the context of a climate treaty. It would have sampled only 7-12% of the land surface7 with a revisit period of 16 days, and its lifetime would be only 2 years (Attachment A). However, many metropolitan areas are large enough to be sampled by OCO, and OCO would have provided a sample of a few percent of the power plants. Monitoring urban and power plant emissions from space is challenging and has not been demonstrated. A replacement OCO could demonstrate these capabilities. Nevertheless, it would be valuable to explore changes in the orbit and other parameters so that a greater fraction of large sources is sampled. For example, consider a precessing orbit covering ~100% of the surface but with only two measurements per year of each location. With 100-500 large local sources in high-emitting countries, it might be possible to obtain a statistical sample of hundreds of measurements of plumes of CO2 being emitted by the large sources in each of these countries. The trade-offs in optimizing monitoring capabilities while meeting scientific objectives would have to be examined by a technical advisory group.

 Because of its two-year mission life, OCO would not by itself have been able to track emission trends. However, it would have provided the first few years of measurements (a baseline) necessary to verify a decadal trend for the large local sources within its footprint, and served as a pathfinder for successor satellites designed specifically to support treaty monitoring and verification. Even with the data and lessons learned from a replacement OCO, a successor mission is unlikely to be ready for almost a decade.8

Space-based monitoring of emissions to support a greenhouse gas reduction treaty has received little attention by U.S. scientists and the government. The committee’s analysis suggests that existing measurement methods alone are insufficient to independently verify reported emissions trends. Although OCO was not designed for treaty monitoring and verification, it would have provided baseline emission data from large fossil fuel sources as well as essential tests of the engineering designs and measurement concepts required to develop a robust capability for monitoring emissions from space.

The committee hopes this report helps to inform NASA’s upcoming decision on flying a replacement OCO.

Sincerely,

Stephen W. Pacala, Chair

Committee on Methods for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet! We’re really in a CO2 famine now.

Professor Frank J. Tipler:

  “Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere.

Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million.”

Se also my posts:

This is what the Global Warming Hysteria is all about - 0,03%!

The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature

50 Years of CO2 monitoring: Can you see the increase???

The wonderful benefits of CO2!

När CO2 var som störst var temperaturen som lägst!

A CO2 graph that says it all!

Article here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/humans-and-their-co2-save-the-planet/

Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet!

Why opposition to the cap-and-trade bill is not “treason against the planet.”

August 5, 2009 – by Frank J. Tipler

As the Senate considers the fate of the cap-and-trade bill, we should consider what it means for more carbon dioxide to be added to the atmosphere, something the bill intends to prevent.

Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere.

Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million. But the percentage had dropped to a mere 200 parts per million. Plants tried to adapt by evolving a new, more efficient way of using the little remaining CO2. The new mechanism, the C4 pathway, appeared in grasses, including corn and wheat, which enabled these plants to expand into the plains. If the carbon dioxide percentage had stayed low — or worse, had decreased further — the entire biosphere would have been endangered.

Fortunately for the plants and the rest of the biosphere depending on them, a wonderful thing happened about 150,000 years ago: a new animal species, Homo sapiens, evolved. This creature was endowed with a huge brain, enabling it to invent a way to help the plants with their CO2 problem. Gigantic amounts of carbon had been deposited deep underground in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. Not only were these reservoirs of carbon locked away in rock, but they were in forms of carbon that the plants could not use.

These wonderful humans, however, worked hard to help the plants. Not only did the humans dig the coal, oil, and natural gas, bringing it to the surface, but they converted these raw materials into the only form of carbon that plants could use: carbon dioxide. Due to the diligent plant-saving efforts of the humans, the CO2 atmospheric percentage is now at nearly 390 parts per million. Were humans to continue in their biosphere-rescuing efforts at the present rate, the CO2 level will be returned to normal in a mere few hundred years.

The cap-and-trade bill is designed to stop this effort to save the biosphere. This is a profoundly evil act. In the words of the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, anyone who supports the bill, or any measure aimed at reducing the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is “guilty of treason against the planet”!

Those who want to reduce the use of fossil fuels are the mortal enemies of the biosphere. They must be stopped at all costs! Write your senator at once!

The astute reader will have noted that Krugman actually accused those who opposed the cap-and-trade bill of “treason against the planet.” What I have done is use well-known science to show that, from the biosphere’s point of view, it is the cap-and-trade bill that is “treasonable.” Remarkably, Krugman assumes that the climatic conditions of a mere century or so ago are the “natural” ones that must not be changed. A very anthropomorphic point of view is being used to denounce humanity. An ultraconservative reactionary political position is being called “progressive.”

Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press) and the author of The Physics of Immortality and The Physics of Christianity both published by Doubleday.

 

“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee.

Prominent Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ 

‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’ 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=AF8F5B20-802A-23AD-49FB-8A2D53F00437

The statement from Happer here:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

The hijacking of American Chemical Society by a Global Warming Hysterical editor

A very good example of how the Global Warming Crowd is trying to “hijack” scientific organisations for there own end.

Noteworthy is the usual derision and hostility towards criticism from scientists. And the claim that there is nothing to discuss and that everything is settled.

An attitude that has nothing to do with what science is about and the methods used in pursuit of the scientific fact.

“Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul.”

“Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

“Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me…his use of ‘climate-change deniers’ to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

But all this is no surprise – The global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science or facts. It’s all about politics and a agenda which is not officially stated.

As I have said before:

“So if the Global Warming Hysterics want to succeed the formula is very simple:

Start civil wars, Support dictators, Oppress ALL political freedoms and rights, and keep the people in TOTAL poverty.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, will you succeed in reducing mankind to enough poverty and slavery to be able to succeed in this “worthy” goal to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

They, the Dictators, are great at reducing EVERYTHING, including CO2 emissions.

And the “best” way to stop the “worst” emitters per capita is to sink all these islands/coastal cities that are so good at spreading the CO2. So all Global Warming Hysterics should “welcome” the rise of sea levels (which is NOT happening).

Notice that all the “best” countries isn’t exactly the ‘Ten Best Places you Want to Live” either to put it middle.

And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.

So we are talking about 0,03%.

Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.”

The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!

 

“Below is a very good description of the cycle and the forces behind any mass hysteria and junk science.

If you go through all my posts in this blog you are going to find eminent examples of all these different stages of the Global Warming Hysteria.

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

And that the politicians love this Global Warming Hysteria because they can tax everyone to death, and introduce new fees etc with the “motivation” that “they” are “saving” the planet from the Global Warming treat.

Of course they don’t sacrifice anything themselves- se the glaring example of Al Gore who preaches frugality to the masses while he himself gladly continues with his great and energy rich lifestyle – they ONLY LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN and BURDEN of this sacrifice.

The sad part about this Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, is the press and medias role in censoring and intimidating everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

And there willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria. Not to mention their part in covering up the Giant Difference between what these high priests says and what they actually do. A total and utter shame for what journalism should be about.

These people – Global Warming Alarmists – TOTALLY without any sense of proportions, priorities and what is important for the survival of the human race and the Earth - We have entrusted to rule our countries?”

The Origin and Life Cycle of Junk Science – OR Global Warming Hysteria

Se also:

Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism

 

Baums editorial here:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/87/8725editor.html

Protest letters here:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html

Article here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2213/Climate-Revolt-Major-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed

And here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2248/Update-Scientist-Accuses-American-Chemical-Society-Editor-of-censoring-of-articles-and-letters-that-reject-manmade-global-warming-claims

 

Climate Revolt: World’s Largest Science Group ‘Startled’ By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed!  

 Scientists seek to remove climate fear promoting editor and ‘trade him to New York Times or Washington Post’

Wednesday, July 29, 2009By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

 Climate Depot Exclusive

[Update July 31, 2009: Scientist Accuses American Chemical Society Editor of 'censoring of articles and letters' that reject man-made global warming claims! Many of the members have not only expressed their disgust, they are contemplating leaving the group' ]

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the ”consensus” view was growing ”increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is ”startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the ”world’s largest scientific society.”

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”

Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum’s use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum’s editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”

One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: ”When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise.”

Baum ’startled’ by scientists reaction

Baum wrote on July 27, that he was ”startled” and ”surprised” by the ”contempt” and ”vehemence” of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming ”consensus.”

”Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming,” Baum wrote.

 Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:

“I think it’s time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D’Ambra wrote.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?”

Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me…his use of ‘climate-change deniers’ to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: ”I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ‘free-market fanatics,’ and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.”

William Tolley: ”I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.”

William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”

ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board ‘cap’ Baum’s political pen and ‘trade’ him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.” [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum's editorial go here and see below.]

Physicists Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum’s editorial an ”alarmist screed.”

“Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views,” Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.

 Baum cites discredited Obama Administration Climate Report

To “prove” his assertion that the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama Administration’s U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor's Note: Baum's grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: 'Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA'...'Misrepresents the science' - July 8, 2009 )

Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor's Note: This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don't even exist - No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' June 20, 2009 ]

 The American Chemical Society’s scientific revolt is the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University’s Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!? – Global Warming could stop ‘for up to 30 years! Warming ‘On Hold?…’Could go into hiding for decades,’ peer-reviewed study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! ‘Nature not man responsible for recent global warming…little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans’ – July 23, 2009 )

A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed ”More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” 2009’s continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks! Global temperatures ‘have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth’ – July 5, 2009

In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

Selected Excerpted Highlights of American Chemical Society Scientist’s Reaction to Baum’s Editorial: (For full letters see here.)

Instead of debate, members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. I think ACS should make an effort to educate its membership about the science of climate change and let them draw their own conclusions. Although under your editorial leadership, I suspect we would be treated to a biased and skewed version of scientific debate. I think its time to find a new editor. [...] How about using your position as editor to promote a balanced scientific discussion of the theory behind the link of human activity to global warming? I am not happy that you continue to use the pulpit of your editorials to promote your left-wing opinions.

Thomas E. D’Ambra
Rexford, N.Y.

#

Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded?
Do you refer to ”climate change” instead of ”global warming” because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?


Howard Hayden
Pueblo West, Colo.

#

I was a geochemist doing research on paleoclimates early in my career. I have tried to follow the papers in the scientific literature. [...] I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.
The peer-reviewed literature is not unequivocal about causes and effects of global warming. We are still learning about properties of water, for goodness’ sake. There needs to be more true scientific research without politics on both sides and with all scientists being heard. To insult and denigrate those with whom you disagree is not becoming.


R. Everett Langford
The Woodlands, Texas

#

Your editorial in the June 22 issue of C&EN was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!


Are you planning to write an editorial about the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent suppression of a global warming report that goes against the gospel according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen? Or do you only editorialize on matters in keeping with your biased views on global warming?


Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind’s contribution to climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and ultimately ineffective.


Dennis Malpass
Magnolia, Texas

#

I can’t accept as facts the reports of federal agencies, because they have become political and are more likely to support the regime in power than not. Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me.


Edward H. Gleason
Ooltewah, Tenn.

#

Having worked as an atmospheric chemist for many years, I have extensive experience with environmental issues, and I usually agree with Rudy Baum’s editorials. But his use of ”climate-change deniers” to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific. [...] Given the climate’s complexity and these and other uncertainties, are we justified in legislating major increases in our energy costs unilaterally guided only by a moral imperative to ”do our part” for Earth’s climate? I am among many environmentally responsible citizen-scientists who think this is stupid, both because our emissions reductions will be dwarfed by increases elsewhere (China and India, for example) and because the models have large uncertainties. [...] I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ”free-market fanatics,” and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.

Roger L. Tanner
Muscle Shoals, Ala.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 15

Efter en skön semester så tänkte jag börja blogga igen med en säker ”klassiker”: – vindkraften.

Oavsett årstid så kan man ALLTID räkna med att vindkraften är sig lik – dvs. mycket stora svängningar i effekt (vi pratar om 60-80% minskning på en dag) och liten total effekt.

Så här kommer aktuell driftstatistik från de svenska vindkraftverken från de senaste 30 dagarna.

 

De senaste dagarna så ha det varit ihållande vindar på 2-9 m/s i stort sett i hela landet.

Trotts dessa någorlunda IDEALA omständigheter så är den SAMLADE EFFEKTEN FRÅN DE SVENSKA VINDKRAFTVERKEN IDAG 3 %.

Jäpp, HELA 3%.

Och är det INTE FANTASTISKT MED DESSA OTROLIGA STORA VARIATIONER UPP OCH NER!

Den 21/7 så var produktionen DRYGT 9100 MWh per dygn. 1, jag säger 1 dag senare så var den drygt 2400 MWh per dygn!

EN MINSKNING AV PRODUKTIONEN PÅ DRYGT 73 %! PÅ 1DAG!

Och detta är ju på inget sätt unikt – Tvärtom!

Är det inte fantastiskt att det är detta MYCKET DYRA, OSÄKRA och MYCKET SUBVENTIONERADE energislag som skall “rädda” vår energiförsörjning.

Ni kan läsa mer om mina inlägg om vindkraft här:

http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/vindkraft/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

A Nice Global Warming Summer PLEASE!!

The summer is finally here after being the coldest June in 50 years in some places here in Sweden. And I want to wish every one a warm (in the name of Global Warming Hysteria) and nice summer. It will also mean that I will write less and more sporadic posts.

But you have 640 posts and 1421 comments to go through at your leisure.

Sommaren är äntligen här efter att ha varit den kallaste juni på 50 år på många platser. Och jag vill tillönska alla en riktigt varm (i Global Warming Hysterins anda) och skön sommar. Det innebär också att jag kommer att skriva mycket mer sporadiskt under denna period.

Men ni har ju drygt 640 inlägg och 1421 kommentarer att botanisera bland. Om ni använder kategorier och taggar plus sökfunktionen så kommer ni att hitta många intressanta saker.

Så här skrev jag för ett år sedan:

”Jag är hoppfull, vinden har vänt och Global Warming Hysterikerna är på defensiven. Det märks inte minst ute i Europa där man äntligen har insett vansinnet med dessa gigantiska summor som kommer att förslösas på nonsensåtgärder. Och som kommer att ruinera vanligt folk och de nationella ekonomierna.

Märk väl att man fortfarande pratar som om inget har hänt men bakom kulisserna så sker just nu en 180 gradig kursomläggning i många länder. För INGEN kommer på officiellt håll att erkänna denna totala omläggning utan man kommer att säga att man har “anpassat” kursen efter rådande omständigheter etc. Eller andra förskönande omskrivningar.

Det är bara våra intälägänta svenska politiker plus massmedia som inte har förstått det ännu. Och som oförtrutet kör på i denna återvändsgränd och tjatar om att vi skall gå i täten och vara världsledande vad det gäller begränsningar av CO2.

Det är bara det att skall man gå i täten så måste man ha några som följer efter också. Och de senaste 2 månaderna så har skaran bakom glesnat betydligt. Och blir glesare för varje dag.

Den största vetenskapliga och politiska skandalen i modern tid är på god väg att avslöjas. Och jag vill passa på att tacka er andra bloggare som oförtrutet har deltagit i denna kamp för vetenskap och sanning. Vi gör faktiskt en skillnad även om det inte verkar gå så fort ibland.”

Och det är bara att konstatera att denna utveckling har fortsatt och att det har blivit uppenbart för gemene man hur lite med sanningen hela Global Warming Hysterin har.

Det är numera bara våra intälägänta politiker som låtsas som om inget har hänt, (på samma sätt som med FRA lagen, IPRED, datalagringsdirektivet etc.), och upprepar sina inlärda mantran som en drucken papegoja. Ni vet den där Montephyton sketchen.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

NOAA ADMITS temperature ERROR and FAULTY equipment BUT THEY ARE STILL GOING TO KEEP THE FLAWED TEMPERATURE RECORD AND “NEW HIGHS” – 2

And the story is getting even more bizarre. Or how one station close to this faulty one “disappeared” from GISS in 1981 is STILL FUNCTIONING AND ALIVE.  It just changed manger from USGS to NOAA – Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.

And note the HUGE DIFFERENCE IN TEMPERATURE FOR THESE STATIONS. As most 9 degrees (se graph below)

Also note that it was a private person how found this “missing” station and its data. Which the government agency in charge had not managed to do in 28 years! The same agency who decided to keep the faulty data from the other station because “The National Weather Service said that is not significant enough to throw out the data and recent records.”

A difference of 5 to 9 degrees!

And that agency is in “charge” of the “official” temperature data (NCDC)!

As I have said before: This is the “science” that Global Warming Hysteria is made of and which our governments are going to spend trillions of our dollars to “fight”.

 “Note also that during the string of record highs from the 10th to the 15th, the two stations diverged mostly by six degrees F, The NWS originally admitted in their TV Interview to two degrees error, and that may be true from the HNL airport location since it is indeed a sea of asphalt.

“ASOS…placed for aviation purposes…not necessarily for  climate purposes.”

Six degrees difference in the Tmax for at least 5 days. Many other days of record were 4 or 5 degrees difference. One day was 9 degrees difference.

But, which station is more representative of Oahu’s climate? The airport, or the observatory in the grove of native ground cover? I don’t think all of Oahu is paved yet.

So the big question to NOAA/NWS Honolulu is:

Do you still think these records are valid and worth keeping in the climatic database and record events database?

The big question for GISS is:

Would you like your lost station back so you can update the data?”

Data of the temperature difference here:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/phnl-ptwc-june09-data.pdf

Story here:

More on NOAA’s FUBAR Honolulu “record highs” ASOS debacle, PLUS finding a long lost GISS station

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/19/more-on-noaas-fubar-honolulu-record-highs-asos-debacle-plus-finding-a-long-lost-giss-station/

This is your Honolulu Temperature. This is your Honolulu Temperature on ASOS. Any questions?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/19/this-is-your-honolulu-temperature-and-this-is-your-honolulu-temperature-on-asos-any-questions/

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

NOAA ADMITS temperature ERROR and FAULTY equipment BUT THEY ARE STILL GOING TO KEEP THE FLAWED TEMPERATURE RECORD AND “NEW HIGHS”

”Even though NOAA admits the sensor is in error by as much as 2 degrees, they are going to keep the data and the string of new high temperature records. “BUT” they fixed the recent record rainfall data from the same station. See below. How’s that for science? Fix one broken record due to faulty equipment but leave others?”

“The high in Honolulu Monday was 92 degrees. It was the hottest June 15 since the National Weather Service started keeping track and the 8th straight day we’ve broken or tied a record. But was it really that hot?

That’s what the experts at the NWS have been wondering. They settled their suspicions with a trip to the airport to check Honolulu’s official temperature sensor.

”We had one of our technicians visit the site and they did a side-by-side calibration and found the thermometer at the Honolulu International Airport was reading a little warmer than what his caliberation thermometer was reading,” said Tom Birchard, a meteorologist at the NWS.

It was two degrees warmer. There’s some wiggle room with the accuracy of the temperature sensor.

”Which means, if the reading is 90, the thermometer is only accurate to read within about two degrees so it could be anywhere between 88 degrees and 92 degrees.

Which means our records these past eight days may not be records after all.

”If it turns out, after further investigation of the thermometer the data were skewed,” said Birchard, ”they could be stricken.”

Which they where not.  Hmm… can it be because it raised the temperature record?

This is the “science” that Global Warming Hysteria is made of and which our governments are going to spend trillions of our dollars to “fight”.

Story here:

NOAA: FUBAR high temp/climate records from faulty sensor to remain in place at Honolulu

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/17/noaa-fubar-high-tempclimate-records-from-faulty-sensor-to-remain-in-place-at-honolulu/

and here

How not to measure temperature, part 88 – Honolulu’s Official Temperature ±2

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/16/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-88-honolulus-official-temperature-2/

http://kgmb9.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18378&Itemid=40

http://www.kitv.com/weather/19784145/detail.html

NOAA Site information handbook

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/

X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

The Best way to reduce CO2 emissions? – Civil War, Dictators, Political oppression and TOTAL poverty for the people!

Here are some interesting statistics about CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2006.

I am going to show you the 10 “Best” and “Worst” per capita CO2 emissions. And the ones who are increasing and decreasing most.

Plus the top ones in total emissions.

So if the Global Warming Hysterics want to succeed the formula is very simple:

Start civil wars, Support dictators, Oppress ALL political freedoms and rights, and keep the people in TOTAL poverty.

Then, AND ONLY THEN, will you succeed in reducing mankind to enough poverty and slavery to be able to succeed in this “worthy” goal to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

They, the Dictators, are great at reducing EVERYTHING, including CO2 emissions.

And the “best” way to stop the “worst” emitters per capita is to sink all these islands/coastal cities that are so good at spreading the CO2. So all Global Warming Hysterics should “welcome” the rise of sea levels (which is NOT happening).

Notice that all the “best” countries isn’t exactly the ‘Ten Best Places you Want to Live” either to put it middle.

And all this for reducing a gas (CO2) that is around 0,8-0,9% of the Earths atmosphere. And where the humans are responsible for around 3% of that 0,8-0,9%.

So we are talking about 0,03%.

Isn’t that a worthy goal for our politicians to sacrifice our freedom, wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this PREDICTED rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also gladly willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.

Se also my posts:

This is what the Global Warming Hysteria is all about - 0,03%!,

The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature

50 Years of CO2 monitoring: Can you see the increase???

The wonderful benefits of CO2!,

När CO2 var som störst var temperaturen som lägst!

A CO2 graph that says it all!

Svenska folket – Ni har blivit grundlurade! 500 miljoner år av CO2 data

Climate Change – is CO2 The Cause?

EU:s CO2 policy – The hot air of hypocrisy!

“Sustainability” and Carbon Taxes runs amok in my town

Poland applies EU climate brakes – the French Presidency is only looking out for itself (as usual)

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’- 2

Sea Level Rise in excess of 2 meters is physically untenable during the next 100 years

Havsnivån har SJUNKIT med 170 m de senaste 80 miljoner åren!

Havsnivån har SJUNKIT med 170 m de senaste 80 miljoner åren – 2!,

 

Data per capita here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1cco2.xls

Total data here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

The Top 10 “Best”per capita growth of CO2 in Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide 

1. Chad  0,02
2. Afghanistan  0,03
3. Congo (Kinshasa)  0,04
4, Burundi  0,05
5. Cambodia  005
6. Uganda  0,06
7. Mali  0,06
8. Ethiopia  0,07
9. Malawi  0,07
10. Burkina faso  0,07

The Top 10 “Worst”per capita growth of CO2 in Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide

1. Gibraltar  160,22
2. Virgin Islands  118,30
3. Qatar  61,19
4, Netherlands Antilles  49,13
5. Trinidad and Tobago  44,32
6. Bahrain  38,44
7. United Arab Emirates  35,05
8. Singapore  31,41
9. Kuwait  30,92
10. Brunei  26,89

The Top Seven with greatest fall in CO2 emissions:

1. Afghanistan
2. Congo (Kinshasa)
3. Guam
4. Eritrea
5. Gabon
6. Kyrgyzstan
7. Zimbabwe

Among the worst offenders:

1. Maldives
2. Mauritius
3. Seychelles

And most of the other nice islands we dream of ranks around here on the list.

The Top four with greatest total CO2 emissions 2006 in Million Metric Tons of CO2

1. China  6017,69
2. USA 5902,75
3. Russia  1704,36
4. India  1293,17

China has gone from 2966,52 in year 2000 to 6017,69 in year 2006.  AN INCREASE OF 103% IN 6 YEARS!

And they don’t HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ACCORDING TO THE KYOTO AGREMENT. INDIA DON’T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING EITHER.

 USA, not a signatory either, did much “better” than most European states.  Which is intresting when you think of the “hostile” propaganda from EU agianst USA, especially during the Bush years.

The Top four with lowest total CO2 emissions 2006 in Million Metric Tons of CO2

1. Niue  0,005
2. Saint Helena  0,01
3. Turks and Caicos Islands  0,01
4. Kiibati  0,01

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

The Origin and Life Cycle of Junk Science – OR Global Warming Hysteria

Below is a very good description of the cycle and the forces behind any mass hysteria and junk science.

If you go through all my posts in this blog you are going to find eminent examples of all these different stages of the Global Warming Hysteria.

I all along have said that this Global Warming Hysteria has nothing to do with science, facts, or saving the environment. It’s all a political agenda. An anti human, anti development and anti freedom agenda. They also hate the capitalistic system for obvious reasons.

And that the politicians love this Global Warming Hysteria because they can tax everyone to death, and introduce new fees etc with the “motivation” that “they” are “saving” the planet from the Global Warming treat.

Of course they don’t sacrifice anything themselves- se the glaring example of Al Gore who preaches frugality to the masses while he himself gladly continues with his great and energy rich lifestyle – they ONLY LIKE YOU TO FEEL THE PAIN and BURDEN of this sacrifice.

The sad part about this Hysteria is, besides the scientists how have betrayed everything that science should stand for, is the press and medias role in censoring and intimidating everyone who has opposed this hysteria.

And there willing participation in driving and promoting this hysteria. Not to mention their part in covering up the Giant Difference between what these high priests says and what they actually do. A total and utter shame for what journalism should be about.

These people – Global Warming Alarmists – TOTALLY without any sense of proportions, priorities and what is important for the survival of the human race and the Earth - We have entrusted to rule our countries?

As I wrote in my post on 23 may, 2008  ”Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism:

And when you are at it – the rest of the World too.

This is happening HERE AND NOW. People are being burnt alive and hacked to pieces. Gruesome? You bet! Horrible – yes. But desperate people do sometimes do desperate things.

Do you think the Nobel Price winners IPCC, Al Gore and the rest of the Global Warming Hysterics pack care?   Nah…they are very busy spending trillions upon trillions of dollars of your tax money on something much, much more important than saving lives here and now.

Namely, they are “fighting” something that MIGHT HAPPEN (IF the climate models are right – which they are not, se my previous posts) IN 100 years – a temperature rise of 2-4 F.

Wow! That’s a worthy goal isn’t. I mean how cares about people killing themselves, dying of starvation or some “obscure” disease that take tens of thousand of lives a year here and now. And you don’t need computer models to figure that out either – you just have to go out on the streets.

There’s to much population anyway – they are actually saying that. When you instead can “fight” the great enemy CO2 lurking in a distant future.

All of this is led by the holly church of IPCC and it’s chief priest (and saint) Al Gore. Who is constantly spreading the message of near Gloom and Doom if we do not obey him and his church. And if you question this superstition you are immediately excommunicated and shunned.

And ALL the politicians and news media are worshiping and prostrating before their altar of carbon trading. Obediently following every whim and decree from the high church.

The problem is that the priesthood of Global Warming Hysterics are not exactly living as they preach. On the contrary – they live a very luxurious life and DO ALL THE THINGS that they preach and say the common man should not do.

Seems like fair and righteous deal doesn’t it? We do ALL the hard work and ALL the sacrifices and they take ALL our money.

At the same time as they are spending enormous sums of your tax money on their VERY important (except for themselves) nonsense mission. They do not forget to tell you ALL the time what a great burden they have so we should understand how REALLY important these people are. And what an important function THEY play in saving the planet. And how grateful we the people should be for that.

And that they can not be disturbed fulfilling this important mission by such trivial matters as people dying of starvation or curable diseases and civil wars etc.

But this is not a problem (that they are not living as they preach ) since news papers and TV are very obedient and loyally preach the message and sings the Gospel. And has since long forgotten what it meant to be a journalist. Or a politician in service of the public.

This my friends is the sad state of the “civilized” world today. If you didn’t know otherwise you would think this is some scene from medieval times with it’s pagan rituals and worship. And with the letters of indulgence (carbon credits) paying for our carbon sins and repenting to Kyoto.

And I hold all politicians and so called scientists and so called journalists accountable for this sorry state of affairs because they took ACTIVE part in it and promoted it. And they did ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO STOPP this madness for all these years.

This is the dream world according to IPCC, Al Gore and all Global Warming Hysterics: (se the pictures in my post  Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism,)

We in the industrialized world would be reduced to subservient living. And the developing world efforts to give it’s citizens a decent living standard would be stopped in it’s tracks and they would be reduced to mass poverty.

Lo and behold isn’t that a worthy goal!. You toil and work hard to reduce your own AND everybody else’s living standard. Yeah that’s a motivator all right!

See the picture before you – mom and dad is proudly telling their children that they are working VERY, VERY HARD to REDUCE their own living standard, their children’s and the grandchildren’s.

We would be the first generation IN HISTORY who on purpose and willingly reduce our economic, social and living standard. AND FORCE the rest of the world to do the same regardless of WHAT THEY WANT!

This global mass madness is led by politicians, newspapers/TV and so called scientists. Because they are blindly following some computer models that cannot predict even the weather two weeks from now! Or accurately simulate how the weather was two weeks ago!

All in the name of reducing the increase of global temperature 2-4 F in 100 years.

And this is the same Earth how have survived drastic shifts (often in very short time spans) in climate and weather through is long history.

On a DAILY basis the temperature can easily vary 80 F in the same location. And the difference between the warmest and coldest spot on earth THE SAME DAY can vary 220 F (Vostok and Death Valley averages). And this we have survived (and worse) without problems for centuries.

And the difference between the record coldest -129 F (the Vostok Station in Antarctica on July 21, 1983) and the record warmest 136 F (El Azizia, Libya on Sept. 13, 1922) is a whopping 265 F!

Or take the state of Montana where the difference between the record warmest and coldest is an impressive 187 F. And the people of Montana are still there and thriving.

And somehow the earth managed to survive that. But a minuscule predicted increase of 2-4 F in 100 years is supposed to mean total disaster for our civilization! And such a catastrophe that the politicians and scientist are going to sacrifice all of our wealth and living standards.

Isn’t it fantastic how suddenly the human race have become very, very fragile. We can somehow survive an 80 F variation in temperature during one day. But a predicted 2-4 F increase in 100 years we cannot handle according to the Global Warming Hysterics.

To give you just one example of how absurd this whole Global Warming Hysteria is:

Here in Stockholm the temperature recently DROPPED 38 F in a matter of 10-11 hours (Yeah that’s right! It dropped 10 -18 times more in 10 hours than the predicted rise in 100 years). But there was NO emergency meeting of the cabinet or extra session of the parliament or huge headlines in the news papers to “deal” with this “emergency”. Why?

Because nothing happened. Every one, including the cabinet, parliament and news media, went about their lives as normal as nothing had happened. It was colder of course but that’s about it.

Isn’t it strange that a drop in temperature 10 -18 times stronger in 10 hours than the predicted rise in temperature in 100 years, and no one reacts because it’s considered “normal” weather and demands no action ? And yet the same governments get hysteric about the PREDICTED 2-4 F rise in 100 years by the computer models?

And they are willing to sacrifice our wealth and economic living standard and spend trillions of dollars to “fight” this predicted rise of temperature by the computer models. And they are also willing to sacrifice the developing countries in the process.

These people – TOTALLY without any sense of proportions, priorities and what is important for the survival of the human race and the Earth – We have entrusted to rule our countries?

Here are just a few posts:

Polish Academy of Sciences position on the Global Warming Hysteria

Global Warming Hysteria – It’s all about the money, YOUR money

Global Warming Hysterics – the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot

Why should anyone believe The Global Warming Hysterics?

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

If ALL human activities CEASED in Alaska TODAY the effect on global temperature in 2100 would be 0,001 C

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!

The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!

Peer Review – What it actually means

Peer Review – What it actually means 2

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series

Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again! 

IPCC Review Editors – “No Working Papers”, “No Correspondence” are kept!

20, 000 year of Temperature, CO2 and sea level change data

Al Gore, James Hansen – Carbon Communists

Why greens don’t want to ‘solve’ climate change

The environmentalists want to change us and our behaviour – Their ambition is to control and manipulate us

Environmentalism is a Bigger Threat to Humanity than Global Warming and what is endangered is freedom and prosperity

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS

Global Warming Hysterics – Get out of Africa Now! Or The curse of environmentalism

They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything – ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CREED – Anti human, anti scientific, anti technology!

The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change

Clearing out the environmental fog

World’s Scariest Words: ‘I’m an Environmentalist and I’m Here to Help’

 

http://dailydollop.blogspot.com/2007/06/life-cycle-of-junk-science.html

Life Cycle of Junk Science

Below is the life cycle of junk science, as best I can figure it by analyzing the history of classic junk science, from diet pills to The Population Bomb. Can you think of any examples today that might fit this life cycle?

Genesis

1) Maverick Scientist has an Idea.

2) Other scientists deride the Idea.

3) SF Writers use Idea as image of bleak future.

4) Academics debate Idea.

5) Politicians begins to discuss the Idea, but don’t understand it.

6) General Public ignores the Idea.

Growth

7) Champion arrives to actively promote and publicize Idea.

8 ) Scientists form a consensus that agrees with Idea.

9) Academics teach Idea as fact.

10) Fast Adapters change lifestyle, ridicule General Public.

11) Hollywood makes disaster movie, sometimes based on SF novel from 3.

12) General Public makes token lifestyle changes.

13) Politicians use Idea to attack political enemies.

Hysteria

14) Scientific consensus begins ruthlessly crushing dissent.

15) Champion is hailed as Messianic Leader.

16) Academics announce society is doomed.

17) General public accepts Idea.

18) Opponents of Idea are cast as wicked and immoral.

19) Music Industry holds benefit, sometimes using film name from 11.

 Critical Mass

20) Dissenting Scientist proposes alternative theory to Idea.

21) Scientific consensus denounces Dissenting Scientist.

22) Messianic Leader begins making ludicrous claims unrelated to Idea.

23) Politicians propose massive social, fiscal, and moral changes to accommodate Idea.

24) Time Magazine puts Maverick Scientist, Messiah, Idea, or all 3 on cover.

Death and Rebirth

25) Dissenting Scientist is proven to be right, nothing happens.

26) Scientists form new consensus, claim they knew all along.

27) Fast Adapters are ridiculed by General Public.

28) Academics continue to teach Idea as “compelling theory”.

29) Politicians raise taxes, just in case.

30) Messiah and Entertainment Industry find new Maverick Scientist.

31) Return to Step 1.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 14

Som ett komplement till mitt inlägg Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 13  kommer här mera aktuell driftstatistik från de svenska vindkraftverken från de senaste 30 dagarna.

De senaste dagarna så ha det varit väldigt gynnsammt ”väder” för vindkraften med ihållande vindar på 5-12 m/s i stort sett i hela landet.

Trotts dessa IDEALA omständigheter så är den SAMLADE EFFEKTEN FRÅN DE SVENSKA VINDKRAFTVERKEN IDAG 6 %.

Jäpp, HELA 6% trotts IDEALA OMSTÄNDIGHETER.

Och är det INTE FANTASTISKT MED DESSA OTROLIGA STORA VARIATIONER UPP OCH NER!

Den 10/5 så var produktionen DRYGT 7100 MWh per dygn. 1, jag säger 1 dag senare så var den drygt 2500 MWh per dygn!

EN MINSKNING AV PRODUKTIONEN PÅ DRYGT 65 %! PÅ 1 DAG!

Och en MINSKNING på drygt 79 % på 3 dagar (10-13/5)

Och detta är ju på inget sätt unikt – Tvärtom!

Är det inte fantastiskt att det är detta MYCKET DYRA, OSÄKRA och MYCKET SUBVENTIONERADE energislag som skall “rädda” vår energiförsörjning.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

North Pole Sea Ice TWICE AS THICK as expected

Anyone seen any giant headlines in the media about this fact? Or some primetime network news about this finding?

I didn’t think so. Hm.. I wonder why??

How are the Global Warming Hysterics going to blame THIS on humans and CO2?

See also my posts Global Warming Appetizer – the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice! And they are “studying global warming”

Global Warming Hysterics – the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot

Why should anyone believe The Global Warming Hysterics?

Overall temperature trend since 1979 for Antarctica is slightly negative.

Glaciers in Norway Growing Again. And Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years

Sunlight has more powerful influence on ocean circulation and climate than ice sheets

Global Warming Appetizer – Sea Surface Temperatures Are 2 to 8 Degrees Celsius Colder

Sea Ice INCREASES Due to Global Warming

Article here:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10662

North Pole Sea Ice twice as thick as expected

By Editor  Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Radio Bremen

The research aircraft “Polar 5” today concluded its Arctic expedition in Canada. During the flight, researchers measured the current ice thickness at the North Pole and in areas that have never before been surveyed. The result: The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is apparently thicker than scientists had suspected. 

Normally, newly formed ice measures some two meters in thickness after two years. “Here, we measured ice thickness up to four meters,” said a spokesperson for Bremerhaven’s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. At present, this result contradicts the warming of the sea water, according to the scientists.

 Apart from measuring ice thickness, the composition of arctic air was also investigated. With the help of a laser, the researchers studied the level of pollution of the atmosphere by emissions from industrialized countries. In the next few weeks the results will be evaluated. Some 20 scientists from the U.S., Canada, Italy and Germany took part in the expedition. [transl. BJP]

German original here:

Überraschendes Ergebnis

Eisdecke am Nordpol ist dicker als erwartet

http://www-origin.radiobremen.de/wissen/nachrichten/wissenawipolararktis100.html

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 13

Som ett komplement till mitt inlägg  Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt – 12  kommer här aktuell driftstatistik från de svenska vindkraftverken från de senaste 30 dagarna.

Är det INTE FANTASTISKT MED DESSA OTROLIGA STORA VARIATIONER UPP OCH NER!

Den 30/4 så var produktionen DRYGT 4200 MWh per dygn. 1, jag säger 1 dag senare så var den drygt 1400 MWh per dygn!

EN MINSKNING AV PRODUKTIONEN PÅ DRYGT 67 %! PÅ 1 DAG!

Och detta är ju på inget sätt unikt – Tvärtom!

Här kommer några exempel från de svenska vindkraftverken den senaste tiden:

MED 50 % PÅ 1 DAG (18/3).

Med 89 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (23-25/1).

Med 98 % PÅ 3 DAGAR (23-26/1).

Med 84 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (12-14/1).

MED 84 % PÅ 2 DAGAR (22-24/12).

MED 67 % PÅ 1 DAG (10/12).

MED 50 % PÅ 1 DAG (11/12).

MED 87 % PÅ 3 DAGAR (27-30/11)

Lägg OCKSÅ märke till att trotts de senaste dagarnas gynnsamma vindar (3-8 M/S) så är den SAMLADE EFFEKTEN FRÅN DE SVENSKA VINDKRAFTVERKEN IDAG 10 %.

 Är det inte fantastiskt att det är detta MYCKET DYRA, OSÄKRA och MYCKET SUBVENTIONERADE energislag som skall “rädda” vår energiförsörjning.

 Allt enligt våra Global Warming Hysteriker och våra intälägänta inhemska politiker. Som säger att Sverige skall gå i “täten” och “ta ledningen” i kampen mot den mycket ondskedfulla och orsaken till ALLT ELÄNDE PÅ JORDEN – Nämligen CO2.

Se även mina andra inlägg om vindkraft:

Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas. – And emits more CO2 than thought

The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar Power!, 

Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion?, 

All You Need To Know about Denmark and Wind Power, 

 Who knew a “free” source of energy – Wind Power could be so expensive?,  Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power!, 

Carbon Credits Fund Broken Turbine

Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

However costly, however uneconomic, however outright irrational you might have imagined windpower to be – the reality is even worse

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6“ rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Polish Academy of Sciences position on the Global Warming Hysteria

For a change a very sound and scientific approach which we are not used to see from so many other so called ”scientific” organisations.  Where they instead wholeheartedly take part in spreading the Global Warming Hysteria. And engage in actively censoring and stopping fellow scientist who dare to criticise. Not to mention playing the political game to get more funding and being very politically correct in general.

Yes, it’s VERY scientific as always! 

”8. Detailed monitoring of climate parameters has been carried out for slightly over 200 years; it only covers parts of the continents, which constitute only 28% of the world. Some of the older measuring stations established – as a result of progressive urbanization, in the peripheries of the cities, are now within them. This factor, among other things, is the reason for the rise of the measured values of temperature. The research of the vast areas of the oceans has only been launched 40 years ago. Measurements taken for this kind of short periods of time can not be considered as a firm basis for creating fully reliable models of thermal changes on the surface of the Earth, and their accuracy is difficult to verify. That is why far-reaching restraint needs to be kept regarding blaming, or even giving the biggest credit to man for the increased level of emissions of greenhouse gases, for such a theory has not been proven.”

”10. Experiments in natural science show that one-sided observations, those that take no account of the multiplicity of factors determining certain processes in the geo-system, lead to unwarranted simplifications and wrong conclusions when trying to explain natural phenomena. Thus, politicians who rely on incomplete data may take wrong decisions. It makes room for politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits. It has little to do with what is objective in nature. Taking radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change, may turn out counterproductive.”

English version here:

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/PAS.htm

Polish version here:

http://www.kngeol.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/2.Stanowisko%20KNG%20w%20sprawie%20zmian%20klimatu.pdf

POSITION OF THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCE COMMITTEE OF THE POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ON THE THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING

Geologic Science Committee – Polish Academy of Sciences

The climate change of our planet, which can be observed more frequently in recent years, has become alarming for public opinion. Various methods to remedy the situation are elaborated on the international level by decision makers, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (operating since 1988) and different ecologic organisations. 

Having a part in this significant debate, the Geologic Science Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences wishes to turn to 10 fundamental aspects of the problem closely related to the functioning of geosystem – the complex interdependence of processes occurring in the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere. The knowledge of these factors should be the foundation for any rational and careful decisions, which could interfere in the geosystem.

1. The climate of the Earth depends on the interaction between the surface and the atmosphere, both of which are heated by solar radiation characterized by a cyclical, variable intensity. The climate is influenced by the Earth’s yearly revolution around the Sun, thermics, changes in ocean waters flow, air mass movement, mountain massif position, their uplift and erosion in time perspective as well as changes in the continents’ position as a result of their permanent wandering.

2. Geologic research proves irrefutably that the permanent change is the fundamental characteristic of the Earth’s climate as throughout its entire history, and the changes occur in cycles of varied length – from several thousand to just a few years. Longer climate cycles are provoked by the extraterrestrial factors of astronomic character as well as by the changes of the Earth’s orbital parameters, in brief – by regional and local factors. Not all reasons for climate change or their phenomena are fully known yet.

3. Although in the history of the Earth, a considerably warmer climate than today had dominated, there had been repeated occurrences when the Earth experienced massive global cooling which always resulted in vast ice sheets that sometimes even reached the subtropics.  Therefore, reliable forecasts of changes in the Earth’s climate (not to mentioned efforts to prevent, shape, or act against them) must take into account the results of its research of the Earth’s geological history - a time when humanity (and the industry) were not on our planet. 

4. Since twelve thousand years ago, the Earth is in the another phase of cyclical warming and is near the maximum of its intensively. Just in the last 2.5 million years, periods of warming have on several occasions intertwined with ice ages, which have already been well identified.   

5. The current warming is accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: water vapour is dominant among them, and in smaller quantities there are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and ozone. This has always happened because it is an occurrence that accompanies cyclical warming and cooling. The periodic increase in the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, sometimes a value even several times larger than at present, has accompanied previous warming even before man inhabited the Earth.

6. Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar 4 times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times, in total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.

7. After a warm period in the past millennium, by the end of the thirteenth century, a cold period had begun and it lasted up to the mid-nineteenth century, and then a warm period in which we are living had begun. The phenomenon observed today, in particular the temporary rise of global temperature, is the result of the natural rhythm of climate change. Warmer and warmer oceans have a smaller ability to absorb carbon dioxide, and reducing the area of the long term permafrost leads to more rapid decomposition of organic compounds in the soil, and thus to increased emissions of greenhouse gases. For billions of years, Earth’s volcanic activity along the lines of lithosphere plate boundaries, hidden mainly beneath the surface of the oceans, has been constantly providing the atmosphere with CO2 with various levels of intensively.

In the geo-system gas is removed from the atmosphere to the biosphere and from the lithosphere through the process of photosynthesis that is bound in the living organisms – including the shell carbonate marine organisms and after their death it is stored in the huge limestone on the bottom of the seas and the oceans, while on land it is bound in various organic sediments.

8. Detailed monitoring of climate parameters has been carried out for slightly over 200 years; it only covers parts of the continents, which constitute only 28% of the world. Some of the older measuring stations established – as a result of progressive urbanization, in the peripheries of the cities, are now within them. This factor, among other things, is the reason for the rise of the measured values of temperature. The research of the vast areas of the oceans has only been launched 40 years ago. Measurements taken for this kind of short periods of time can not be considered as a firm basis for creating fully reliable models of thermal changes on the surface of the Earth, and their accuracy is difficult to verify. That is why far-reaching restraint needs to be kept regarding blaming, or even giving the biggest credit to man for the increased level of emissions of greenhouse gases, for such a theory has not been proven.

9. There is no doubt that a certain part of the rise of the level of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is associated with human activity therefore, steps should be taken to reduce the amount on the basis of the principles of sustainable development, a cease of extensive deforestation, particularly in tropical regions. It is equally important to take up and pursuit appropriate adapting actions that will mitigate the effects of the current warming trend.

10. Experiments in natural science show that one-sided observations, those that take no account of the multiplicity of factors determining certain processes in the geo-system, lead to unwarranted simplifications and wrong conclusions when trying to explain natural phenomena. Thus, politicians who rely on incomplete data may take wrong decisions. It makes room for politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits. It has little to do with what is objective in nature. Taking radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change, may turn out counterproductive.

The PAN Committee of Geological Sciences believes it necessary to start an interdisciplinary research based on comprehensive monitoring and modelling of the impact of other factors – not just the level of CO2 – on the climate. Only this kind of approach will bring us closer to identifying the causes of climate change.

Wroclaw-Warsaw, 12 February 2009

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

 

Lord Stern, ‘Scaremonger in chief’, exposed by simple blunders

Al Gore is getting competition for the Mr. Gloom and Doom title. As for the title of the most misleading facts. And the ”noble” effort to silence the press and critics.

This is what Dr Richard Tol. (took key part in the IPCC and wrote the UN Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment) had to say about the Stern report:

 ”alarmist and incompetent”, and his doomsday prophecies were simply ”preposterous”.

 Article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5220173/Lord-Stern-Scaremonger-in-chief-exposed-by-simple-blunders.html

Lord Stern, ‘Scaremonger in chief’, exposed by simple blunders

How come ”the world’s leading expert on climate change” doesn’t even know how much carbon dioxide there currently is in the air, wonders Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 10:48PM BST 25 Apr 2009

Confronted last week with the unfolding horror story of the Budget, we might have been grateful for the light relief provided by Lord Stern of Brentford, who told us how, unless we halt global warming, we can look forward to the sight of alligators gambolling at the North Pole, and Florida and Bangladesh sinking beneath the sea.

Since he produced the 570-page Stern Review in 2006, which Tony Blair described as ”the most important report on the future ever produced by this Government”, this former Treasury official and chief economist to the World Bank has won extraordinary adulation. In the US Congress he is acclaimed as ”the world’s leading expert on climate change”, vying with Al Gore to be the world’s Scaremonger-in-Chief.

Today Lord Stern is head of the LSE’s Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, launched by a billionaire investment manager to advise on the fast-burgeoning global market in every kind of ”low carbon technology”, ”emissions trading” and all the other growth areas associated with the climate change industry. Last week he was in the news for launching his new book, A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a New Era of Progress and Prosperity.

Unsurprisingly, there is no one for whom Lord Stern has more contempt than those he calls the ”deniers” of man-made global warming. He told The Daily Telegraph last week that they ”look more and more like those who denied the association between HIV and Aids, or smoking and cancer”. In his book, he criticises the media for giving any space at all to such people, when ”the balance of logic and evidence is 99 per cent or more to one”.

But for a man whose whole case rests on the damage supposedly being done to the planet by carbon dioxide, it was somewhat disconcerting to see him quoted as saying that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have now reached ”430 parts per million [ppm]”. He said exactly the same last year in an interview with Prospect. The actual level is 388.97 ppm. It may seem a tiny point, but one might have expected ”the world’s leading expert on climate change” to have a rather surer grasp of a fact so central to his case.

Similarly, one would not expect a man whose institute is claimed to be ”a world-leader in low carbon technologies” to claim, as he does in his book, that by next year wind energy ”is set to account for 8 per cent of electricity generation in the UK”, when the current figure is scarcely 1 per cent; or that ”wind accounted for 35 per cent of total installed power capacity in the US in 2007″, when two minutes on the internet could have shown him that wind power that year generated less electricity in the US than a single large coal-fired power station.

In fact, when the Stern Review came out in 2006, predicting that global warming could soon account for the extinction of 40 per cent of all species of life on earth, far from being universally lauded it was savagely criticised by some of the very people who might have been expected to praise it – his fellow economists. No one was more excoriatory than the man on whose work Lord Stern claimed to have based many of his most scarifying predictions, the noted Dutch economist Dr Richard Tol.

Far from being a global-warming sceptic, Dr Tol has played a key part in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and wrote the UN Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment. But he could not have been more withering about the way the Stern Review went out of its way to cherry pick the most alarming possible predictions about the impacts of climate change and then to exaggerate them still further. Where Tol had, for instance, given a range of costs up to $14 per ton of CO2, while saying that the actual cost was ”likely to be substantially smaller”, Stern had more than doubled his figure, to $29 a ton. Stern’s report, Tol pronounced, could be ”dismissed as alarmist and incompetent”, and his doomsday prophecies were simply ”preposterous”.

Yet this is the man, reverentially treated by the BBC, the media and politicians everywhere as ”the world’s leading expert on climate change” – so lost in his apocalyptic dreams that he doesn’t even know something so basic to his cause as how much CO2 there is in the air we breathe.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Global Warming Hysteria – It’s all about the money, YOUR money

”While a brutal recession costs hundreds of thousands their jobs, the high priests of global warming fly in and out of the world’s exotic locales (generating megatonnes of greenhouse gases), plotting new ways to separate us from our money. ”

”So-called ”green” schemes, aren’t green. Their real purpose is to make it so expensive to use fossil-fuel energy that we’re forced to use less, not because we don’t need it but because we can’t afford it. ”

”Environmental journalist George Monbiot, author of Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, is admirably honest about this. The fight against global warming, he writes, is a campaign for austerity. Precisely. ”

Article here:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/

2009/04/05/9009661-sun.html

It’s all about the money

Notice how every ‘green’ scheme to ’save’ us from global warming will end up costing you more?

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Last Updated: 5th April 2009, 4:16am

Have you noticed that when politicians, United Nations diplomats, environmental activists, radical scientists, journalists and even, lately, multinational corporations, talk about ”going green” to save the planet, the only ”green” they’re talking about is the colour of our money?

And about how to separate us from it?

Think about all the ”solutions” we’ve heard, ostensibly to ”fight” man-made climate change.

Carbon taxes? We pay more.

Cap-and-trade? We pay more.

Carbon offsets/credits? We pay more.

Renewable energy? We pay more.

Mandatory energy audits? We pay more.

Waste collection? We pay more.

Plastic !@@#$%#$ bags at the supermarket? We pay more.

While a brutal recession costs hundreds of thousands their jobs, the high priests of global warming fly in and out of the world’s exotic locales (generating megatonnes of greenhouse gases), plotting new ways to separate us from our money.

These efforts will culminate in Copenhagen in December, at a UN-led conference to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Accord, which expires in 2012.

Anyone living in the developed world should understand the real purpose of this meeting will be to compel Western governments to spend billions more of our money ”helping” (bribing) the developing world, led by China, to reduce their emissions, since they weren’t required to under Kyoto.

Obviously, this is not going to be popular during a deep recession among many of those being asked to cough up ever more ”green” booty.

THE DOOMSTERS

Enter the global warming doomsters — the Al Gores, the greenwashed politicians, the environmental radicals, the high-flying diplomats and, sadly, too many politically-motivated scientists, who long ago traded in scientific objectivity for shilling for Armageddon.

The purpose of all this doom-saying, this ”climate porn” as it’s known, is two-fold:

First, to make a complicated issue, man’s influence on climate, sound simple.

Second, to make people in the developed world feel sufficiently guilty and intimidated, that we’ll shut up about having our pockets picked to finance the green schemes noted previously.

Oh, and one more thing. None of them work.

The reason they don’t is we have no way at present to stop greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) for energy.

Solving that problem is the real job one.

As things stand, even if the handful of nations required to reduce emissions under Kyoto were doing it — and many aren’t, including us, because it’s impossible without devastating our economies and resorting to shell games like ”carbon credits” — Kyoto is only about one-thirteenth of what the high priests of global warming insist must be done.

So-called ”green” schemes, aren’t green. Their real purpose is to make it so expensive to use fossil-fuel energy that we’re forced to use less, not because we don’t need it but because we can’t afford it.

Environmental journalist George Monbiot, author of Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, is admirably honest about this. The fight against global warming, he writes, is a campaign for austerity. Precisely.

The high priests of global warming justify this by claiming it poses an existential threat to the planet. At this point climate hysterics — trust me, I hear from them all the time –unload what they think is their ace card: ”Do you or do you not believe in the science of global warming?” they demand, much as Joe McCarthy once infamously thundered: ”Are you or are you not a member of the Communist Party?”

The absurdity of this question is that it isn’t about ”belief.” It’s about whether one acknowledges the scientific evidence that mankind’s burning of fossil fuels affects climate.

What’s rational to say is that there is good reason to believe it does and we can’t afford to do nothing. But what is equally true is the cheerleaders for Armageddon are claiming we know far more about climate change than we actually do.

POLITICAL DECISION

About nature’s impact on climate. About what the long-term impacts of climate change will be — not in terms of generalized ”Doomsday” rants — but about where, when and what will happen, and most important, what we should do about it, which is a political decision, not a scientific one.

Most people are rational. Most care about the planet and the legacy they will leave their children.

Given rational, practical, meaningful ways to improve the environment, they’ll respond.

But simultaneously yelling at people we’re facing Armageddon, while shilling for trivial nonsense like ”Earth Hour” and picking our pockets to pay for pretend ”green” initiatives, isn’t rational.

It’s surrendering to the fortune tellers and witch doctors.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a> 

Fatal Errors in IPCC’S Global Climate Models

Here are some more interesting facts about the IPCC:s manipulation of data. And the fatal flaws and errors in their compute models which they use to ”prove” that mankind is behind the rising temperature and CO2.

I have written extensively about IPCC:s manipulation of data and the giant errors of these climate models. And about long term temperature and CO2 data.

By Physicist and engineer Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman, a former Division Chief Scientist for Hughes Aircraft Company, is an expert modeler of microwave and millimeter wave propagation in the atmosphere solar radiation, thermal energy in avionics

And comments by Vincent Gray and the authors response to those.

Se among others my posts:

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax eller IPCC:s lögn!

The Unscientific way of IPCC:s forecasts eller IPPC:s lögn del 2!

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series

IPCC Review Editors – ”No Working Papers”, ”No Correspondence” are kept!

IPCC Review Editors comments reveald!

Has the IPCC inflated the feedback factor?

IPCC and its bias!

Peer Review – What it actually means

The 800 year lag of carbon compared to temperature

Atmospheric CO2 and Climate on Millennial Time Scales During the Last Glacial Period

Peer Review – What it actually means 2

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’- 2

CLIMATE MODELS FOR MONKEYS

A Litmus Test for Global Warming and the Climate Models

And

The Globe is Cooling and the temperatures keep going down

GISS Climate Model already wrong after 5 years

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data

More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have 

The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data

Minus 60 C or not?

Documenting the global warming fraud – ”Getting Rid” of the Medieval Warming Period

The fight to get the temperature data that Global Warming Hysterics don’t want you to see

NOAA Cherry Picking on Trend Analyses

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!

The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria

The editor of the International Journal of Climatology has finally said that they do not require authors to provide supporting data)

And

All Oceans are steadily cooling

8 years of global cooling and 4 years of rapid global cooling

The Big dropout of weather stations since 1989 – A 66% reduction in 11 years

Annual North American temperature is FALLING at a rate of 0.78C/decade   Temperature data – What it really means.

GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM 2500 B.C. TO 2008 A.D 

20, 000 year of Temperature, CO2 and sea level change data 

An Eighteen-Hundred-Year Climate Record from China

422 700 år av temperaturdata från Antarktis

Temperaturen för 130 000 år sedan,

Climate Change … Global Warming … Global Cooling

50 Years of CO2 monitoring: Can you see the increase???

Global Warming No Longer Happening – Record cold in Canada

If ALL human activities CEASED in Alaska TODAY the effect on global temperature in 2100 would be 0,001 C

New Zealand COOLER in 2008 than 141 years ago

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in San Francisco Bay

Article here:

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html

IPCC’S FATAL ERRORS

INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT

TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE

ALBEDO REGULATES CLIMATE, NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

CO2 HAS NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON CLIMATE.

————————————————————

FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC’S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

Some critics of the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) urge that its reliance on a consensus of scientists is false, while others simply point out that regardless, science is never decided by consensus. Some critics rely on fresh analyses of radiosonde and satellite data to conclude that water vapor feedback is negative, contrary to its representation in Global Climate Models (GCMs). Some argue that the AGW model must be false because the climate has cooled over the last decade while atmospheric CO2 continued its rise. Researchers discovered an error in the reduction of data, the widely publicized Hockey Stick Effect, that led to a false conclusion that the Little Ice Age was not global. Some argue that polar ice is not disappearing, that polar bears are thriving, and that sea level is not rising any significant amount.

To the public, these arguments cast a pall over AGW claims. But in a last analysis, they merely weigh indirectly against published positions, weigh against the art of data reduction, or rely on short-term data trends in a long-term forecast. Such charges cannot prevail against the weight of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its network of associated specialists in the field, principally climatologists, should they ever choose to respond categorically. Moreover, these proponents can support their positions with hundreds running into thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers, plus the official IPCC publications, to weigh against tissue-paper-thin arguments, many published online with at best informal and on-going peer review.

On the other hand, what can carry the day are the errors and omissions included in the AGW model with respect to real and demonstrable processes that affect Earth’s climate. Here is a list of eight major modeling faults for which IPCC should be held to account.

1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural background. Because IPCC models are admittedly nonlinear (Third Assessment Report, ¶1.3.2), the response of the models to the sum of manmade and background forces is not equal to the sum of the background response and the response to manmade forces.

A computer run, for example, that assumes the natural forces are in equilibrium, and then calculates the effects of a slug of manmade CO2 that dissolves over the years is not valid. The run needs to be made with the natural outgassing process and anthropogenic emissions entering the atmosphere simultaneously to be circulated and absorbed through the process of the solubility of CO2 in water.

2. IPCC errs to discard on-going natural processes at initialization. IPCC initializes its GCMs to year 1750 in an assumed state of equilibrium. At this time, Earth is warming and CO2, while lagging the warming, is increasing, both at near maximum rates. This initialization causes the models to attribute natural increases in temperature and CO2 to man. The error occurs not because the models fail to reproduce the on-going natural effects. It occurs because subsequent measurements of temperature and CO2 concentration, to which IPCC fits its modeled AGW response, necessarily include both natural and manmade effects.

Earth is currently about 2ºC to 4ºC below the historic peak in temperature seen in the Vostok record covering the four previous warm epochs. IPCC models turn off the natural warming, then calculate a rise attributed to man over the next century of 3.5ºC.

3. IPCC errs to model the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. IPCC models the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. It is not. It is thermally active, absorbing heat from the Sun and exchanging heat as well as water with the atmosphere. It is mixed with vertical and horizontal currents, stirred by winds and waves, roiling with entrained air, active in marine life, and undulating in depth.

This assumption of equilibrium in the surface layer leads IPCC to model CO2 as accumulating in the atmosphere in contradiction to Henry’s Law of solubility. This causes its model of ACO2 uptake by the ocean to slow to the rate of sequestration in deep water, with time constants ranging into many millennia. A consequence of Henry’s Law instead is that the surface ocean is a reservoir of molecular CO2 for atmospheric and ocean processes, and causes it to be in disequilibrium.

Assuming the surface layer to be in equilibrium leads IPCC to conclude that the measured increase in CO2 is from man’s emissions, without increases due to background effects or warming of the ocean. It also supports IPCC’s conclusion that atmospheric CO2 is well-mixed, contradicting its own observations of CO2 gradients in latitude and longitude. This false assumption allows IPCC to use the MLO record to represent global CO2, and falsely calibrate CO2 measurements from other sources to make them all agree.

4. IPCC errs to erase the global pattern of atmospheric CO2 concentration from its model. IPCC admits that East-West CO2 gradients are observable, and that North-South gradients are an order of magnitude greater. IPCC ignores that MLO lies in the high concentration plume from massive CO2 outgassing in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. At the same time, IPCC ignores that ice core data are collected in low CO2 concentrations caused by the polar sinks where the ocean uptakes CO2. These features show that CO2 spirals around the globe, starting at the equator and heading toward the poles, and diminishing in concentration as the surface layer cools. The concentration of CO2 should be maximal at MLO, and minimal at the poles, but IPCC makes them contiguous or overlapping through arbitrary calibrations.

5. IPCC errs to model climate without the full dynamic exchange of OC2 between the atmosphere and the ocean. IPCC ignores the planetary flows of CO2 through the atmosphere and across and through the surface layer of the ocean, and then into and out of the Thermohaline Circulation. CO2 is absorbed near 0ºC at the poles, and returned about one millennium later to the atmosphere at the prevailing tropical temperature. IPCC does not model this temperature-dependent exchange of about 90 gigatons of carbon per year, even though it swamps the anthropogenic emission of about 6 gigatons per year.

The outgassing is a positive feedback that confounds the IPCC model for the carbon cycle.

6. IPCC errs to model different absorption rates for natural and manmade CO2 without justification. IPCC considers the ocean to absorb ACO2 at a few gigatons per year, half its emission rate. It reports natural CO2 outgassed from the ocean as being exchanged with the atmosphere at about 90 gigatons per year, 100% of the emission rate. IPCC offers no explanation for the accumulation of ACO2 but not natural CO2.

Thus IPCC models Earth’s carbon cycle differently according to its source, without its dynamic patterns in the atmosphere and the ocean, without its ready dissolution and accumulation in the surface ocean, and without the feedback of its dynamic outgassing from the ocean.

As a result, IPCC’s conclusions are wrong that CO2 is long-lived, that it is well-mixed, that it accumulates in the atmosphere, and that it is a forcing, meaning that it is not a feedback.

7. IPCC errs to model climate without its first order behavior. IPCC does not model Earth’s climate as it exists, alternating between two stable states, cold as in an ice age and warm much like the present, switched with some regularity by unexplained forces.

In the cold state, the atmosphere is dry, minimizing any greenhouse effect. Extensive ice and snow minimize the absorption of solar radiation, locking the surface at a temperature determined primarily by Earth’s internal heat.

In the warm state, the atmosphere is a humid, partially reflective blanket and Earth’s surface is on average dark and absorbent due primarily to the ocean. The Sun provides the dominant source of heat, with its insolation regulated by the negative feedback of cloud albedo, which varies with cloud cover and surface temperature.

As Earth’s atmosphere is a by-product of the ocean, Earth’s climate is regulated by albedo. These are hydrological processes, dynamic feedbacks not modeled by IPCC but producing the first order climate effects and the natural background which mask any effects due to man. IPCC global climate models do not model the hydrological cycle faithfully. They do reproduce neither dynamic specific humidity nor dynamic cloud cover. They are unable to predict climate reliably, nor to separate natural effects meaningfully from any conjectures about at most second order effects attributed to man.

8. IPCC errs to model climate as regulated by greenhouse gases instead of by albedo. IPCC rejects the published cosmic ray model for cloud cover, preferring to model cloud cover as constant. It does so in spite of the strong correlation of cloud cover to cosmic ray intensity, and the correlation of cosmic ray intensity to global surface temperature. Consequently, IPCC does not model the dominant regulator of Earth’s climate, the negative feedback of cloud albedo, powerful because it shutters the Sun.

By omitting dynamic cloud albedo, IPCC overestimates the greenhouse effect by about an order of magnitude (computation pending publication), and fails to understand that Earth’s climate today is regulated by cloud albedo and not the greenhouse effect, much less by CO2.

© 2009 JAGlassman. All rights reserved. Rev. 4/2/09.

Posted on March 31, 2009 7:50 AM | Permalink

Comments (1)

Vincent Gray wrote:

Dear Fred

Glassman is largely correct, He makes the following points

1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects.

Absolutely right. But they even discount manmade effects like urbanization.

2. IPCC errs to discard on-going natural processes at initialization

This arises from the fallacy of ”equilibrium” which ignores ocean oscillations and solar changes.

3. IPCC errs to model the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium.

This leads to the fallacy that any change must be due to human emissions and never natural

4. IPCC errs to erase the global pattern of atmospheric CO2 concentration from its model.

They do this by suppressing information about CO2 variability

5. IPCC errs to model climate without the full dynamic exchange of OC2 between the atmosphere and the ocean.

Just one of the many deficiencies of models.

6. IPCC errs to model different absorption rates for natural and manmade CO2 without justification.

Yet another deficiency of models.

7. IPCC errs to model climate without its first order behavior.

Glassman believes there are two ”stable states” of the earth and that it oscillates between them. I think this is oversimplified.

[RSJ: This two-stable-state hypothesis is supported by both à posteriori and à priori reasoning. The former is from the Vostok record of glacial epochs, especially the 450,000 year reduction, and what little is known about the major ice ages. The latter may have persisted for ten and perhaps tens of millions of years, supporting stability at the cold end of the spectrum. The warm epochs are the interglacial maxima, which while geologically brief, even instantaneous bearing in mind that the sampling interval is 1.3 millennia, seem to indicate a ceiling. The present epoch is within a few degrees of that ceiling interpreted from the previous four maxima.

[The à priori reasoning is my argument about cloud albedo in the warm state, and surface albedo in the cold.

[I do agree that stability in the warm state is a stretch. The Vostok record suggests that something in the climate switches at the interglacial maxima, causing temperature to plummet. The term oscillation was only meant to refer to a variability between the states, and not some kind of simple harmonic motion.

[Still, I only assert that the hypothesis is a first order effect. We could build a pretty good, first order heat model based on oscillations between two stable states and some hypothetical switching mechanism.]

8. IPCC errs to model climate as regulated by greenhouse gases instead of by albedo.

I do not accept Glassman’s alternative model

[RSJ: The power of the cloud albedo feedback is obvious in that it gates insolation. Cloud albedo is a macroparameter that is not directly and practically measurable with anything less than a large array of synchronous satellites. Therefore, it must be synthesized, and at that it is only known to one significant figure: 0.3 ± 0.03 or 0.04. That value multiplies the solar average incident radiation of 342 Wm-2, so the uncertainty in albedo measurement is equivalent to 10 to 14 Wm-2, four to five times what IPCC attributes to man through year 2000. Consequently huge changes in radiation forcing, changes that swamp man's supposed contribution, can be due to albedo variations too small to be measured.

[Now we know that cloud cover is dependent on specific humidity, and that albedo is proportional to cloud cover. IPCC admits that specific humidity increases as the surface temperature increases. It uses this fact to speculate that the water vapor greenhouse effect, including that condensed in clouds, is a positive feedback. And this amplification is essential in the IPCC model for CO2 to cause catastrophic warming. It does so not directly by the greenhouse effect of CO2, but by the secondary release of water vapor. Cloud cover is almost certainly a positive feedback based on IPCC modeling, and that makes cloud albedo a negative feedback.

[Coupled with the physics of what the albedo does, cloud albedo is a powerful negative feedback. Elementary calculations show that the climate sensitivity of the greenhouse effect given by IPCC is reduced by 90% when the albedo loop is closed and the albedo sensitivity to temperature is a maximum in the unmeasurable range. IPCC does not close this loop.

[Cloud cover and surface temperature, like albedo, are macroparameters and not directly measurable. Everything is in place à priori for cloud albedo to regulate the climate in the warm state, and for the effect to be too small to be measured in the current state of the art. Until measurement techniques are vastly improved, surface temperature regulation by cloud albedo must remain a hypothesis awaiting validation.]

Posted by Vincent Gray | April 4, 2009 2:57 PM

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a> 

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’- 2

As a complement to my post Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’ here are some long term graphs of sea level trends from NOAA.

I start with 3 islands (Hawaii, American Samoa and Magueyes Island) which should be most threatened according to this ”sea rise” scare.

First from Honolulu in beautiful Hawaii: Data from 1905

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual.shtml?stnid=1612340&name=Honolulu&state=Hawaii

The plot shows the monthly mean sea level with the average seasonal cycle and the linear trend removed (thin line) and the 5-month average (thick line). The interannual variation is caused by irregular fluctuations in coastal ocean temperatures, salinities, winds, atmospheric pressures, and ocean currents. The interannual variation for most Pacific stations is closely related to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation.

From Honolulu, Hawaii: Data from 1980

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.shtml?stnid=1612340&name=Honolulu&state=Hawaii

 Variation of 50-year mean sea level trends Honolulu, Hawaii

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/50yr.shtml?stnid=1612340&name=Honolulu&state=Hawaii

And then from Pago Pago, American Samoa: Data from 1980

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.shtml?stnid=1770000&name=Pago+Pago&state=American+Samoa

And then Magueyes Island, Puerto Rico: Data from 1980

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.shtml?stnid=9759110&name=Magueyes+Island&state=Puerto+Rico

And What about Skagway, Alaska: Data from 1945

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9452400

The mean sea level trend is -17.12 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.65 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1944 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -5.62 feet in 100 years.

And then from Stockholm in Sweden: Data from 1889

http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=050-141

The mean sea level trend is -3.94 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.35 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1889 to 2003 which is equivalent to a change of -1.29 feet in 100 years 

 

From Stockholm, Sweden: Data from 1980

 http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.shtml?stnid=050-141&name=Stockholm&state=Sweden

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>  

Wind power – what a costly and unreliable joke!

As a complement to my previous post Vindkraften som en mycket, mycket dyr bergochdalbana med liten effekt - 12 and The reality of wind power – Extremely high cost and unreliably, and as an excellent illustration point to my comment to Diego Méndez.

Today in Sweden we had quite steady winds around 7-10 m/s in the whole country.

I don’t think you could ask for better conditions for wind power.

And what is the combined output from the Swedish Wind turbines during these excellent conditions????

A WHOPPING 7%!

Yep! A whole 7%

And look at that constant rollercoaster in output – UP and DOWN, UP and DOWN day in and day out.

We are talking about drops of 50-70% during ONE DAY in total combined output.

And 80-90% in TWO DAYS.

The record so far is a DROP OFF A TOTAL STAGGERING 98% in THREE DAYS.

DO YOU WANT TO TRUST ANY ESSENTIAL LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT TO THIS POWER SUPPLY???

OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER???

And for this TOTAL unreliable power supply we the people pay HUGE taxes and subsidies. Plus pay high electric bills to support this ”green” alternative.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>