Archives - July 2009 Sad. Even when they get it right they get it wrong: Figuring How To Terrify Us
Over Swine Flu 'U.S. health officials say swine flu could strike up to 40% of Americans over the next two years and as many as several hundred thousand could die." Well, almost. 36,000 actually represents 0.06-0.24% of 15-60 million and not "ranging from 0.006% to 0.024%", which is how Michael
correctly figures 2-8 times the Influenza A H1N1 mortality rate of 300/1,000,000 = 0.03%. Don't editors have any idea about simple arithmetic any more? Chinese Workers Say Illness Is Real, Not
Hysteria JILIN CITY, China — Tian Lihua was just beginning her morning shift when she felt a wave of nausea, then numbness in her limbs and finally dizziness that gave way to
unconsciousness. In the days that followed, more than 1,200 fellow employees at the textile mill where Ms. Tian works would be felled by these and other symptoms, including
convulsions, breathing difficulties, vomiting and temporary paralysis. The Media and Chemical Risk (.pdf) From baby bottles to shower curtains, iPods to lipstick, and “new car smell” to non-stick frying pans, recent media accounts have warned the American public about the
hidden dangers of toxic chemicals in everyday use. CMPA’s sister organization STATS (The Statistical Assessment Service) conducted a survey of scientists specializing in
toxicology (the study of the adverse effects of chemicals) to find out what the experts think about chemical risk. (Media Monitor, Volume XXIII Number 2: Summer 2009) And
the health crusade continues: Denny's sued over sodium-laden menu The food gestapo at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) continued their streak of lawsuits against fast food companies earlier this week by filing suit
against Denny’s. The goal according to a CSPI press release is to compel the restaurant chain “to disclose on menus the amount of sodium in each of its meals and to place
a notice on its menus warning about high sodium levels.” On Wednesday we talked about an interesting proposal for financing health care reform: taxes on elective medical procedures like cosmetic surgery or abortions. While an
abortion tax seems very unlikely, another type of “sin tax” does seem to be gaining momentum: the so-called “fat tax,” a levy on sugary drinks and other unhealthy
food products associated with obesity. Though the now-twinned issues of race and beer have dominated the week’s storyline, Paul Campos wants you to think about another form of discrimination — fatism. (Opinionator) More on Obesity: Is the Government to Blame? Marc Ambinder, who has done a great deal of research on the subject, takes issue with what I have written about obesity. Since he wrote carefully, I think it deserves a
careful response. (Megan McArdle, The Atlantic) Eye-roller: Recession Cuts Pollution But Also Green Investment NEW YORK - The environment won a temporary reprieve in the recession as Americans slammed the brakes on one of their favorite pastimes: consuming stuff. California Green Fades to Reality California, and in particular Los Angeles, are renowned as trend setters in pop culture, economic vitality and environmental awareness. And, California has many diverse
and unique environmental resources that deserve regulatory protection. The Golden State was ground zero for the American environmental movement that has prospered for over 30
years with thousands of eco-groups claiming nonprofit and nonpartisan status. While green group activism has had environmental benefits, they all inflate the costs of living
and doing business in the Golden State. It has taken a deep economic recession to awaken Californians to the real costs of indulgent and untimely green initiatives –
recession has reset priorities and politics. (Paul Taylor, Examiner) The Amazon, Western NGOs, and the Romantic Fallacy The Amazon’s indigenous groups regularly embrace technology, formal education, and modern healthcare. Yet Western NGOs prefer a romanticized caricature. Foreign Investors Snap Up African Farmland Governments and investment funds are buying up farmland in Africa and Asia to grow food -- a profitable business, with a growing global population and rapidly rising
prices. The high-stakes game of real-life Monopoly is leading to a modern colonialism to which many poor countries submit out of necessity. (Der Spiegel) World Fisheries Collapse Can Be Averted: Study WASHINGTON - The world's commercial fisheries, pressured by overfishing and threatened with possible collapse by mid-century, could be rebuilt with careful management,
researchers reported on Thursday. Fish will still be on the menu in 2048, if we are careful There was a time when the leading marine scientists Boris Worm and Ray Hilborn were sworn enemies. Food issues: myths and reality The need for an assured supply of good quality food for all is something few people would question. But how this food should be produced and delivered is still the subject
of heated debate. Nowhere is this truer than in the pampered European Union, where we have the luxury of choice and there is no longer a struggle merely to get enough to live
on. As the saying goes, a man with enough food has many problems, but a man with too little food has only one. How to see for yourself the 'Global Warming' climate
models are false When I started looking into the claims of dangerous warming due to carbon dioxide, I was completely baffled, buried in details of climate models, puzzled by energy balance
diagrams, and so forth. Was there a "greenhouse" blanketing the Earth, slowly frazzling us to death? The truth could have been anything. If you've followed this
path too, you'll know what I mean. But one thing, one single piece of the jigsaw, cut through all the fog and answered the question. I want to show you the thing that
absolutely clinched the global warming question for me. I have postgraduate training in physics, which helped, but the basic point is understandable by anyone, and in this
article I want to explain what seems to me the key, conclusive fact in everyday terms. (Ron House, Peace Legacy) Proving soft sciences know nothing of the real world? The wisdom of
crowds - Climate change is inherently a social problem — so why have sociologists been so slow to study it? Kerri Smith reports. When was the last time you tried to convince your partner or a friend to do something for you? Washing the dishes, say — something you have to do, but you'd rather put
off until later. The negotiation probably involved some coaxing and complementing, and then possibly some complaining or coercion. That's quite a lot of diplomacy for a
situation involving two people and a minor task. Now imagine groups of hundreds of people trying to get thousands of people to do what they want them to. It's head-spinning
stuff, but it's what the world is up against when it comes to dealing with climate change. Crank of the Week - July 27, 2009 - The
International Council for Science We have all become familiar with the
sloppy, bureaucracy driven science promulgated by the UN IPCC. Now a another organization, the International Council for Science (ICSU), is vying for leadership in ruining
free scientific inquiry world wide. “Natural sciences should no longer dictate the Earth system research agenda,” proclaimed their manifesto, which appeared in the July
17, 2009, issue of Science. “Social sciences will be at least as important in its next phase.” After praising how the IPCC helped move the issue of global warming from lab benches to national capitals (turning climate science into a political circus
in the process) and was recognized for its efforts by the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (they conspicuously didn't mention Al Gore), a troika of ICSU leaders—Walter V. Reid, chair
of the ICSU Earth System Visioning Task Group, Catherine Bréchignac, president of ICSU, and Yuan Tseh Lee, president-elect of ICSU—have plainly stated their future
intentions: the creation of a single research framework for the natural sciences world wide. According to them: In the past, a small group of scientists would be charged with determining the most pressing research questions. But new communication technologies now
allow the wisdom and expertise of a far broader global community of natural and social scientists, technology experts, decision-makers, and citizens to play a role. This is socialist thinking at its finest, instead of that “small group of scientists” being allowed to determine what subjects to investigate, which
questions to ask, they will be directed by the “wisdom” of the “broader global community.” A community not just made up of muzzy headed bureaucrats, masquerading as
scientists, but by a whole cadre of non-scientists: social scientists, who don't know jack about the physical sciences; technology experts, who presumably have products they
will want to sell; decision-makers, meaning politicians and other government functionaries; and citizens, like Al Gore, Sheryl Crow and Bono each with their own personal
agendas no doubt. To give their effort a egalitarian sheen the public is invited to comment and “vote” on their website. “There is an urgent need and a unique window of opportunity to engage, promote, and develop Earth system research for the benefit of society,” said Dr
Reid. “This online consultation is the first step towards meeting that need.” According to the ICSU press release on the visioning process, “the current research
structures do not provide the integrated approach required to answer the most pressing societal issues—protecting the planet and ensuring sustainable human development.”
In other words, we can't let those scientists do whatever they want! No, we need to tell them what they should be working on. After all, look what a bang up job the IPCC has
done with global warming. It's easy to promote a new agenda for others when it is your ideas being promoted—but who said that your ideas are the correct ones? Or the public's
opinions for that matter? This past year has seen suggestions about how to obfuscate global warming science using “common
climate language” and how to shift the burden for CO2 reduction to individuals by blaming the world's “top
billion polluters,” now this. Seems that the Earth systems crowd is trying to cash in before the global warming scare goes bust. Why is it that these scientists-turned-bureaucrat and social sciences types are always trying to grab control of real working scientists' laboratories and
research agendas? Sorry, but science is not an audience participation sport. If you wish to be involved in doing real, meaningful research then forget your degrees in
sociology and political science. Get an education in something useful, like physics, chemistry, biology, oceanography, geology, atmospheric physics, solar physics, or
paleontology (the list goes on from here). Stop attending politically motivate conferences held by agenda driven organizations and do something useful with your lives. When will the world's bureaucratic bozos learn that science only works when inquiry is free and unfettered. You can't negotiate with nature, it is what it
is, and science is driven by nature. You can tell science what your polls and organizations want it to study, but that has no bearing on what science should study. So, for
trying to encumber science with your personal political prejudices, this Crank of the Week is all yours ISCU. (The Resilient Earth) At last real scientists are beginning to show some guts and are standing up to the bullies. 27 is the number of letters published
on July 27th in Chemical and Engineering News in response to a typically outrageous editorial attacking doubters of the anthropogenic global warming
hypothesis. Almost all of them are hostile to that standard ad hominem attack on those who practise the sceptical approach that has long been the characteristic and
glory of the scientific method. Perhaps British chemists will now find the courage to do something about their own “Chief Executive” Dr
Richard Pike, whose pronouncements are just as politically biased. Why do they need a CE anyway? Time was when learned societies just had a secretary and were run by
their members. (Number Watch) Climate Money: Monopoly Science The scientific process has become distorted. One side of a theory receives billions, but the other side is so poorly funded that auditing of that research is left as a
community service project for people with expert skills, a thick skin and a passionate interest. A kind of “Adopt an Error” approach. Can science survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance? Despite the billions of dollars in funding, outrageous mistakes have been made. One howler in particular, rewrote history and then persisted for years before one dedicated
fact checker, working for free, exposed the fraud about the Hockey Stick Graph. Meanwhile agencies like the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, can’t afford to install
temperature sensors to meet its own guidelines, because the workers are poorly trained and equipped to dig trenches only with garden trowels and shovels. NOAA “adjust”
the data after the fact—apparently to compensate for sensors which are too close to air conditioners or car parks, yet it begs the question: If the climate is the biggest
problem we face; if billions of dollars are needed, why can’t we install thermometers properly? How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data? How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data? The real total of vested interests in climate-change science is far larger than just scientists doing pure research. The $30 billion in funding to the CCSP (graphed above)
does not include work on green technologies like improving solar cells, or storing a harmless gas underground. Funding for climate technologies literally doubles the amount
of money involved, and provides a much larger pool of respectable-looking people with impressive scientific cachet to issue more press releases—most of which have little to
do with basic atmospheric physics, but almost all of which repeat the assumption that the climate will warm due to human emissions. In other words: a 30-billion-dollar cheer
squad. Lots of one-sided honest research does not make for fair debate The scientists funded by governments don’t need to be dishonest for science to become distorted. They just need to do their jobs. If we ask 100 people to look for
lizards in the jungle, would anyone be surprised if no one sees the elephant on the plain? Few people are paid or rewarded for auditing the IPCC and associated organizations.
Where is the Department of Solar Influence or the Institute of Natural Climate Change? Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30
billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s
amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.) And scientists are human, they have mortgages and kids. If Exxon money has any pulling power, government money must also “pull”. I can’t say it better than Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair, 1935 Ironically it was Al Gore himself who helped ensure there was copious funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) from 1993-2000. We’ve poured billions
into focusing bright brains on one angle, one topic, one cause. That’s a lot of salaries. The monopolistic funding “ratchet” There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of
funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can
move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.” There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of
funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. Normally this might not be such a problem, because the lure of fame and fortune by categorically “busting” a well-accepted idea would attract some people. In most
scientific fields, if someone debunks a big Nature or Science paper, they are suddenly cited more often; are the next in line for a promotion and find it easier to get
grants. They attract better PhD students to help, are invited to speak at more conferences, and placed higher in the program. Instead in climate science, the reward is the
notoriety of a personal attack page on Desmog1,
ExxonSecrets2 or Sourcewatch3,
dedicated to listing every mistake on any topic you may have made, any connection you may have had with the fossil fuel industry, no matter how long ago or how tenuous. The
attack-dog sites will also attack your religious beliefs if you have any. Roy Spencer, for example, has been repeatedly attacked for being Christian (though no one has yet
come up with any reason why that could affect his satellite data). Ironically, the “activist” websites use paid bloggers. DeSmog is a funded wing of a professional PR group Hoggan4
and Associates (who are paid to promote
clients5 like David Suzuki Foundation, ethical funds, and companies that sell alternative energy sources like hydro power, hydrogen and fuel cells.)
ExxonSecrets is funded by Greenpeace6
(who live off donations to “save” the planet, and presumably do better when the planet appears to need saving). Most scientific fields are looking for answers, not looking to prove only one side of a hypothesis. There are a few researchers who are paid to disprove the hypothesis of
Global Warming, and most of them are investigated and pilloried as if they were a politician running for office. This is not how science works, by ad hominem attack. The
intimidation, disrespect and ostracism leveled at people who ask awkward questions acts like a form of censorship. Not many fields of science have dedicated smear sites for
scientists. Money talks. Respected MIT climatologist Richard
Lindzen7 has spoken out against the pressure to conform and laments the loss of good researchers: Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after
questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin,
first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from
the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions. The combination of no financial reward, plus guaranteed hostile scrutiny, and threats of losing employment would be enough to discourage many from entering the contentious
side of the field or speaking their mind if they question the “faith.” Finally, volunteers and isolated researchers lack infrastructure. Even though the mainstream theory is exposed to some verification, most scientists who find flaws don’t
have paid teams of public relations experts to issue multiple press releases or funding to put in the hours and months required to submit papers. So when a mistake is found,
few people may hear about it outside the industry. The monopolistic funding ratchet ensures that even insignificant or flawed analysis of factors that drive the climate can be supported longer than they should be, while
real problems are belittled, ignored, and delayed. In a field as new as climate science, many things can change over ten years. Progress in understanding the planetary
climate has slowed to a crawl. Where is the motivation to prove AGW is wrong? How many experts would go out of their way to make their own expertise and training less relevant? With funding hinged on proving that carbon controls the climate and
therefore that climate science itself is critically important, it’s a self-sanctioning circle of vested interests. Yes, smart climate scientists are employable in other
fields. But if voters suddenly realized carbon emissions had a minor role and humans have little influence, thousands of people would have to change something about their
employment, and change is painful. In any industry, it’s impossible to argue that the specialists would prefer to have half the funding and half the status. Most of them
either won’t get the next pay-rise, could lose their employment, or at least some spending power. They don’t get the upgrade of equipment they want, or they just lose
status, because, well, climatology is “important”, but if we can’t change the weather, we are not inviting said experts onto our committees and to as many conferences. We can assume most scientists are honest and hardworking, but even so, who’s kidding that they would all spend as much time and effort looking to disprove AGW as they
do to prove it? We can assume most scientists are honest and hardworking, but even so, who’s kidding that they would all spend as much time and effort looking to disprove AGW as they do
to prove it? If your reputation and funding are on the line, you sweat, struggle and stay up late at night to figure out why you’re right and they’re wrong. Competition
brings out the best in both sides. Some claim that they trust the scientific process itself, and the right answers will prevail in the long run—which is probably true. But as John Maynard Keynes famously
said: “In the long run we are all dead.” There are better ways than waiting for the post-mortem. Science delayed is science denied. Science slowed is propaganda perpetuated. References 1 Lindzen wipes hands clean of oil and gas. http://www.desmogblog.com/lindzen-wipes-hands-clean-of-oil-and-gas. 2 http://www.exxonsecrets.org. 3 http://www.sourcewatch.org. 4 http://www.hoggan.com/sustainability/desmogblog/. 5 http://www.hoggan.com/what_we_do/clients/. 6 http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets. 7 Wall St Journal “Climate Of Fear”, April 12, 2006. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220.
(JoNova) Stream of New
Lobbying Money Helped Climate Bill Flow Through House Major global-warming legislation that squeaked past the finish line in the House last month attracted millions of dollars in new lobbying money. Climate Bill's Still-Unanswered Questions With the House of Representative's narrow passage of the Waxman-Markey energy bill, Congress is one step closer to passing the most consequential U.S. energy legislation
in America's history. The latest in PlayStation® climatology: Governments know global climate targets
unlikely, says researcher AN international pledge to peg global warming to two degrees is a pipe dream, and most governments know it, says an Australian researcher. Actually no amount of cuts in carbon dioxide emissions will temperature change to 2 °C nor emission level short of 6xCO2 (1800 ppmv)
cause that, either. For perspective that would require another 14 times the total human emissions from all sources since the Industrial Revolution (hint, there isn't that
much land to clear and it may not be easy getting our hands on that much fuel to burn over the next couple of centuries either). The Hypocrisy Of Our Elites Is Getting Old Scolding Americans for our various sins is proving popular among an elite group of self-appointed moralists. How the Cap-and-Trade Bill Could Transform the Real Estate Sector A heads up for real estate professionals: H.R. 2454, the cap and trade legislation approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26, if passed into law, would have
a profound effect on the real estate sector. (GreenBiz) All hot air trades are necessarily fraudulent: UK Says Responds To French Carbon Trade Tax Fraud LONDON - The British government on Wednesday said it will make carbon emissions credits exempt from value-added tax (VAT) from Thursday in response to fraudulent trading
on a French emissions exchange. The thoughts of ex-chairman Porritt Sir Jonathan Porritt, a long-time leader of the environmentalist movement, is stepping down as first chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, while making it
very clear that he is deeply disappointed in government performance. His primary complaint seems to be that politicians and civil servants are in thrall to Thatcherite
economics. Essentially, he is saying that conventional cost-benefit analysis should not be the basis for truly sustainable development; instead factors which affect the
environment and people's wellbeing should not be discounted. Sanity From the Indian Subcontinent WASHINGTON -- Did you see the look on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's face when, during her visit to India, she visited with that country's environment minister,
Jairam Ramesh? It was that frozen smile we have seen from her before, when the smiling lady is, as a matter of fact, mad as hell. You saw it during her husband's impeachment.
Bill has seen it practically every day of their married life. Now we have seen it during her three-day visit to India, where, among other things, she hoped to have India at
least show some respect for the Obama administration's proposed carbon limits. No hurry then: Emissions scheme before Copenhagen talks won't matter,
says UN climate boss IT won't matter if Australia doesn't have its emissions trading scheme finalised by December's Copenhagen climate change talks, the head of the UN's climate change agency
says. Only Three Amendments are Needed: “Reject, Reject, Reject” The Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, today called for a grass roots revolt by the real workers of Australia against the green militia and their
socialite supporters who are leading the country into job cuts, power blackouts and poverty. Penny Drops - Carbon Tax Destroys Jobs Mr Rudd has woken up that Penny’s Ration-and-Tax (RAT) Scheme will destroy jobs. Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, July 31st 2009 (Daily Bayonet) Mild season in Tornado Alley frustrates scientists DES MOINES, Iowa -- This has been an unusually mild year in Tornado Alley, which is good news, of course, for the people who live here, but a little frustrating to
scientists who planned to chase twisters as part of a $10 million research project. The following is a review of a book on the Asian monsoon by Madhav Khandekar. Since my weblog has recently posted an announcement on a very important new paper on this
subject (see)
and we have also published on the Asian monsoon (e.g. see), I wanted to alert readers of the availability
of this publication, and the very insightful review by Madhav. BOOK REVIEW Book Reviewed by Madhav Khandekar: Madhav Khandekar is a former research scientist from Environment Canada. He is presently on the editorial board of the international
Journal Natural Hazards and was an Expert Reviewer for the 2007 IPCC climate change documents. The Asian Monsoon - Causes, History and Effects by Peter D. Clift, University of Aberdeen
and R. Alan Plumb, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge University Press, 2008. “The Asian monsoon is one of the most dramatic climatic phenomena on earth today, with far-reaching environmental and societal effects. Almost two thirds of humanity
live within regions influenced by the onsoon. Monsoon strength and variability have been and will continue to be crucial to the past and future prosperity of the
region”. The preface of this book opens with some dramatic phrases about the Asian monsoon, which indeed impacts two thirds of the world’s humanity today, or about 4
billion people living in Asia from Pakistan in the northwest to Indonesia in the southeast and from the Maldive Islands in the southwest to China in the northeast. The Asian
monsoon is the largest seasonal abnormality of the global climate system and exerts a significant impact on the earth’s climate system. In the context of present debate on
global warming and limate change, it is imperative that a comprehensive understanding of this fascinating and complex climate system must be developed before any
meaningful assessment of present and future climate change can be made. The Asian Monsoon presents a primarily paleo-climatic perspective on the Asian monsoon. The authors, Clift & Plumb (both affiliated with the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in USA), are experts in the area of monsoon climate and have presented a comprehensive account on the evolution and controls of the Asian monsoon over
tectonic and orbital time-scales in the first five chapters. The authors have analyzed a large number of research publications on a variety of paleo-oceanographic data to
document monsoon evolution and variability over timescales from several tens of million years BP (Before Present) to just a few thousand to a few hundred years BP. The final
chapter of the book deals with the late Holocene (about 5000 y BP) monsoon and human society, which provides an interesting account of social and cultural development of
human societies over Asia with particular reference to the Indus Valley civilization (~7000 y BP) over the Indian subcontinent and the Dadiwan culture (~7500 y BP) from the
Yellow River valley in China. This chapter also discusses monsoon development over the last 1000 years with reference to monsoon variability and political development and
changes, especially over India. The book ends with a brief discussion on future evolution of the monsoon in the context of present debate on climate change, this discussion
being derived primarily from the 2001 climate change documents prepared by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The first chapter of the book presents the meteorology of the monsoons, with relevant schematics and discussions on the sub-tropical jet stream, the Hadley Cell inrelation
to the tropics, the ITCZ (Inter-tropical Convergence Zone) and the impact of the Indian Ocean on monsoon circulation. It was puzzling and disappointing to find no reference
to the Tropical Easterly Jet (TEJ), an important and persistent jet stream over the Peninsular India (with peak winds of up to 100 knots at about 100 hPa) which owes its
existence to the reversal of north-south temperature gradient over south Asia due to presence of the Tibetan Plateau and its significant warming during summer months in
relation to the ‘cooler’ Indian Ocean in the south. It is this TEJ which makes the Asian and in particular the Indian monsoon complex and a fascinating research topic
today. The next two chapters discus the controls and evolution of the Asian monsoon on tectonic time-scale, from several tens of M y BP to a few hundred years BP. Chapter 2
discusses the importance of the Tibetan Plateau together with the Himalayan mountains (highest mountain chains in the world) on the strength and intensity of monsoons. The
Tibetan Plateau is now believed to have evolved at around 45 to 50 M y BP and its importance in controlling the monsoon and rainfall intensity over India, central Asia and
over Loess Plateau (in central China) is discussed at length. Once again, it is disappointing to see a complete absence of any reference to TEJ, which has been shown (in many
studies in the 1960s by researchers in the India Meteorological Department) to exert an important control on the monsoon circulation and intensity, over the Indian
subcontinent and also over parts of northern Africa where the TEJ extends during summer months. In chapter 3, the evolution of Asian monsoon over glacial and interglacial
intervals is presented. A large amount of data from ocean floors (e.g., Arabian Sea sediments), weathering histories in the Himalayas and eolian dust records are analyzed to
establish monsoon variability over several M years and in particular the strengthening of the summer monsoon about 8 M y BP due to the Tibetan Plateau. In chapter 4 the
evolution of monsoon over orbital time-scales (from a few thousand to hundred thousand years or more) is investigated using a variety of data, e.g. cave data, lake records,
eolian data, etc. The earth’s orbit exhibits three types of long-term variations, namely eccentricity (~100,000 y), obliquity (~41000 y) and precession (~21000 y) and this
also reflects in monsoon strength which varies on the 21, 40 and 100 thousand year time-scales that control periods of glacial advances and retreats. Chapter 5 discusses the
erosional impact of the Asian monsoon and how this may have impacted the tectonics of the Asian mountain ranges. The chapter concludes that the monsoon circulation and
intensity had a powerful influence on the erosion and weathering of Asia over long and short geological times during the Cenozoic (~70 M y ) and this erosional impact has
resulted in an important coupling between the climate and the tectonic evolution of the mountains. The last chapter discusses the late Holocene monsoon variability and how this has shaped the human society and culture over Asia. The authors employ records derived from
ice cores, spelothems, lakes and peat bogs to assess monsoon strengths since about 8000 y BP to the present. The monsoon strengthening, following the very cold period of
Younger Dryas (~ 11000 y BP) allowed vegetation to spread and diversify and this, according to the authors, may have led to the development of the Harappan and Mohenjodaro
culture between 9000 to 6000 y BP. Extensive remains of this culture are found in the northwest parts of India (which is now part of Pakistan) along the Indus River valley
and in particular along the River Saraswati, referred to many times in the Hindu scriptures, The Rig Veda, written about 6000 y BP. The Saraswati River, which was a
major river then, has all but disappeared today, most certainly due to drying of the monsoonal climate after 4200 y BP. The drying of Asian monsoon after 5000 y BP is also
inferred from sediment records in northeast China where the Dadiwan culture flourished between 8000-6000 y BP when the monsoon rains were abundant. The monsoon variability of
the last 1000 years is discussed in conjunction with major political and historical development of Asia, with particular reference to the rise and fall of the Moghul Empire
in south Asia (1500-1700 AD). The last section of this chapter deals with the possible impact of present climate change on future monsoon circulation and intensity. This
discussion appears to be strongly influenced by the IPCC (2001) projections of significant melting of the Greenland Ice cap leading to an abrupt weakening of the ‘North
Atlantic heat conveyer belt’ and this in turn could lead to a weakening of the Asian monsoon. Studies published in the last five years do not support such scenarios. A
study by Kripalani et al (2003 Natural Hazards June 2003) shows that the Indian monsoon, and by extension the Asian monsoon, while exhibiting decadal variability
with a 30-year cycle, is not influenced by global warming, and the recent 2007 IPCC documents on climate change suggest only a small change (less than 5%) in monsoon
intensity over the next 25 to 30 years. Another recent study (Latif et al J of Climate September 2006) concludes that the recent observed weakening of the MOC (Meridional
Overturning Circulation) in the North Atlantic is part of natural variability and not a result of global warming. Finally, there is considerable uncertainty in projections of
future melting of the Greenland Ice cap with publication of several recent studies suggesting that the future warming of the earth’s climate due to a doubling of
(human-added) atmospheric carbon dioxide may only be about 1°C or so. In summary, this is a comprehensive book for someone whose interest is in the climate history of the Asian monsoon over last several million years. The Asian monsoon is
perhaps the most complex feature of the earth’s climate system and per a recent paper (Shukla Science October 2007) the present climate models cannot adequately
simulate the monsoon intensity and its interannual variability. The Indian and Asian Monsoon have witnessed large-scale droughts and floods in the past and will continue to
do so, global warming notwithstanding. An important research area at present is the study of interannual variability of Asian monsoon and prediction of future droughts and
floods. Such a study and the operational knowledge derived from it may enable many Asian countries to develop suitable adaptation measures so as to adjust to the vagaries of
future monsoons. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science) Look out! It's getting greener! Stuff's growing better! Arctic Tundra Hotter, Boosts Global Warming: Expert OTTAWA - Regions of Arctic tundra around the world are heating up very rapidly, releasing more greenhouse gases than predicted and boosting the process of global warming,
a leading expert said on Wednesday. Now Debuting:
Climate Depot Arctic Fact Sheet - Get the latest peer-reviewed studies and analysis Arctic Ice Changes in past 3 years due to 'shifting winds' [Climate Depot is publishing a series of exclusive A-Z fact sheets on every aspect of the global warming debate. Climate Depot has already published comprehensive fact
sheets on: RealClimate.org;
Climate Models;
Sea
Level Rise; Climate
Threats & Intimidation; Climate
Funding; Global Warming's Global Governance;
Amazon and
Rainforests; Warming
Activists Stuck in Polar Ice; Congressional
Cap-and-Trade Bill; Record
Cold Temps; Lack
of Warming; Report
on Obama Admin. Climate Report; Hurricanes;
Climate Astrology;
Gore Effect;] Climate Depot Arctic Fact Sheet (for additional updates on the Arctic see new articles tagged Arctic)
(Marc Morano, Climate Depot) Senate hearings looming? Exxon Mobil profits plunge 66% -
The energy company says the weak global economy and volatile oil prices hurt second-quarter results. NEW YORK -- Exxon Mobil reported a 66% decline in second-quarter earnings Thursday as demand for energy remained weak and prices for oil and gas tumbled from last year's
highs. Given political obsession with oil company profits and a love of throwing taxpayers' money into declining enterprises I assume there will be prompt
action regarding this devastating result? And yes Gracie, I'm being facetious, although declining oil company profits are more of a problem for the country than rising ones
simply because we need profitable oil companies to keep replacing supply of essential resources. Greek Hunters Take Dim View Of Solar Energy Scheme MEGALOPOLIS - Lignite power plants belch dust and smoke into the air above the southern Greek town of Megalopolis, but residents resistant to environmental arguments have
blocked a scheme to build the country's biggest solar energy project on a nearby hillside. How do you solve a problem like the Nimbys? The familiar pattern of wind farm objections, Nimby protests, planning difficulties, and investment set backs have returned to the UK this week. By James Murray, from
BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network Interestingly missing from the comments under this piece (basically "You're a nimby"; "are not"; "too so"...) is the real
question: why put useless, noisy and unsightly junk in anyone's backyard? Great Leap Forward for China’s Wind Energy China has recently agreed to invest about $7 billion in new wind projects in Gansu, the arid northwest province with the most abundant wind resource. Nearly two dozen big
Chinese power companies have committed to wind projects in Gansu, encouraged by massive low-interest loans from the state banks and various government subsidies. July 30, 2009
Another false fat-attack: Obesity not an extra risk factor in
swine flu: US ATLANTA - Obesity does not pose an extra risk of severe disease or death for people infected with the new pandemic strain of H1N1 swine flu, a U.S health official said on
Wednesday. Swine flu striking pregnant women hard: CDC study CHICAGO - Pregnant women infected with the new H1N1 swine flu have a much higher risk of severe illness and death and should receive prompt treatment with antiviral drugs,
U.S. government researchers said on Wednesday. U.S. advisers say pregnant women first for H1N1 jab ATLANTA - Expert U.S. advisers accepted recommendations on Wednesday to put pregnant women at the front of the line for vaccines against the new H1N1 pandemic influenza
virus, with relatives and caregivers for infants second. U.S. expert set rules for swine flu vaccines ATLANTA - The U.S. government has taken delivery of 20 million doses of a vaccine against the new pandemic H1N1 swine flu, and should be ready to start an immunization
campaign in October, officials said on Wednesday. Warning! Don't smoke sunbeds! Sunbeds join cigarettes as top
cancer threat SYDNEY - Tanning beds have been ranked alongside cigarettes, arsenic and asbestos as posing the greatest threat of cancer to humans by an international cancer research
group. U.S. Senate may drop public healthcare option WASHINGTON - Lawmakers on both sides of the U.S. Capitol struggled to reach a healthcare deal on Tuesday, with Senate Democrats near agreement with three Republicans on a
plan that would not include a government-run insurance option backed by President Barack Obama. New Poll Finds Growing Unease on Health Plan President Obama’s ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding as opponents aggressively portray his overhaul plan as a government takeover that
could limit Americans’ ability to choose their doctors and course of treatment, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Scientist's fertility views troubling Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to reassure citizens in New Orleans this week that Obamacare bureaucrats will make sound medical decisions for
all Americans. She failed. Under the government-run plan, she promised, a team of health care experts will recommend what should be covered: "I think it would be wise to
let science guide what the best health care package is." WASHINGTON, July 29 -- President Obama's nominee to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), David Michaels, should be grilled by the U.S. Senate
about his links to trial lawyers and other anti-science activist groups, JunkScience.com says. Government Tackles Obesity Anew -- But Can It Show
Restraint? The CDC is holding a three-day conference in Washington, D.C., called "Weight of the Nation." The agency has issued a slew of reports on obesity in recent weeks
and just released a set of two-dozen recommendations for how communities can implement better programs and policies to slim people down. (Judson Berger, FOXNews.com) How do we trim health care costs? Weighing in on the national debate, a new study in the journal Health Affairs urges: Fight fat by fighting fat. This nonsense, again: Nation's Obesity Problem Puts Strain On Health Care Costs A new study published by the Journal of Health Affairs reports the obesity-related health spending has doubled in the last decade. Some economists worry that health care
reform could become more costly if Americans don't start shedding those extra pounds. Dr. David Kessler, former head of the Food and Drug Administration, and author of the
book "The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite" explains the seriousness of America's obesity problem, and who should foot the
bill. (NPR) Let's let Tim Worstall explain why this assertion is so flawed: Obesity
does not cost the USA $147 billion a year, it saves us money Not only does obesity not cost the USA $147 billion a year, it does not account for 10% of all health care spending either. Yes, there has indeed been a
report stating that obesity does indeed cost $147 billion a year but it has to be said that just because a paper has been published it does not mean that that paper is in
fact true. It also does not matter that John Stossel is sceptical, nor the LATimes
blog not sceptical: while those are usually reasonable indicators of which way an argument is going (Stossel hesitant, LATblog overboard with enthusiasm usually meaning
there is no truth in the assertion) for these, while useful indicators, are not infallible. So, instead of indulging in a he said, she said sort of shouting match, why don't we try to gather together the facts that we have about obesity, health, health care costs
and see if we can arrive at a real estimate of what obesity costs us as a nation? Let us start with that recent paper which has received so much reporting space. It is here, Annual
Medical Spending Attributable to Obesity. We are not going to argue with anything they have said, not going to try and disagree, we are going to take their major finding
and then point out what they have not in fact included in their calculations. We are, if you prefer, simply pointing to what they have left out and accepting everything that
they have said. Their main finding is this: Across all payers, per capita medical spending for the obese is $1,429 higher per year, or roughly 42 percent higher,
than for someone of normal weight. From that they then count the number who are obese and thus reach that $147 billion number. We shall accept that
as the gross number for health care spending upon the obese. However, we need to keep in mind the stricture of the French economist (for of course this is indeed all about
health care economics) Frederic Bastiat and go off and look for what is hidden, not just what is in plain view. What else do we know about obesity? Anything at all, other than simply the aesthetic point that we don't like seeing it in a bikini? Well, yes, we do in fact. We know that
obesity kills people as well. This shouldn't come as all that much of a surprise either. We've got a great big report telling us that health care costs for the obese are
higher than they are for those not bloated on calories, health care costs tend to be higher for those who are ill more often and those who are ill more often tend to die
younger. So it's not great leap of logic to think that those who are obese are shortening their lifespans. And indeed they are: Another study used data on more than 3000 people aged 30 to 49 drawn from the Framingham heart study (Annals of Internal Medicine 2003;138;24-32). According to this
prospective cohort study, among 40 year old non-smokers women who were classified as overweight lost 3.3 years of life expectancy compared with normal weight women. The
corresponding figure for overweight men was 3.1 years. Among 40 year old non-smokers who were classified as obese, women lost 7.1 years and men lost 5.8 years. We want just those last two numbers, for the obese, not for the overweight. And? you might say. So what if the obese die younger, serves them right for costing us all more
or their health care, doesn't it? Ah, yes, but it also means that we don't have to spend on their health care for those years that they are in their graves rather than
desperately searching for that jumbo corn dog. You might think that this is somewhat heartless, looking at peoples' lives in this manner, and you would be correct, it is
heartless. It is also correct. So how much do those years that the obese are not alive save us in cold hard (hearted) cash then? As no one at all is surprised to find out lost years of life tend to come
from the end of a lifespan. As average lifespans are now well into the 70s for both men and women and the lost years are 6 or 7 on average, then we can take as a useful proxy
what we spend on Medicare. For while there are indeed some who die before they qualify for that health care program, we are using averages all along here (and fairly rough
and ready ones as well). If average lifspan is 77 years, you lose 7 of those by being obese then death comes at 70 and yes, you're 5 years into being eligible for Medicare. As a rough and ready guide how about $8,000 per year per Medicare
enrollee? In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. Eyeballing this
chart from 2003 gives us something similar as a guide. Now we actually have our numbers. Someone who is obese costs (all numbers are averages remember) $1,429 per year more in medical care costs than someone who is not obese.
Those people who are obese will die 6.5 years (averaging men and women) younger than someone who is not obese. Those 6.5 years of not life on Medicare save the rest of us
$52,000 in health care costs. Or, another way of looking at it, 36 years worth of the higher costs that the obese impose upon us while alive. Do not forget the usual number of caveats here. Shortened life spans are not in themselves a good thing, they are usually thought of as a loss of human wealth as we lose a
human capable of enjoying this fabulous world. Nor is ill health a good thing, for the same reason. But this all started when the medics decided to only look at the cold cash
element of obesity and that is exactly what we are doing here, looking only at that cash. Also please remember, these are very rough numbers, close to the truth but used more
to illustrate the point than be the last word on the subject. The gross cost of obesity, the visible gross cost, we have accepted from the original paper as being that $147 billion per annum. The nett cash cost of obesity, after we
take off the cash savings on health care because the obese die young looks, well, a great deal smaller, doesn't it? In fact, let us take the advice of the LATblog: As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled "Reducing Obesity: Policy
Strategies From the Tobacco Wars." Let us indeed take a leaf (apologies) from the tobacco book and recall Kip Viscusi's point about those who die young. Not only do we not spend on Medicare for
them, they do not collect their Social Security benefits either. People who die young, but after they retire, make a profit for the rest of us taxpayers. Far from the obese costing the rest of us money it is far more likely that the nett cost of obesity to us, the elegantly thin and sylphlike, is negative. We make a profit
on it, not a loss. (Tim Worstall, Examiner) America's Moral Panic Over Obesity Obesity surgery death rates are low, study finds Obese, but worried that surgery for it might kill you? The risk of that has dropped dramatically, and now is no greater than for having a gall bladder out, a hip replaced
or most other major operations, new research shows. Please be advised near-term mortality risk is but a small facet of considerations for this surgery. Might we recommend browsing through the coverage
presented by Sandy on Junkfood Science for a fuller perspective (and not a few cautionary notes). Hmm... Rates Of Severe Childhood Obesity Have Tripled Rates of severe childhood obesity have tripled in the last 25 years, putting many children at risk for diabetes and heart disease, according to a report in Academic
Pediatrics by an obesity expert at Brenner Children's Hospital, part of Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. (ScienceDaily) Meanwhile: Obesity rates may be stabilizing among low-income children in the United States Obesity prevalence increased from 12.4% in 1998 to 14.5% in 2003, however, it only increased to 14.6% in 2008 among children aged 2 to 4 years in low-income households,
based on the CDC’s Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance System data. (Endocrine Today) Scientists Create Energy-burning Brown Fat In Mice Researchers at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have shown that they can engineer mouse and human cells to produce brown fat, a natural energy-burning type of fat that
counteracts obesity. If such a strategy can be developed for use in people, the scientists say, it could open a novel approach to treating obesity and diabetes. (ScienceDaily) Discovery May Help Treat Obesity A new approach to treating obesity has been opened up by a discovery about how the body creates brown fat, the cells that burn white fat and turn it into body heat. (NYT) Calcium rich kid diet has long term benefits NEW YORK - A childhood diet rich in calcium may lower the risk of death from stroke in adulthood, while a diet high in dairy or calcium in childhood may lower the risk of
death from any cause later in life, according to results of a study published online ahead of print in the journal Heart. Further to yesterday's piece on daylight saving we are reminded of this piece: Spring
Ahead, Fall Back, Roll Over, And Play Dead: What You Might Not Know About Daylight Saving Time By Michael D. Shaw While it is true that the notion of daylight saving was first conceptualized by Benjamin Franklin, it is less well known that the idea was presented quite sardonically in
a 1784 essay of his entitled An Economical Project. The essay, written in Paris, implied that the good citizens of the City of Light never woke before noon, and thus
were unaware that there was indeed sunlight as early as 6:00 AM. As such, much precious daylight was being wasted, and worse, far too many candles were consumed. Better that people rearrange their schedules. He proposed a number of
whimsical regulations to this effect, including: As it happened, though, some took Franklin's essay seriously, which brings us to the latest iteration that we experienced on March 11th. Daylight time now begins on the
second Sunday in March and ends on the first Sunday in November. This is a significant change from the former (1986) rule of first Sunday in April to last Sunday in October. What is peculiar here is that unless you tend to follow this sort of thing, you likely knew nothing about the change until a week before it would take place. To be sure,
Sec. 110 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which mandated this change, was publicized far less than the three previous daylight time adjustments (1966, 1972, 1986). Could
this be because there is no scientific rationale for the entire business? Indeed, the Act provides for reversion to the 1986 rules should this latest tweak prove unpopular, or if energy savings are not proven. Report to Congress.--Not later than 9 months after the effective date stated in subsection (b), the Secretary shall report to Congress on the impact of this section on
energy consumption in the United States. Right to Revert.--Congress retains the right to revert the Daylight Saving Time back to the 2005 time schedules once the Department study is complete. However, those in search of scientific reality won't have to wait nine months. A definitive study from UC Berkeley—Does
Extending Daylight Saving Time Save Energy?—concludes that it does not. Common sense will tell you that any energy savings realized by increasing the number of daylight hours is simply voided because residential power consumption shifts to
earlier in the day. Moreover, individuals also burn more gasoline on leisure drives during these bright spring and summer days. Congress passed the first DST law in 1918 and repealed it the next year. President Franklin Roosevelt imposed year-round DST for three years during the Second World War.
In 1966, Congress approved a uniform DST standard for the whole country. In the 1970s, President Nixon had the nation go on DST for 15 consecutive months to conserve energy. As the oil crisis unfolded, and as the White House tried to mitigate the worst effects of the OPEC embargo (remember gas lines?), it quickly became apparent that DST
neither lowered the price of oil nor encouraged citizens to expend less energy. According to Forrester Research, the DST switch will cost the average company $50,000 in time and labor expenses; that's a total of $350 million for the 7,000 publicly
traded companies in the U.S. Even Craig Stevens, press secretary for the Department of Energy, has some doubts: "The jury on the potential national energy-savings of
extending daylight saving time is still out." Yes, there are economics behind DST, but energy has little to do with it. The real proponent of DST, a lobbyist of great skill, was Abraham Lincoln Filene, namesake of the
famous Filene's department store chain in New England. As recounted by Michael Downing, author of Spring Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time, urban businessmen were the leading supporters of DST in the
United States. Motivated purely by self-interest, and the idea that workers would go shopping on their way home, these executives nonetheless couched their arguments in
defense of yeoman farmers and the agricultural industry. One pamphlet stated that DST would benefit the men and women who worked the land because: "[m]ost farm products are better when gathered with dew on. They are firmer,
crisper, than if the sun had dried the dew off." Riiiight... Some contend that the switch to a November fall back was done to accommodate the candy industry. After all, a brighter and longer Halloween means more kids scarfing up
more treats. Unfortunately, there are also consequences of DST. According to Stanley Coren, a sleep expert at the University of British Columbia, the number of traffic accidents and
fatal industrial mishaps increase on the Black Monday following the Spring switch to DST. Apparently, for some people, the loss of one hour's sleep is enough to dampen their
reflexes. Needless to say, there is no balancing heightened awareness at the Monday following fall back. Since it is unlikely that DST will be removed completely, as it should be, enjoy those brighter barbecue summer evenings, but don't believe the political hype! (Michael D.
Shaw) Life Underground Critical to Earth's Ecosystems "I wonder if I shall fall right through the Earth!" mused Alice-in-Wonderland as she tumbled down the rabbit-hole." How funny it'll seem to come out among
people that walk with their heads downwards! The antipathies, I think ..." Watch the whackos go nuts, again: Organic food is no healthier,
study finds LONDON - Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published on Wednesday. Organic food 'no better for health than factory-farmed food' says report Organic food is no healthier than other produce, according to the Government’s food watchdog. Green Groups Blast EU Agency Over Biotech Maize BRUSSELS - International green groups attacked Europe's leading food safety agency on Wednesday for its views on biotech crops and foods, saying a recent opinion was
flawed and had ignored studies highlighting safety concerns. Calif. farmers say feds make drought worse FIREBAUGH, Calif. — The road to Todd Allen's farm wends past irrigation canals filled with the water that California's hot Central Valley depends on to produce
vegetables and fruit for the nation. Yet not a drop will make it to his barren fields. World Falling Short On Emergency Food Aid: U.N. Body WASHINGTON - The world is falling far short in feeding its most critically hungry, pledging only $3.7 billion of the $6.7 billion needed to fund the World Food Program for
2009, the head of the United Nations relief agency said on Wednesday. Rise of the Natural Climate Cycle Deniers Those who promote the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming have been working for the past 20 years on a revisionist climate history. A history where
climate was always in a harmonious state of balance until mankind came along and upset that balance. The natural climate cycle deniers have tried their best to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from climate data records by constructing the
uncritically acclaimed and infamous “hockey stick” of global temperature variations (or non-variations) over the last one- to two-thousand years. Before being largely discredited by a National Academies review panel, this ‘poster child’ for global warming was heralded as proof of the static nature of the climate
system, and that only humans had the power to alter it. While the panel was careful to point out that the hockey stick might be correct, they said that the only thing science could say for sure is that it has been
warmer lately than anytime in the last 400 years. Since most of those 400 years was during the Little Ice Age, I would say this is a good thing. It’s like saying this
summer has been warmer than any period since…last fall. These deniers claim that the Medieval Warm Period was only a regional phenomenon, restricted to Europe. Same for the Little Ice Age. Yet when a killer heat wave occurred
in France in 2003, they hypocritically insisted that this event had global significance, caused by anthropogenic ‘global’ warming. The strong warming that occurred up until 1940 is similarly a thorn in the side of the natural climate cycle deniers, since atmospheric carbon dioxide increases from
fossil fuel burning before 1940 were too meager to have caused it. So, the ‘experts’ are now actively working on reducing the magnitude of that event by readjusting some
ship measurements of ocean temperatures from that era. Yet, they would never dream of readjusting the more recent thermometer record, which clearly has localized urban heat island effects that have not yet been removed (e.g.,
see here and here).
As Dick Lindzen of MIT has pointed out, it is highly improbable that every adjustment the climate revisionists ever make to the data should always just happen to be in the
direction of agreeing with the climate models. Of course, global warming has indeed occurred…just as global cooling has occurred before, too. While the global warming ‘alarmists’ claim we ‘skeptics’ have our
heads stuck in the sand about the coming climate catastrophe, they don’t realize their heads are stuck in the sand about natural climate variability. Their repeated
referrals to skeptic’s beliefs as “denying global warming” is evidence of either their dishonesty, or their stupidity. The climate modelers’ predictions of the coming global warming Armageddon is of a theoretical event in the distant future, created by mathematical climate models, and
promoted by scientists and politicians who have nothing to lose since it will be decades before they are proved wrong. They profess the utmost confidence in these theoretical
predictions, yet close their eyes and ears to the natural rhythms exhibited by nature, both in the living and non-living realms, in the present, and in the previously
recorded past. They readily admit that cycles exist in weather, but can not (or will not) entertain the possibility that cycles might occur in climate, too. Every change the natural
cycle deniers see in nature is inevitably traced to some evil deed done by humans. They predictably prognosticate such things as, “If this trend continues, the Earth will
be in serious trouble”. To them behavior of nature is simple, static, always in-balance – if not sacred…in a quasi-scientific sort of way, of course. They can not conceive of nature changing all by itself, even though evidence of that change is all around us. Like the more activist environmentalists, their romantic view
of a peaceful, serene natural world ignores the stark reality that most animals on the Earth are perpetually locked in a life-or-death struggle for existence. The balances
that form are nature are not harmonious, but unsteady and contentious stalemates — like the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Meanwhile, humans are doing just what the other animals are doing: modifying and consuming their surroundings in order to thrive. The deniers curiously assert that all
other forms of life on the planet have the ‘right’ to do this – except humans. And when the natural cycle deniers demand changes in energy policy, most of them never imagine that they might personally be inconvenienced by those policies. Like Al
Gore, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Leonardo DiCaprio, they scornfully look down upon the rest of humanity for using up the natural resources that they want for themselves. And the few who freely choose to live such a life then want to deny others the freedom to choose, by either regulating or legislating everyone else’s behavior to conform
to their own behavior. The natural climate cycle deniers’ supposedly impartial science is funded by government research dollars that would mostly dry up if the fears of manmade global warming
were to evaporate. With contempt they point at the few million dollars that Exxon-Mobil spent years ago to support a few scientists who maintained a healthy skepticism about
the science, while the scientific establishment continues to spent tens of billions of your tax dollars. So, who has the vested financial interest here? Even the IPCC in its latest (2007) report admits that most of the warming in the last 50 years might be natural in origin — although they consider it very unlikely, with
(in their minds) less than 10% probability. So, where is the 10% of the global warming research budget to study that possibility? It doesn’t exist, because — as a few
politicians like to remind us — “the science is settled”. The natural climate cycle deniers claim to own the moral high ground, because they are saving future generations from the ravages of (theoretical) anthropogenic climate
change. A couple of them have called for trials and even executions of scientists who happen to remain skeptical of humanity being guilty of causing climate change. Yet the energy policies they advocate are killing living, breathing poor people around the world, today. Those who are barely surviving in poverty are being pushed over
the edge by rising corn prices (because of ethanol production), and decimated economies from increasing regulation and taxation of carbon based fuels in countries governed by
self-righteous elites. But the tide is turning. As the climate system stubbornly refuses to warm as much as 95% of the climate models say it should be warming, the public is turning skeptical as
well. Only time will tell whether our future is one of warming, or of cooling. But if the following average of 18 proxies for global temperatures over the last 2,000 years is
any indication, it is unlikely that global temperatures will remain constant for very long. The above graph shows an average of 18 non-tree ring proxies of temperature from 12 locations around the Northern Hemisphere, published by Craig Loehle in 2007, and later revised
in 2008, clearly showing that natural climate variability happens with features that coincide with known events in human history. As Australian geologist Bob Carter has been emphasizing, we shouldn’t be worrying about manmade climate change. We should instead fear that which we know occurs: natural
climate change. Unfortunately, it is the natural climate cycle deniers who are now in control of the money, the advertising, the news reporting, and the politicians. (Roy W.
Spencer) Barbecue summer? Newsnight turns up the heat on man from the
Met Office Viewers of Newsnight on Tuesday evening will have enjoyed the spectacle of Nick Robinson gently roasting Ewen McCullum,
Chief Meteorologist at the Met Office, over his organisation's prediction earlier this year that we were 'odds-on for a
barbecue summer'. But as cool drizzle descended across the UK, Mr McCullum resolutely refused to engage in the spirit of playful chiding. 'When you're forecasting so far ahead you have to
base the forecast in probabilistic terms and quite frankly I don't think the media grasped that. It tends to be very deterministic so clearly the barbecue summer and the
heatwaves got the headlines,' he said. Nick was having none of it. Producing the Met Office press release, he quoted the fateful headline 'The Coming Summer is Odds On for a Barbecue Summer', adding, 'there
aren't many journalists who would have turned that into a headline that says, 'Barbecue Summer - 'Maybe, Says the Met Office.' Quite. And this highlights the core problem with much of the debate around climate change. As many of the excellent and voluminous exchanges on Bloom blog comments will
demonstrate, the devil with the science of anthropogenic global warming is in the detail - detail that is crucially lost when scientists and/or their media advisors
cherrypick the tastiest findings of their research and turn it into exciting headlines. The rationale is obvious and shares much with consumer product launches. We want people to sit up and pay attention to the stuff we've made and done, so we tease them in
with a juicy tidbit. Problem is, the juicy tidbit is often the only part of the story that makes it into the public consciousness, and then only in a considerably fattened
and jucified state. This doesn't matter if we're talking about a pair of trainers, but it is of considerable importance if it shapes the policies, via the electorate, that
will determine the future of the planet. An example? This is how a report entitled 'Changes in Continental Freshwater Discharge from 1948-2004' comes to be press released as 'Water Levels Dropping in Some Major
Rivers as Global Climate Changes' before finally being transmogrified by the international press into 'Major rivers drying up'. As the Bloom post 'Major
rivers aren't drying up (or how alarmism doesn't help)' demonstrates, the science by no means supports the sexy headline. (Blog of Bloom) In the hope the world might warm: Icebreakers
to map uncharted waters A pair of red-hulled icebreakers – one Canadian, one American – will batter their way north into uncharted, ice-infested waters next week, seeking to buttress claims
to the vast undersea riches at the top of the world. Scientists seek to remove climate fear promoting editor and 'trade him to New York Times or Washington Post' 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." Public
opinion turning against global warming almost as quickly as science Chapter 4 of my book, titled, "An Inconvenient Hoax," systematically exposes and confronts all the most current science fiction being shoved down our throats by
the Luddite absolutists and pseudo-intellectual scam artists of the left. It is devastating. (Robert Moon, Examiner) No it's not hyperbole. It's even less than conjecture. Wishful fantasy - maybe. Probably. Whatever it is, it is not science. As most people know around the globe by simple
observable experiential knowledge is that, on average, it's been a cold year the first 7 month. Very cold. (The BlogProf) Breaking: Global warming scam finishes last in yet another
voter poll This stupidity, again? The Meat of the Problem
The debate over climate change has reached a rarefied level of policy abstraction in recent months. Carbon tax or cap-and-trade? Upstream or downstream? Should we auction
permits? Head-scratching is, at this point, permitted. But at base, these policies aim to do a simple thing, in a simple way: persuade us to undertake fewer activities that
are bad for the atmosphere by making those activities more expensive. Driving an SUV would become pricier. So would heating a giant house with coal and buying electricity
from an inefficient power plant. But there's one activity that's not on the list and should be: eating a hamburger. If it's any consolation, I didn't like writing that sentence any more than you liked reading it. But the evidence is strong. It's not simply that meat is a contributor to
global warming; it's that it is a huge contributor. Larger, by a significant margin, than the global transportation sector. According to a 2006 United Nations report, livestock accounts for
18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Some of meat's contribution to climate change is intuitive. It's more energy efficient to grow grain and feed it to people
than it is to grow grain and turn it into feed that we give to calves until they become adults that we then slaughter to feed to people. Some of the contribution is gross.
"Manure lagoons," for instance, is the oddly evocative name for the acres of animal excrement that sit in the sun steaming nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. And
some of it would make Bart Simpson chuckle. Cow gas -- interestingly, it's mainly burps, not farts -- is a real player. But the result isn't funny at all: Two researchers at the University of Chicago estimated that switching
to a vegan diet would have a bigger impact than trading in your gas guzzler for a Prius (PDF). A study
out of Carnegie Mellon University found that the average American would do less for the planet by switching to a totally local diet than by going vegetarian one day a
week. That prompted Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to recommend that people give up meat one day a week to take
pressure off the atmosphere. The response was quick and vicious. "How convenient for him," was the inexplicable reply from a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune
Review. "He's a vegetarian." The visceral reaction against anyone questioning our God-given right to bathe in bacon has been enough to scare many in the environmental movement away from this issue.
The National Resources Defense Council has a long page of suggestions for how you, too, can "fight global warming." As you'd expect, "Drive Less" is in
bold letters. There's also an endorsement for "high-mileage cars such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids." They advise that you weatherize your home, upgrade to more
efficient appliances and even buy carbon offsets. The word "meat" is nowhere to be found. (Ezra Klein, Washington Post) The year is 2109. Celebrations continue as mankind's heroic, century-long, quintillion-dollar effort to lower the global mean temperature by 1 degree has paid off: July
2109 is just as hot as July 2009. Few can contain their jubilation. NASA
now saying that a Dalton Minimum repeat is possible Guest Post by David Archibald NASA’s David Hathaway has adjusted his expectations of Solar Cycle 24 downwards. He is quoted in the New York Times here
Specifically, he said: ” Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the
possible.” NASA has caught up with my prediction in early 2006 of a Dalton Minimum repeat, so for a brief, shining moment of three years, I have had a better track record in
predicting solar activity than NASA. The graphic above is modified from a paper I published in March, 2006. Even based on our understanding of solar – climate relationship at the time, it was evident
the range of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude predictions would result in a 2°C range in temperature. The climate science community was oblivious to this, despite billions
being spent. To borrow a term from the leftist lexicon, the predictions above Badalyan are now discredited elements. Let’s now examine another successful prediction of mine. In March, 2008 at the first Heartland climate conference in New York, I predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would mean
that it would not be a good time to be a Canadian wheat farmer. Lo and behold, the Canadian wheat crop is down 20% this year due to a cold spring and dry fields. Story here. The oceans are losing heat, so the Canadian wheat belt will just get colder and drier as Solar Cycle 24 progresses. As Mark Steyn recently said, anyone under the age of 29
has not experienced global warming. A Dalton Minimum repeat will mean that they will have to wait to the age of 54 odd to experience a warming trend. Where to now? The F 10.7 flux continues to flatline. All the volatility has gone out of it. In terms of picking the month of minimum for the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition,
I think the solar community will put it in the middle of the F 10.7 quiet period due to the lack of sunspots. We won’t know how long that quiet period is until solar
activity ramps up again. So picking the month of minimum at the moment may just be guessing. Dr Hathaway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum, and I agree with him. I have been contacted by a gentleman from the lower 48 who has a very good solar activity
model. It hindcasts the 20th century almost perfectly, so I have a lot of faith in what it is predicting for the 21st century, which is a couple of very weak cycles and then
back to normal as we have known it. I consider his model to be a major advance in solar science. What I am now examining is the possibility that there will not be a solar magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 24 maximum. (WUWT) New
Paper “Effects Of Global Irrigation On The Near-Surface Climate” by Sacks Et Al 2009 There is another paper in a continuing long stream of peer reviewed contributions that document the role of the human management of the landscape on the
climate system. This new paper is Sacks, W.J., B.I. Cook, N. Buenning, S. Levis, and J.H. Helkowski, 2009: Effects of global irrigation on
the near-surface climate. Clim. Dynam., 33, 159-175, doi:10.1007/s00382-008-0445-z. The abstract reads “Irrigation delivers about 2,600 km3 of water to the land surface each year, or about 2% of annual precipitation over land. We investigated how this redistribution
of water affects the global climate, focusing on its effects on near-surface temperatures. Using the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) coupled to the Community Land Model (CLM),
we compared global simulations with and without irrigation. To approximate actual irrigation amounts and locations as closely as possible, we used national-level census data
of agricultural water withdrawals, disaggregated with maps of croplands, areas equipped for irrigation, and climatic water deficits. We further investigated the sensitivity
of our results to the timing and spatial extent of irrigation. We found that irrigation alters climate significantly in some regions, but has a negligible effect on
global-average near-surface temperatures. Irrigation cooled the northern mid-latitudes; the central and southeast United States, portions of southeast China and portions of
southern and southeast Asia cooled by ~0.5 K averaged over the year. Much of northern Canada, on the other hand, warmed by ~1 K. The cooling effect of irrigation seemed to be
dominated by indirect effects like an increase in cloud cover, rather than by direct evaporative cooling. The regional effects of irrigation were as large as those seen in
previous studies of land cover change, showing that changes in land management can be as important as changes in land cover in terms of their climatic effects. Our results
were sensitive to the area of irrigation, but were insensitive to the details of irrigation timing and delivery.” The conclusion includes the text “Global patterns of irrigation alter climate significantly in some large regions of the planet. Cooling effects tend to be greatest near irrigated areas in the
season of heaviest irrigation, and are generally greater in dry regions. Consequently, irrigation appears to have caused the greatest cooling in northern mid-latitude
regions. The effects are generally larger during the day than at night. While direct evaporative cooling is important, at least as much cooling seems to be caused by indirect
effects such as increased cloud cover. The cooling in some regions, however, is offset by warming in other regions, predominantly the northern high latitudes, at least in our
model. Dynamical changes, such as a slight strengthening of the Aleutian Low, seem primarily responsible for this high-latitude warming. On the global average, therefore,
irrigation has a negligible effect on the near-surface temperature” and “The large effects of irrigation in some regions show that changes in land management can be as important for climate as changes in land cover. These changes in land
management should be given greater attention, both for modeling future climate and for understanding historical climate trends……..It is important to consider how these
irrigation changes will interact with other future climatic changes.” This study documents why landscape change must be a major focus in climate assessments. It also show why the use of a global average surface temperature is useless
to diagnose these climate effects. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science) Life in Africa is often nasty, impoverished and short. AIDS kills 2.2 million Africans every year according to WHO (World Health Organization) reports. Lung infections
cause 1.4 million deaths, malaria 1 million more, intestinal diseases 700,000. Diseases that could be prevented with simple vaccines kill an additional 600,000 annually,
while war, malnutrition and life in filthy slums send countless more parents and children to early graves. The "climate change" excuse to cripple all development: Climate
Change Clouds Fate Of Ancient Polish Woods BIALOWIEZA, Poland - Europe's last ancient forest, home to its largest herd of bison, faces an uncertain future because of climate change, but residents worry that tougher
conservation efforts will damage the local economy. In the land of make-believe, a.k.a. PlayStation® climatology: Scientists Expect
Wildfires To Increase As Climate Warms In Coming Decades As the climate warms in the coming decades, atmospheric scientists at Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and their colleagues expect that the
frequency of wildfires will increase in many regions. The spike in the number of fires could also adversely affect air quality due to the greater presence of smoke. (ScienceDaily) In the name of global warming, politicians in Washington, DC are threatening to pass so called Cap and Trade legislation that will handicap our economy and force more
American jobs offshore. Global warming is the new religion of First
World urban elites - Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on
him. Promoting eco-imperialism: A Plan to Cut Carbon
Emissions From Deforestation As policymakers prepare for the Copenhagen conference on climate change in December, the proposed program for reducing emissions from deforestation is considered among the
more promising ways to reduce atmospheric carbon. The program would allow heavily polluting nations to offset their emissions by paying developing tropical countries to store
carbon in forests, providing economic incentive to stop deforestation and regenerate damaged landscapes. Fine except there is no value for underdeveloped regions in not developing nor is there the slightest value in keeping carbon out of the atmosphere, for
the climate or otherwise. Idiots! Natural-gas
companies challenge coal industry on climate change bill Natural-gas companies are ramping up their lobbying efforts against a House climate change bill they believe is too generous to the coal industry. They need to be fighting this all the way, not fighting for a few leftover scraps falling off the table! Green States To Get Few Rewards In U.S. Climate Bill WASHINGTON - The U.S. climate bill would give states that are heavily reliant on greenhouse-gas emitting fuels, like coal, more carbon credits on a per capita basis than
those that use clean fuels, according to an analysis of the legislation released on Wednesday. China, U.S. Renew Commitment on Global Climate Change Treaty China and the U.S. agreed to redouble efforts to craft a new climate change treaty, adding pressure on the two largest polluters to break a stalemate over how to curb
global warming. China Says Rich Nation CO2 Cuts Key To Copenhagen BEIJING - Rich nations must agree to large, measurable cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions, if the world is to set a framework to tackle global warming at U.N.-led
talks in December, a senior Chinese official said on Wednesday. China wants climate deal this year: U.N.'s Ban UNITED NATIONS - China's leaders told U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that Beijing wants to reach a new agreement on combating climate change in Copenhagen in December,
Ban said on Wednesday. No change in
stand on climate change: PM NEW DELHI” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said India's accepting that global temperature should not exceed two degrees celsius was a possible threshold guiding global
action and is "entirely in line" with country's stated position on global warming. U.S. Senate climate bill to have tough market controls WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry, a leading architect of climate change legislation being drawn up in the U.S. Senate, on Wednesday said the bill will have tough controls
to stop abusive financial market speculation on pollution permits that will be traded among companies. The new store at the Barendrecht shopping centre looks much like the neighbouring clothing shops and fast food chains, but it is much more exotic. While we are usually against "don't wanna" NYMBYism we have to admit being somewhat pleased it's hampering CCS, simply because wasting such a
magnificent resource as atmospheric carbon dioxide is a crime against all life. Nimbies do not exist according to new study
- The 'Nimby' stereotype of an older person who supports renewable energy schemes like wind farms but 'Not In My Back Yard' does not exist, a new study has found. The idea of the Nimby first emerged in the 1990s when protest groups in small villages around England began to stand up against wind farms. Much-Ballyhooed
Carbon Capture Plant Hasn’t Stored a Thing When a small coal-fired power
plant opened in northern Germany last
September, it was heralded as the first example of a technology that could save us from the ravages of global
warming, while allowing us to keep burning cheap and plentiful coal. The demonstration plant, built and
operated by the Swedish power company Vattenfall, was designed to capture its carbon dioxide emissions and to pump them deep underground in a process called carbon capture
and storage (CCS). But the project has thus far been a victim of “numbyism” – not under my backyard [The
Guardian]. The plant’s managers say they’ve captured about 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide, but they haven’t been able to pipe it underground to the selected underground zone,
where scientists say the atmosphere-warming carbon dioxide would instead be trapped in the rocks. Locals, apparently, aren’t so sure about the technology. “It was
supposed to begin injecting by March or April of this year but we don’t have a permit. This is a result of the local public having questions about the safety of the
project,” said Staffan Gortz, head of carbon capture and storage communication at Vattenfall. He said he did not expect to get a permit before next spring: “People are
very, very sceptical” [The
Guardian]. Many countries have pinned their hopes for mitigating the impacts of global warming on carbon capture and storage, especially as binding rules on greenhouse gas emissions
seem likely in the near future. If power plants like Vattenfall’s work out, the pay-off could be vast: the International Energy Agency has estimated CCS could account for
one-fifth of the emissions reductions required in the energy and industrial sectors by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of global warming. Achieving those reductions without
CCS would cost 70 per cent more, the IEA found [Financial
Times]. But in addition to public resistance, there are numerous technical and financial hurdles to overcome. Each demonstration CCS plant is expected to cost more than $1
billion, and companies have demanded government subsidies to build them. The first CCS project in the United States, the FutureGen
power plant, has been beset by delays and cost overruns. In addition, power companies will have to find cheaper and more efficient ways to process the carbon dioxide to
make the operations economically viable. But if Vattenfall executive Reinhardt Hassa is correct, companies, governments and the public may have no choice but to find a way to
make CCS work. “We will use fossil fuels in the coming years - not just 10 years, but 50, 60, maybe 70 years,” Mr Hassa said. “We can’t do it without CCS” [Financial
Times]. (Discover Magazine) Poison fears misplaced, say groups The nightmare that opponents of carbon capture and storage conjure up is Lake Nyos in Cameroon. Tucked into the side of a volcano, the lake fills with carbon dioxide. In
1986, it released a cloud of gas, killing 1,700 people and thousands of livestock, writes Joshua Chaffin in Brussels . No, the challenge is having a reason to do it. Enhanced oil recovery is fine but simply squandering a precious biosphere resource (at large energy
expense) is not. Hot air not worth much? Go figure... Farmers see prices tank for carbon credits BISMARCK, N.D. -- Farmers enrolled in a program that rewards them for reducing greenhouse gasses are finding the market for their carbon credits has shrunk amid the
recession and uncertainty about climate legislation being crafted by Congress. Look out! Plant food! NZ apples sent to UK generate
own weight in CO2 New measurements of the "carbon footprint" of New Zealand apples sent to Europe show that 1kg of braeburn or royal gala apples will generate nearly their own
weight in greenhouse gases. Fielding offers climate change briefing for senators Family First Senator Steve Fielding has written to all senators urging them to attend a briefing he has organised on climate change. Call to Curb Speculators in Energy WASHINGTON — The country’s top regulator of commodity markets said Tuesday that the government should “seriously consider” strict limits on the trades of purely
financial investors in the futures markets for oil, natural gas and other energy products. Saudi Burns More Crude For Power, Halts Fuel Oil Import SINGAPORE - Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, is burning more crude in domestic power plants to keep new wells pumping and produce cleaner electricity, likely
eliminating demand for imported fuel this summer. Chevron Gorgon LNG Project Hits Environment Hurdles PERTH - Chevron Corp's proposed Gorgon liquefied natural gas (LNG) project needs to meet more stringent environmental conditions before it can obtain final approval from
the Australian government. Why? NJ to more than double solar power generation NEWARK, N.J. -- Regulators approved more than $515 million in projects Wednesday that will more than double the amount of solar power generated in New Jersey and will
solidify the state's No. 2 spot behind California in power produced from the sun. $515,000,000 for 80MW? For power that is only available less than an average 6 hours per day. Why would you do that? Unlike baseload power from a
coal-fired facility this will still need to be backed up with real power generation for night time, winter time (I hear it snows in Nu Joisey - that didn't work out too
well for the greenies' stunt using solar powered signage when they had to use gas-powered backup generation because snow covered their solar array), and generally overcast
conditions. If you did it sensibly and disallowed the whackos frivolous obstructive lawsuits you could install a half-GigaWatt coal-fired facility and have baseload power
all the time for about the same money. British Columbia Still Committed To Green Power VANCOUVER - British Columbia is still committed to promoting clean energy projects despite taking a blow on Tuesday from its own power utility regulator, the Canadian
province's energy minister said in an interview with Reuters on Wednesday. July 29, 2009
Hmm... Higher US speed limit linked to 12,500 more deaths NEW YORK - Higher speed limits led to about 12,500 more deaths on US roads between 1995 and 2005, a new study in the American Journal of Public Health shows. Too high a speed limit or too much funding siphoned out of transport financing? Motorists pay an awful lot of fuel, lubricant and tire taxes, not to
mention road tolls and general revenue taxes, are they getting their money's worth? After all, Germany still has no speed limit on something like half the autobahn system
and yet their road fatalities are down to 6.0 per 100,000 population, in the U.S. that figure is around 15, isn't it? That's about the same as Poland, which has the highest
general road speed limit in the world of 140Kmh (almost 90mph). Mercury dental fillings cause no harm: FDA WASHINGTON - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday said silver-colored dental fillings that contain mercury are safe for patients, but added they are considered
"moderate risk" devices. Another misguided attack on phthalates In yet another episode of "I can't figure out a legitimate research project, so I'll pick on phthalates," a group from Germany has concluded, based on minimal
data and a host of confounding factors, that infusion systems containing the phthalate DEHP increase the risk for a certain liver disease in neonates. This work appears in the August, 2009 issue of Pediatrics (von Rettberg et al.). Let's start off by quoting from the article: The etiology and pathogenesis of total parenteral nutrition-associated cholestasis (TPNAC), the hepatobiliary dysfunction in children during parenteral nutrition, is not
yet fully understood. Many theories have been proposed to explain the causes of this serious disease. TPNAC is especially frequent in pre-term infants and neonates who require intensive care medicine. Many previous studies have shown birth weight, low gestational age,
long duration of total parenteral nutrition, and the number of surgical interventions, as well as systemic infections, to be risk factors for the development of cholestasis. OK, here is a disease that is not well understood, and there are at least five other risk factors in play. Yet our intrepid team thinks that exposure to phthalates could
be the key. Whatever gave them that idea? The paper cites a few references as supposed inspirations, but perhaps the authors did not read them too carefully: In support of their statement "preterm infants and neonates are susceptible to significant cholestasis from toxic injury," they cite a review article from the
April, 2004 issue of Pediatrics (Piñerior-Carrero et al.). However, this work mentions "phthalate" once, and this referred only to rodent
studies, as drawn from a textbook published in 1998. It is worth noting that virtually all attempts to match rodent responses to phthalates (typically at high doses) to what happens in human exposure to these compounds have
failed. The authors contend that "DEHP is a substance that can lead to an increase in oxidative stress and toxicity, especially in preterm infants and neonates who receive
intensive care." In support of this they cite a 2004 rodent study, and another article in Pediatrics. While the Pediatrics work (Calafat et al., May, 2004) does
deal with humans, it most certainly does not conclude anything regarding oxidative stress and toxicity. Rather, it does confirm that newborns who undergo intensive
therapeutic medical interventions are exposed to higher concentrations of DEHP than the general population. Inasmuch as these neonates are connected to many DEHP-softened tubes, this is hardly surprising. In fairness, the same reference calls for more research into potential
health effects, but does not posit or prove any. Enough of the preamble. Let's look at the results. 76 patients were studied, 30 of whom utilized DEHP-containing tubing, and 46 of whom used DEHP-free products. The touted finding is that 50% of the former group contracted
TPNAC, compared to 13% of the latter group. However, one of the confounding factors mentioned above—long duration of total parenteral nutrition (TPN)—was very much in
play! The authors reveal that the DEHP group was fed intravenously for 4 days longer than the free group (26 versus 22 days on average), and also received 11 units of
transfusion more than the DEHP patients. They themselves admit that these two differences are "statistically significant." Despite the severe methodological limitations, including a self-identified "wide limits of confidence" in a portion of their statistical modeling, the authors
boldly conclude that: This study shows that the DEHP load caused by polyvinylchloride infusion systems for TPN constitutes an important factor in the occurrence of cholestasis. By changing
infusion systems, the incidence of cholestasis in our department has been reduced significantly. I would characterize the results a bit differently. The authors decided to jump on the anti-phthalates bandwagon, and have drastically overreached in their conclusions.
The fact that the DEHP group was on TPN for four days longer than the free group would all by itself seem to invalidate their findings. Sadly, though, this latest effort is little different from the sort of anti-phthalate "science" we have seen in the past. (Shaw's Eco-Logic) Just a reminder about the value of pesticides... How Lice Thwarted
Napoleon's Invasion of Russia His invasion of Russia failed miserably, leaving a trail of corpses from Moscow all the way to Paris. In a new book, one historian blames not the wintry march but the
spread of "war plague" -- typhus -- through Napoleon's Grand Army. First tobacco, then obesity, what's next to be taxed? One fact that shouldn't be lost among the debate about healthcare reform that along with responsibility comes control. Oh... US states to get "significant" obesity money WASHINGTON - The U.S. government plans to give state and local government hundreds of millions of dollars to fight obesity, including investments in public transportation,
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on Tuesday. VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Save the habitat, kill the turtles When -- in the name of heaven, I demand to know -- are those responsible for enforcing the Endangered Species Act going to do something about remediating the habitat
devastation and starting to recover the minuscule remaining population, before it has dwindled past the point of no return, of that brave and noble beast, the poodle? Donations must be down -- time for some more ridiculous claims: Human
activity is driving Earth's 'sixth great extinction event' Population growth, pollution and invasive species are having a disastrous effect on species in the southern hemisphere, a major review by conservationists warns (The
Guardian) Life is tough for old-school greenies when other enviro-scam artists out-panic the populace and cream off the bulk of the funding -- maybe this lot
should campaign against the gorebull warming scam? Endangered dormice 'thrive on central
reservation' - Endangered dormice are thriving on the central reservation of a busy road in Cornwall, and are even able to regularly cross safely to the other side,
according to ecologists. The mice, which snooze all day and hibernate for seven months of the year, usually live in quiet woodland areas or the margins of fields. Farmers vote to shorten daylight saving by two months ANGRY farmers have demanded daylight saving be shortened by two months every year - and it's not because it fades the curtains or stops the cows from milking. Daylight saving might save candles, if that is your light source, or whale oil or whatever, but it does not save energy. If energy saving is your goal
then forget daylight saving -- it doesn't work because lighting is the least of people's energy usage and having them not at work or school during daylight increases
consumption of energy, particularly transport fuels. Tuck into Skippy, he's off the menu in Russia FORGET the infamous ‘‘Get some pork on your fork’’ and ‘‘Be like Sam, serve lamb’’ advertising campaigns. We could soon be urged to eat roo for Australia,
as the kangaroo meat industry looks for a lifeline after its export market collapsed. There’s a new GRL ‘paper in press’ entitled: ‘Taking the pulse of the Sun during the Holocene
by joint analysis of 14C and 10Be’ by Knudsen, M. F., P. Riisager, B. H. Jacobsen, R. Muscheler, I. Snowball, and M.-S. Seidenkrantz (2009), Geophys. Res. Lett.,
doi:10.1029/2009GL039439 The Abstract states: We have studied solar variations during the Holocene (i.e. last ~11,700 yr) by combining a new model of the Earth’s dipole moment with 14C data from the IntCal04 record
and 10Be data from the GRIP ice core. Joint spectral analysis of the two nuclide records suggests that the periodic behavior of the Sun was particularly pronounced between
6000-4500 yr BP and 3000-2000 yr BP, with dominating periodicities of ~88, ~150, ~220, and ~400 years, while this rhythmic behavior faded during other time intervals. The
fact that the two reconstructions, based on radionuclides with distinct geochemical properties, agree with respect to both the frequency and timing of the periodic behavior,
strongly suggests that they reflect the actual behavior of the Sun. Subtle but systematic differences between the amplitude spectra may point to an interplay between the
climate system and the ~220- and ~400-year solar cycles during intervals when these were particularly prominent. In the results and Discussion the authors state: The dominant periodicities observed in this study are ~88, ~150, ~220, ~400 years, which generally agrees with previous studies of 14C records [Stuiver and Braziunas,
1989; 1993; Damon and Sonnett, 1991]. The combined power spectrum also suggests that periodicities longer than ~1000 years exist, in particular around 3000 and 7500 yr BP
(Fig. 2c), but, because the FFT (solar magnetic field: spectral analysis) approach used here is designed to localize the solar cycles in time, we cannot also
discriminate reliably between solar cycles of ~1500 and ~2200 years (somewhat analogous to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). The most likely cause for the periodicities
<500 years is the varying Sun because geomagnetic field intensity variations would have been unrealistically large to cause similar high-frequency, large-amplitude changes
in radionuclide production [Snowball and Muscheler, 2007]. Most interestingly, both reconstructions indicate that the amplitudes of the solar periodicities varied
significantly in time. The solar cycles were particularly prominent during the time intervals 6000-4500 yr BP and 3000-2000 yr BP, whereas this periodic behavior faded during
other time intervals. The Gleissberg cycle, however, which was most prominent between 4000 and 6000 yr BP, was surprisingly vague from ~3500 yr BP onwards. Hence, although it
remains complicated to reconstruct the long-term Holocene solar variability (Fig. 1), our analysis of spectral power through time robustly demonstrates that the behavior of
the Sun did vary on these timescales. and: Nevertheless, in the light of the paleoevidence for a solar influence on climate, it seems possible that the ~220- and ~400-year solar cycles influenced the climate
system in particular between 6000 and 4500 yr BP and between 3000 and 2000 yr BP, but it remains difficult to resolve whether it was the 14C signal, the 10Be signal, or both,
that reflect the climate response. Interestingly, both these intervals coincide with periods of significant reorganization of the ocean and atmosphere circulation in the
North Atlantic region [Kaplan and Wollfe, 2006; Seidenkrantz et al., 2007]. (CRN) From CO2 Science: Volume 12 Number 30: 29 July 2009 Editorial: Medieval
Warm Period Record of the Week: Subject Index Summary: Plant Growth Data: Journal Reviews: The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age on Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada: How different were they?
... and how does the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period compare with that of the Current Warm Period? Climate Change and Infectious Diseases: Will global warming lead to dramatic increases in the incidence of
various infectious diseases, as climate alarmists claim it will? Climate Change and Infectious Diseases: Unfinished Business: An ecologist sets forth a list of things that need
to be accomplished to better understand how infectious organisms may (or may not) respond to climate change. Carbon Dioxide Enrichment of Iron-Stressed Tomato Plants: It's a match made in CO2
heaven. (co2science.org) As was discussed in Part I (see), there are major
biases and uncertainties with using a global average surface temperature, T’, to monitor and predict global warming. This weblog explores ways to
relate upper ocean heat content change to a temperature trend. We could, perhaps, obtain T’ from the upper ocean heat data reported by Jim Hansen (see),
where he wrote “The Willis et al. measured heat storage of 0.62 W/m2 refers to the decadal mean for the upper 750 m of the ocean. Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6
W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean. The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2, includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm
the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.” The 0.62 W/m2 corresponds to 1.01 x 10**23 Joules per decade. This rate is close to that seen in the analysis of Levitus et al (2009) [see].
As discussed on my weblog (see),
this rate has not persisted since 2003, however, the value of 1.01 x 10**23 Joules per decade can be used to estimate how long different depths of the upper ocean would
require at this rate to warm to a uniform temperature of 2C. While, the upper ocean does not warm uniformly in the vertical, a uniform value provides an estimate for the time
required a layer of the ocean to warm to 2C at this rate [which is about 200 years]. In order to examine this issue, I contacted Josh Willis, and he graciously interacted via e-mail on this subject (I summarized my e-mails into a set questions).
Below are his comments (presented with his permission): “The problem I see [this] calculation is that it assumes that there is a uniform 2C warming over the entire upper 700 m of the water column. This does not
happen. Rather, in the global average the heat mixes downward slowly from the surface over time. As a result, the surface usually warms much faster than at depth.
So a 2C warming at the surface is unlikely to happen at the same time as a 2C warming at 700m. Furthermore, the decrease of temperature with depth is unlikely to be
linear. Levitus has noted in past papers that most of the heat content increase is actually contained in the upper 300 m, for instance. Using the most recent analysis from Levitus, the highest rate of ocean warming over the past 50 years occurse near the surface and is about 0.4C. During this time,
upper ocean heat content rose by about 1 x 10**23 J. Assuming the relationship between surface warming and ocean heat content holds over longer time scales (i.e., that the
ocean continues to mix heat down at a similar rate as it has in the past), then it would take only 5 x 10^23 J of ocean heat content increase to get 2C warming at the
surface” Topc 2: What is the depth we should use to estimate an upper ocean T’? Should this be the layer down to the thermocline?
Clearly, it should not just be the sea surface value of T’, since the layers of the ocean that are close to the surface interact at short time scales with the
atmopshere through latent and sensible turbulent heat fluxes Josh Willis’s reply “Understanding the vertical distribution of heat is still a bit tricky, I guess. The global mean temperature of the ocean drops from about 18C at the surface
to 4C at 1000 m. By 200m, it is about 12C, by 300 m, it is about 10C and by 500 m, it is close to 7C. So in the globally averaged sense, the thermocline is not
all that sharp. Of course, the depth of the varies strongly with latitude as well. In one sense, the 300m depth might work best because we actually have good historical measurements of this layer and it does seem to include most of the signal for the
upper kilometer or so of ocean heat content changes on multi-decadal time scales. Another volume of climatic relevance, however, would be the depth of the mixed layer, something like 60 m in the global average. My Conclusion The use of Joules by itself is all that is needed to quantify global warming and cooling. However, if the policymakers insist on the use of a T’, this
temperature can be improved over what is used now. By determining the layer of the ocean that interacts with the atmosphere on relatively short time periods (e.g. several years), than the T’ of this layer
could be used to communicate the magnitude of global warming to policymakers. The oceanographic community should recommend the depth of the ocean to compute the most
appropriate value of T’, as well as compute this value of T’, and disseminate this information to the climate science community, policymakers and the public. Since such a value of T’ is a mass weighted average, it is a more robust method than using just a T” diagnosed from the surface temperature of the ocean. The
oceanographic community should propose a method to do this, and the climate modeling community should adopt it as one of their metrics. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate
Science) NOAA Explains the Global Temperature "Slowdown" EPA: Call In The Clowns, And Lawyers
The highly respected Washington Legal Foundation has this: “EPA “Endangerment” Finding
On CO2 Could Expand Climate Change Tort Suits”: Logically, if EPA finds that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles endanger the public health or welfare, then EPA must make the same finding as to the GHG emissions of
numerous other significant sources. EPA will therefore be obligated to regulate those sources as well. Accordingly, EPA is about to embark on a course in which it will
determine that most significant sources of GHG emissions throughout the economy pose a danger to public health and welfare, and must therefore be regulated. As many are concerned, carbon-emitting activity is … well, pretty much everything we do. But one problem highlighted in this report is that “Tort lawsuits will
interfere with EPA’s ability to balance the legislative factors and craft appropriate Clean Air Act regulations for GHGs.” That’s lawyer speak for: The trial
sharks will come swimming like we dumped a ton of chum into the policy ocean. Leave it to the lawyers to make a bad situation worse. UPDATE from Shopfloor.org: Victory! Environmental Lawsuit Costs 1,000
Jobs (Chilling Effect) Europe Mulls Mandating Energy Efficiency The European Commission is mulling a rule designed to increase energy efficiency as part of its plan to cut energy demand by 20% by 2020. D'oh! Germans Hoarding Traditional Light Bulbs The staggered phase out of energy-wasting light bulbs begins on Sept. 1 in Germany. The unpopularity of the energy-saving compact fluorescent bulbs that will replace them
is leading consumers and retailers to start hoarding the traditional bulbs. Where are these people getting the idea that Waxman-Markey was
pitched as a jobs bill? Sen. Kerry on Climate Bill: ‘We’re Going to Get It Done’ In an interview with Yale Environment 360, John Kerry praises the carbon cap-and-trade legislation now being debated in the U.S. Senate, describes its importance to
upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen, and explains how he plans to help the landmark legislation clear the Senate and become law. (Yale environment 360) Note further that Kerry states in this interview with Greenwire reporter Darren Samuelsohn: In the name of global warming, politicians in Washington, DC are threatening to pass so called Cap and Trade legislation that will handicap our economy and force more
American jobs offshore (Don Blakenship, SPPI) Because Ted says so? Oregon Governor: Climate
Change Laws Vital to Economy Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed into law on July 22 a series of bills comprising an aggressive climate change package that will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
ensure low carbon fuel, invest in green technology and jobs and increase energy efficiency in homes and businesses across the state. Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims she has no use for polls. For her, that's a good thing, because polls now show that voters despise her. But a politician who disdains public
approval should be a little disturbing. Climate Change: Profit Or Problem? The popular agricultural press has taken the USDA to task over its position that the Climate Change legislation (HR 2454) will have little impact on agriculture. USDA’s
analysis of the House-passed legislation, which is now in the US Senate for consideration, originated in the Office of the Chief Economist. The study says, “In summary,
USDA’s analysis shows that the agricultural sector will have modest costs in the short-term and net benefits – perhaps significant net benefits – over the long-term.”
But how did it come to that conclusion? China's three biggest power firms emit more carbon
than Britain, says report - Greenpeace report names top three polluters and calls for tax on coal to improve efficiency and encourage switch to renewables China's three biggest power firms produced more greenhouse gas emissions last year than the whole of Britain, according to a Greenpeace report published today. China is feeding the biosphere while providing electricity? Good for them! France Faces Internal Fight Over Carbon Tax PARIS - France should aim to introduce a tax on carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 to help fight global climate change, a panel advising the government said on Tuesday. Iraq’s Oil Sector Inches Toward Progress Iraq is trying to strike the right cord in its efforts to attract foreign players to its oil and gas sector. Late last month it awarded only one of eight contracts in its
first bidding round in decades, a failure under just about any measure. But by doing so, it has apparently deflected internal political criticism, without diminishing
international companies’ interest in the country’s lucrative and largely unexplored oil and gas wealth. Video Press Release Methane (CH4) is the main constituent of natural gas, while ethane (C2H6) is used as a petrochemical feedstock.
Both of these hydrocarbons, and others associated with fuel, are called saturated hydrocarbons because they have simple, single bonds and are saturated with hydrogen. Using a
diamond anvil cell and a laser heat source, the scientists first subjected methane to pressures exceeding 20 thousand times the atmospheric pressure at sea level and
temperatures ranging from 1,300 F° to over 2,240 F°. These conditions mimic those found 40 to 95 miles deep inside the Earth. The methane reacted and formed ethane,
propane, butane, molecular hydrogen, and graphite. The scientists then subjected ethane to the same conditions and it produced methane. The transformations suggest heavier
hydrocarbons could exist deep down. The reversibility implies that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is thermodynamically controlled and does not require organic
matter. The scientists ruled out the possibility that catalysts used as part of the experimental apparatus were at work, but they acknowledge that catalysts could be involved in
the deep Earth with its mix of compounds. “We were intrigued by previous experiments and theoretical predictions,” remarked Carnegie’s Alexander Goncharov
a coauthor. “Experiments reported some years ago subjected methane to high pressures and temperatures and found that heavier hydrocarbons formed from methane under very
similar pressure and temperature conditions. However, the molecules could not be identified and a distribution was likely. We overcame this problem with our improved
laser-heating technique where we could cook larger volumes more uniformly. And we found that methane can be produced from ethane." The hydrocarbon products did not change for many hours, but the tell-tale chemical signatures began to fade after a few days. Professor Kutcherov, a coauthor, put the finding into context: “The notion that hydrocarbons generated in the mantle migrate into the Earth’s crust and contribute to
oil-and-gas reservoirs was promoted in Russia and Ukraine many years ago. The synthesis and stability of the compounds studied here as well as heavier hydrocarbons over the
full range of conditions within the Earth’s mantle now need to be explored. In addition, the extent to which this ‘reduced’ carbon survives migration into the crust
needs to be established (e.g., without being oxidized to CO2). These and related questions demonstrate the need for a new experimental and theoretical program to
study the fate of carbon in the deep Earth.” (Carnegie Institution) Blast from the past: Fuel's Paradise World-class contrarian Thomas Gold has a theory about life on the planet: It's pumping out of the Earth's crust - and it's swimming in oil. (Oliver Morton, Wired) Accelerating Carbon Sequestration in Alberta An advisory group in Alberta, Canada, is proposing that carbon dioxide captured from large industrial operations could be pumped into dozens of semi-depleted oil fields,
with the idea of extracting billions of dollars of uneconomic crude from conventional Alberta reserves. (Green Inc.) If it's economic to do so simply for enhanced oil recovery then go for it -- but if the business model relies on paying to remove an essential
resource from the atmosphere then forget it. Permitting 'log-jam' hangs over US coal sector TORONTO – Ongoing delays in issuing permits for US coal mines, coupled with recent changes to the ways applications are evaluated, continue to have a negative effect on
the nation's coal-mining industry, Patriot Coal CEO Richard Whiting said on Tuesday. Walking the Land Where the Drilling Rigs Will
Go It takes a reasonably practiced eye to see the damage coal bed methane development has done. But when the infrastructure for pumping natural gas out of the Catskills has
finally been put in place, there will be no mistaking its impact — no missing the gaping holes in the forest canopy, the artificial ponds full of “fracking” fluid, the
industrial damage done. Um... probably not to most people. Is it even mildly troubling to people who never saw the region in the past & never will in the future? Probably
not, although most will happily use the energy extracted. A tiny minority of people will say, this used to be different but most will not know or care, probably rightly so,
too. Canada Green Power Stocks Fall On Surprise Ruling VANCOUVER - Shares in a bunch of Canadian green energy companies slumped on Tuesday after a surprise regulatory decision created uncertainty about the future of dozens of
clean power projects being developed in the West Coast province of British Columbia. USEC Scraps Uranium Plant, Mulls Options NEW YORK - USEC Inc said on Tuesday it would scrap plans to build a new uranium enrichment plant and may now seek a partner or buyer after the U.S. Department of Energy
denied its request for a loan guarantee, sending its stock plummeting. Green technology stifled by funding woes: experts WASHINGTON - American innovation needed to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change could be squelched if the government drags its heels in providing
incentives and funding for developers, company executives told lawmakers on Tuesday. Well if it's such a hot business model go see Vinod Khosla or Google -- why do you need public money? Why? Why the panic and rush? U.S.
Urged to Move Quickly on Energy Technology Demonstrations The United States must accelerate its development and deployment of new energy technologies and of "evolutionary" nuclear plants to secure a future of clean,
domestic power, the National Research Council says in a report released today. Doesn't matter whether you believe the meltdown fantasies or not. If you do then there's already "unstoppable warming in the system" so panic
action will make no difference (better to get it right, no?) and if you don't then no action is going affect a phantom menace. Either way there is no advantage in
"urgent action" -- all that represents is a call to do stupid things before you have a chance to stop and think about them. Wind farm boom flies in face of turbine factory shutdown Britain’s countryside and coastline will be dotted with 2,700 new wind turbines by 2012 — more than double the existing total — according to an industry survey of
approved wind farms. Wind farm complaint upheld
by Advertising Standards Authority Energy company E.On used "misleading" images to try and promote a wind farm, advertising watchdogs have ruled.
The promotional material for E.ON's proposed West Ancroft wind farm, just south of Berwick-upon-Tweed, featured a wind farm on a coast line. However the wind turbines were half the size of the eight 125m turbines planned for the new development. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint that the material was misleading because it showed turbines that were significantly smaller than those that
could be constructed and did not accurately represent the visual impact of the proposed development. The ruling read: "Because of the disparity in size between the image and the turbines proposed for the West Ancroft site, we concluded that the ads were likely to
mislead." (Daily Telegraph) Careful what you wish for... Wind power: the
silent majority must speak out, says Miliband To tackle climate change we must end public apathy – and widen our leaders' focus beyond their pet policies (Moonbat) If the silent majority ever do speak out green is toast and so are the damn fools who have been pushing it. I hope the majority do awaken and caste the
hairy unwashed out of the society they apparently despise. Green whackos... Here's some of that majority speaking up now: Latest protest
leaves climate strategy twisting in the wind - From Shetland to the Isle of Wight, feelings run high as plans to transform the UK into a low-carbon economy hit further
trouble Europe's largest onshore windfarm project has been thrown in severe doubt after the RSPB and official government agencies lodged formal objections to the 150-turbine plan,
it emerged today. India To Unveil 20GW Solar Target Under Climate Plan NEW DELHI - India will unveil its first solar power target as soon as September, pledging to boost output from near zero to 20 gigawatts (GW) by 2020 as it firms up its
national plan to fight global warming, draft documents show. India should address its baseload shortfall rather than planning to farm Western eco-guilt, which is long on rhetoric but notoriously short on third
world largess. India hungry for our coking coal assets INDIA is about to embark on a program of rapid coal sector acquisitions in Australia as it looks to plug a huge annual gap between supply and demand expected in the next
three years. U.S. Senator Delays Brazil Envoy Nominee Over Ethanol WASHINGTON - A Republican senator threatened on Tuesday to delay approval of President Barack Obama's choice of ambassador to Brazil because the nominee advocated ending a
U.S. tariff on ethanol imports. On wood, burning questions - Critics
challenge ‘green’ fuel claims PORTSMOUTH, N.H. - Along the banks of the Piscataqua River, an ancient energy source is being transformed into retro chic renewable power. Joule Biotechnologies: light + CO2 + GMO = fuel Joule Biotechnologies, with headquarters at 83
Rogers St, Cambridge, Massachusetts is a startup with USD 50 million in its pockets. July 28, 2009
H1N1 flu spreads to remote corners of the world-WHO GENEVA, July 27 - There may be no escape from H1N1 pandemic flu, which according to the latest World Health Organisation figures has spread to the most remote parts of the
planet including popular island getaways. Swine flu pandemic could fuel rise in workplace litigation Businesses could face a spate of legal claims from employees hit by swine flu, experts warn, as concerns mount that firms are not prepared to deal with legal issues
arising from affected staff. NHS days from crisis leading surgeon warns Swine flu and a cut in junior doctors hours means the NHS is 'just days away from a crisis', John Black, President of the Royal College of Surgeons has warned. (Daily
Telegraph) We can never be allowed to hear good news about our health. The government won’t allow it. “Such is the strength of cultural miserabilism today that even the most
smile-inducing good news stories can swiftly be turned into doom-laden tales about the terrible future humanity faces,” wrote Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked. Dairy for children 'extends life' Children who eat plenty of dairy foods such as milk and cheese can expect to live longer, a study suggests. Obesity costs US health system $147 billion: study CHICAGO - Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10 percent of all medical spending in the United States or an estimated $147 billion a year, U.S. researchers said on
Monday. (Reuters) Also Cost of Treating Obesity Soars (WSJ) Why? Because we've medicalized people's weight? CDC Chief: Soda Tax Could Combat Obesity While Democrats await the results of bipartisan negotiations over health care reform in the Senate Finance Committee, one of the proposals put before the committee
received a nod of approval from health officials today: taxing soda. Tough love for fat people:
Tax their food to pay for healthcare When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current period as the moment when those who
influenced opinion and made public policy decided it was time to take the gloves off. Maccas 'fat factory' bites into schools AN UNHOLY row has erupted over a decision by the Catholic Church to sell off land surrounded by three schools to takeaway giant McDonald's in New South Wales. Trade Liberalization Linked To Obesity In Central America Since trade liberalization between Central and North America, imports and availability of processed, high-fat and high-sugar foods have increased dramatically. Researchers
writing in BioMed Central's open access journal Globalization and Health link this influx of American junk food to a 'nutrition transition' in Central American countries,
with a growing burden diet-related chronic disease. (ScienceDaily) Agent Orange linked to heart disease, Parkinson's WASHINGTON - Agent Orange, used by U.S. forces to strip Vietnamese and Cambodian jungles during the Vietnam War, may raise the risk of heart disease and Parkinson's
disease, U.S. health advisers said on Friday. Gulf of Mexico ‘Dead Zone’ Is Smaller Than Expected The so-called dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, where oxygen levels drop too low to support most life near the ocean’s bottom, is smaller this year than expected, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said today. Translation: we still don't understand anoxic zones but we have a lot of fun and enjoy a sense of power pointing the finger of blame over them. Scientists Find a Microbe Haven at Ocean’s Surface The world’s oceans are like an alien world. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that 95 percent of them remain unexplored. But the mysteries do
not start a mile below the surface of the sea. They start with the surface itself. Are people really so ignorant of the natural world? Army
of flying ants descend on Britain The warm, wet summer may have created havoc for countless picnics, but it has created perfect conditions for Britain's flying ants, which have come out in their millions
over the last few days. Really? Expert advice there's "no need to panic" over flying ants? Then again... British
Ponds for British Dragonflies Any article that includes the line The dragonfly family has more species than any other mammal has got to be worth a closer look. And this one, from Saturday’s Guardian, doesn’t
disappoint. Dragonflies in danger of extinction seek sanctuary at new rescue centre Dragonflies may have hovered and hunted across the planet for the last 325m years, but their modern relatives are staring extinction in the face. Don’t fear: dragonflies are no more ’staring extinction in the face’ than they are warm-blooded, hirsuit creatures that bear live young and lactate. They don’t
need rescuing. Indeed, there is no ‘rescue centre’. All that has actually happened in the world to prompt the Guardian’s latest episode of extinction-porn is that the National Trust, the British Dragonfly Society and the
Dragonfly Project have got together to open a visitor centre - a place for people to visit to learn about dragonflies - at Wicken Fen in Cambridgeshire. They have issued a press
release about it, and have got a TV personality to perform the opening ceremony. Naturally, the press release contains a few facts and figures to tempt the press. And how better to tempt the press than with a few bleak-looking statistics about how
three species of dragonfly have disappeared from Britain since the 1950s and how a third of the regularly-occurring UK species are under threat? (The one about dragonflies
being mammals comes straight from the Guardian’s own imagination.) Also naturally, the Guardian has taken these facts and figures and distorted them beyond recognition to
spin a tale about the imminent extinction of all dragonflies everywhere in the whole world. (Climate Resistance) Maybe people are that ignorant: Wool
industry delays end of mulesing Manufacturers around the world will source wool elsewhere if Australia can't meet a 2010 deadline to stop mulesing sheep, an animal rights group has warned. Within 50 years of sheep being introduced to Australia Lucinia Cuprina (copper blowfly) had evolved the ability to strike living sheep. These
sheep die a horrible death. The fine merino wools consumers value grow on wrinkly merino sheep with a propensity to fly strike and mulesing (cutting excess skin wrinkles
away from the anus and back of the legs) is a highly effective means of protecting these sheep from agonizing death. One of the reasons mulesing was introduced was to
appease greenies and reduce pesticide application (the only other means of protecting sheep and lambs). Smart Green... Smarter Consumer With the global recession and California’s unemployment rate above 11%, the extra costs of green living are colliding with economic reality. Environmentalists have been
green-guilt baiting us for years to donate to sanctimonious eco-nonprofits and to pay extra for green products and services. Free rides aren't free? What's going on in the Big Green tent? Some suspect foul play in the last-minute cancellation of the Big Green Gathering, but the Vestas protest might get an unexpected boost instead How could it happen? Is it a freak accident or a light at the end of the tunnel? How did it get past the editorial censorship? In The
Times, of all places, there is an article by Antonia Senior telling it how it is about the green extremists. It is entitled Blunt
warning about greens under the bed. Read it before she is banished to the journalistic gulag. (Number Watch) Exploiting green superstition: Insurers Add Green
Rebuilding Policies Texas homeowners can pay a bit more for insurance in order to be able to rebuild in an eco-friendly way after a catastrophe, according to a front-page story in Sunday’s
Houston Chronicle. Four insurance companies are selling such coverage for homes, and many more sell them for businesses. “While some experts wonder if the policies are
worth it,” the article reported, “insurers are hoping to appeal to environmentally conscientious property owners willing to dig into their pockets for the extra
coverage.” (Green Inc.) Whale watching not so good for whales: Scientists
examine carcass of whale hit by ship VANCOUVER — It wasn't a pretty sight, but whale watchers on a cruise ship in Canada got more than they bargained for when they arrived at the port of Vancouver — a
dead whale stuck to the bow. A sustainable water supply
for the future is worth the bill In the 20 years since privatisation more than £80bn has been invested in the water and wastewater sector to deliver water quality and environmental improvements at no
cost to the tax payer – clearly a UK success story and one that is the envy of the world. (Daily Telegraph) Ohio Debates the Merits of Remining Ohio’s Department of Natural Resources is looking at an unlikely method of treating water polluted by the decades of unregulated coal mining in the southeastern part of
the state: Encouraging companies to remine near abandoned coal mining sites. GM crops being grown in Britain -
Genetically-modified crops are being grown in Britain for the first time in a year after controversial trials of the plants were "secretly" restarted. Cultivation of a field of potatoes designed to be resistant to pests were abandoned over a year ago when environmental protesters ripped up the crop If tenacity and enthusiasm are admirable traits, ya gotta admit these guys have them in abundance: World
will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence
global warming sceptics
The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun's activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next
five years, according to a study. The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global
warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument. The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith
Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The work is the first to assess the combined impact on global temperature of four factors: human influences such as CO2 and aerosol emissions; heating from the
sun; volcanic activity and the El Niño southern oscillation,
the phenomenon by which the Pacific Ocean flips between warmer and cooler states every few years. The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the
downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse
gases. As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lean and Rind's research also sheds light on the extreme average temperature in 1998. The paper confirms that the temperature
spike that year was caused primarily by a very strong El Niño episode. A future episode could be expected to create a spike of equivalent magnitude on top of an even higher
baseline, thus shattering the 1998 record. The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world
is entering a new El Niño warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind's paper suggests. A particularly
hot autumn and winter could add to the pressure on policy makers to reach a meaningful deal at December's climate-change
negotiations in Copenhagen. Bob Henson, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, said: "To claim that global temperatures have cooled since 1998 and therefore that man-made climate
change isn't happening is a bit like saying spring has gone away when you have a mild week after a scorching Easter." Temperature highs and lows 1998 Hottest year of the millennium Caused by a major El Niño event. The climate phenomenon results from warming of the tropical Pacific and causes heatwaves, droughts and flooding around the world. The
1998 event caused 16% of the world's coral reefs to die. 1957 Most sunspots in a year since 1778 The sun's activity waxes and wanes on an 11-year cycle. The late 1950s saw a peak in activity and were relatively warm years for the period. 1601 Coldest year of the millennium Ash from the huge eruption the previous year of a Peruvian volcano called Huaynaputina blocked out the sun. The volcanic winter caused Russia's worst famine, with a third
of the population dying, and disrupted agriculture from China to France. (The Guardian) My
goodness... Upturn in solar activity? We certainly hope so. According to our friends at solarcycle24.com the sun is in something
of a funk. Climate Fear
Promoters Try to Spin Record Cold and Snow: 'Global warming made it less cool' Switch from warning of 'climate crisis' to 'global warming made it less cool' Climate patterns are not something that we routinely talk about during the weather portion of the news simply because there isn't enough time to go into the details that
govern our climate. Scott's World of Weather is an excellent forum to do just that. In this installment, we will go over the drivers of climate that have ultimately affected
our weather this summer in northern Ohio. Global cooling hits Al Gore's
home - Nashville, the home of leading global warming prophet Al Gore, has enjoyed the coolest July 21 on record, observes Christopher Booker. It was delightfully appropriate that, as large parts of Argentina were swept by severe blizzards last week, on a scale never experienced before, the city of Nashville,
Tennessee, should have enjoyed the coolest July 21 in its history, breaking a record established in 1877. Appropriate, because Nashville is the home of Al Gore, the man who
for 20 years has been predicting that we should all by now be in the grip of runaway global warming. Midsummer farce in the Arctic: Greenpeace flees ice "way
thicker than anything we can break" (Tom Nelson) Bush Hid Ice Images From People Who Can't Use Google The
global warming debate has entered the conspiracy-theory phase with this hysterical article at The Guardian: Revealed:
the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide. UPDATE
7-27-2009: Now Think Progress has joined the propoganda effort, Obama
administration reveals evidence of global warming kept secret under Bush. Not only is the spin completely absurd and contradicted by publicly available information which
shows widespread ice measurements (see comments below), as Macsmind
points out, the released photos only compare ice levels in 2006 (a record level of ice) with 2007, even though up to 10 years of photos were taken. (William A.
Jacobson, Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion) Getting a grip on Greenland's future There are few places in the world where the effects of global warming appear to be more dramatic than the Ilulissat ice fjord. … the Met Office? It is the joke of the year in the few remaining pubs of Britain. As soon as the black clouds appear and more cold torrential rain pours on the drowned
world there is a chorus of “Here comes the barbecue summer”. Apart from the three day heat wave that had
the Ministry of Panic all of a doodah, such weather has been the norm so far this summer. July morning temperatures have been down to 8C here in the mild southwest and the
central heating has had more exercise than the barbecue. It’s only weather, but curiously enough something similar has been happening in North America. In April the Met Office forecast a hot summer for the third year running, causing the media, in their
usual jolly way, to announce the barbecue summer. In May the Met Office
told us that we are now going to roast because of the urban heat island effect, which up to now has been disregarded as negligible. Then in the same month they caused resorts
like Bournemouth to lose millions of pounds by forecasting thundery showers on what transpired to
be a completely clear, sunny day. In June they filled the media with dire warnings of disastrous global
warming. Oddly enough, by this time the general populace were somewhat less receptive than the excitable journalists. Now the Met Office is involved with a spat over the fact that they are keeping
secret the sources and processing of the data that give rise to their apocalyptic pronouncements. This is because they get them from the CRU, which is denying the public
access to data they paid for, apparently on the grounds that people might be tempted to criticise them. This is not only a gross perversion of science, it is also a negation
of the Freedom of Information that we are all supposed to be enjoying. O brave new world that has such people in it! Footnote: Your bending author, sixty years late, has now begun to understand a cryptic comment occasionally made by his old granny, who was born in the nineteenth century
– “If someone is hiding something, they have something to hide.” (Number Watch) Now there'll be trouble... Non-existent problem harms non-existent creature: ‘Global Warming is Bad News for
Bigfoot’ EcoWorldly somehow manages to report with a straight face: Bigfoot. Sasquatch. Whatever you want to call the legendary North American biped, it is likely the elusive beast will lose a portion of its existing habitat in the
coastal and lowland regions of the northwestern United States as the climate warms. (Gore Lied) Following on from my previous post noting the rotating back into view of the region formerly
known as Sunspot 1024, we now have a clearer picture:
Its just a plage, the end game of a sunspot. The Sun remains quiet. (Solar Science) Is the Climate Science Debate Over? No, It’s Just Getting Very, Very Interesting (with welcome news for
mankind) How many times have you been told that the debate on the science of climate change is “over”? Probably almost as many times as Al Gore has
traveled in private jets and limousines to urge audiences to repent of their fuelish ways. Although tirelessly intoned by politicians, major
media, advocacy groups, academics,
and even some Kyoto critics, the “debate is over” mantra is just plain false. The core
issues of climate-change attribution, climate sensitivity, and even anthropogenic detection remain very much in play. (Marlo Lewis,
MasterResource) APS is reviewing its statements on climate change Climate alarmism is a particularly
embarrassing attitude for professional institutions that should represent disciplines with very high intellectual standards because climate alarmism is associated with
extremely poor intellectual (and ethical) standards, besides other negative characteristics. (The Reference Frame) In the media, there is considerable discussion as to the serious consequences to the environment and society, if the global average surface temperature increases to and
beyond 2C from its pre-industrial value; for example, see Times Online on July 9 2009 where
they wrote “For the first time, America and the other seven richest economies agreed to the goal of keeping the world’s average temperature from rising more than 2C
(3.6F).” This temperature, however, is not one that can be directly measured as a single value. Rather, as discussed on page 21 in NRC (2005), it
is a derived temperature from the relationship between the global average radiative imbalance and is defined by the equation
dH/dt = f - T’/λ (1) where H is the heat content in Joules of the climate system, f is the radiative forcing at the top of the tropopause, T’ is the change in surface temperature in response
to a change in heat content, and λ is the climate feedback parameter [which more accurately should be called the "temperature feedback parameter" since climate
is much more than what is represented by this one equation]. Equation (1) above as a thermodynamic proxy for the thermodynamic state of the Earth system, as we
wrote in our 2007 JGR paper. The concept of a 2C threshold is based on equation (1). However, how is T’ obtained? The approach is discussed in CCSP (2006) where
land and ocean surface temperature anomalies are collected and the long term trend of the interpolated global average anomaly are used to obtain a value
for T’. This involves ship and bouy measurements, and sea surface temperature observations from satellite, over the ocean, and surface weather stations over land. The
land observations use the mean of the maximum and minimum temperatures to contruct the anomalies. However, to compute dH/dt [which is the actual global warming], one needs to know the magnitude of the “temperature feedback parameter” and the radiative forcing in
addition to T’. As documented in detail, this approach has major flaws which we reported in Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S.
Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land
surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229. In our paper we wrote “This paper documents various unresolved issues in using surface temperature trends as a metric for assessing global and regional climate change. A series of
examples ranging from errors caused by temperature measurements at a monitoring station to the undocumented biases in the regionally and globally averaged time series are
provided. The issues are poorly understood or documented and relate to micrometeorological impacts due to warm bias in nighttime minimum temperatures, poor siting of the
instrumentation, effect of winds as well as surface atmospheric water vapor content on temperature trends, the quantification of uncertainties in the homogenization of
surface temperature data, and the influence of land use/land cover (LULC) change on surface temperature trends.” We concluded that ” As reported by Pielke [2003], the assessment of climate heat system changes should be performed
using the more robust metric of ocean heat content changes rather than surface temperature trends…….This paper presents reasons why the surface temperature is inadequate
to determine changes in the heat content of the Earth’s climate system.” The assessment of changes in heat content directly [H in equation (1)] removes the need to compute a “temperature feedback parameter” (λ) and
T’. The changes in H can be used to diagnose the radiative imbalance (the sum of the radiative forcings and feedbacks) as discussed in Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. Clearly. the use of T’ as a diagnostic climate metric for global warmng and cooling is a convuluted way to obtain the heating of the climate system
(i.e. ”dH/dt”). The quantity “dH/dt” is the proper metric of global heat change in the units of heat added or removed (which is in units of
Joules). However, scientists and policymakers insist on using T’ as the metric to discuss global warming. Thus, if there is an insistence to limit global warming to a 2C increase, what does this translate to in terms of an increase in Joules of heat content in the
ocean? I will discuss this in Part II. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science) Tropical Rains Dampen Alarmist Agenda CHURCHVILLE, VA—The Obama carbon taxes will cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and may permanently cripple our economy. They’re meant to “save the planet” from
excess greenhouse gases—but new evidence from tropical rain patterns seems to further refute the claims that recent global warming has been man-made. Cloud Study Claims Unsuspected Positive Feedback In a stunning paper in Science,
researchers claim to have reversed the impact of clouds on global climate. It has long been known that low level cloud cover creates a net cooling effect on climate. This new
study, which concentrated on a restricted area of the Pacific Ocean, claims that warming oceans reduce low cloud cover letting in more sunlight that further warm the ocean
and hence provide a positive feed back that adds to global warming. Based on a warming episode that started in 1978, the article claims that observational analysis showed
that clouds act as a positive feedback in this region on decadal time scales. But a commentary on the article in the same issue of Science says that the analysis
suggests—but falls short of proving—that clouds are strongly amplifying the warming. If it's true, then almost all climate models have got it wrong. In a paper entitled “Observational and Model Evidence for
Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,” authors Amy C. Clement, Robert Burgman, and Joel R. Norris claim to have found this previously unsuspected positive feedback between
cloud cover and global warming by studying records for a patch of the Northeast Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and and Mexico. According to the paper: Our principal source of data is monthly mean gridded surface-based observations of total cloud cover from the Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set (COADS)
during 1952 to 2007. We supplement this with cloud-type information from COADS that has been compiled by Hahn and Warren for the period 1952 to 1997, and in particular, we
examine the category of marine stratiform clouds (comprising ordinary stratocumulus, cumulus under stratocumulus, fair-weather stratus, and bad-weather stratus). Additional
independent information on total cloud amount, low-level cloud amount, and surface radiative fluxes is provided by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP)...
Here we examine long-term cloud variations in independent cloud data sets and analyze meteorological data to provide a physical framework for interpreting these variations. The results of these analyses are shown in the figure below taken from the paper. Parts A and B show the total and low-level cloud cover averaged over the
NE Pacific (115° to 145°W, 15° to 25°N) respectively. Both COADS and adjusted ISCCP data sets trend toward more total cloud cover in the late 1990s, with the increase
primarily in low-level cloud cover in the adjusted ISCCP data (bars, in B). The longer COADS total cloud time series indicates that a reduction in cloud cover occurred in the
mid-1970s, and this earlier shift was also dominated by marine stratiform clouds (bars, A). Other climate variables shown are sea surface temperature (SST, in C), sea-level pressure (SLP, in D) from the Hadley center data. As you can see, for
these data the low cloud coverage appears to be in anti-phase with the variation in surface temperature. The researchers concluded that the changes in the area of the Pacific
they studied are “part of a dominant mode of global cloud variability.” Taking their observations a step further they decided to evaluate cloud models for similar
behavior. “To address this question, we analyze the 20th-century climate simulation in 18 coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models with comprehensive
output available from the World Climate Research Programme’s (WCRP’s) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) multimodel archive,” they state. After
acknowledging that the cloud-meteorology correlation test alone is not a sufficient metric for global climate sensitivity, they found that the only model that passed the test
simulated a reduction in cloud cover over much of the Pacific when greenhouse gases were increased. In other words, the model exhibited a positive low-level cloud feedback.
“Evaluating cloud feedback with one model is, however, far from ideal,” the authors conclude. “This presents a clear challenge to develop a larger number of climate
models that can pass these and other tests so that we may have greater confidence in the sign of the low-cloud feedback under future changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations.” Acknowledging that low-level clouds are of great climatic importance because of their net cooling effect on the global climate the authors admit, “at
present, the sign of the low-level cloud feedback in climate change is unknown.” This has not stopped a number of climate change alarmists in citing this paper as proof
that global warming is even worse than previously though. As usual, the climate catastrophe crowd is ignoring the limited scope of the study—performed over selected,
relatively short time spans in a restricted patch of one ocean. The researchers themselves state that “clouds act as a positive feedback in this region on decadal
time scales.” According to Richard Kerr, “During a cooling event in the late 1990s, both data sets recorded just the opposite changes—exactly what would happen if
the same amplifying process were operating in reverse.” In his commentary on the paper by Clement et al., “Clouds
Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warming,” Kerr quoted climate researcher David Randall of Colorado State University. “There's been a gradual recognition that
this rather boring type of [low-level] cloud is important in the climate system,” said Randall. “They make a good case that in [decadal] variability there is a positive
feedback. The leap is that the same feedback would operate in global climate change.” The study indicates an important role for marine low clouds in amplifying global
warming, he says, but it doesn't prove it. As a mater of course, Clement et al. attributed the warming surface waters to the effects of rising CO2 levels, something that their
observational analysis does not support. Rather, the plug for CO2 as the proximate cause comes from the computer models, whose sensitivity settings all hinge on
rising carbon dioxide levels. If it were true that CO2 was the cause, and since CO2 levels have continued to rise, why have the SST levels fallen and
not risen monotonically? Perhaps a better explanation for the changes in sea surface temperatures is the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO). A paper in the July 2009 Journal of Geophysical Research by J. D. McLean et al. states the the ENSO accounted for 81% of the variance in
tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. According to that study:
“Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics,
except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with
the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.” El Niño and its opposite La Niña are
much more direct and influential climate forcings. Throw in the effects of the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), which affects surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20° N on a time scale of 20 to
30 years, and the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO or ID), which displays similar sea-surface temperature (SST) and sea-level pressure (SLP) patterns on a cycle of
15–30 years, and there is little need to drag CO2 into the argument at all. What does this new result mean? It means that there are still a lot of things to be figured out about how Earth's climate system works: in this case
feedbacks unsuspected or wrongly calibrated. If the paper's result holds a lot of climate models will need to be revamped. Note that this doesn't make the dreaded global
warming any worse or any better, it simply changes how factors in Earth's climate system interact. In fact, this report re-emphasizes the importance of low cloud cover as a
cause of cooling on climate. It also shows how foolish is is to accept the output of models as valid predictors of future climate variability. Modelers continue to tune their software playthings to match the last century's ups and downs, all the while ignoring the fact that their models are wrong.
It was recently reported that all the aerosol models have been significantly wrong for decades (see Warming
Caused by Soot, Not CO2). If this new result proves to be global, another important climate regulating factor has been wrongly implemented in
most every model in use. Still we are told that that model results are valid, not to worry that the model's fundamental assumptions are incorrect. As I have been trying to
communicate through this blog, the new discoveries being made day by day are not, in and of themselves, a repudiation of global warming. Instead, they are indications that
climate change theory is fundamentally incomplete and so flawed that its predictions cannot be trusted. Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical. (Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth) Another ‘Sea Level Constraints’ Paper Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change Abstract: It is difficult to project sea-level rise in response to warming climates by the end of the century, especially because the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice
sheets to warming is not well understood. However, sea-level fluctuations in response to changing climate have been reconstructed for the past 22,000 years from fossil data,
a period that covers the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the warm Holocene interglacial period. Here we present a simple model of the integrated sea-level
response to temperature change that implicitly includes contributions from the thermal expansion and the reduction of continental ice. Our model explains much of the
centennial-scale variability observed over the past 22,000 years, and estimates 4–24 cm of sea-level rise during the twentieth century, in agreement with the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change1 (IPCC). In response to the minimum (1.1 °C) and maximum (6.4 °C) warming projected for AD 2100 by the
IPCC models, our model predicts 7 and 82 cm of sea-level rise by the end of the twenty-first century, respectively. The range of sea-level rise is slightly larger than the
estimates from the IPCC models of 18–76 cm, but is sufficiently similar to increase confidence in the projections. Nature Geoscience Add this to the two I previously blogged
here. (CRN) Pacific Northwest Snow Pack - the True Story
By George Taylor Washington Governor Gregoire recently sent a letter to
the Washington House delegation in which she stated that the snow pack has declined 20% over the past 30 years: “Last month, a study released by the University of
Washington shows we’ve already lost 20% of our snow pack over the last 30 years.” Actual snow pack numbers show a 22% INCREASE in snow pack over the past 33 years across the Washington and Oregon Cascade Mountains: ICECAP NOTE: In this story on Sustainable Oregon, George shows how choosing start and end
dates makes all the difference in trend analysis. This is true because precipitation trends in the northwest are linked to the PDO cycle of 60 or so years. In the cold phase,
La Ninas and heavy snowpacks are common (like the last two years) and in the warm phase, El Ninos and drier winters (as was the case from the 1970s to late 1990s). By cherry
picking his start data as 1950 at the very snowy start of the cold PDO phase from 1947 to 1977 and ending in 1997 at the end of the drier warm PDO phase from 1979 to 1998,
Mote was able to extract a false signal which he attributed to man made global warming. Arguing this point made George Taylor, state climatologist for decades in Oregon a target (he took early retirement) and cost the assistant state climatologist in
Washington, Mark Albright, his job. Phil Mote, the alarmist professor and author of a discredited work on the western snowpack for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society doesn’t accept criticism lightly. He ironically was appointed to the state climatologist position George Taylor held in Oregon. It was Phil who fired Mark for
challenging his findings. That is the way it is in the university climate world today, real data doesn’t matter so don’t bother to look and if you need to work with data,
pick and choose carefully. Anyone who disagrees publically and risks funding need look elsewhere for employment. George shows the 1950 to 1997 trend and the longer term trend analysis for several stations with good records showing no discernible long term trends. Mote, whose Ph.D. is
from the University of Washington, surmises that Taylor is guilty of looking only at data that support his views, while discarding the rest. “You can only come to that
conclusion if you handpick the climate records,” Mote says. Willamette
Week, August 24th, 2005 The story doesn’t end there as this post by Jeff ID called SNOWMEN tells,
another climate schiester, Eric Steig who made the headline last year when he worked with Michael Mann, the king of data fraud to eliminate the antarctic cooling of the last
several decades. Eric chimed in against Taylor and Albright defending Mote and making false or at least uninformed claims about trends. It is clear from Steig’s Real
Climate post never even looked at the whole data trends. Jeff correctly notes “These plots are of specific stations, however they demonstrate that at least for the above
locations the 1950-1997 trend is a cherry pick, nothing more.” Unfortunately this bad analysis has gotten people promoted and been used by state governments to make unwise decisions like supporting the flawed and costly and totally
unnecessary WCI (Western Climate Initiative), which Paul Chesser writes about in this American Spectator story here.
Climate frauds like Mann, Mote and Steig and agenda driven politicians like Gregoire have a lot to answer for, if the governments measures inflict major pain on the citizens
and the globe continues to cool in its natural rythym. See Paul Chesser’s follow-up story on the Governor’s use/misuse of this faulty information to move forward her agenda despite the legislature’s opposition here.
(Icecap) Why
regression analysis fails to capture the aftereffects of El Nino events In a study in the Journal of Geophysical Research a paper, Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, researchers Chris de Freitas,
John McLean, and Bob Carter find that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. By their
analysis they have shown that natural forces related to ocean heat cycles are the dominant influence on climate. See the WUWT post on it here
and the original paper here. This guest post by Bob Tisdale is a response of interest to both critics and supporters of the paper and illustrates how the multiyear processes of an El Nino event
such as occurred in 1998 are missed. – Anthony Regression Analyses Do Not Capture The Multiyear Aftereffects Of Significant El
Nino Events Guest post by Bob Tisdale INTRODUCTION This post illustrates why regression analyses do not capture the multiyear aftereffects of significant El Nino events. To emphasize this, I’ve provided a detailed
explanation of the processes that take place before, during, and after those significant El Nino events, using graphics and videos from earlier posts. (WUWT) SEC, CFTC Asked to
Investigate Goldman Sachs' Special Privileges Ahead of Cap-and-Trade POTOMAC, Md., July 27 -- Today Steve Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, released a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro and Commodity
Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler asking for an investigation into loopholes in the law which enable Goldman Sachs an unfair securities market advantage and a
unique ability to manipulate commodities markets. It is Milloy's concern that Goldman Sachs may similarly exploit any future carbon market created by the cap and trade
legislation moving through Congress. The letter may be read here: http://greenhellblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/seccftc-july-24-2009.pdf Inhofe
Kicks Off Series of Floor Speeches Exposing Waxman-Markey Climate Bill WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, today delivered a floor speech on the
Waxman-Markey climate change bill. Today’s speech is the first in a series of speeches designed to expose the myriad of mandates, bureaucracies, and taxes hidden within
this massive 1400 page bill. In this first installment, Inhofe focused on the central inconsistency of the bill: on the one hand, it is hailed an engine of job creation; on
the other, the bill provides government payments to workers who lose their jobs because of the bill’s taxes and mandates. Moreover, Inhofe noted that Waxman-Markey results
in a net loss of jobs for the American economy. Climate Camp to return to London for annual August protest -
Annual Climate Camp to target London in challenge to 'false solutions' of carbon trading and offsetting Activists from the group Climate Camp vowed today to return to London over the August bank holiday for their annual summer protest against global warming. One thing we agree on: carbon trading and limitation are really bad ideas. The IPCC Wants to be an Honest Broker More kids want to ban homework and institute a 3-day weekend than want to "address gorebull warming": Young
'would work to stop all wars' Children would rather stop all wars than combat climate change, a survey has found. Oh... Obama:
Cooperation with China Key to Avoid ‘Ravages’ of Climate Change Rarely, if ever, are Yao Ming and Mencius quoted in the same speech. President Obama turned to both renowned Chinese philosophers today to kick off the big U.S.-China
summit in Washington. (WSJ) No campaign funding for Republican turncoats Two Republican congressmen who voted for the Waxman-Markey bill have announced their candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2010. Hands off India’s carbon emissions! Hillary Clinton’s pressure on India to shrink its ‘carbon footprint’ is little more than eco-imperialism. (Sadhvi Sharma, sp!ked) Here's some bad news for you: all carbon constraint moves are eco-imperialism as misanthropists strangle the energy supply. Kevin Rudd to offer $1.5bn to big carbon emitters to protect jobs
threatened by ETS THE Rudd government is considering doubling compensation to the coal industry to $1.5 billion to protect mining jobs under a carbon emissions trading scheme as public
opinion shifts definitively against Australia committing to carbon cuts before the rest of the world. UK pins climate race hopes on carbon capture pilot RENFREW, Scotland - A pilot project in Scotland has begun testing a method of cutting the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, which Britain hopes will
be a leap forward in the fight against climate change. Doosan Babcock has announced a major step towards making full-scale carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) a reality with the opening of the world’s largest clean
combustion test facility. CCS is a vital part of the ongoing balanced energy portfolio and will play a large role in reducing UK emissions. (Engineering Capacity) Like a giant in winter, Schwarze Pumpe, a 160-metre-tall power plant near Berlin, breathes out a steady fog of steam and carbon dioxide, making a modest but visible
contribution to global warming. Carbon forms the basis of life on Earth, what has everyone suddenly got against life? It begins: Power firm sued over carbon
emissions AUSTRALIA is about to see its first legal challenge to carbon emissions from a coal-fired power plant, after a Land and Environment Court case was initiated yesterday
against Macquarie Generation, a NSW Government-owned utility. Xcel proposes "backup power" fee for solar homes DENVER—Solar panels used to power homes in Colorado are emissions free and having access to traditional fossil-fuel generated backup electrical power is also free, for
now.
Different types of algae are growing in the Colorado State University Engines Lab. The lab is testing this algae to see which will produce the best oil
derivative. Photo by Sherri Barber: AP
In spare moments during the last week I've been mulling over the implications of ExxonMobil's
announcement of a very large investment in research and development on producing biofuels from algae, in collaboration with a leading biotech firm, Synthetic
Genomics, Inc. While the reported figure of $600 million wouldn't buy much in the way of actual deployment, it could sure pay for a heck of a lot of R&D. The joint
conference call about the announcement emphasized that the companies will be pursuing several possible technological pathways, though all appear to be focused on
producing biofuel from algae continuously, rather than in a batch mode more analogous to farming. That would certainly increase the attractiveness for Exxon, which after all
operates some of the world's biggest continuous production processes, in the form of its oil & gas fields, refineries, and chemical plants. The timing of this
announcement is also interesting, coming just a few weeks after the US House of Representatives passed
the first cap & trade bill to make it through either chamber of Congress.
The fundamental question I've been pondering is "why"? Why algae, and why ExxonMobil? For all of algae's enormous potential to produce large quantities of useful
fuel, skepticism that this could ever be done economically on a useful scale abounds.
And until now, Exxon had made a virtue of avoiding investments in renewable energy, generally seeing them as delivering returns well below those of the large oil & gas
projects that have earned Exxon a sterling reputation for capital discipline. The answer to both questions likely resides in a word that appears frequently in the press
release, in news coverage of the announcement, and in the press
conference: scale. Two aspects of scale are relevant, here. First, in order to contribute meaningfully to our energy and climate problems, an alternative energy technology
must be capable of being scaled up rapidly to a level comparable to today's oil, gas and coal industries. Current biofuels, solar power and wind still don't come close to
matching the energy delivery of conventional sources. Exxon's website
indicates potential liquid yields from algae of 2,000 gallons per acre, presumably in the form of the hydrocarbon-based "biocrude" emphasized repeatedly in the
press conference. Even that relatively conservative estimate--my own back-of-the-envelope upper-bound estimate was 6,000 gal./acre--is at least ten times the current US yield
of corn ethanol, after adjusting for energy content. Simplistically, if the acreage currently
devoted to growing corn for ethanol were devoted to oil-excreting algae, it could replace nearly 60% of our gasoline supply from crude oil, rather than the 5% or so we get
from ethanol. (Geoffrey Styles, Energy Outlook) Unable To See Wind's Deficiencies For Forests Of Concrete And Steel T. Boone Pickens, Nacel Energy, Vestas Iberia and others are extolling the virtues of wind as an affordable, sustainable energy resource. What's taking hold, however, is
renewable reality. (Paul Driessen, IBD) Natural
England will consider wind farms in national parks Wind turbines may need to be built in national parks, according to Natural England, the Government agency in charge of protecting the country's most beautiful landscapes.
(Daily Telegraph) Wind farms risk becoming
'redundant symbols' warns CPRE Wind farms risk becoming "redundant symbols" of Government efforts to combat climate change, the Campaign to Protect Rural England has warned. (Daily Telegraph) Kenya to build Africa's biggest windfarm With surging demand for power and blackouts common across the continent, Africa is looking to solar, wind and geothermal technologies to meet its energy needs (The
Guardian) A Quest for Batteries to Alter the Energy
Equation ALLENTOWN, Pa. — In a gleaming white factory here, Bob Peters was gently feeding sheets of chemical-coated foil one afternoon recently into a whirring machine that cut
them into precise rectangles. It was an early step in building a new kind of battery, one smaller than a cereal box but with almost as much energy as the kind in a
conventional automobile. July 27, 2009
Not paying attention? On Friday I posted, as lead article, no less, an idiotic piece from The Times of London. "Public
fear mounts as swine flu cases soar" it screamed and went on to claim millions of patients were overwhelming England's National Pandemic Flu Service -- at rates
that would see the entire population demand treatment for Influenza A H1N1 in just 5.5 hours. Swine flu: Correspondents' round-up Swine flu has spread around the world and will almost inevitably reach every country, the World Health Organization has said. But there remains uncertainty about its
threat. He who controls the medical profession, controls life As hard as some are trying to make healthcare reform to be about political sides, it is really about human lives. Sadly, because the general public largely doesn’t
understand what healthcare reform is really about, the very people who are most likely to be harmed by it — older, fat, disabled, poor and the most vulnerable — are the
ones being most led to believe that it’s about taking care of them. Even sadder, experienced medical professionals have seen where we’re being led for well over a decade,
but the information hasn’t reached patients and people. Eight questions for Peter Singer PETER SINGER is the De Camp Professor of
Bioethics at Princeton University. Mr Singer has been called the "most influential living philosopher" by the New Yorker, and much worse by others. His
utilitarian philosophy has often led to controversial opinions on things like abortion
and euthanasia, animal rights and wold
poverty. The latter topic is the subject of Mr Singer's latest book, "The
Life You Can Save". Last week Mr Singer also entered the debate over health-care reform in America by arguing
for rationing in the New York Times Magazine. Our questions for the good philosopher begin there. (The Economist) Ghoulish science + Obamacare = health hazard My syndicated column today presses again on the freaky-deaky science czar John Holdren and the implications for Obamacare. Related read: Stacy McCain sheds light on Big
Money and the Culture of Death. And Matt Barber wonders: Will there be a co-pay for forced abortion under Obamacare?
(Michelle Malkin, Creators Syndicate) Common Allergy Drug Reduces Obesity And Diabetes In Mice Crack open the latest medical textbook to the chapter on type 2, or adult-onset, diabetes, and you'll be hard pressed to find the term "immunology" anywhere.
This is because metabolic conditions and immunologic conditions are, with a few exceptions, distant cousins. Hmm... Smaller twin girls more at risk of obesity Smaller twin girls have greater risk of obesity when they grow up, according to findings from a University of Otago study. The truth shall make you thin - Restaurants across the
country may have to post calorie-counts ON JULY 1st California began enforcing a new menu-labelling law, which requires chain restaurants (ones with more than 20 branches) to post the calories in their fare on
their menus. Three other states, Oregon, Maine and Massachusetts, have already passed similar regulations, as have 11 city and county governments. The trend has gathered
strength quickly, mostly because of concern about the nation’s expanding waistlines. New York City was the first place to enact a menu-labelling law; it went into effect in
March 2008. The next step is to deploy the practice nationally. The requirement is duly included in Senator Edward Kennedy’s version of the health-reform bill now being
debated in Congress. (The Economist) FDA wrong
about e-cigarettes, says FDA study Not satisfied with its efforts to ban tobacco and demonize its users, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now taking aim at a potentially healthier alternative to
traditional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes. Researcher Condemns Conformity Among His Peers “Academics, like teenagers, sometimes don’t have any sense regarding the degree to which they are conformists.” Some wishful thinking going on here: Jupiter: Our Cosmic
Protector? Jupiter took a bullet for us last weekend. What makes it any more likely that Jupiter's gravity will deflect objects away from rather than toward the inner solar system? 'Organic' Lakes Cannot Sustain Large
Fish Populations A new comparative research has revealed the fact that the main factor creating differences between fish production levels in clear mountain lakes and brown forest lakes is
light, and not access to nutrients, such as previously held. The counter-intuitive discovery was made by experts at the Climate Impacts Research Center (CIRC), led by
Associate Professor Jan Karlsson, AlphaGalileo reports. Locusts spark chemical stand-off HUNDREDS of NSW farmers will be asked this week to make a stand against producers who say no to chemicals. This follows a stand-off between neighbouring properties over locust spraying on a wheat farm in the state's south. Representatives of Ardlethan district near Wagga Wagga will put a motion to the NSW Farmers Association conference in Sydney, calling for measures to ensure conventional
farmers do not suffer financially because of organic neighbours. "Conventional farmers are happy to live side by side with organic farmers but it shouldn't be at their cost," Ardlethan District Council chairman Kathy Maslin
said. Association president Jock Laurie said conflicts about use of fertilisers, spray drift and pest control occur because normal business practices on farms are "in many
ways contrary" to organic methods. The motion calls for organic status to be granted only if all neighbours are informed first, and for spray buffer zones to be located inside organic farms and not required
of their conventional neighbours. The motion stems from an incident last year at Kamarah, near Ardlethan. Bradley Richens was told by his organic farming neighbours, Helen and Laurence Taylor, that he could not spray chemicals to kill locusts that were invading his property
and he should check with their registration organisation, Australian Certified Organic, before acting. "When I rang the organic association, all they give you is guidelines - I couldn't enter their property, I couldn't spray any chemical," he said. Mr Richens did spray the insects for two weeks. He said he had never previously been told the Taylors' farm was organic. There have been large payouts in some cases where farms have been contaminated by neighbours' activities, leading them to lose their organic certification, the chief
executive officer of Biological Farmers of Australia, Andrew Monk, said. (SMH) Sod the loonies, spray the locusts. Greenies always want government services but that's not good societally or environmentally: Lawrence
Solomon: Bring back garbage’s glory days One month into Toronto’s municipal strike marked by growing mounds of garbage, a majority of Torontonians — supported by some councillors — want the city to fire the
striking garbage collectors and contract out garbage collection. Private contractors are unlikely to strike, they reason, and would also cost a lot less. As usual, getting it really, really wrong: Earth system science:
From heresy to orthodoxy Earth system science is shorthand for the recognition that El Niño, climate change and the calamitous 2004 tsunami are all very complex events. El Niño is a natural
cyclic blister of hot water in the Pacific that ruins the anchovy harvest off the coast of Peru. It also disturbs weather patterns to trigger floods on the western coasts of
the Americas, stoke droughts and forest fires in Indonesia, and blight harvests in Africa. Human complicity in dangerous climate change is now well-established. Whoa! Stop right there! The Guardian either misread or believed deliberate misinformation distributed by the natur über alles brigade. The
kernel of truth is that there were more tsunami victims in cleared coastal regions -- purely because that's where the people were. There were fewer human victims in
mangrove forests because there were fewer people in said mangrove forests, period (there were also fewer casualties behind these forests for the simple reason the terrain
does not suit human exploitation, i.e., the forests are there because no one's ever bothered to clear them while the open, flat deltas where casualties were high is where
people have been living for centuries, even millennia). Blunt warning about greens under the bed Once the lure of communism seduced the idealistic. Today’s environmental ideologues risk becoming just as dangerous Antonia Senior Britain is, thankfully, an ideologically barren land. The split between Right and Left is no longer ideological, but tribal. Are you a nice social liberal who believes in
markets, or a nasty social liberal who believes in markets? Anthony Blunt’s memoirs, published this week, reveal a different age, one in which fascism and communism were
locked in a seemingly definitive battle for souls. Blunt talks of “the religious quality” of the enthusiasm for the Left among the students of Cambridge. There is only one ideology in today’s developed world that
exercises a similar grip. If Blunt were young today, he would not be red; he would be green. His band of angry young men would find Gore where once they found Marx. Blunt evokes a febrile atmosphere in which each student felt his own decision had the power to
shape the future. Where once they raged about the fleecing of the proletariat and quaked at the march of fascism, Blunt and his circle, transposed to today’s college bar,
would rage about the fleecing of the planet and quake at its imminent destruction. If you squint, red and green look disarmingly similar. Both identify an end utopia that is difficult to dispute. The diktat “from each according to his ability, to each according to his means” sounds lovely on paper.
Greens promise a world in which we actually survive a coming ecological apocalypse. A desirable outcome, undoubtedly. But the means to these ends seem similarly insurmountable. Both routes demand an immediate suspension of human nature. Ideologies often credit man with either more nobility or more venality than he deserves. In reality he is a mundane creature. He wants a home for himself and those he
loves, stocked with food. And he wants to have the right to control his own destiny, own his own stuff, and to acquire more if he can without interference or fear of imminent
death. Such low-level acquisitive desires support high concepts: property rights and the rule of law, without which there would be no foundation for democracy. My desire to live a free, mundane life is a fundamental cog in our messy, glorious, capitalist democracy. It is built on millions of such small entrenched positions.
Red-filtered, my desires are despicable and bourgeois and must be beaten out of me with indoctrination or force. Green-filtered, my small desires are despicable acts of
ecological vandalism. My house is a carbon factory. My desire to travel, to own stuff, to eat meat, to procreate, to heat my house, to shower for a really, really long time;
all are evil. The word evil is used advisedly. Both the green and red positions are infused with overpowering religiosity. Dissenters from the consensus are shunned apostates. Professor
Ian Pilmer, the Australian geologist and climate change sceptic, could not find a publisher for his book Heaven and Earth, which questions the orthodoxy about global
warming. He is the subject of hate mail and demonstrations. It is entirely immaterial whether he is right or wrong. An environment that stifles his right to a voice is worse
than one that is overheating. Even within the convinced camp, dissent from certain party lines is frowned upon. Nuclear power is the cheapest, greenest alternative to fossil fuels that we possess, yet
it is anathema to advocate its proliferation at the expense of wind and sun. Fans of nuclear are the Trotskys of the movement, subject to batterings by verbal ice pick. The great ecological timebomb is population growth. By 2050 the United Nations’ demographers expect the world’s population to reach 9.2 billion, compared with 6.8
billion today. That’s 2.4 billion extra carbon footprints. Half measures seem futile. We all hope for some new technology to rescue us. But what if it never materialises?
The logical position is to be a cheerleader for swine flu, but not in my backyard. Do we have to pray for swine flu to ravage foreign children, to save our own from frying in
the future? We are at the early stage of the green movement. A time akin to pre-Bolshevik socialism, when all believed in the destruction of the capitalist system, but were still
relatively moderate about the means of getting there. We are at the stage of naive dreamers and fantasists. Russia was home to the late 19th-century Narodnik movement, in
which rich sons of the aristocracy headed into the countryside to tell the peasants it was their moral imperative to become a revolutionary class. They retreated, baffled, to
their riches when the patronised peasants didn’t want to revolt. Zac Goldsmith and Prince Charles look like modern Narodniks, talking glib green from the safety of their
gilded lives. Indulge me in some historical determinism. We, the peasants, are failing to rise up and embrace the need to change. We will not choose to give up modern life, with all its
polluting seductions. Our intransigent refusal to choose green will be met by a new militancy from those who believe we must be saved from ourselves. Ultra-green states
cannot arise without some form of forced switch to autocracy; the dictatorship of the environmentalists. The old two-cow analogy is a useful one. You have two cows. The communist steals both your cows, and may give you some milk, if you’re not bourgeois scum. The fascist
lets you keep the cows but seizes the milk and sells it back to you. Today’s Green says you can keep the cows, but should choose to give them up as their methane-rich farts
will unleash hell at some unspecified point in the future. You say, sod it, I’ll keep my cows thanks. Tomorrow’s green, the Bolshevik green, shoots the cows and makes you
forage for nuts. If the choice is between ecological meltdown, or a more immediate curtailment of our freedom, where do those of us who are neither red nor green, but a recalcitrant grey,
turn? Back to those small desires, and a blinkered hope that the choice never becomes so stark. If it does, I’ll take my chances with Armageddon. (The Times) If you want to go green, buy
Spanish strawberries - The belief that local is best when it comes to measuring the environmental impact of our food is often wrong, says new research Millions of Britons who think they are doing their bit for the environment by choosing home-grown food over produce imported from thousands of miles away could actually be
having the reverse effect, according to a startling new report. Global Warming/Climate The wannabe rulers of the world and rationers of our energy supply can see their opportunity slipping away with the world's obstinate failure to
overheat and the sun's continued quiescence. Countdown timers such as the above are beginning to proliferate (you can get the html code for this one and variants here).
Their purpose is of course to pressure lawmakers and politicians into rash and panicked action against the mythical beast. Ours is a little different. We think Copenhagen
is where the Kyoto farce will finally crash and burn and with it the political issue of gorebull warming. We look on our version as a clock ticking away the life of one of the most absurd scares in human history. JunkScience.com Since 1850, about the time the Industrial Revolution really got underway and when people started seriously trying to monitor and record local temperatures, atmospheric
carbon dioxide has risen from about 285 parts per million (ppmv)1 to about 380 ppmv today2. Because various attempts at determining global mean temperature have different origin dates, mileage tends to vary but the IPCC3 quantifies the
increase as It is no surprise there is significant disagreement over the amount of warming estimated -- as James Hansen and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies explain7,
there is no clear definition of what we mean by absolute surface air temperature and wide variation in the estimated mean surface temperature of the planet. As a consequence
of the lack of standardization and the inherent difficulties involved in gathering data from remote locations, the best we can do estimating the global mean temperature
(against which we estimate change) is Trends in global temperature are frequently given as "per decade" figures and there is general agreement between the GHCN-ERSST Data Set8
(1880 - 2005): Global Trend: 0.04 °C/decade and HadCRUT2v Data Set9 (1870 - 2005): Global Trend: 0.05 °C/decade, each yielding a
result somewhat similar to the IPCC figure above.
Whether the high or low bound estimate is more likely to be correct is frequently hotly contested despite the relative enormity of the error margin and so we must look to
other measurement methods for clues on the relative merit of the various datasets. Should we believe GHCN-ERSST10? Perhaps we should go with
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies GISS Surface Temperature Analysis11 with it's estimate of warming almost twice as large? Data
assembled from radiosonde balloon records12 is a pretty fair match with HadCRUT34, GHCN-ERSST8
and HadCRUT2v9, suggesting independent corroboration via alternative methodology. As a further indication, satellite-mounted Microwave Sounding
Unit (MSU) data13 matches lower-bound trends moderately well over the period of overlapping data, leaving the GISTEMP6
estimate looking anomalously high.
Earth's estimated rate of warming then is approximately one-half of one degree (C) per century (~0.005 °C/year). Not all of this estimated increase is necessarily
real since we have been closing rural meteorological stations throughout the satellite era (for reasons of economy since weather forecasting information is available remotely
via satellite there is no need to station people in remote locations to make observations) and thus there is an increasing urban bias14 in the
record.
Even if all of the estimated warming is real it still cannot be solely attributed to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Estimates of net warming from increased
carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution range from a relative high 0.17 °C15 down to 0.1 °C16.
This is a trivial amount of warming when Earth's estimated absolute temperature is ~288 K, roughly 0.06% variation at most and certainly nothing to get excited about.
At the same time we have had observable increase in solar contribution, probably accounting for about half the estimated warming of the Twentieth Century17.
We have not heard any contention regarding the coincidental cold of the Little Ice Age18 and the Maunder Minimum19,
nor the increasing solar activity since20, 21, 22, 23.
We know that the warming effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (meaning each additional unit has less effect than the one preceding) and estimates of warming
due to increased carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution are really quite small. We know the sun is more active, possibly at its most active since the Holocene Climate
Optimum23, 24. We also know the sun has been a significant contributor to our estimated warming15, 16,
17, 20, 21, 22, 23. The carbon emissions from fossil fuel use might have increased global
mean temperature by about one-sixth of one degree, so what's with all the fuss about carbon dioxide? References:
Partly correct -- but oh so wrong in scale: We
are stewing in our own oven Illustration: Michael Mucci You, reader, live in a primitive city. In a hundred years from now, the society we are building will look back and marvel at how little we really understood about the
world we have constructed for ourselves. We are stewing in our own juices. Last Wednesday, a night of driving rain, I attended a seminar where more than 100 professionals, a standing room-only crowd, had gathered to learn about practical, cheap,
achievable ways of stopping Sydney's pot from simmering. These were not wide-eyed utopians. In purely parochial terms, the heating of our biggest cities is even bigger than
the global warming debate. Because the rise in temperature is mostly and demonstrably caused by outdated thinking. The story starts on Observatory Hill, at the southern end of the Harbour Bridge, where weather records have been kept daily since 1860. What the observatory has recorded
is a rise in the average temperature at the centre of Sydney from 20.5 degrees to 22 degrees. This is a 7.3 per cent increase over 149 years. As Sydney grows, Sydney heats. At last Wednesday's seminar we learnt why - 27 per cent of the surface of the metropolitan area is covered by bitumen, the black tar which soaks and retains heat and thus
changes the city's climate. Nearly all the rainwater run-off on this 27 per cent of the city is lost to productive use, flowing into Sydney Harbour because it is designed that way. The city's
rooftops also gather heat. Roads and pavements maximise the waste of arable land. Tree-planting is stunted for legal reasons. Topsoil is "scalped" by roadworks. The
increasing use of air-conditioners is creating more energy. More heat begets more heat. (Paul Sheehan, SMH) Sheehan believes a change in average temperature from 20.5 °C to 22 °C represents an increase of 7.3%, is he right? It looks as though the active region formerly known as Sunspot 1024 is still active and will be rotating back into view in the next few days. Here’s the region as pictured by the Stereo satellites which give a view of some of the solar farside. The active region is the bright area at about 7.30 on this
image: and here is the SOHO view which is close to what is almost the terrestrial view of the Sun. The active region is the bright area on the lower left edge of the photosphere. Apart from this one region, there’s nothing else to report. I’m going to be checking the solar flux to see whether there is any change, but I’m not optimistic. Meanwhile Dr David Hathaway has popped up in the New York Times
saying that contrary to his previous forecasts, a Dalton Minimum-like weak sunspot cycle (ramping up to only 50-70) For example, in 2006, Dr. Hathaway looked at disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic field that are caused by the Sun, and they were strong. During past cycles, strong
disturbances at minimum indicated strong fields all over the Sun at maximum and a bounty of sunspots. Because the previous cycles had been shorter than average, Dr.
Hathaway thought the next one would be shorter and thus solar minimum was imminent. He predicted the new solar cycle would be a ferocious one, consistent with a short
cycle. Instead, the new cycle did not arrive as quickly as Dr. Hathaway anticipated, and the disturbances weakened. His revised prediction is for a smaller-than-average
maximum. Last November, it looked like the new cycle was finally getting started, with the new cycle sunspots in the middle latitudes outnumbering the old sunspots of the
dying cycle that are closer to the equator. After a minimum, solar activity usually takes off quickly, but instead the Sun returned to slumber. “There was a long lull of several months of virtually no activity,
which had me worried,” Dr. Hathaway said. Worried? Why? Because your previous forecasts were flat out wrong? Nobody’s perfect. Not even me. (Solar Science) Wyatt: Hubris in climate change Hubris in global climate science scares me. As a scientist, I often carry a British coin that bears Isaac Newton's statement "standing on the shoulders of
giants" as a reminder of humility. I try to remember that most of what I know and understand comes from the work of others before me and a larger reservoir of existing
knowledge. Considering this, and hoping knowledge leads to wisdom, it becomes very important to seek wisdom in the climate-change discussion. Climate study puts Incas’ success down to 400 years of warm weather Supreme military organisation and a flair for agricultural invention are traditionally credited for the rise of the Incas. However, their success may have owed more to a
spell of good weather — a spell that lasted for more than 400 years. Review of “Unstoppable Global
Warming: Every 1,500 Years” It is true the earth had a slight increase in temperature during the first forty years of the 20th century. But global warming and cooling is cyclical and there has not
been any proof that warming is caused by man-made CO2, which lags years behind global warming. Global warming and cooling correlates with sunspots, and the earth naturally
regulates itself. (Rachel Alexander, Intellectual Conservative) Is the Earth’s magnetic field a cosmic ray
funnel? In this world of rampant climate alarmism, its to be expected that theories and hypotheses which do not support the AGW theory will get the full treatment of bad analysis
and character assassination. After all, where’s the funding going to go if there’s an alternative theory that bombs the bridge in front of the gravy train? One such is Dr Henrik Svensmark’s
hypothesis on the modulating effect of the solar magnetic field on the Earth’s climate. In the recent
article in the New York Times on the solar cycle that I recently mentioned, we have this: The idea that solar cycles are related to climate is hard to fit with the actual change in energy output from the sun. From solar maximum to solar minimum, the Sun’s
energy output drops a minuscule 0.1 percent. But the overlap of the Maunder Minimum with the Little
Ice Age, when Europe experienced unusually cold weather, suggests that the solar cycle could have more subtle influences on climate. One possibility proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and other scientists at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen looks to high-energy interstellar
particles known as cosmic rays. When cosmic rays slam into the
atmosphere, they break apart air molecules into ions and electrons, which causes water and sulfuric acid in the air to stick together in tiny droplets. These droplets are
seeds that can grow into clouds, and clouds reflect sunlight, potentially lowering temperatures. The Sun, the Danish scientists say, influences how many cosmic rays impinge on the atmosphere and thus the number of clouds. When the Sun is frenetic, the solar wind of
charged particles it spews out increases. That expands the cocoon of magnetic fields around the solar system, deflecting some of the cosmic rays. But, according to the hypothesis, when the sunspots and solar winds die down, the magnetic cocoon contracts, more cosmic rays reach Earth, more clouds form, less
sunlight reaches the ground, and temperatures cool. “I think it’s an important effect,” Dr. Svensmark said, although he agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that has certainly contributed to recent
warming. Dr. Svensmark and his colleagues found a correlation between the rate of incoming cosmic rays and the coverage of low-level clouds between 1984 and 2002. They have also
found that cosmic ray levels, reflected in concentrations of various isotopes, correlate well with climate extending back thousands of years. All well and good. But then there’s always someone who produces a sophisticated argument why you shouldn’t believe your own lying eyes. But other scientists found no such pattern with higher clouds, and some other observations seem inconsistent with the hypothesis. Terry Sloan, a cosmic ray expert at the University of Lancaster in England, said if the idea were true, one would expect the cloud-generation effect to be greatest in
the polar regions where the Earth’s magnetic field tends to funnel cosmic rays. “You’d expect clouds to be modulated in the same way,” Dr. Sloan said. “We can’t find any such behavior.” Still, “I would think there could well be some effect,” he said, but he thought the effect was probably small. Dr. Sloan’s findings indicate that the cosmic rays
could at most account for 20 percent of the warming of recent years. Would the Earth’s magnetic field “funnel cosmic rays”? This was taken up by Stephen Ashworth in an email to Benny Peiser’s CCNet mailing list: Dear Benny, Kenneth Chang in the New York Times reports that some observations seem inconsistent with the solar magnetic field–cosmic ray–cloud formation hypothesis. He
wrote (CCNet 113/2009 — 21 July 2009, item 3): Terry Sloan, a cosmic ray expert at the University of Lancaster in England, said if the idea were true, one would expect the cloud-generation effect to be greatest in
the polar regions where the Earth’s magnetic field tends to funnel cosmic rays. “You’d expect clouds to be modulated in the same way,” Dr. Sloan said. “We can’t find any such behavior.” Still, “I would think there could well be some
effect,” he said, but he thought the effect was probably small. Dr. Sloan’s findings indicate that the cosmic rays could at most account for 20 percent of the warming
of recent years. [sic -- he clearly means the *reduction* in cosmic ray influx to the Earth in recent decades of the more active Sun -- SA] I am skeptical about Dr Sloan’s claim. The reason is as follows. A few years ago I read a suggestion that an interstellar space probe might be able to do a flyby of the star Sirius, and use its gravity to redirect itself to a
subsequent flyby of Procyon, in the same way that Pioneer, Voyager and other probes have used the gravity of Jupiter to redirect themselves to Saturn and beyond. I
have a formula for the change in direction caused by a flyby of a massive body, so I was able to check this idea numerically. It turned out that if the interstellar probe was travelling at a speed that was a significant fraction of the speed of light, say 0.1c — which it would have to if it
was to reach Sirius in only a few decades flight time — then the deflection of its trajectory even on a flyby which grazed the star’s atmosphere was only in the region
of one degree, totally insufficient to redirect it to Procyon. The lesson was that the gravitational fields of planets and even stars (Sirius is more massive than our Sun) are almost imperceptible to a vehicle if it is travelling at
such a high speed. Cosmic ray particles come into the Solar System at a significant fraction of the speed of light. I would therefore expect them to be largely immune to our local
gravitational and magnetic fields. I would not expect Earth’s magnetic field to funnel them towards the poles, as it does with the lower-energy solar particle flux.
(Presumably someone has already checked this numerically?) It would seem that Svensmark’s cosmic ray–cloud formation hypothesis depends on the difference in strength between the Sun’s and the Earth’s magnetic fields: the
Sun being strong enough to modulate the cosmic ray flux in the inner Solar System over its longer-term cycles of activity, while the Earth is too weak to redistribute
incoming particles geographically during their last second or so of flight before hitting the atmosphere. Best wishes, Stephen Ashworth Stephen Ashworth, Oxford, U.K. Quite so. Cosmic rays travel at significant percentages of the speed of light and wouldn’t be deflected significantly by the Earth’s weak magnetic field. I wonder if Terry Sloan would care to answer? Someone should ask him. (Solar Science) There is a new paper which is directly related to the ability of models to skillfully simulate temperatures in the lowest levels of the atmosphere. This includes,
of course, the 2m level which was discussed in several recent Climate Science weblogs (see, see
and see). The new paper is Mölders, N., and G. Kramm, 2009: A
case study on wintertime inversions in Interior Alaska with WRF, Atmos. Res., doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2009.06.002, in press. The abstract reads “The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model is run in various configurations for a five day cold weather period with multi-day inversions over Interior Alaska.
Comparison of the simulations with radiosonde data and surface observations shows that WRF’s performance for these inversions strongly depends on the physical packages
chosen. Simulated near-surface air temperatures as well as dew-point temperatures differ about 4 K on average depending on the physical packages used. All simulations have
difficulties in capturing the full strength of the surface temperature inversion and in simulating strong variations of dew-point temperature profiles. The greatest
discrepancies between simulated and observed vertical profiles of temperature and dew-point temperature occur around the levels of great wind shear. Out of the configurations
tested the radiation schemes of the Community Atmosphere Model combined with the Rapid Update Cycle land surface model and modified versions of the Medium Range Forecast
model’s surface layer and atmospheric boundary layer schemes capture the inversion situation best most of the time.” This paper confirms that the accurate paramterization of the temperatures at 2m is a challenge. The abstract writes “Simulated near-surface air temperatures as well as dew-point temperatures differ about 4 K on average depending on the physical packages used. All simulations have
difficulties in capturing the full strength of the surface temperature inversion and in simulating strong variations of dew-point temperature profiles.” The same type of inaccurate paramterizations is used in the multi-decadal global climate models that were used in the 2007 IPCC report. Since the errors are several degrees within stable atmospheric boundary layers (which are typical at night over land almost everywhere, and in the higher latitude winters
all day), there should no confidence in the ability of these IPCC modes to skillfully predict the change in 2m temperatures for these conditions decades into the
future [the 2m temperatures are used in the construction of the global average surface temperature trends]. This paper further illustrates major problems with using surface temperature trends to diagnose and predict global warming and cooling, as we have discussed, for example,
in Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S.
Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007:Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land
surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229, and, see also, the excellent guest weblog by Professor McNider, In
the Dark of the Night – the Problem with the Diurnal Temperature Range and Climate Change by Richard T. McNider. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science) A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action Richard Lindzen is unarguably one of the top meteorologists in the world, with over
200 publications to his name, as well as awards, medals, prizes and is a member of the NAS, AAAS, AGU, AMS. He is The Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his work includes major contributions to our understanding of the Hadley Circulation, small scale gravity waves on the
mesosphere, as well as atmospheric tides and oscillations in the tropical stratosphere. From the beginning, he has questioned the claims that there is a crisis due to carbon
dioxide emissions, pointing out that even with the poor resolution of ice cores back in the 1980’s it was still evident that there was a lag—as temperatures declined,
carbon stayed high for thousands of years, something which didn’t sit well with the idea that carbon had a strong and constant force on the climate. What follows are his thoughts on the current state of the science. This piece was originally written for the German magazine, Numero, but after soliciting it, they decided against publishing it. Interestingly,
they were originally in a great hurry to get it. Apparently their intention was to run it with an opposing piece by Schellnhuber. Schellnhuber backed out, and then
so did the magazine. They apparently forgot to mention that to Dr Lindzen until he enquired, which doesn’t seem like a polite way to treat eminent authors. Was there a good reason for Schellnhuber to back out, or was this a case of another alarmist who won’t debate? And of course, even
without Schnellnhuber, the magazine could have printed Lindzens article anyway. How often does the media hold back an alarmist story because they lack a sceptical
counterpart? JoNova Climate feedbacks from measured energy flows Let me start with a test of intelligence. New Study in Science Magazine: Proof of
Positive Cloud Feedback? I’m getting a lot of e-mails asking about a new study by Clement et al. published
last week in Science, which shows that since the 1950s, periods of warmth over the northeastern Pacific Ocean have coincided with less cloud cover. The authors
cautiously speculate that this might be evidence of positive cloud feedback. This would be bad news for the Earth and its inhabitants since sufficiently strong positive cloud feedbacks would have the potential of amplifying the small amount of
direct warming from our carbon dioxide emissions to disastrous proportions. The authors are appropriately cautious about the interpretation of their results, which are indeed interesting. The very fact that the only 2 IPCC climate models that
behaved in a manner similar to the observations were the most sensitive AND the least sensitive models shows that interpretation of the study results as proof of positive
cloud feedback would be very premature. But how could such a dichotomy exist? How could what seems to be clear evidence of positive feedback in the observations agree with both the climate model that
predicts the MOST global warming for our future, as well as the model that predicts the LEAST warming for our future? In my view, the interpretation of their results in terms of cloud feedback has the same two problems that previous studies have had. These problems have to do with (1) the
regional character of the study, and (2) the issue of causation when analyzing cloud and temperature changes. Problem #1: Interpretation of Feedbacks from a Regionally-Limited Study But as subsequently pointed out by other researchers, cloud feedbacks can not be deduced based upon the behavior of only one branch of vertical atmospheric circulation
systems — in their case the ascending branches of the tropical and subtropical atmospheric circulation system known as the Hadley and Walker circulations. This is because a
change in the ascending branch of these circulations, which occurs over the warmest waters of the deep tropics, is always accompanied by a change in the descending branch,
and the two changes usually largely cancel out. The new Clement et al. study has the same problem, but in their case they studied changes in the strength of one portion of the descending branch of an
atmospheric circulation system, generally between Hawaii and Mexico, where there is little precipitation and relatively sunny conditions prevail. So, even if the regional
cloud response they measured was indeed feedback in origin (the ‘causation’ issue which I address as Problem #2, below), it must be lumped in with whatever regional
changes occurred elsewhere in concert with it before one can meaningfully address cloud feedbacks. Unfortunately, further complicating feedback diagnosis is the fact that these atmospheric circulation cells are interconnected all around the world. And since cloud
feedbacks are, strictly speaking, most meaningfully addressed only when the whole circulation system is included — both ascending and descending branches — we need global
measurements. Except for our relatively recent satellite monitoring capabilities, though, we do not have sufficiently accurate cloud measurements over all regions of the
Earth to do this over any extended period of time, such as the Clement study that used ship observations extending back to the 1950s. But there is a bigger – and less well appreciated — problem in the inference of positive cloud feedback from studies like that of Clement et al.: that of causation. Problem #2: The Importance of Causation in Determining Cloud Feedbacks [As an aside, as a result of reviews of our extensive paper on the subject that was submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, we are revamping the paper
at the request of the journal editor, and working on a resubmission. So, I am hopeful that it will eventually be published in some form in JGR.] Using the example of the new Clement et al. study (the observation that periods of unusual warmth on the northeast Pacific coincided with periods of less cloud
cover)…what if most of that warming was actually caused by the decrease in clouds, rather than the decrease in clouds being caused by the warming (which would be, by
definition, positive cloud feedback)? In other words, what if causation is actually working in the opposite direction to feedback? It turns out that, when a circulation-induced change in clouds causes a temperature change, it can almost totally obscure the signature of feedback — even if the
feedback is strongly negative. This is easily demonstrated with a simple forcing-feedback model, which is what one portion of our new JGR paper submission deals with. It was
also demonstrated theoretically in our 2008 Journal of Climate paper. In other words, a cloud change causing a temperature change gives the illusion of positive feedback – even if negative feedback is present. In the case of the new Science magazine study, one of the major changes seen in temperature and cloudiness (and other weather parameters) occurred during the
Great Climate Shift of 1977, an event which is known to have been accompanied by changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, such as immediate and prolonged warming in
Alaska and the Arctic. And since circulation changes can cause cloud changes, this is one example of a situation where one can be fooled regarding the direction of causation. This issue of the direction of causation is not easy to get around. While I’ve found some researchers who think this is only a matter of semantics, and who claim that
all we need to know is how clouds and temperature vary together, our 2008 J. Climate paper demonstrated that this is definitely not the case. The bottom line is that it is very difficult to infer positive cloud feedback from observations of warming accompanying a decrease in clouds, because a decrease in clouds
causing warming will always “look like” positive feedback. Based upon the few conversations I have had with other researchers in the field on this subject, the issue of causation remains a huge source of confusion among climate
experts on the subject of feedbacks. Even though our 2008 Journal of Climate paper on the subject outlined the basic issue, the climate research community has still failed to
grasp its significance. Hopefully, the more thorough treatment we provide in our JGR resubmission will help the community better understand the problem — if it ever gets
published. (Roy W. Spencer) A new scientific paper says that man has had little or nothing to do with global temperature variations. Maybe the only place it's really getting hotter is in Al Gore's
head. Climate Money: Auditing is left to unpaid volunteers Billions for “the climate” but nothing left for audits? It’s the most “important crisis” on Earth today, and we must rely on the science, yet it’s not quite important enough for anyone to independently double
check those results. And just in case you think that the peer review process does that double checking, think again. Most papers are reviewed by only 2 or 3 colleagues who
may be hoping to prove the same “theory” as the authors (so not especially keen to find holes in it), and who are unpaid and anonymous. (The saying “you get what you
pay for” comes to mind. We pay to find a crisis, and we don’t pay to check the results). The best examples of unpaid auditing are the work of independent scientists Steve McIntyre, and Anthony Watts. The irony is that skilled workers are providing a pro bono
service, normally a service to help those who can’t afford it, but in this case, to assist the largest single financial entity on the planet. Steve McIntyre and the misleading “Hockey Stick” graph Steve McIntyre was trained in mathematics and worked in mineral exploration for 30 years (and despite
claims to the contrary has never worked for the oil industry). Below is the Hockey Stick Graph from the 2001 IPCC Assessment Report. McIntyre became suspicious of the Hockey Stick Graph because it was described in terms that reminded him of the Bre-X
fraud. He is retired, and worked at considerable personal expense and without funding. The infamous Hockey Stick Graph (Michael Mann et al 1998) After dogged persistence to obtain the original data, McIntyre found embarrassing, crippling flaws in the Hockey Stick graph, a graph that wiped out centuries of recorded
anecdotal history, archaeological finds, and data from almost every other source except unreliable “tree rings”. (Tree rings not only grow wider in warm years, but also
grow wider in wet years, as well as being affected by soil nutrients, and by the level of CO2 in the air.) McIntyre found that the graph Michael Mann had produced, which was
used repeatedly through the IPCC 2001 report, was so poorly constructed statistically that it was possible to feed in random “red noise” data and it still produced a
hockey stick shape. A true peer review ought to have picked this up. Instead the graph occupied center stage for three or four years until a determined skeptical individual
demanded the data (which was misplaced, then inaccurate, then inconsistent) and checked the statistics. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick went on to publish peer-reviewed papers. 5, 6,
7 Wegman, and other independent statistical experts supported McIntyre and McKitrick.8
Craig Loehl assessed the same time period using proxies other than tree rings, and the reality of the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age stands out. 9 Combining 18 series of non-tree ring data from the last 2000 years clearly shows the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, demonstrating just how blatantly
misleading the “Hockey Stick” graph is. Despite the agreement between many different data sets, and the resounding defeat of the statistics in the graph the debate about the Hockey Stick Graph goes
on, with the most dubious tactics employed to revive the fraudulent inept graph. Watts Up with That? Hundreds of volunteers do government work for free Likewise Anthony Watts, a former television meteorologist, has amassed a group of 650 volunteers to photograph
and record more than 800 temperature sensors used in the United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) —something NOAA itself ought to do. Despite receiving
around $4 billion per annum in funding, NOAA doesn’t do large scale
site checks to make sure its sensors meet required standards. Figure 1: The majority of NOAA temperature sensors are sited near air conditioning outlets, car parks, buildings, and other artificial sources
of heat. These are not minor errors of placement that Anthony’s team of volunteers has photographed. Recording stations are placed next to outlets of air-conditioning units (see
Fig 1), above asphalt in car-parks, on scorching hot concrete roof-tops, and near heated buildings. They
found that 89% of all stations checked so far fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements. 13 Again, the flaws are systematic. As sensors have been upgraded to electronically report the data, they have been installed by people equipped with only pickaxes and
shovels. Where old sensors were once placed in the open over grass on the far side of a car-park, the new meters are electronic and need to be connected by cable to the
building. Not surprisingly they have often ended up in less than ideal places much closer to buildings. Realistically, who would dig across an asphalt car-park by hand with a
shovel to make a “trench” for the cable? The team at NOAA prefers to use “mathematical adjustments” to compensate for the “urban heat island effect” and poor placement. If they were really interested in
getting the data right, wouldn’t they just rule out all the stations that aren’t sited correctly until such time that they are fixed? Wouldn’t they pay to hire
excavators to dig trenches? Read the Full Report at the Science and Public Policy Institute. References Source Of Man Made Warming Discovered! Folks, after years of scientific measurement and debate we have determined global warming is indeed man made, and we have isolated the source for 100% of the man made
global warming. The reason it took years to resolve is we had to have a few decades of actual measurements to confirm global warming is a man-made phenomena and to determine the source.
With decades of highly accurate, global and time correlated satellite data we have succeeded in both goals! What we have seen in the last decade or so is a divergence between the models predictions of warming and the actual measurements. This divergence has been getting
worse up until the point the someone had to take action. And what they
did proved beyond a doubt the real source of global warming: NOAA proclaimed May 2009 to be the 4th warmest for the globe in 130 years of record keeping. Meanwhile NASA UAH MSU satellite assessment showed it was the 15th coldest
May in the 31 years of its record. This divergence is not new and has been growing. Just a year ago, NOAA proclaimed June 2008 to be the 8th warmest for the globe in 129
years of record keeping. Meanwhile NASA satellites showed it was the 9th coldest June in the 30 years of its record. So how could satellite data - which covers the entire globe and is measured many times a day (not just once or twice) record May 2009 as the 16th warmest year in 31
years, while NOAA reports the same month as the 4th warmest in 130 years? Clearly, one set of data is clearly flawed and in error. And the fact this divergence is consistent
means the error is systemic - it repeats no matter what satellite data is used (satellite instruments are swapped out constantly as the birds end their missions and new
ones take over). (AJStrata, Strata-Sphere) UK
Met Office and Dr. Phil Jones: “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”
For all of our UK readers, now is the time for all good citizens to come to the aid of their country (and science). The Met Office refuses to release data and methodology
for their HadCRUT global temperature dataset after being asked repeatedly. Without the data and procedures there is no possibility of replication, and without
replication the Hadley climate data is not scientifically valid. This isn’t just a skeptic issue, mind you, others have just a keen an interest in proving the data. What is so bizarre is this. The FOI request by Steve McIntyre to the Met Office was for a copy of the data sent to Peter Webster. If the restrictions on the data hold for
Steve McIntyre, why did they not prevent release of the data to Webster? When asked by Warwick Hughes for this data, Dr. Jones famously replied: Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your
aim is to try and find something wrong with it. This is just wrong on so many levels. This isn’t state secrets, it is temperature data gathered from weather stations worldwide and the methodology of collating and
processing it. Much of the weather station data is available online and live via hundreds of Internet sites, so the argument that “strict understanding by the data
providers that this station data must not be publicly released” is in my opinion, bogus. You can get a list of CRU stations. Go to: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/
and download the file: crustnsused.txt And then look up any number of these stations on the Internet and get the data. The fact that Hadley/Met Office repeatedly refuses to disclose the data and methodology only deepens the likelihood that there is something amiss and Hadley does not want
to be caught out on it. Dr. Jones is looking more and more like a “very bad Wizard” with each denied FOI request. Science and scientists should demand open access to this data. If GISS can do it, why not Hadley? They share much of the same data. Steve McIntyre tells the complete story below. My advice to UK readers, start sending an FOI request every week and complain loudly to your UK representatives and write
letters to the editor. Details are in the body of the post below. – Anthony UK Met Office Refuses to
Disclose Station Data Once Again by Steve McIntyre on July 23rd, 2009
It must be humiliating for the UK Met Office to have to protect Phil Jones and CRU. Even a seasoned bureaucrat must have winced in order to write the following: Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it
cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept. Here is the complete text of the UK Met Office’s most recent refusal of their station data. Our Ref: 22-06-2009-131902-003 23 July 2009 Request for Information – Information not Held and Refusal to Disclose Information You asked “You stated that CRUTEM3 data that you held was the value added data. Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004, please provide me with
this data in the digital form, together with any documents that you hold describing the procedures under which the data has been quality controlled and where deemed
appropriate, adjusted to account for apparent non-climatic influences”. Your request has been assessed and this letter is to inform you that the Met Office does hold some information covered by the request. We do not hold documents
describing the procedures under which the data has been quality controlled or adjusted to account for apparent non-climatic influences. The information held by the Met Office is withheld in accordance with the following exceptions pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004: As the above exceptions are qualified exceptions, a public interest test was undertaken by the Met Office to consider whether there are overriding reasons why disclosure
of this information would not be in the public interest. The Met Office has duly considered these reasons in conjunction with the public interest in disclosing the
requested information, in particular the benefits of assisting the public having information on environmental information, whereby they would hope to influence decisions
from a position of knowledge rather than speculation. Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (a) We considered that if the public have information on environmental matters, they could hope to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation.
However, the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between states and international organisations. This relationship of
trust allows for the free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the United Kingdom does not respect such
confidences, its ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations may be hampered. Competitors/ Collaborators could be damaged by the
release of information which was given to us in confidence and this will detrimentally affect the ability of the Met Office (UK) to co-operate with meteorological
organisations and governments of other countries. This could also provoke a negative reaction from scientist globally if their information which they have requested remains
private is disclosed. Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (e) The Met Office are not party to information which would allow us to determine which countries and stations data can or cannot be released as records were not kept, or
given to the Met Office, therefore we cannot release data where we have no authority to do so. Competitors or collaborators could be damaged by the release of information
which was given to us in confidence and could affect their ability to trade. The Met Office uses the data solely and expressly to create a gridded product that we distribute without condition. Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (f) (i) and (iii) I hope this answers your enquiry. If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance.
If informal resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review by contacting the Head of Corporate Information,
6th Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail CIO-XD@mod.uk). Please note that any request for
an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end. If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of
Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of
the role and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner’s website, www.ico.gov.uk. Yours sincerely, Submit a Freedom of Information request to Phil Jones’ employer: The FOI officers are: Met Office marion.archer [at] metoffice.gov.uk and This is just for UK citizens. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CRUSourceCodes/ A petition asking for CRU source code. (WUWT) Do you suppose he believes it or he's just hooked on the notoriety that comes from outrageous statements like these? James
Hansen on Climate Tipping Points and Political Leadership In my opinion, it is still feasible to solve the global warming problem before we pass tipping points that would guarantee disastrous irreversible climate change. But
urgent strong actions are needed. Climate change you can believe in Further to the post below, several readers have asked why I didn't refute the case made against me. Well, the case made against me is that I'm an uneducated clod, and I
agreed with that. But, if you mean the argument on "global warming", my general line is this: For the last century, we've had ever so slight warming trends and ever
so slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don't think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over. Biologist's stories warm 'Cold' As counterintuitive as it might seem in this age of global warming, much of our melting planet is still downright chilly. As biologist Bill Streever points out in
"Cold," his first attempt at a book-length piece of popular writing on icy regions, it is still the case that you don't have to travel too far without having to
resort to longjohns and stocking caps. Oops! The
formula - Why don’t Americans understand science better? Start with the scientists. Earlier this month, the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science unveiled the latest embarrassing evidence of our nation’s
scientific illiteracy. Only 52 percent of Americans in their survey knew why stem cells differ from other kinds of cells; just 46 percent knew that atoms are larger than
electrons. On a highly contentious issue like global warming, meanwhile, the gap between scientists and the public was vast: 84 percent of scientists, but just 49 percent
of Americans, think human emissions are causing global warming. (Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, Boston Globe) Apparently the public is a lot more scientifically literate than Mooney's alleged scientists then because there remains zero evidence carbon dioxide
emissions control climate. Thomas Friedman demands support for global warming laws to make houses more green: Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we need to mitigate climate
change. But it also contains significant provisions to prevent
new buildings from becoming energy hogs... Then Friedman, feeling noble after demanding sacrifices from others, drives home to this energy hog: (Thanks to reader Martin.) (Andrew Bolt blog) Vilsack faces Senate on climate bill WASHINGTON — The Agriculture Department’s July 22 release of an economic analysis showing that the House-passed climate change bill would have a minimum negative
impact on farm costs in the short term and income and benefits over the long term seemed to tame much of the criticism of the bill when Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee later the same day. The silliest part is that, despite a plethora of hysterical claims, there is not one penny's known cost even if enhanced greenhouse does contribute to
net warming. The only known costs are in addressing hypothetical changes. Wrong! Peterson to farmers: Lobby for change now WASHINGTON — House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said July 21 that farmers should try to convince the Senate Agriculture Committee to fix any
remaining problems with the climate change bill because it is very popular in urban America and may become law. Now is the time to dig in and fight! Germany calls 'Carbon Tax', Eco-Imperialism Germany called a French idea to slap "carbon tariffs" on products from countries that are not trying to cut greenhouse gases a form of
"eco-imperialism" and a direct violation of WTO rules. George Will On Climate Change Legislation We didn’t get to this yesterday, but as always, George Will is right on
the money about climate policy: Financial crisis no excuse for inaction on climate change: EU AARE, Sweden — The global financial crisis is not a sufficient reason for inaction on tackling climate change, Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren said on
Friday. Wonder what planet "environment ministers" live on? EU environment ministers
unite on climate change action EU environment ministers met for a second day to discuss a common stance on tackling climate change, committing to a 30 percent reduction of carbon dioxide and financial
support for developing nations. (Deutsche Welle) Climate change pact 'needs' China UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said there can be no global climate change deal without China's support. Is this seriously their position? Act now on climate: Obama THE Obama Administration's climate change negotiator has warned that any country that delays enacting laws will miss out on a huge wave of investment waiting for the
regulatory dam to break. During her recent visit, the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton forcefully urged India to contribute to carbon-emission reductions to combat global warming. India’s
environment minister Jairam Ramesh responded with equal force stating that emission caps would not cut ice in India. Widespread criticisms of this response in the western
press notwithstanding, Ramesh is on a strong wicket when refusing to accept mitigation obligations. (Economic Times) India widens climate rift with west A split between rich and poor nations in the run-up to climate-change talks widened on Thursday. At
the end of his trip to China in May, Senator Kerry was feeling positively giddy
about the prospects of a deal with China at Copenhagen: “Based on these meetings, I am very optimistic at the possibility of producing a successful outcome in Copenhagen,” said Kerry. He described his talks in Beijing as the “most constructive and productive” climate change talks he had ever had with China. He’s sounding down right desperate these days. In a report released on Thursday (but apparently not yet available online) by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, which Kerry chairs, we are reminded that
neither the US or China “has been willing to take the dramatic actions that many experts deem necessary to achieve critical mass for a global effort. . . .Many in the
United States frankly doubt China’s commitment to reduce emissions.” It also notes that “the absence of specific emissions reduction commitments from China has stoked fears of an unfair economic advantage for China, a hobbled U.S. economy
and an insufficient response to the threat of global climate change.” Commitments from China you say? It’s looking like Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) formed the clearest perception of China’s climate change position after his
own trip here in May. At the news conference which ended his visit (as
part of a Congressional delegation headed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi), he stated that from his perspective: It’s business as usual for China. The message that I received was that China was going to do it their way regardless of what the rest of the
world negotiates in Copenhagen. The Congressman’s motives for such statements may be suspect (he voted against Waxman-Markey, for instance), but he seems to have been quite prescient. Were the
authors of yesterday’s opinion piece in the Shanghai Daily
entitled “China fights climate change in its own way” determined to prove the Wisconsin Congressman correct? Here’s the essence of the article: Vice Premier Li Keqiang, told Secretary Chu, a Nobel laureate who is a strong promoter of clean energy, that China adhered to the principle of
“common but differentiated responsibilities” as it actively responds to global climate change. “Common but differentiated responsibilities” refers to the responsibilities of both developed and developing countries in reducing their
carbon footprints respective to their developmental abilities. This language is, of course, climate change code for “we don’t have the slightest intention of signing up at Copenhagen for any absolute carbon caps or carbon growth
limit reductions.” Senator Kerry is right to feel a little panicky. (China Environmental Law) Brown upsets Porritt? Might be better than I thought... PM criticised over climate change Gordon Brown's outgoing adviser on sustainable development has accused him of "hindering" work on climate change. Idiot! Turnbull pledges
conditional support for ETS MALCOLM TURNBULL has put his authority on the line over climate change by pledging to deliver Coalition support for the emissions trading scheme - but only if the
Government accepts a fresh set of demands. No way, no how, not ever! That should be the Coalition position. So what if K.Rudd successfully triggers a double dissolution election and [gasp!] wins?
Let the watermelons own the recession and associated unemployment. forget ETS -- Kyoto II's dead anyway, since the most populous nations cannot limit CO2
emissions even if they were so foolish as to want to do so. More than 3,000 record low temperatures set across the US this
month. Just the right time for scientists to review their previous positions
on warming:
We are among more than 50 current and former members of the American Physical Society who have signed an open
letter to the APS Council this month, calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 policy statement on
climate change. The letter proposes an alternative statement, which the signatories believe to be a more accurate representation of the current scientific evidence. It
requests that an objective scientific process be established, devoid of political or financial agendas, to help prevent subversion of the scientific process and the
intolerance towards scientific disagreement that pervades the climate issue. On 1 May 2009, the APS Council decided to review its current statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. We applaud this decision.
It is the first such reappraisal by a major scientific professional society that we are aware of, and we hope it will lead to meaningful change that reflects a more
balanced view of climate-change issues. Which you won’t get in New Zealand, which contributes practically nothing to global carbon output, but will nevertheless pay a mighty
toll:
Thirty dollars a week for every man, woman and child looks likely to be the price Kiwis will have to pay to do their bit to fight global warming. And all that money won’t achieve anything. It can’t possibly achieve anything. Yet Australia is headed down the same
path:
Malcolm Turnbull has upbraided climate change sceptics in his own party as he flagged the Coalition making a deal on the emissions trading scheme before the end of
the year. Turnbull can afford an ETS. It’ll make him feel happy. But there are many Australians who won’t cop it – among them some who might otherwise have voted for
him. (Tim Blair blog) Marginally better: Emissions stoush: Turnbull
rebuffs Abbott Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has rebuffed a call from his frontbench colleague Tony Abbott to pass Labor's emissions trading scheme to avoid a double dissolution
election. Naturally the Climate Destitute thinks otherwise: Turnbull too soft on polluters:
Climate Institute The Climate Institute says the Opposition Leader's suggested changes to the emissions trading scheme are not tough enough on polluters. Meanwhile K.Rudd & co. play politics as usual: Kevin Rudd accused
of playing games on emissions trading scheme KEVIN Rudd has been accused of playing base political games after spurning Malcolm Turnbull's offer of negotiations over Labor's proposed emissions trading scheme. The world will not notice
even if we die Tell me again, Prime Minister, that our sacrifices in Australia will make a difference to the world’s temperatures: IT’S hard to comprehend, Martin Ferguson said last week. The federal Minister for Resources and Energy was referring to the fact that, in
the next decade, China will bring on line about 1000 average-sized coal-fired power stations, equivalent to 34 times Australia’s present coal-burning generation
capacity. Which helps to explain why even if Australia switches off every light, heater, factory and ignition switch that the world’s emissions will keep soaring as other
economies scream ahead: Ferguson’s government and others in the developed world...have been repeatedly warned by the International Energy Agency that, even if the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development countries collectively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2030, they cannot put the world on track to achieve
stablisation of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million… Non-OECD countries are heading towards a collective volume of emissions of more than 25
billion tonnes a year by 2030, compared by then with less than 15 billion tonnes for the OECD nations. In the vanguard, of course, is China... In this piece, Keith Orchison says China is still waving the green flag, but note where most of its green power actually comes from: By 2020 China aims to have installed 300,000MW of hydro power (equal to 80 Snowy Mountains schemes), 30,000MW of plants fuelled by agricultural waste, 1800MW of
solar power and more than 50,000MW of wind farms (about four times what will be needed here to meet the Rudd renewable energy target). Which green here thinks hydro power - and the new dams to produce it - are what we need? In fact, Greens leader Bob Brown vehemently objected to China’s biggest hydro
scheme, the vast Three Gorges project. You really are being fed the most deceitful of dreams. (Andrew Bolt blog) D'oh! Ministers accused of blocking energy
greening THE state and federal energy ministers, led by Labor's Martin Ferguson, are being accused of undermining the Rudd Government's climate change policies in light of a report
which finds the national electricity market they oversee is discouraging energy efficiency and new renewable energy. The ever-more outrageous claims needed to get media attention (and donor funds): Climate
change to force 75 million Pacific Islanders from their homes More than 75 million people living on Pacific islands will have to relocate by 2050 because of the effects of climate change, Oxfam has warned. (Daily Telegraph) Not all bad though. His fake problem is coming back to bite him: Rudd snubs Pacific
climate issue The Rudd government has been accused of running incoherent policy by refusing to assist Pacific nations in dealing with the dire consequences of climate change. Climate Change Needs Government Push in Global Investors’ Poll Global investors say climate change is a threat and want government action to combat it, even as a plurality says the effort will hurt corporate profits. Oh... An Amazon Culture Withers as Food Dries
Up XINGU NATIONAL PARK, Brazil — As the naked, painted young men of the Kamayurá tribe prepare for the ritualized war games of a festival, they end their haunting fireside
chant with a blowing sound — “whoosh, whoosh” — a symbolic attempt to eliminate the scent of fish so they will not be detected by enemies. For centuries, fish from
jungle lakes and rivers have been a staple of the Kamayurá diet, the tribe’s primary source of protein. Drought is not particularly unusual in the Amazon Basin, nor is there any evidence of any significant temperature change in the region. Experts baffled by high East Coast tides RALEIGH, N.C., July 25 -- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers say they are trying to learn why high tide along the Eastern United States is deeper
than normal. Climate change: New study backs UN panel on ocean rise PARIS — The UN's climate panel has been backed over a key question as to how far global warming will drive up sea levels this century, a study published on Sunday says. Hard to imagine how gorebull warming got a run here considering this has happened in the 1860s... Scientists
plot and prepare for Noah's Ark-like floods - California may be caught in the throes of a years-long drought, but crisis experts are now planning for a 200-to-500-year
flood. First come the wildfires. Then the extended cloudbursts. Then the furies of mud, rock and debris that roar out of the San Gabriel foothills. Comment: Why people don't act on
climate change AT A recent dinner at the University of Oxford, a senior researcher in atmospheric physics was telling me about his coming holiday in Thailand. I asked him whether he was
concerned that his trip would make a contribution to climate change - we had, after all, just sat through a two-hour presentation on the topic. "Of course," he said
blithely. "And I'm sure the government will make long-haul flights illegal at some point." Begley -- beyond description: Climate-Change Calculus - Why it's even worse than we feared. Among the phrases you really, really do not want to hear from climate scientists are: "that really shocked us," "we had no idea how bad it was," and
"reality is well ahead of the climate models." Yet in speaking to researchers who focus on the Arctic, you hear comments like these so regularly they begin to sound
like the thumping refrain from Jaws: annoying harbingers of something that you really, really wish would go away. (Sharon Begley, NEWSWEEK) A fraud based on a fraud: The Political History of Cap and Trade How an unlikely mix of environmentalists and free-market conservatives hammered out the strategy known as cap-and-trade (Richard Conniff, Smithsonian magazine) Digging a Cap-and-Trade
Hole for America Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens’s last minute opposition to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, announced just prior to the House of Representatives’ vote, was reminiscent
of Senator John Kerry’s infamous statement “I voted for it before I voted against it.” House Climate
Bill Dangles Cash to Lure CCS 'First Movers' The sweeping House-passed climate and energy bill has a message for companies trying to develop and use "clean coal" technology: If you snooze, you lose. On the stormy seas of carbon reduction BARACK OBAMA went into the White House determined to lead the world on climate change, but he is facing a very rough passage. Gov’ts should pony up billions for carbon capture: report Graphic showing the workings of a carbon capture and storage plant. The Alberta and the federal governments will have to provide as much as $3 billion a year for an
undetermined length of time for carbon capture to succeed as a climate change strategy, says a provincial report released today. Photograph by: Handout, Alberta Geological Survey EDMONTON — The provincial and federal governments will need to contribute $1 billion to $3 billion annually to remove the “financial disadvantage” companies would
face to use carbon capture and storage technology, says a report to government from an advisory council. At the same time the report notes enhanced oil production generated by injecting this carbon dioxide into older oilfields could generate $105 billion in revenues, with $11
billion to $25 billion in additional provincial royalties and taxes. “We will all share in this economic benefit,” says the report written by the Alberta Carbon Capture and Storage Development Council. The council, which consists of
industry, government and university representatives, is headed by Jim Carter, former president of Syncrude. The report is dated March 4, 2009 but wasn’t released until
Friday. The council says there is a business case for the Alberta government to continue to support carbon capture beyond the current $2-billion fund. “Alberta can significantly
reduce its greenhouse gas emissions while securing markets for our oilsands products, extracting value and a dependable supply of electricity from our coal resource,
enhancing our value-added opportunities and increasing enhanced oil recovery and wealth for all Albertans and Canadians,” they write. (Edmonton Journal) Enter the regulators: CCSReg Project Policy Brief Summaries (.pdf) The Carbon Capture and Sequestration Regulatory Project (CCSReg) is developing recommendations for regulation of deep geological sequestration of carbon dioxide in the
United States. The project is funded by a grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and anchored at Carnegie Mellon University with collaborators at the University of
Minnesota, Vermont Law School, and the law firm of Van Ness Feldman. Industry stands to win over €5 billion from ETS Industries participating in the EU's emissions trading scheme will likely end up with surplus allowances worth almost 400 million tonnes of CO2 in the period 2008-2012,
undermining the objectives of the scheme, a climate campaign group said this week. More on PNG’s “carbon cowboys” For several weeks, Papua New Guinea has been embroiled in a forest carbon trading scandal. Kevin Conrad, talks about “carbon cowboys” descending on PNG. Energy firms help pay for Calif. regulators' far-flung trips SACRAMENTO, Calif. — State officials who lead California's war on global warming often travel abroad on trips supported by the major greenhouse gas polluters they
regulate, a Bee investigation has found. Industry lobbyists and executives routinely join them. She's started a fight -- good! What Palin Got Wrong
About Energy
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin put the global warming debate front and center last week with a
plea to avoid the "personality-driven political gossip of the day" and focus more "on the gravity of . . . challenges" facing our country. We share her hopes for a substantive dialogue. But we want to put facts ahead of fiction and real debate ahead of rhetorical bomb-throwing. Palin argues that "the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive!" The truth is, clean energy legislation doesn't make energy scarcer or
more expensive; it works to find alternative solutions to our costly dependence on foreign oil and provides powerful incentives to pursue cutting-edge clean energy
technologies. Palin asserts that job losses are "certain." Wrong. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and American Clean Energy and Security legislation will create
significant employment opportunities across the country in a broad array of sectors linked to the clean energy economy. Studies at the federal level and by states have
demonstrated clean energy job creation. A report
by the Center for American Progress calculated that $150 billion in clean energy investments would create more than 1.7 million domestic and community-based jobs that can't
be shipped overseas. Palin seems nostalgic for the campaign rally chant of "drill, baby, drill." But she ignores the fact that the United States has only 3 percent of the world's
proven oil reserves, while we are responsible for 25 percent of the world's oil consumption. In fact, the governor's new refrain against global warming action reminds us of every naysayer who has spoken out against progress in cleaning up pollution. Whether it was the debate over the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Superfund law or any other landmark environmental law, one pattern has always been clear: Time
and again, pessimists -- often affiliated with polluting industries -- predicted job losses and great costs to taxpayers. Each time, our environmental laws have cleaned the
water we drink, the air we breathe and the communities we live in at far lower cost than initially expected. Take the acid rain program established in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. The naysayers said it would cost consumers billions in higher electricity rates, but
electricity rates declined an average of 19 percent from 1990 to 2006. Naysayers said the cost to business would be more than $50 billion a year, but health and other
benefits outweighed the costs 40 to 1. Naysayers predicted it would cost the economy millions of jobs. In fact, the United States added 20 million jobs from 1993 to 2000, as
the U.S. economy grew 64 percent. The carefully crafted clean energy bill that we will present to the Senate, building on the Waxman-Markey legislation passed by the House, will jump-start our economy,
protect consumers, stop the ravages of unchecked global climate change and ensure that the United States -- not China or India -- will be the leading economic power in this
century. By creating powerful incentives for clean energy, it will create millions of jobs in America -- building wind turbines, installing solar panels on homes and producing a
new fleet of electric and hybrid vehicles. It will also help make America more secure. A May report by retired U.S. generals and
admirals found, "Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish
us harm, and weakens our economy; our dependency and inefficient use of oil also puts our troops at risk." We do not charge that Palin wants to keep sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas annually to import oil from countries that, in many cases, are working to harm
Americans and American interests around the world -- or that she wants another nation to lead the way to the innovative clean energy solutions that will be eagerly gobbled up
by the rest of the world. But those would be the tragic results of the do-nothing policies she has espoused. Our nation's approach to energy must be balanced and must provide
incentives for all the available clean energy sources to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We are already working every day in the Senate to pass legislation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create millions of clean energy jobs and protect our
children from pollution. We respectfully invite Gov. Palin to join that reality-based debate -- one that relies on facts, science, tested economics and steely-eyed national
security interests. Our country needs nothing less, and our planet depends on it. (Barbara Boxer and John F. Kerry, Washington Post) Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, is chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. John F. Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts, is
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Gov. Sarah Palin's op-ed, "A 'Cap and Tax' Dead End,"
was published in The Post on July 14. The Crone and the perpetual mercury myth: Mercury
and Power Plants When it comes to the environment, Washington’s attention is fixed these days on the Congressional battle over legislation to control greenhouse gas emissions. But there
are other pollutants — so-called ground level pollutants, as opposed to those that rise into the atmosphere — that also need urgent attention, starting with toxic mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants. What the senile publication has never figured out is that the mercury scare has everything to do with eco-cranks' attack on energy and industry and
nothing to do with health or the environment. There has been an inordinate amount of really bad legislation stemming from absurd activist claims -- remember the "one
thermometer could poison a 20-acre lake" farce? Miners Boycott Tenn. Over Alexander's Bill - It
Would Ban Mountaintop Removal The lush, rolling contours of the Great Smoky Mountains are Tennessee's pride and joy, and a major source of tourism revenue. But Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) says he is
afraid of seeing those mountains transformed by the region's coal industry -- their tops blasted off for mining, rivers clogged with debris and majestic forests cloaked in
smog from coal-burning power plants instead of the Smokies' famous mists. The
Slaughter of Migratory Bats by Wind Turbines With wind power booming around the world—in Germany alone, nearly 20,000 wind-energy installations have been built since 1990—researchers are seeing a marked increase
in dead bats. The turbines simply rotate their blades too quickly for the winged mammals to avoid. The deaths have led to a flurry of research on migratory bats and their
behavior. Indeed, at a January conference in Berlin on migratory bats, wind farms were a dominant theme. Scientists are racing to figure out what brings the bats in contact
with wind turbines, and what can be done to save them. There are no easy answers, in part because little is known about migratory bats. And without concrete data, persuading
government regulators and energy companies to relocate proposed wind farms, let alone change the operations of existing turbines or shut them down, is difficult. Deadly Flights Science 24 July 2009: Windfarm Britain means (very) expensive electricity - Renewable energy at
normal prices 'is a myth' A recent industry study into the UK energy sector of 2030 - which according to government plans will use a hugely increased amount of wind power - suggests that massive
electricity price rises will be required, and some form of additional government action in order to avoid power cuts. This could have a negative impact on plans for
electrification of transport and domestic energy use. A price too high even
for politicians to pay How deceitful is Labor is claiming we can slash our emissions easily by going green? How quiet is the party on the true costs? Judge from this Senate estimates questioning
of the secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services on the electricity used by politicians: Senator BERNARDI— ...The new electricity contract which you have just signed, is that using green electricity? Mr Thompson—It is 10 per cent green electricity. Senator BERNARDI—Why only 10 per cent? Mr Thompson—In an ideal world we would like it to be 100 per cent, but there
are some stark cost implications there… Senator BERNARDI—There was a promise by the government to power Parliament House and all MPs’ electorate premises with renewable and clean energy. Clearly that is
not taking place… Mr Thompson—All we are doing is seeking a good price for electricity for this building. I think there has been a brief discussion with the Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet about green energy but, as we explained to them, there is a significant budget cost... That’s a cost this Government will increasingly foist on private businesses, who must inevitably wonder how they are to pay it without sacking people or going out of
business. What sort of costs are we talking about? Again judge from this - the estimate of how much more Parliament House alone will have to pay for its power under Kevin Rudd’s
emissions trading scheme: Senator BERNARDI—By way of clarification, Mr Kenny, specifically I am interested in what you are expecting as an increase in electricity costs as a result of the
ETS or if any increase has been built in there… Answer... 3 Parliament House is responsible for the production of approximately 20,000 tonnes of CO2 through the consumption of electricity. At $23/t, this
would add around $460,000 to our electricity costs when based on 2007–08 consumption. Think about that cost - neary $500,000 more for just Parliament House’s electricity bill. Taxpayers will have to pay that, and similar costs for countless other
government facilities. But who will pay the extra for all the big private businesses that face such big cost increases, too? How many workers will then lose their jobs,
thanks to a tax on power that will actually do nothing to stop a warming that seems to have stopped by itself, anyway? UPDATE 1 Here’s what Kiwis must now pay for a scheme that will have zero effect on the world’s climate: Thirty dollars a
week for every man, woman and child looks likely to be the price Kiwis will have to pay to do their bit to fight global warming. In fact, even the Government admits New Zealanders would actually be better off doing nothing at all about a presumed warming they couldn’t stop anyway: According to the report if we do nothing about climate change, the average income per person will be $49,000 by 2020. Cutting emissions by 40% cuts that income back
to $46,000. No wonder the Indian Government
refuses to pay, too, saying the science is dodgy, anyway. In fact, members of the American Physical Society are now petitioning their organisation to reconsider
its support for claims that man is heating the world to hell. (Andrew Bolt blog) Battling climate change will cost each Kiwi about $26 a week by 2020, a report shows. Big Brother may flick the
switch on household appliances The use of household appliances including dishwashers and washing machines could soon be under the control of power companies under plans designed to curb peak period
energy consumption. July 24, 2009
Well, they've certainly managed to frighten people: Public fear
mounts as swine flu cases soar Millions of patients overwhelmed a new telephone and online service yesterday to obtain swine flu treatment without seeing a doctor as the number of cases doubled in a
week. Is that medical device safe and
effective? Who knows? In the wake of the ObTape mess—more on that later—people are finally beginning to take a hard look at just how the FDA approves medical devices. Most consumers and many health care workers are unaware that there is a big difference in the approval process between drugs and devices. To market a new drug, the
manufacturer must go through a lengthy and expensive process, generally involving clinical trials. Even that process is not always sufficient to spot dangerous side effects
of the drugs, which may not appear for years. Device approval is completely different. Medical devices are classified (Classes I, II, and III) based on the level of control necessary to assure the safety and
effectiveness of the device—Class III being the most stringent. The FDA maintains an extensive database to determine which Class a device would fall into. Here are some
typical examples: Many Class I devices are exempt, and do not require so-called premarket review. In such cases, the manufacturer need only register its facility with the FDA. All other
devices are subject to one of two types of FDA premarket review before they may be legally marketed in the United States. Premarket approval [PMA]: The manufacturer must submit evidence, typically including clinical data, providing reasonable assurance that the new device is safe and
effective. A successful submission results in FDA approval. Premarket notification [510(k)—Based on section 510(k) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]: The manufacturer must demonstrate to FDA that the new device is
substantially equivalent to a device already legally on the market that does not require a PMA. A successful submission results in FDA clearance. "Substantially equivalent" means that the device has the same intended use as another legally marketed device (the "predicate device") and the same
technological characteristics, or different technological characteristics and submitted information demonstrates that the device is as safe and effective as the legally
marketed device and does not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness. Notably, it is not legal to advertise a 510(k) cleared device as "FDA-approved." Rather, it is "FDA-cleared." For PMA, the device review user fee is $200,725 or $50,181 for a small business. For 510(k), the device review user fee is $3693 or $1847 for a small business. A
"small business" has annual gross sales and revenues of $100 million or less. The PMA fee is waived for the first premarket application from firms with less than
$30 million gross receipts or sales. Not surprisingly, far more devices are cleared than approved. In the period 2003-2007 (based on FDA's fiscal year) 14,999 devices were cleared and 1001 were approved.
Thus, it is true that most medical devices are not specifically tested for safety and effectiveness. The key here is determining the validity of substantial equivalence in each case. Even then, the procedure can be gamed, if a device is in fact substantially equivalent,
but will be marketed for other purposes. For example, several quack devices said to measure skin resistance are accompanied by software that fabricates diagnoses and
recommends products. Given the public's demand for more and better health care, the 510(k) process can streamline getting devices into the marketplace. But, as the old joke says: "There's
low price, high quality, and quick delivery. Which two do you want?" Regarding ObTape Vaginal Sling, until taken off the market, this was a medical device meant to stop the uncontrollable flow of urine as a result of urinary stress
incontinence, a medical condition affecting about two million American women. FDA clearance was granted based on substantial equivalence to the urethral support tape products
manufactured and marketed by Johnson & Johnson, 510(k) No: K974098 and American Medical Systems, 510(k) K013355. As it happens, clearance for the Johnson & Johnson device was based on the Protegen sling, which was forced off the market, based on FDA findings that it was
"adulterated and misbranded." Since proving substantial equivalency is all that is required for a 510(k) clearance, the clearance is not affected if some problem
occurs with a predicate device. Numerous adverse incident reports came into the FDA on the ObTape, starting in 2004. While adverse incidents do not necessarily mean that the product is defective—and
the manufacturer still defends ObTape—in 2006, the product was withdrawn. Through litigation, expert opinion suggests that there were substantial differences between the
ObTape and its predicate device, including being made of much more dense material, not porous enough to allow tissue and capillaries to grow through it so it is fully
incorporated in the body, rather than becoming encapsulated and expelled. Moreover, once clearance was granted, the manufacturer of ObTape began to promote its unique features, sufficient enough to get it patented! In other words, ObTape was
substantially equivalent enough to be cleared, but substantially unique enough to earn a patent. Beyond the equivalence issue is good old political pressure. Media sources have documented this sort of thing recently. In one case, a PMA was granted to a certain
mammography device even though scientists at the agency recommended against approval, charging that the company had not sufficiently tested the device. In another, clearance
was granted to a knee implant, that many felt should have gone through the PMA process instead. Inasmuch as the FDA is a government agency, politics cannot be kept out of the equation. But it is clear that device clearance and approval has to be reformed. A first
step would be much tighter guidelines on equivalency. (Shaw's Eco-Logic) How McDonalds fought off charges of promoting obesity In 1948, Dick and Mac Mcdonald effectively invented the modern fast-food industry in a small diner in Manchester, New Hampshire. With their creation of the “Speedee
Service System” , the brothers changed the way Americans, and eventually, restaurant-goers all over the world, looked at their food. Slinging burgers and fries in the
billions, McDonald’s triumphed by quick-cooking products that raised many a doctor’s eyebrow . We're living longer, but even that is
worrying us This week the US Census Bureau announced that, within 10 years and for the first time in history, old people will outnumber children under five across the globe. It was
careful not to be too judgmental about this - there being so little we can do about it anyway - and concentrated not on consequent problems but on the "challenges to
policymakers". Congressional Hype about Bottled Water The news is depressing these days as people fear losing their homes or jobs and worry about family members deployed in military operations overseas. So what are members of
Congress worried about? They fear the “grave” threats posed by--bottled water. Now that’s crazy. The Crone not just allowing animal libber front (and largely science-free zone) UCS to spout their bile and nonsense but actively promoting it: Farms
and Antibiotics The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of the antibiotics used in this country are fed to farm animals. These animals do not receive these drugs the
way humans do — as discrete short-term doses. Agricultural antibiotics are a regular feed supplement intended to increase growth and lessen the chance of infection in
crowded, industrial farms. (NYT) The Cocktail Conversation Guide to Global Warming "Every
American should understand these central issues to the global warming debate," Marshall Institute President Jeff Kueter said. "President Obama and the
Congress have set the U.S. on a precarious path based on assumptions and preconceptions, not documented facts. Our Guide will help the public become better
informed about the uncertainties in the scientific evidence used to justify severe constraints on energy use and intrusions into day-to-day lives of the American
people." Please contact the Marshall Institute at 202-296-9655 or info@marshall.org for details on how to obtain your "Cocktail
Party Pak" (15 copies of the Guide, cocktails napkins and drink swizzles), everything you would need to host your own climate change cocktail party! Full
Text of "The Cocktail Conversation Guide to Global Warming" (PDF, 1117 KB) New
paper from Lindzen demonstrates low climate sensitivity with observational data “…ERBE data appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5°C which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models.” figure 3 - click for larger image On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi Abstract Introduction To see what one particular difficulty is, consider the following conceptual situation: We instantaneously double CO2. This will cause the characteristic emission level to rise to a colder level with an associated diminution of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).
The resulting radiative imbalance is what is generally referred to as radiative forcing. However, the resulting warming will eventually eliminate the radiative imbalance as
the system approaches equilibrium. The actual amount of warming associated with equilibration as well as the response time will depend on the climate feedbacks in the system.
These feedbacks arise from the dependence of radiatively important substances like water vapor (which is a powerful greenhouse gas) and clouds (which are important for both
infrared and visible radiation) on the temperature. If the feedbacks are positive, then both the equilibrium warming and the response time will increase; if they are
negative, both will decrease. Simple calculations as well as GCM results suggest response times on the order of decades for positive feedbacks and years or less for negative
feedbacks [Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998, and references therein]. The main point of this example is to illustrate that the climate system tends to eliminate radiative imbalances with characteristic response times. Now, in 2002–2004 several papers noted that there was interdecadal change in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative balance associated with a warming between the 1980’s
and 1990’s [Chen et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2002; Wielicki et al., 2002a, b; Cess and Udelhofen, 2003; Hatzidimitriou et al., 2004; Lin et al., 2004]. Chou and Lindzen
[2005] inferred from the interdecadal changes in OLR and temperature that there was a strong negative feedback. However, this result was internally inconsistent since the
persistence of the imbalance over a decade implied a positive feedback. A subsequent correction to the satellite data eliminated much of the decadal variation in the
radiative balance [Wong et al., 2006]. Concluding Remarks In Figure 3, we show 3 panels. We see that ERBE and model results differ substantially. In panels a and b, we evaluate Equation (3) using ΔFlux for only OLR and only
SWR. The curves are for the condition assuming no SW feedback and assuming no LW feedback in panels a and b, respectively. In panel a, model results fall on the curve given
by Equation (3), because the model average of SW feedbacks is almost zero. In panel b, models with smaller LW feedbacks are closer to the curve for no LW feedback; the model
results would lie on the curve assuming positive LW feedback. When in panel c we consider the total flux (i.e., LW + SW), model results do lie on the theoretically expected
curve. Looking at Figure 3, we note several important features: 1) The models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE. 2) The (negative) feedback in ERBE is mostly from SW while the (positive) feedback in the models is mostly from OLR. 3) The theoretical relation between ΔF/ΔT and sensitivity is very flat for sensitivities greater than 2°C. Thus, the data does not readily pin down such
sensitivities. This was the basis for the assertion by Roe and Baker [2007] that determination of climate sensitivity was almost impossible [Allen and Frame, 2007]. However,
this assertion assumes a large positive feedback. Indeed, Fig. 3c suggests that models should have a range of sensitivities extending from about 1.5°C to infinite sensitivity (rather than 5°C as commonly asserted),
given the presence of spurious positive feedback. However, response time increases with increasing sensitivity [Lindzen and Giannitsis,1998], and models were probably not run
sufficiently long to realize their full sensitivity. For sensitivities less than 2°C, the data readily distinguish different sensitivities, and ERBE data appear to
demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5°C which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models. Note that while TOA flux data from ERBE are sufficient to determine feedback factors, this data do not specifically identify mechanisms. Thus, the small OLR feedback from
ERBE might represent the absence of any OLR feedback; it might also result from the cancellation of a possible positive water vapor feedback due to increased water vapor in
the upper troposphere [Soden et al., 2005] and a possible negative iris cloud feedback involving reduced upper level cirrus clouds [Lindzen et al., 2001]. With respect to SW
feedbacks, it is currently claimed that model SW feedbacks are largely associated with the behavior of low level clouds [Bony et al., 2006, and references therein]. Whether
this is the case in nature cannot be determined from ERBE TOA observations. However, more recent data from CALIOP do offer height resolution, and we are currently studying such data to resolve the issue of what, in fact, is determining SW
feedbacks. Finally, it should be noted that our analysis has only considered the tropics. Following Lindzen et al. [2001], allowing for sharing this tropical feedback with
neutral higher latitudes could reduce the negative feedback factor by about a factor of two. This would lead to an equilibrium sensitivity that is 2/3 rather than 1/2 of the
non-feedback value. This, of course, is still a small sensitivity. see the full paper here (PDF) (WUWT) New Scientist: science is now inadequate Olda K. has pointed out the following article in Nude Socialist to me, Argh! A New Fight Over Pollution Curbs Takes Root - Energy-Intensive Companies Hope
to Counter Emissions by Preserving Trees That Might Not Have Been at Risk of Destruction How much pollution can a tree absorb? The question is at the center of a high-stakes fight over how much it will cost to curb climate change -- and who will foot the bill. Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon
dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution...
Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not
pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is
not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide
is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon
dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Carbon dioxide is not pollution... Johanns says climate change bill won't pass Senate OMAHA, Neb. -- U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns says the climate change bill passed by the House in June will not pass in the Senate. U.N. Seeks $10 Billion Aid As Good Start To Climate Pact OSLO - Aid of $10 billion from rich nations would be a "good beginning" to launch a U.N. climate treaty due to be agreed in Copenhagen in December, the United
Nations' top climate official said on Thursday. U.S. must move faster on climate change: Sweden ARE, Sweden - Sweden, which currently holds the European Union presidency, urged the United States on Thursday to move faster to tackle climate change ahead of a major
environmental summit in Copenhagen later this year. Is Time Running Out To Seal Post-Kyoto Climate Pact? SINGAPORE - Negotiators face a mammoth task to try to agree by the end of the year on the outlines of broader climate pact to replace the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol. Cold Shoulder to Climate 'Urgency' WASHINGTON -- Unfortunately, China's president had to dash home to suppress ethnic riots. Had he stayed in Italy at the recent G-8 summit, he could have continued the
Herculean task of disabusing Barack Obama of his amazingly durable belief, shared by the U.S. Congress, that China -- and India, Brazil, Mexico and other developing nations
-- will sacrifice their modernization on the altar of climate change. China has a more pressing agenda, and not even suppressing riots tops the list. Bruce Parry on 1 minute to save the world - 'Anyone can
deliver a short but powerful message to the world about the most important issue of the day,' says the Tribe presenter The climate crisis that's facing all of us means that it's time for all hands on deck. For too long we've been bombarded with short films in the form of adverts that tell
us it's cool to consume; cool to replace barely worn out goods with newer ones; cool to travel as far and as fast as possible. Personally, I think it's time to fight back;
time to fight fire with fire; time to counter the messages that infinite growth and consumption are good using the same weapon with which they've been delivered to us. Film. U.K. Falls Behind Canada in Carbon Capture, Industry Group Says U.K. efforts to capture and store carbon dioxide from power plants, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, have fallen behind Canada and other nations because of funding
delays, the head of an industry lobby group said. Good because no one should be wasting such a precious resource. Just fuggedaboudit will ya? Carnegie Mellon Team Leads National Project
Recommending Regulations for Safe Capture and Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide PITTSBURGH, July 23 -- Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, which captures carbon dioxide from power plants and safely disposes of it deep underground, will
not meet its full potential in the United States without new federal regulations that create a uniform regulatory environment. "Realistic
Costs of Carbon Capture" Discussion Paper July 2009 Authors: Mohammed
Al-Juaied, Mohammed Al-Juaied, Former Visiting Scholar, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2008-2009, Adam
Whitmore Belfer Center Discussion Papers Belfer Center Programs or Projects: Energy Technology Innovation Policy;
Environment and Natural Resources; Science,
Technology, and Public Policy ABSTRACT: There is a growing interest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a means of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However there are substantial
uncertainties about the costs of CCS. Costs for pre-combustion capture with compression (i.e. excluding costs of transport and storage and any revenue from EOR
associated with storage) are examined in this discussion paper for First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) plant and for more mature technologies, or Nth-of-a-Kind plant (NOAK). For FOAK plant using solid fuels the levelised cost of electricity on a 2008 basis is approximately 10¢/kWh higher with capture than for conventional plants
(with a range of 8-12 ¢/kWh). Costs of abatement are found typically to be approximately $150/tCO2 avoided (with a range of $120-180/tCO2 avoided). For NOAK plants the
additional cost of electricity with capture is approximately 2-5¢/kWh, with costs of the range of $35-70/tCO2 avoided. Costs of abatement with carbon capture for other
fuels and technologies are also estimated for NOAK plants. The costs of abatement are calculated with reference to conventional SCPC plant for both emissions and costs of
electricity. Estimates for both FOAK and NOAK are mainly based on cost data from 2008, which was at the end of a period of sustained escalation in the costs of power
generation plant and other large capital projects. There are now indications of costs falling from these levels. This may reduce the costs of abatement and costs
presented here may be "peak of the market" estimates. If general cost levels return, for example, to those prevailing in 2005 to 2006 (by which time significant cost escalation had already occurred from previous
levels), then costs of capture and compression for FOAK plants are expected to be $110/tCO2 avoided (with a range of $90-135/tCO2 avoided). For NOAK plants costs are
expected to be $25-50/tCO2. Based on these considerations a likely representative range of costs of abatement from CCS excluding transport and storage costs appears to be $100-150/tCO2
for first-of-a-kind plants and perhaps $30-50/tCO2 for nth-of-a-kind plants. The estimates for FOAK and NOAK costs appear to be broadly consistent in the light of estimates of the potential for cost reductions with increased
experience. Cost reductions are expected from increasing scale, learning on individual components, and technological innovation including improved plant integration.
Innovation and integration can both lower costs and increase net output with a given cost base. These factors are expected to reduce abatement costs by approximately 65% by
2030. The range of estimated costs for NOAK plants is within the range of plausible future carbon prices, implying that mature technology would be competitive with
conventional fossil fuel plants at prevailing carbon prices. No! Turnbull is right, the Coalition can't win this fight IN the light of public sentiment, the opposition has to accept political reality on climate change, at least for the moment. Abbott is wrong, we must win this fight! More importantly for the Coalition you must fight! The big mistake of the Coalition Government was to
yield on gorebull warming but now you have the chance to correct that. You must offer voters a rational alternative, not vote as a mere extension of the government. Why
should anyone vote for the opposition if they deliver exactly the same disastrous policies as the government? No ETS. Not now, not ever. Libs need to keep cool head to weather heat THE ETS will destroy Turnbull's leadership unless he can master the policy dividing his party. Climate Change Could Have Negative Effects On Stream And Forest Ecosystems A rare April freeze in 2007 provided researchers at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory with further evidence that climate change could have negative
effects on stream and forest ecosystems. (ScienceDaily) You're wrong! They are looking at a cold event. New
Paper “Surface Temperature Variations In East Africa And Possible Causes” By Christy Et Al. 2009 As posted on Watts Up With That, ICECAP and
Climate Audit, there is an excellent new paper on the issue of surface temperature trends. The paper is Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, and R.T. McNider, 2009: Surface
Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes. J. Climate, 22, 3342–3356. The abstract reads “Surface temperatures have been observed in East Africa for more than 100 yr, but heretofore have not been subject to a rigorous climate analysis. To pursue this
goal monthly averages of maximum (TMax), minimum (TMin), and mean (TMean) temperatures were obtained for Kenya and Tanzania from several
sources. After the data were organized into time series for specific sites (60 in Kenya and 58 in Tanzania), the series were adjusted for break points and merged into
individual gridcell squares of 1.25°, 2.5°, and 5.0°. Results for the most data-rich 5° cell, which includes Nairobi, Mount Kilimanjaro, and Mount Kenya, indicate that since 1905, and even recently, the trend of TMax
is not significantly different from zero. However, TMin results suggest an accelerating temperature rise. Uncertainty estimates indicate that the trend of the difference time series (TMax - TMin) is significantly less than zero for 1946-2004, the
period with the highest density of observations. This trend difference continues in the most recent period (1979-2004), in contrast with findings in recent periods for global
datasets, which generally have sparse coverage of East Africa. The differences between TMax and TMin trends, especially recently, may reflect a response to complex changes in the boundary layer dynamics; TMax
represents the significantly greater daytime vertical connection to the deep atmosphere, whereas TMin often represents only a shallow layer whose temperature is
more dependent on the turbulent state than on the temperature aloft. Because the turbulent state in the stable boundary layer is highly dependent on local land use and perhaps locally produced aerosols, the significant human development
of the surface may be responsible for the rising TMin while having little impact on TMax in East Africa. This indicates that time series of TMax
and TMin should become separate variables in the study of long-term changes.” This an excellent research contribution and adds to the concern with respect to using the surface temperature trends as the climate metric to monitor and predict global
average warming and cooling that we overviewed in our paper Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S.
Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land
surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229 (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science) Pacific shift behind 70% of recent warming In this weekly dose of peer-reviewed denialist literature on the climate, we look into Journal of Geophysical Research. J.D. McLean, C.R. de Freitas, and R.M.
Carter, in their Strong Evidence That Cloud Changes May Exacerbate Global Warming Shown From New
Study The role of clouds in climate change has been a major question for decades. As the earth warms under increasing greenhouse gases, it is not known whether clouds will
dissipate, letting in more of the sun's heat energy and making the earth warm even faster, or whether cloud cover will increase, blocking the Sun's rays and actually slowing
down global warming. Or they are observing some of Lindzen's "Iris Effect" in action, in which case it's a cooling effect. Climate insurance: what kind of deal can be made in Copenhagen? One key challenge on the climate change agenda is a fairer system to protect the world's poorest farmers from failing crops and extreme weather variations. From Climate
Feedback part of Guardian Environment Network What has Copenhagen to do with development and/or farming improvements? Oil sands less dirty than thought, Alberta study finds CALGARY -- The Alberta government shot back at international oil sands critics Thursday, releasing two reports that argue crude produced from the sticky sands in the
northern part of the province is not as devastating to the environment as previously believed. CO2 emission is a plain dumb metric. The great wonder is how they managed to have colorless, odorless and essential carbon dioxide thought of
as "dirty". Humanity can't power progress with green faith ENVIRONMENTALISTS who oppose everything except renewable energy are condemning billions to poverty. Last week's newsletter included a mention of the work of Craig Venter in discovering bacteria which can convert coal to methane, and his collaboration with BP to
commercialise the technology. However, a reader has pointed out that this is not a completely new approach to the use of coal reserves. Luca Technologies, based in Denver,
already has pilot wells in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming which have generated in total a billion cubic feet of gas. Kirk R. Smith is among the world’s leading authorities on the problem of indoor air pollution. In 2007, the World Health Organization found
that indoor air pollution was killing about 500,000 people in India every year, most of them women and children. The agency found that pollution levels in some kitchens in
rural India were some 30 times higher than recommended and that the pollution was six times as bad as that found in New Delhi. Globally, more than 1.6 million people per year
die premature deaths due to indoor air pollution caused by burning biomass – wood,
dung, roots, straw, etc. They don't say... Motoring taxes 'tarnished eco
image' Motorists mistrust the Government's road user tax measures, a report from MPs said today. A lot of trouble just to dump junk in the countryside: Slow,
Costly and Often Dangerous Road to Wind Power BELFAST, Me. — On America’s highways, wind turbines may be the ultimate oversize load. Renewables sector 'a cottage industry' The nation's nuclear science chief has described the renewable energy sector as "a cottage industry", saying it can't generate enough power to meet national
baseload requirements. Wind and solar are not enough, says Resources Minister Martin
Ferguson RESOURCES Minister Martin Ferguson has savaged environmentalists for demonising nuclear, gas and coal-fired energy despite knowing solar and wind energy are not viable on
current technology. Business and reduced carbon intensity It seems that companies everywhere are jumping on the carbon emissions reduction bandwagon. Since the business of business is to maximise profits over the foreseeable
future, this does not (by and large) represent altruism, but what is best described as enlightened self interest (although some campaigners would question the
"enlightened"). July 23, 2009
<GUFFAW!> Cancer Risk Prompts Hot Dog Fraud Lawsuit Against Nathan’s Famous, Sara
Lee, and Kraft/Oscar Mayer - Three New Jersey Residents Seek Warning Labels on Hot Dog Packages WASHINGTON—Three New Jersey residents are suing Nathan’s Famous, Kraft Foods/Oscar Mayer, Sara Lee, Con Agra Foods, and Marathon Enterprises for failing to warn
consumers that hot dogs increase the danger of colorectal cancer. The action comes in the wake of landmark scientific studies linking hot dogs and similar meats to colon
cancer. WARNING: Animal Rights Activism May Result in Frivolous
Lawsuits
As if money-hungry trial lawyers and the
Center for Science in the Public Interest weren’t enough. This morning, the phony Cancer Project filed
a lawsuit asking the court to require a cancer-risk warning label on all hot dog packages sold in New Jersey. There’s no beef to its cancer claims, of course, as the
Associated Press and other media outlets pointed out during last year’s hot dog scare campaign. But just in case, we’re
offering reporters a little reminder today. As we’re telling the media, the Cancer Project is a deceptive spinoff of the woefully misnamed Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine – a group that is 96 percent free of actual doctors. And together they’re phonier than a tofu dog. From its creepy commercials to last year’s tasteless attempt to capitalize
on the death of a former White House Press Secretary, PCRM and the Cancer Project will stop at nothing to scare Americans into a PETA-approved diet. Even if
it means using our legal system as a tool for its fringe goals – and wasting taxpayers’ money in the process. (Center For Consumer Freedom) AMI
wants hot dog 'nuisance' lawsuit dismissed The American Meat Institute (AMI) today urged dismissal of a nuisance lawsuit filed through the pro-vegetarian, animal rights group, the Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine and its 'Cancer Project.' Credit where credit is due: LA Times not doing a bad job of its coverage: Maybe
hot dogs aren't the point, in diet or in publicity
The Cancer Project has turned to the courts in an attempt to have this dire notice placed on packages of hot dogs: "Warning: Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats
increases the risk of cancer." Here's today's story in the L.A. Times. Neal Barnard, president of the Cancer Project, is quoted as saying: "Just as tobacco causes lung cancer, processed meats are linked to colon cancer.... Companies that
sell hot dogs are well aware of the danger, and their customers deserve the same information." Ignoring the fact for a moment that consumers don't seem to read what's already on their food labels, it's worth pointing out that the data on processed meat and colon
cancer are not quite as conclusive as the smoking-and-lung-cancer connection. Someone whose diet includes hot dogs with marked frequency might have a broader problem than the hot dogs themselves. (And just to emphasize the fact that few foods are inherently good or bad, here's an earlier Times story, from then-Times columnist Susan Bowerman, then assistant director
of the UCLA Center for Human Nutrition. Are nitrite's and nitrate's bad reps undeserved?: "Found
in fruits, vegetables and cured meats, the chemicals may reduce risk of heart disease, a study finds.") If it's colon cancer that worries you, here's an online booklet from the National Cancer Institute:
"What You Need to Know About Cancer of the Colon and Rectum." Here's what it says about diet: "Studies suggest that diets high in fat (especially
animal fat) and low in calcium, folate, and fiber may increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Also, some studies suggest that people who eat a diet very low in fruits and
vegetables may have a higher risk of colorectal cancer. However, results from diet studies do not always agree, and more research is needed to better understand how diet
affects the risk of colorectal cancer." So when it comes to cancer risk, hot dogs might in fact be a marker of a bad diet, not the definition of one. If you're eating a whole lot of hot dogs -- or nachos or
burgers or deep-fried food -- the hot dogs themselves might not be the core problem. You're also not eating a lot of more nutritious food. Whether the group will succeed is anyone's guess, but then maybe that's not the point either. More people are now aware of the potential dangers of hot dogs, and as
the story observes: "The Cancer Project is a branch of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that lobbies against animal research and pitches the
adoption of meat-free diets." It's hard to deny the suit is an effective publicity move. After all, there was a story -- and a blog -- in the L.A. Times. -- Tami Dennis Photo: When eating hot dogs, most people would advise moderation. Perhaps not Takeru Kobayashi, former champion of the Nathan's Famous July 4th Hot Dog Eating Contest. Credit: Associated Press (LA Times blog) Consumer Group Exposes
'Cancer Project' as Stealth Animal Rights Group Center for Consumer Freedom Cautions That Activists Behind Hot Dog Lawsuit Are Animal Rights Zealots in Disguise Big Fears, Little Risk In memory of the iconic American newsman Walter Cronkite, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) recently rereleased and posted on You Tube a three-part video
it produced some years ago featuring Cronkite exploring the impact of chemicals in the environment on human health. The video features a number of prominent scientists and is
very well done. I encourage you to take the time to watch the three segments, which are 10 minutes long each, and pass it along to others.
Analysis Finds Toxic Substances in Electronic Cigarettes Electronic cigarettes contain traces of toxic substances and carcinogens, according to a preliminary analysis of the products by the Food and Drug Administration. Following on from yesterday's UN radon scare piece, here's
a recycle from the ever-reliable Michael D. Shaw Radon: The Silent Killer...Or Maybe Not By Michael D. Shaw Long a staple of cheesy horror flicks, whereby its effects would create monsters like Godzilla (1956), giant ants in Them! (1954), generate
a huge, buxom lady in Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958), or even make a poor guy smaller in The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957), radiation, and anything
related to it—such as radon—has been scaring people for years. Radon is an odorless, tasteless and invisible gas produced by the decay of naturally occurring uranium in soil and water. As such, radon is a form of
ionizing radiation and is condemned everywhere as a proven carcinogen, with lung cancer being its only known effect on human health. Government agencies, at least in this
country, are unashamed of stirring up a virtual hysteria over the issue, and a Google search on "radon" will reveal thousands of links to remediation contractors,
dubious certification organizations, and fear-mongering websites of all descriptions. But, just how dangerous is radon, anyway? Supposedly, if you had the exposure of the uranium prospectors, that sprouted up right after World War II, many of
whom became instant millionaires, it was extremely dangerous. However, radon wasn't all that these miners were exposed to. In their unregulated and unventilated "dog
holes," these get-rich-quick artists, most of whom smoked, were also exposed to clouds of dust containing uranium and other nasty chemicals, nitrogen oxides, and simply
miserable working conditions, that were damaging to health in numerous ways. Yet, historical data on uranium miners, far from reliable and limited in scope, is the
cornerstone of most of the "science" that followed. The US EPA's assault on household radon is based largely on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VI Report, entitled "The Health Effects
of Exposure to Indoor Radon," produced by the National Academy of Sciences in 1998. Recognizing that the data they had to work with was spotty, and that their models
were controversial, the report did state: "In summary, a number of sources of uncertainty may substantially affect the committee's risk projections; the magnitude of
uncertainty associated with each of these sources cannot readily be quantified. Accordingly the committee acknowledges that the total uncertainty in its risk projection is
large." About all you really could conclude from this report is that given high exposure to radon, cigarette smokers will experience a greater incidence of lung
cancer. Note that these large exposures are orders of magnitude higher than one might encounter in even the worst household radon situation. As for non-smokers, there was
essentially no meaningful data. What, you might well ask, does this have to do with the contemporary homeowner? The glib answer is nothing at all, but let's do the math... Nearly 500 years ago, Paracelsus (1493-1541), a scientific genius of his era, wrote: "Dosis facit venenum"— "The dose makes the
poison." This is still the fundamental precept in toxicology, even if it has been forgotten by our current crop of experts. You see, they are applying the notion of
linear, no-threshold extrapolation. Implicit here is that if massive doses of a carcinogen cause a tumor, then even small doses can, as well. Put another way, it boils down to this: If one person swallows 100 sleeping pills and successfully commits suicide, then in a cohort of 100 people each
taking one pill, at least one person will also die. Absurd? Of course, but that, believe it or not, is the basis for the radon scare, and many others. Add to this the
statistical trick of conflating smokers and non-smokers, and creating artificial groupings of results to show supposed significance, a "scientific" case can be
made. Needless to say, the linear no-threshold extrapolation model has NEVER been proven to be true. By slicing and dicing the data and ignoring the smoking factor, to achieve the results it wants, EPA can then conclude that radon is the "second biggest
cause" of lung cancer. To add to the noise, there are always "new" studies being released that merely reapply the BEIR VI report methodology to some other
locality. Studies by radiation physicists Ralph Lapp and Bernard Cohen, along with work by several other researchers, have consistently demonstrated no correlation
between radon exposure and lung cancer, once the smoking factor is removed. So why does EPA cling to its present radon policy? Cohen and a co-author, Harvard Professor of Medicine Graham Colditz, stated in a 1991 paper, "A great deal more than radon is at stake here. If the
linear no-threshold theory fails for radon, it must surely fail for all other types of radiation, and very probably also for chemical carcinogens." Considering that
radon is touted as one of the "best documented" carcinogens, where would this put all the other myriad hazards we are warned about constantly? Where would it
finally put these irresponsible agencies? Let your heart not be troubled. Even if I'm completely wrong about all this, it's fairly easy to get rid of radon, just by ventilating your house. When it
comes to indoor air quality, the solution to pollution is dilution. If you're worried about lung cancer, don't smoke. Take a deep breath...and relax. (Health Digest News) Obesity Levels Off; Complacency Threatens to Reach Alarming Levels Last year I noted that the prevalence of obesity among children and teenagers, after tripling between the '70s and
the '90s, has leveled off at around 16 percent since 1999. Today The Wall Street Journal's "Numbers Guy," Carl Bialik, points out [below] that similar trends have
been documented in Australia, France, Switzerland, Sweden, and New Zealand: (Jacob Sullum, Reason) The Slimming Figures of Childhood Obesity - Studies Suggest That Rates Are No Longer
Rising, but Researchers Lament the Paucity of Data and Spar Over Methodologies Evidence for the expanding epidemic of childhood obesity is thinning. Getting Fat? Maybe It’s Your Health Insurance A new N.B.E.R. working paper finds a link between health insurance and obesity, and suggests that the better insured you
are, the fatter you’re likely to be. We already knew that people with health insurance consume more
healthcare resources than the uninsured; it appears they’re consuming more calories, too. (Freakonomics) From the cognitive disconnect pages Our thoughts go out to our friends across the pond today and to parents with sick children there. The King's Fund and the Institute for Fiscal Studies released a new
analysis of National Health Services and found healthcare spending in England has more than doubled in real terms just since 1999/2000. “Our analysis shows that the NHS is
facing the most significant financial challenge in its history,” said John Appleby, chief economist at the King’s Fund. Obama Wants to Redistribute Health, Too "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," then-candidate Barack Obama famously told Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher when
campaigning in Ohio last fall. It's crazy for a group of mere mortals to try to design 15 percent of the U.S. economy. It's even crazier to do it by August. Chris Mooney has a commentary up at The Huffington Post that is full of information that is just wrong. First, he gets budget figures wrong by a factor of about 50: (Roger
Pielke, Jr.) Dumb move of the day: Nike won't use leather from Amazon-bred cattle SAO PAULO - Sportswear giant Nike Inc. announced Wednesday that it will stop using leather from cattle raised in Brazil's Amazon rainforest, saying the move is part of the
company's commitment to curbing the region's deforestation. So, Nike buys up non Amazonian leather supplies (not helpful for Brazilians trying to earn a living, by the way), thus forcing other leather users to
source alternate supplies (from the now-cheaper Amazon suppliers denied previous markets). So, what are the chances Amazonian leather suppliers, denied lucrative Nike
market outlets, will be engaging in environmental improvements and upgrading their environmentally-friendly practices in the near future? Fools: Relief for the Owl The bald eagle aside, few birds have wielded as much influence on public policy as the northern spotted owl, once famously called “that little furry-feathery guy” by
the first President Bush. Formally listed as an endangered species in 1990, the owl triggered a series of court cases that persuaded President Bill Clinton in 1994 to protect
much of the old-growth forest in the Pacific Northwest — the bird’s habitat — from timber companies. It was never about the damn owls but rather stopping people using resources. So, is NYT printed on fiber-free paper now? If they can't do that
then The Crone should practice what it preaches and stop issuing editions immediately, for the sake of the [insert favored critter, habitat or other nonsense
reason here]. Farmers furious over water auction as first drop goes to spring
baths THE first water auctioned out of the great artesian basin in NSW will be used to fill the hot spring baths of Moree -- much to the chagrin of farmers. Oh my... Bill Gates in bid to tame hurricanes The world’s richest man has joined the battle against the world’s most destructive weather. Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, is backing inventors and climate
scientists who claim to have devised a technique for diminishing the power of hurricanes. Over the last few weeks we have looked at radiative forcing calculators and Earth's calculated expected temperature under varied assumptions. Let's try something a little
different. Let's assume claims of Earth's net temperature change and atmospheric carbon dioxide are accurate. According to the IPCC Earth has warmed roughly three-fourths of
one degree (0.74 °C) over the century to 2005, which is the same as saying "since the 1850s" because it is believed that decade was virtually identical to the
first decade of the 20th Century. At the same time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels had increased almost exactly 100 ppmv. This graphic is from their Fourth
Assessment Report: Let's further (wrongly) assume: The increase of 100 ppmv CO2 (roughly 280 -> 380 ppmv) from pre-Industrial Revolution levels to 2006 then means each increase of 1 ppmv yields 0.74/100 or
0.0074 °C. You can already see where this is going: 280 ppmv = 0 °C increase from 1850 temperatures; 380 ppmv yields 0.75 °C increase; 480: 1.5 °C; 580 ppmv: up
2.25 °C... IPCC estimates differ from expectations derived from CO2's physical properties due to hypothetical positive feedback from increased atmospheric water vapor,
which means rather than an anticipated +1.2 °C warming from 2xCO2 a range of fudge factors are applied to inflate the modeled outcome. The IPCC's
"median guesstimate" of +3 °C (relative to 1850) from 2xCO2 actually doesn't occur in the above apparent Earth response series until 120 ppmv
"late" even under these wildly inflated steps (680 rather than 2x280 = 560). Note also that the panicked "limit to +2 °C" warming since pre-IR
levels wouldn't occur until 550 ppmv rather than the absurd 450 and even 350 "targets" promoted by notorious greenhouse hysterics. Of course, temperatures have been declining in the short term despite atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continuing to rise. This does not prove atmospheric CO2
does not increase planetary mean temperature but it does mean Earth will have to heat at pretty extreme rates to achieve the IPCC's somewhat hysterical
"storylines". From the above "back of an envelope" calculations we have to disagree with the IPCC's claims of increasing carbon dioxide's global warming impact. Even though we
ignored all other potential warming influences such as changed land use, urbanization, increases in other greenhouse gases, black carbon, snowfield discoloration etc.,
calling all change carbon dioxide-induced and we accepted estimates of warming as real (although some or all of which may in reality be measurement artifact) we still did not
find near the claimed warming potential. Significantly, we failed to derive such warming despite knowingly inflating potential response by treating enhanced greenhouse from
increasing atmospheric CO2 linearly while the response actually diminishes with concentration (each added molecule has less effect than the molecule added before). Are estimates of Earth's potential warming from increasing CO2 reasonable? Apparently not. Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 1958−2008 period. GTTA are represented
by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the data set of short
periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close relationship
between SOI and GTTA. Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC
record. Because El Niño−Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI with tropical temperature
anomalies between 20°S and 20°N. The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results
suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when
equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months
earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation. (JGR) Ocean Temperatures: The New Bluff in Climate Temperatures "The alarmists claim the world is still warming, that heat is building up in the oceans, and that the ocean temperature is rising and rising fast. These claims
implicitly depend on a time period to say what a "trend" is, because temperatures fluctuate. The alarmists provide the context by showing trends of 20 to 50 years.
This is a clever trick to reframe the debate, and essential to their case." (David Evans, SPPI) Sea Level Rise: An Update Shows a Slowdown Of all the potential woes bandied about with regards to “global warming,” the only one which really is in uncharted territory is a large and rapid rise in sea level.
Otherwise we are rather routinely exposed to all nature of weather extremes as they are a part of the natural climate. Droughts, floods, heat waves, tornadoes, hurricanes,
etc. have impacted human societies in the past and they will continue to do so into the future—with or without “global warming.” (WCR) First Boston, now Vancouver. According to the Times
Colonist in Victoria, Canada, the folks in Vancouver and on Vancouver Island are in dire danger of sea level rise catastrophe. They report: “The spectre of rising sea levels and ecological change from climate disruption show land-use plans for Vancouver Island and the B.C. coast will need to be revisited
and recalibrated to account for rapid and unabated climate change.” “‘Once set in motion, sea-level rise is impossible to stop. The only chance we have to limit sea-level rise to manageable levels is to reduce emissions very quickly,
early in this century. Later it will be too late to do much,’ says senior NASA scientist Stefan
Rahmstorf in a recent article for the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.” Really? Here is 100 years worth of sea level rise data from the B.C. capital, Victoria, on Vancouver Island (Click on graphs to see full graph in its original
context): (Climate Sanity) New
Paper “How Will Earth’s Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades?” By Lean and Rind 2009 There is a new paper that examines (and forecasts) the role of solar forcing in climate system warming and cooling. It is Lean, J. L., and D. H. Rind (2009): How Will Earth’s Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades?, the abstract reads “Reliable forecasts of climate change in the immediate future are difficult, especially on regional scales, where natural climate variations may amplify or mitigate
anthropogenic warming in ways that numerical models capture poorly. By decomposing recent observed surface temperatures into components associated with ENSO, volcanic and
solar activity, and anthropogenic influences, we anticipate global and regional changes in the next two decades. From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic
influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature 0.15±0.03 C, at a rate 50% greater than predicted by IPCC. But as a result of declining solar
activity in the subsequent five years, average temperature in 2019 is only 0.03±0.01 C warmer than in 2014. This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002
to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming. We further illustrate how a major volcanic eruption and a super ENSO would modify
our global and regional temperature projections.” in their paper, with respect to their forecasts, they write “The major assumption associated with our forecasts is that ‘past is prologue’; climate will continue to respond in the future to the same factors that have
influenced it in the recent past and the response will continue to be linear over the next several decades.” I have worked with Judith Lean and respect her scientific credentials. I respect also that she has placed her forecast in print and it is not for decades into the future,
but is for a reasonably short enough time in the future to verify. I would have preferred, of course, that she use upper ocean heat content in Joules
rather than the global surface temperature trend, which is a very poor metric to quantify regional and global warming and cooling (e.g. see).
Nonetheless, all of us should follow the skill she achieves in the coming years. Their new paper conflicts with the new paper which concludes that solar warming has been negligible since 1980. Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt (2009), Solar trends and global warming, J. Geophys. Res.,
114, D14101, doi:10.1029/ 2008JD011639. whose abstract reads “We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean
temperature. In particular, we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic
climate variability and multiple forcings. We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives nonrobust results. We also demonstrate
that the methodologies used by Scafetta and West (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008) are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than
reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since
1980.” The Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt 2009 and Lean, J. L., and D. H. Rind 2009 cannot both be correct in their conclusion regarding the magnitude of solar
forcing on the Earth’s climate. They could both even be wrong based on such studies as How Do Climate
Models Work? by Roy Spencer and Compo,G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on
recent continental warming. Climate Dynamics. with respect to the role of circulation changes in the magnitude of global warming and cooling. Finally, both Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt 2009 and Lean, J. L., and D. H. Rind 2009 used the global average surface temperature trend to discuss the issue
of global warming. They more appropriately should use the accumulation of Joules in the upper ocean as the diagnostic (e.g. see
which the GISS group continues to ignore). (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science) Global warming is all in the
timescales Which of these statements is true? Modeling Ice Age's End Lessens Climate Change
Worries Two
articles in the July 17 edition of Science describe efforts to model Earth's rapidly changing climate at the end of the last glacial period, between 21 and 11 thousand
years years ago (ka). After a year and a half of number crunching on Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Jaguar supercomputer, the first results indicate that climate experienced
cooling 17 ka, during the Heinrich Event 1 (H1), followed by an abrupt warming at the onset of the Bølling-Allerød Warming 14.5 ka. These abrupt climate changes were
accompanied by large changes in the “ocean conveyor belt”: the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). The results suggest that this transition can be viewed
simply as the North Atlantic climate response to rapidly changing glacial meltwater flow. The findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of abrupt climate change
and weakens the threat of “irreversible tipping points” so popular with climate change extremists. The time from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ~21 ka) until the Holocine warming had firmly taken control of Earth's climate (~11 ka) is the most recent
period of rapid climate change in the long history of the Pleistocene Ice Age. A general observation, made by many researchers, is that glacial periods tend to end abruptly
with a rapid transition from cold to warm. Scientists hope to understand more about what triggers sudden climate swings by studying the end of this most recent glacial
period. Glacial termination did not take place as a single event—there were several wild swings in climate as the frozen Earth changed to the more temperate climate we now
enjoy. Two major events during the transition were the Bølling-Allerød Warming (BA) and the subsequent Little Dryas cooling. To many, these events suggest that Earth's
climate is a bi-stable system that can switch between stable warm and cold modes. This latest climate simulation suggests that the bi-stable “tipping point” hypothesis is
not true. In a second article in the same issue of Science, Axel Timmermann and Laurie Menviel of the University of Hawaii's International Pacific Research
Center ask the question “What Drives Climate Flip-Flops?” Quoting from
their perspective on Liu et al's report: Around 14,600 years ago, the atmospheric circulation over the North Atlantic region flipped within just a few years to another state; also, Greenland
temperatures skyrocketed by >10°C over several decades, terminating a cold phase known as Heinrich Event 1. The global impacts of this Bølling-Allerød transition have
been well documented with climate proxy records such as sediment cores and ice cores, but the physical conditions that triggered the transition remain controversial. The
temperature evolution from the Heinrich Event 1 to the Bølling-Allerød and the subsequent Younger Dryas cold phase (see the figure) is strikingly similar to the
Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles that dominated Northern Hemispheric climate between 60,000 and 30,000 years ago. Hence, unraveling the processes that triggered the Bølling-Allerød
transition may also help to elucidate the mysterious, tantalizingly regular Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. Previously, long transient simulations have not been carried out using coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (CGCM), which include the most
advanced climate physics and are currently being used for future climate projections. In the paper “Transient
Simulation of Last Deglaciation with a New Mechanism for Bølling-Allerød Warming,” Z. Liu of the Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology,et al.
report on their analysis of data from extraordinarily detailed modeling runs using a state-of-art CGCM: the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate System
Model version 3 (NCAR CCSM3). Their results suggest a causal linkage between rapid climate change and heat transport by the AMOC. Heinrich events were first described by marine geologist Hartmut Heinrich. During these events, huge armadas of icebergs broke off from glaciers and
drifted across the North Atlantic. Scientists know this because they have found “ice rafted debris” in ocean floor sediments. Glacial icebergs contain rocks and dirt
scraped up off the land the glaciers move over. As they melt, this rock debris is dropped onto the sea floor. Scientists studying marine sediments have found six distinct
debris layers in cores of mud retrieved from the sea floor. These layers indicate six distinct events, which are labeled H1-H6. The last such event, at the onset of the
Holocene warming, is called H1 or Heinrich Event 1. In the simulation, a Northern Hemispheric freshwater forcing scenario was created in which the discharge of meltwater from the retreating glacial ice
sheets during H1 suddenly stops. Thus, Liu et al. are able to simulate an abrupt recovery of the AMOC that triggers the transition from H1 conditions to the Bølling-Allerød.
The results are in good agreement with paleoclimate reconstructions based on climate proxy records. The rapid AMOC recovery described by Liu et al. also involves an
overshooting effect (see the figure above) that was noted in previous climate model simulations. To investigate the possibility that meltwater flux (MWF) was
responsible for the change the researchers devised the following set of modeling scenarios: The MWF was then reduced in two scenarios: a linear decrease to zero at 14.2 ka (DGL-B) and a constant flux (of 15 m/ky) until a sudden shut-off at 14.67
ka (DGL-A). Because the meltwater termination scenarios DGL-B and DGL-A represent the slowest and fastest possible MWFs, the two corresponding experiments represent two end
members for simulations under more realistic MWF. Though the recovery time was different in the two scenarios, the AMOC in both experiments peaked at ~19 sverdrup at the onset of the BA, or ~6 sverdrup
greater than the glacial-state transport (~13 sverdrup). The sverdrup, named in honor of the oceanographer Harald Sverdrup, is a unit of measure of volume transport where 1
sverdrup = 106 m3/s. It is the equivalent of approximately 264 million US gallons per second. To comprehend the magnitude
of water flow being described here consider that the total input of fresh water into the ocean from all the world's rivers is equal to about 1 sverdrup. Overall, the
resulting AMOC is characterized by a deeper and stronger circulation, which is comparable with that during the Holocene. Results from experiment DGL-B (in °C) are shown in Fig. 2 from the paper above. AMOC at (A) GLA, (B) H1, and (C) BA. Temperature at (D) GLA and
temperature changes from the glacial state for (E) H1-GLA and (F) BA-GLA. Along with these changes in AMOC flow, a seesaw effect in surface temperature was predicted up until
H1, followed by global warming peaking at the BA. The BA warming was dominated by a maximum warming at northern high latitudes while the warming from H1 to BA was global,
with the maximum warming relative to H1 exceeding 20°C in the North Atlantic and Arctic. The final conclusions of the modelers are: In contrast to previous mechanisms that invoke AMOC multiple equilibrium and Southern Hemisphere climate forcing, we propose that the BA transition is
caused by the superposition of climatic responses to the transient CO2 forcing, the AMOC recovery from Heinrich Event 1, and an AMOC overshoot. In other words, the change wasn't the AMOC suddenly jumping to a new climate equilibrium, it was a number of different factors acting in concert to perturb
the system, causing several wild swings as Earth's climate transitioned to a warmer state. The listing of CO2 first among the causes of these
ancient swings in temperature is misleading. Certainly the 40 parts per million by volume increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that accompanied Heinrich Event 1 was a
contributor to the Bølling-Allerød warming and further accelerated the deglaciation. The important point is that it was not the trigger for the event, nor did the increase
in carbon dioxide prevent a return to colder conditions during the Younger Dryas. In fact, where the increase in CO2 came from is uncertain. “Its
origin remains a mystery,” state Timmermann and Menviel. According to previous work (see “Atmospheric CO2
Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination , in Science 5 January, 2001) by Eric Monnin et al., “sudden CO2 increase could
have been caused by changes in thermohaline circulation.” Other possible sources are from the increase in methane during the BA warming, which would rapidly react in the
atmosphere to produce more CO2. Again according to Monnin et al., the increase in methane “is thought to have been caused by an intensified
hydrological cycle during the B/A warm phase, which led to an expansion of wetlands in the tropics and northern latitudes.” Certainly this fits with recent findings that
changes in sea-level drive changes in CO2, not the other way around (see “Ice
Ages & CO2, Part II – Rising Sea-levels in Tahiti”). Once again, CO2 only plays a supporting role in climate change. An hypothesis has been advanced by a number of scientists describing
how a megaflood from the Laurentian inland ice could have been responsible for the Bølling-Allerød warming. Cold fresh water from a glacial lake under the Laurentian ice
sheet entered the Gulf of Mexico, forcing warm surface water into the Gulf Stream, which restarted the AMOC in the North Atlantic. This in turn caused the BA warm phase. Many
of the events required for this scenario to play out have support in geological data. Such an occurrence is not incompatible with the modeling study's results, unfortunately
(or perhaps fortunately) there is no way to test this hypothesis directly since North America is no longer buried under glacial ice. Deglaciation events during the last
glacial are shown in the figure below. The bold line marks the ice margin at the end of each time interval. Arrows mark meltwater routes. Regardless of its source, it seems likely that large changes in MWF are needed to trigger abrupt changes like the Heinrich Event, the Bølling-Allerød
warming and the Younger Dryas. More importantly from a modern point of view, the conditions necessary for a sudden shift in climate no longer seem to be present and the risk
of a catastrophic “tipping point” event seems remote. Previous work with simplified models had suggested that gradual changes in MWF could trigger a state change in the
AMOC: the infamous tipping point hypothesis. This new result using more a more complex model—and a heck of a lot of computer cycles—seems to indicate otherwise. According
to Liu et al.: “Our results suggest that the current generation of CGCMs, like CCSM3, may not be able to induce an abrupt onset of BA warming under a gradual
forcing. Is the current generation of CGCMs deficient in generating the abruptness of climate changes? Is the AMOC hysteresis a fundamental feature of the real-world AMOC as
suggested in intermediate models, or not essential as suggested in current CGCMs?” The bottom line, as stated by the modelers themselves: “Current observations are
insufficient to address these questions unambiguously.” Are scientists any closer to being able to accurately model Earth's climate? Not really, at least not at the precision and time scales required for IPCC
like predictions and certainly not any time soon. According to Timmermann and Menviel: “Even completing the CCSM3 simulation by running it into the present will require
another 2 to 3 million CPU hours on the Jaguar supercomputer.” In other words, to bring the computation up to the present would require more than 340 years of continuous
supercomputer time at ORNL. Currently even the most complex models are not up to the job of making accurate short
term predictions, predictions on a scale of decades or even a few hundred years. Liu et al. are using climate models properly, to provide insight as to what mechanisms
are at work and how they might interact. The results from their model are in no way a minute by minute recreation of how the last glacial period actually ended. As Timmermann and Menviel say at the end of their perspective, “Ultimately, breakthroughs in our understanding of Earth's climate evolution will come
from close interactions between paleoproxy experts, paleoclimate modelers, and climate dynamicists. It is time to train a new generation of scientists familiar with all these
fields.” Perhaps that is also the solution to the global warming debacle, the arrival of a new generation of better trained, more widely knowledgeable climate scientists. A
new generation of climate scientist who understand that climate models provide insight not proof. Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical. (Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth)
Ralph Alexander: Global warming false alarm (*****) Warm and revealing book about the great distortion of climate science Boundary Layer Clouds:
Another Instance of IPCC Authors Reviewing Their Own Work As we’ve discussed before (and is well known), clouds are the greatest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity. Low-level (”boundary layer”) tropical clouds
have been shown to be the largest source of inter-model difference among Global Climate Models (GCMs). Clouds have been known to be problematic for GCMs since at least the
Charney Report in 1979. Given the importance of the topic for GCMs, one would have thought that AR4 would have devoted at least a chapter to the single of issue of clouds,
with perhaps one-third of that chapter devoted to the apparently thorny issue of boundary layer tropical clouds. Second generation look at
global warming Before I even start I want to remind everyone that, as far as I can tell (and remember) what's happening in the debate over global warming is what always happens with new
scientific theories. Lots of fighting, lots of egos being bruised, lots of genteel namecalling. The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far -
Trillions to come For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic
Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially
when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?
The Summary Read the Full Report at the Science
and Public Policy Institute. There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of
funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can
move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction”. Billions in the Name of “Climate” In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for
development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from
other governments. The real total can only grow. In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000
million per annum, around 50 fold higher. Tax concessions add to this. (See below for details and sources.) ..after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence… This tally is climbing precipitously. With enormous tax breaks and rescue funds now in play, it’s difficult to know just how far over the $7 billion mark the final total
will stand for fiscal year 2009. For example, additional funding for carbon sequestration experiments alone amounted to $3.4 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (not included in the $7 billion total above). The most telling point is that after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon
dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate. If carbon is a minor player in the global climate as the lack of evidence suggests, the … “Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw
30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s
amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)” By setting up trading networks, tax concessions, and international bureaucracies before the evidence was in, have we ensured that our understanding of the role of carbon
in climate science would be sped up, but that our knowledge of every other aspect of climate science would be slowed down to an equal and opposite extent? Monopolistic funding creates a ratchet effect where pro-AGW findings are reported and repeated, while anti-AGW results lie unstudied and ignored. Monopolistic funding creates a ratchet effect where even the most insignificant pro-AGW findings are reported, repeated, trumpeted and asserted, while any anti-AGW results
lie unstudied, ignored and delayed. Auditing AGW research is so underfunded that for the most part it is left to unpaid bloggers who collect donations from concerned citizens
online. These auditors, often retired scientists, are providing a valuable free service to society, and yet, in return they are attacked, abused, and insulted. The truth will come out in the end, but how much damage will accrue while we wait for volunteers to audit the claims of the financially well-fed? The stealthy mass entry of bankers and traders into the background of the scientific “debate” poses grave threats to the scientific process. The promise of
“trillions of dollars” on commodity markets—with all of that potential money hinging on finding that human emissions of carbon dioxide have a significant role in the
climate—surely acts like blanket of mud over open dispassionate analysis. All of this means we must be extra diligent in only focusing on just the evidence, the science, the empirical data. Illogic and unreason cloud a debate already loaded with
bias. When there are so many incentives encouraging unclarity and overcomplexity, the simple truths need help to rise to the top. But who funds the counter-PR campaign—now
that even Exxon has been howled out of the theater of science. There is hardly any money promoting Natural Causes of Climate Change, while billions upon trillions promote
Unnatural Forces. In this scientific debate, one side is gagged while the other side has a government-funded media campaign. The bottom line Even if monopolistic funding has affected science, the total amount of money paid to each side won’t tell us whether The Planet’s climate
is warming or whether that warming is due to carbon-dioxide. The point of this report is to show how the process of science can be distorted (like any human
endeavor) by a massive one-sided input of money. What use would money be, if it didn’t have some impact? The massive amounts of money involved only makes it more imperative that we look hard at the empirical evidence. by Joanne Nova U.S. Government Funding for Climate Change Related Activities 1989-2009 … References: Coming Soon PARTS 2, 3, & 4. 2. How auditing of the Climate Industry is mostly left to volunteers. 3. How the monopolistic funding ratchet slows scientific progress. 4. Why blaming Exxon is a smoke screen to disguise the real vested interests. Global warming: religion or science? If we have seen it once, we have seen it a thousand times: somebody writes an editorial claiming that man-made global warming is a irrefutable scientific fact, and the
rest of us who are stubbornly skeptical might as well be charter members of the flat earth society. Hands
off—Earth’s climate can manage on its own The solutions to the supposedly impending climate crisis are limitless. Not only are there armies of environmentalists gaming the political process in order to protect
mother earth, but now some scientists are proposing that we attempt to alter the earth’s climate system in order to partially fend off the effects of global warming. The
hope is that combined with emissions reduction efforts, such as cap and trade, toying with the climate will do enough to cool the planet down. Drivel of the day: Climate clock is ticking For most people, news of the ice melt was little more than a distant curiosity. But for climate scientists it was the scariest thing they had seen yet, and what’s more
it had caught them completely by surprise. According to NASA it was simply a reversal in wind direction: NASA Examines Arctic
Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007. This has all been covered before and the media should know better than run the above nonsense. They wish... Ah, the olive groves of balmy England SUBTROPICAL crops such as dates, figs and rice could become staples of British agriculture within 20 years, according to government forecasts. The Left’s Civil War on Cap-and-Trade: Who Likes Political Capitalism? Some environmental leaders have said that I am naïve to think that there is an alternative to cap-and-trade, and they suggest that I should stick to climate modeling.
Their contention is that it is better to pass any bill now and improve it later. Their belief that they, as opposed to the fossil interests, have more effect on the
bill’s eventual shape seems to be the pinnacle of naïveté. - James Hansen, “Strategies to Address Global Warming,” July 2009. Welcome to the science of politics, Dr. Hansen–and welcome to a tradition in political economy that is more than a century old. “I see no force in modern society which
can cope with the power of capital handled by talent,” stated William Graham Summer in 1905, “and I cannot doubt that the greatest force will control the other forces.”
And said George Will in our time: “The world is divided between those who do and do not understand that activist, interventionist, regulating, subsidizing government is
generally a servant of the strong and entrenched against the weak and aspiring.” The political hijacking of climate legislation is why the Left is now embarrassingly split on the issue. And just maybe this is the opening wedge to get the Left to
reconsider climate alarmism in its wider dimensions. After all, higher energy costs disproportionately affect the poor and slow the drive to mass-electrify the developing
world. And the climate crusade is resurrecting (uneconomic) nuclear power–a Left no-no. And geoengineering–that too is an unwanted
stepchild of climate exaggeration. And there is even the spectre of Big Brotherism in this energy
road to serfdom. Remember Jimmy Carter’s winter/summer thermostat regulations? Perhaps civil libertarian Nat
Hentoff, now with the Cato Institute, will start to worry about the carbon police in a no-holds-barred carbon-constrained world. There are good reasons for the Left to oppose the Waxman-Markey climate bill that is now in debate in the U.S. Senate. (Robert Bradley, MasterResource)
Forum editorial: Cap and trade bill loses Democrats he cap and trade provision of climate change legislation making its way through Congress is a deal breaker. Prominent Democrats, most notably Midwest and farm-state
Democrats, will not support the bill in its current form. Most Republicans are against it. It’s been rolled out by at least one House committee, but its ultimate fate in
the House and Senate is anything but certain. The House’s approval of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill earlier this month was a remarkable political achievement and an important beginning to the task of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But in all the last-minute wheeling and dealing, the House bill acquired two big loopholes that the Senate must close. (NYT) No, what is required is for the Senate to kill the stupid thing altogether. Of course they do: India
leads demands for £120bn climate change fund paid for by the West India has demanded that the West pay developing countries £120 billion a year in exchange for their help in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (Daily Telegraph) <chuckle> U.S. Top Greenhouse Gas Emitter, Counting Imports OSLO - The United States is by far the biggest greenhouse gas emitter ahead of China if consumers in rich nations are given responsibility for energy used to make imported
goods, a researcher said on Wednesday. So, Australia's resource exports count against importing countries then? Like all that coal and iron ore imported by... China? Guess our already trivial
contribution to the world's carbon emission budget just become invisibly small then... U.S. business warns Congress of "green trade war" WASHINGTON - Leading U.S. business groups warned Congress Wednesday it could start a "green trade war" by passing a climate change bill that threatens other
countries with tariffs on energy-intensive goods. UN climate expert warns against carbon tariffs WASHINGTON — The head of a U.N. panel on the science of climate change says trade tariffs in a House-passed bill to limit heat-trapping pollution have only served to
irritate international negotiations and could undermine U.S. efforts to persuade developing countries to enter into a new global warming treaty. They said this with a straight face? Climate Bill A Farm Income Boost, USDA Estimates WASHINGTON - U.S. farmers and foresters could earn more money from carbon contracts than they pay in higher costs from legislation to control greenhouse gases, the
Agriculture Department estimated on Wednesday. Malcolm Turnbull retreats on emissions MALCOLM Turnbull has backed off suggestions that the Coalition would wave through Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme in the Senate next month after angry Coalition MPs
hit out at the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. 'Wild uncle' Tuckey sparks emissions war with Turnbull A BITTER email war has broken out within the Liberal Party after Wilson Tuckey accused Malcolm Turnbull of arrogance, further undermining the Opposition Leader's authority
and widening divisions over an emissions trading scheme. Joyce rules out ever supporting
govt ETS Fearing the day a beef roast costs $150 a pop, Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce has categorically ruled out ever supporting the government's emissions trading scheme
(ETS). Without
control, carbon market will bubble CARBON is set to be the next bubble, one that could make the US housing market crash look like a picnic. Boone Pickens, Nacel Energy and Vestas Iberia have been issuing statements and placing print, radio and television ads, extolling the virtues of wind as an affordable,
sustainable energy resource. Renewable energy reality is slowly taking hold, however. Big electricity generators plead for $20bn ETS aid ELECTRICITY generators are pleading for between $5 billion and $20bn in extra assistance from the Rudd government to avoid an "industry crisis" under the
emissions trading scheme, with some suggesting the compensation could be tied to new investments in renewable power. Green Obsessions: Demon Carbon Environmental activists are promoting an irrational demonization of carbon on our planet of carbon-based ecosystems. All life on earth would end without carbon in the form
of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. With the new Obama administration, the US EPA has concluded that carbon dioxide is linked to climate change, and therefore, is a danger
to public health and welfare. Low-carbon renewable energy is all the rage. (Paul Taylor, LA Ecopolitics Examiner) The ‘Green Energy Revolution’:
Spinning Failure as Success The UK government recently gave its ‘low carbon transition plan’ an airing. At the launch of the plan, the unelected Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and
Skills who has been forced, twice, to resign from previous roles within the government for his involvement in scandals, Lord Peter Mandelson said: (Climate Resistance) Go Belcha! Meet Belcha – Europe's biggest carbon
polluter (and it's about to get even bigger) The biggest single producer of carbon emissions in the European Union has been named – and it is about to get even bigger. The appropriately titled Elektrownia Belchatow
– a massive coal-fired power station – belched out 30,862,792 tonnes of CO2 last year and by 2010 the whole generating facility will have grown by 20%. Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant and is actually in short supply. There is no known downside to feeding the biosphere. Horrendous waste of energy: Study considers Surat carbon capture scheme Carbon Energy says it hopes to be storing emissions from its power plant and gas fields in the Surat Basin, in Queensland's southern inland, within 18 months. Big member states seek control over
CCS projects Germany, France and the UK want say over spending, but CCS advocates fear set-back for technology. Back in the virtual realm... A new method to cleaner and more efficient CO2 capture Separating carbon dioxide from its polluting source, such as the flue gas from a coal-fired power plant, may soon become cleaner and more efficient. His modeling process may even work and be more than a cool toy but we do not want to remove carbon dioxide from the emissions stream! How hard is
it to get people to remember that carbon dioxide supports most of the world's food web by enabling photosynthesis by green plants? Atmospheric carbon dioxide, good. Schemes
to limit atmospheric carbon dioxide, bad. In Pursuit of Natural
Gas, Companies Inch Ever Closer to a Nuclear Blast Site On Sept. 10, 1969, the Atomic Energy Commission lowered a 43-kiloton nuclear device – roughly three times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima – into an
8,400-foot hole bored into a flat-topped mountain near Grand Junction, Colo. Gas Could Power Britain Well Into Winter LONDON - Weak prices and sagging demand could see gas supply most of Britain's electricity well into winter, sidelining coal plants and cutting Britain's carbon emissions
as a welcome side effect. Airlines cut flights in tax-hike protest
- Aviation and tourism chiefs unite to demand review of 'bonkers' duty Britain's largest low-cost airline is to cut almost a third of its flights from Stansted this winter, blaming "unfair" passenger taxes for making the routes
uneconomical. A host of bad ideas: Of Congress, Coal Plants and Biomass The potential market for second-generation liquid biofuels has gained growing public and investor attention lately, including a lengthy feature on “grassoline” in the
latest issue of Scientific American. Green Baptists Preach Salvation by Breaking Car Windows Who could possibly claim that buying up drivable used cars at prices far in excess of their market value, for the express purpose of destroying them, will be beneficial
for the economy or the planet? You guessed it: a combination of economy-saving politicians and earth-saving green activists are peddling the wonders of a new government
program popularly known as "Cash for Clunkers." The Consumer Assistance Recycle and Save Act of 2009 has the two ostensible goals of jump-starting the stalled
automobile industry and combating global warming (or climate change, or whatever they're calling it these days) by replacing old, gas-guzzling smog machines with new, more
fuel-efficient, cleaner cars. (Mises Daily by Tyler A. Watts) North Carolina to Ban Mountaintop Wind? A furious battle over the aesthetics of wind energy has erupted in North Carolina, where lawmakers are weighing a bill that would bar giant turbines from the state’s
scenic western ridgelines. Wind power plan blown off course - Closure
of turbine factory undermines Government's green pledges The Government was facing a growing credibility gap over green jobs last night as environmental campaigners and trade unionists united to fight the closure of Britain's
sole major wind turbine plant. July 22, 2009
Lessons Learned, City Prepares for a Resurgence of
Swine Flu As New York City braces for a second wave of swine flu this fall, health officials are making plans to carve space out of hospitals, clinics and other buildings to screen
people before they can overwhelm emergency rooms. Hmm... suppose the hysterical coverage had anything to do with the number of people frightened into emergency room visits? 'A Whole Industry Is Waiting For A Pandemic' The world has been gripped with fears of swine flu in recent weeks. In an interview with SPIEGEL, epidemiologist Tom Jefferson speaks about dangerous fear-mongering,
misguided, money-driven research and why we should all be washing our hands a lot more often. (Der Spiegel) Not mates of Charlie then: British
Scientists Denounce Homeopathic Treatment for HIV and TB A group of British scientists have appealed to the World Health Organisation to publicly condemn homeopathy as treatment for serious diseases such as HIV, TB and malaria. A report about not having a report to report: U.S.
Withheld Data on Risks of Distracted Driving In 2003, researchers at a federal agency proposed a long-term study of 10,000 drivers to assess the safety risk posed by cellphone use behind the wheel. There was no such study, is no research, just a collection of speculation and muses but still The Crone publishes the breathless claims of these
"advocacy groups"... How small is "small risk"? Is there a dose-response curve? Hmm... UN
report pinpoints cancer risk from radon in homes VIENNA - New studies have found direct evidence of a lung cancer risk from the presence of colourless, odourless radon gas in many homes, a United Nations committee said
in a report released on Tuesday. Officials on the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said the finding provided the first quantifiable
evidence of the risk in homes from radon, long seen as a potential health risk. Many doctors feel negatively about obese patients NEW YORK - In at least one large New York City healthcare network, more than 40 percent of doctors have a "negative reaction" to obese patients, according to a
new study. And most physicians feel that treating obese patients was "very frustrating." (Reuters Health) In Health Reform, As Elsewhere, You Will Get What You Pay For Why does America rank first in health expenditures per person, but 25th to 35th in health quality and status? Why do we get low value for our health care dollar? Last week we said the reform plan moving through the House essentially outlaws the private individual medical insurance market. Critics said we were being dishonest. But
we're standing by our story. The TARP bailout may hit $24 trillion, but the Senate says the F-22 is too expensive to build and maintain. So why are the Japanese so desperate to buy this
"unnecessary" Cold War weapon? Plain stupidity from The Crone: 137 Years Later It’s hard to believe that the 1872 mining law is still with us. Signed by Ulysses S. Grant four years before the invention of the telephone, the law sets the rules for
mining hardrock minerals like gold and copper. Useful in the days of westward expansion, it is a disaster now. It demands no royalties from the mining companies and provides
minimal environmental protections. While there is a clear case for preventing mining operations poisoning people's water supplies, for example, there are already more than ample means of
so doing. What Lurks Beneath - Germany's Technophobia is Holding it Back In the 1960s and 1970s, German companies and laboratories churned out futuristic technologies, from novel types of nuclear reactors to the world's first
magnetic-levitation train. In the early 1980s, Germany was one of the first countries to develop a national plan for genetics research, setting up labs in Munich, Cologne,
and Heidelberg. Per capita, German scientists applied for more biotech patents than Americans did. This is a surprise to anyone? BBC
executive says corporation should foster 'left-of-centre thinking' A senior BBC executive has claimed that the corporation should foster "left-of-centre thinking", leading to accusations of political bias from the Conservatives.
(Daily Telegraph) Why ruin a potentially useful study by throwing in "climate change"? Future
Of Western U.S. Water Supply Threatened By Climate Change As the West warms, a drier Colorado River system could see as much as a one-in-two chance of fully depleting all of its reservoir storage by mid-century assuming current
management practices continue on course, according to a new University of Colorado at Boulder study. We have no idea what the climate is going to do, probably never will be able to predict that which is inherently unpredictable... The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) draft final technical report in March, 2009. In response to federal
legislation, the Corps had to analyze hurricane protection, and design and present a full range of measures to protect against a storm equivalent to a category 5 hurricane.
The request included measures for flood control, coastal restoration, and hurricane protection, and stipulated close coordination with the State of Louisiana and its
appropriate agencies. A large area of coastal waters in the northern Gulf of Mexico experiences seasonal conditions of low levels of dissolved oxygen, a condition known as hypoxia. Excess
discharge of nutrients into the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers causes nutrient overenrichment in the gulf's coastal waters and stimulates the
growth of large algae blooms. When these algae die, the process of decomposition depletes dissolved oxygen from the water column and creates hypoxic conditions. Letter
Report Assessing the WATERS Network Science Plan In 2006, the National Science Foundation (NSF) requested that the National Research Council's (NRC's) Water Science and Technology Board review and assess the adequacy of
the conceptual design and planning process for NSF's proposed Water and Environmental Research Systems (WATERS) Network. In response, the NRC formed a committee that first
issued an interim report evaluating the Draft Science, Education, and Design Strategy for the WATERS Network. Subsequently, in response to requests from NSF, the statement of
task for the committee was modified towards reviewing a vision-level Science Plan, and the NRC and committee agreed to provide quick advice on part two of the statement of
task. Globe's warmest days in a decade The record cold temperatures are often covered on this blog. But I have no bias so you can learn about the record hot temperatures, too. Some (climate) models aren't worth the flirt, new research
shows Climate change scientists have models coming out of their ears. (Not the leggy variety, alas, but complex mathematical
equations which try to project future temperature change.) So how does a boffin decide which ones to use? Many scientists place their trust in models which accurately mimic past climate change, in the hope that they will continue
to 'tell the truth' in the future. But a new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters shows that this trust could be
misplaced. The ability of a model to faithfully simulate past climate change is 'no guarantee of future skill', according to research by Catherine Reifen and Ralf Toumi at
Imperial College . Reifen and Toumi played around with the models of temperature change in the 20th
century. To their surprise, they found that models which painted a faithful picture of climate change between 1900 and 1919 failed miserably between 1920 and 1939. The
same applied between 1901-1920 and 1921-1940, and so on up until 1999. Why's that? Simply put, models aren't very good at multi-tasking. A model may be very good at simulating the effect of El Nino on temperatures in the tropics, but isn't as
good at everything else. But because El Nino and other 'strengths' like sea-ice come and go, no single model can consistently hit the nail on the head all the time. That's why it's important that we include as many models as possible in our climate change projections, the study concludes. 'We do not know which feedbacks will dominate
in the future', warn Reifen and Toumi, 'and the inclusion of the largest possible number of models could increase the range of predictions.' So where does this leave us? You'll be glad to hear that the IPCC hasn't fallen into the trap flagged up by this report: it gives equal weighting to all models. Less pleasing is its own admission of fallibility on the subject of models. 'What does the accuracy of a climate model's simulation of past or contemporary climate say
about the accuracy of its projections of climate change?' mulls the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment. 'This question is just beginning to be addressed...' (Blog of Bloom) Scientific
Value of Arctic Sea Ice Imagery Derived Products During the 1990s, a government program brought together environmental scientists and members of the intelligence community to consider how classified assets and data could
be applied to further the understanding of environmental change. As part of the Medea program, collection of overhead classified imagery of sea ice at four sites around the
Arctic basin was initiated in 1999, and two additional sites were added in 2005. Collection of images during the summer months at these six locations has continued until the
present day. Several hundred unclassified images with a nominal resolution of 1 meter have been derived from the classified images collected at the 6 Arctic sites. My experience with Rahmstorf’s non-linear
trend line One of the original impetuses for me to start blogging was my experience with Stefan Rahmstorf concerning his 2007 paper “A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future
Sea-Level Rise” (Science, 315, 2007). I posted a several part critique on my old blogspot site, which I later ported over to this wordpress site. Amazingly the MSM still treats Rahmstorf as a serious analysis though: Climate
change calls for land-use plan rethink The spectre of rising sea levels and ecological change from climate disruption show land-use plans for Vancouver Island and the B.C. coast will need to be revisited and
recalibrated to account for rapid and unabated climate change. The revision of the Copenhagen Synthesis Report was advertised at the ANU Climate Change Institute, directed by Prof. Will Steffen. But they just can’t seem to get it
right. The ANU web site refers to Stefan Rahmstorf as Stefan Rahmonstorf. Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $77 billion so far – trillions to come The US government has spent over $77 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education
campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots
movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed
major errors. (Joanne Nova, SPPI) I call "Bullshit!" Montreal
Protocol Eyed as Weapon in Fight Against Climate Change UNITED NATIONS -- There's growing momentum for amending the Montreal Protocol, the landmark treaty credited with rescuing the earth's ozone layer, for use in a global
battle against climate change. The Montreal Protocol was never anything more than a DuPont patent protection scheme, there was never
an "ozone crisis" (Gore has said its value was establishing a precedent for global governance). Now, let's see, could it be that Dupont's exclusivity on HFCs
is expiring, so now we need a new round of expensive chemicals to replace them? Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About
'Global Governance' Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.” “I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore
said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith SchoolWorld Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times. “Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives
passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in
the Senate. Gore touted the climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made
global warming. “But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global
agreements.” (Marc Morano, SPPI) Global Warming’s Missing Link: EPA Whistleblower Exposes Agenda’s Fatal Flaw The Environmental Protection Agency is pushing the greatest regulatory intervention in US history, seeking to declare that carbon dioxide poses an “endangerment” under
the Clean Air Act, threatening human health and the environment. To hear the EPA tell it, CO2 – which nonetheless remains indispensible to life on earth and without which
plants die, more of which produces higher crop yields, etc. – will kill us all. Climate Economics 101 and Policy Activism In this month’s article at EconLib, I provide an introduction to the economics of climate
change, and discuss some of its major controversies. Follow the above link for the full story, but in a nutshell here are the main issues: (Robert Murphy, MasterResource) A Natural Limit to Anthropogenic Global Warming "The concept of dangerous climate change, although central to the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol to restrict CO2 emissions, has
never been formally defined. A general understanding has evolved within scientific and political discussions on the issue that global warming exceeding 2oC would indeed be
dangerous. Some scientists go so far as to suggest that 2oC represents a ‘tipping point’ beyond which ‘runaway global warming’ is likely. The evidence, however, is
speculative and linked to the projections of computer models." (William Kininmonth, SPPI) Please, no... Kerry panel looks at climate change and
national security WASHINGTON -- Massive crop devastation, melting glaciers, water shortages, millions of displaced people -- all of these will drag the US military into conflict if global
climate change goes unchecked, a Senate panel was warned today. Climate models are process models, they are not designed for prediction, nor is there the slightest evidence they can be adapted for the purpose.
We really don't want to fall into the trap of making defense policy decisions on the strength of PlayStation® climatology. Unfounded fear of climate change
is a threat to our national security. Policy Peril: The Truth About Global Warming Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis explains why we have more to fear from global warming policies than from global warming itself.
Peacocks and Passions in Senate
Climate Debate NEW YORK — With the U.S. House of Representatives having narrowly approved a climate change bill late last month, attention has now moved to the Senate, which is busy
debating just how to craft a version of its own. Senate Democrats
Prep Team Girds for Climate Battle When the Senate debated climate change legislation earlier this decade, it generally was understood the bill had no chance of becoming law. NAACP Seeks to Impede Black Advancement By Endorsing Climate-Based Regulation
- Directionless Group Pushes Plan Opposed by Majority of Constituency Washington, DC - Contending with political realities such as the election of the first black president, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) is understandably struggling to justify its continued existence. At its centennial convention, it clearly moved in the wrong direction by allying with environmental
lobbyists to promote economically devastating climate policy opposed by the majority of black Americans. IPCC Chief Raps
G-8, Calls for Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts After 2015 UNITED NATIONS -- The chief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change criticized the Group of Eight summit participants for ignoring the IPCC's scientific findings
and the declaration that emerged from the 2007 U.N. climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, in which leaders agreed to work toward a new treaty limiting average global
temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius. Friends we didn't know we had? Activists reveal plan to
storm Copenhagen climate summit - Anti-globalisation group Climate Justice action talks of plans to mobilise up to 15,000 protesters to storm Copenhagen summit in
December A network of radical green groups is planning to disrupt the international climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December by invading the conference centre and occupying
it for a day, it has emerged. For the most part I think anti-globalists are complete bloody idiots but if they contribute to the failure of Kyoto W (Kyoto-Worse) then they are
useful idiots. No! Dig the coal, bury the carbon - New coal-fired power
plants will capture CO2 and inject it into the earth. On the back roads near Edwardsport, Ind., jutting from a hillside carpeted with corn, a steel tower conveyer belt lifts from a mine below a black stream that spills out to
become a growing mountain of coal. Mine the carbon, oxidize it to recover some of the energy bound when it was originally split from atmospheric carbon dioxide and return it to the
atmosphere from when it came (and was subsequently lost from the natural cycle due to inadvertent sequestration). Analysis of Alarmism: Ocean acidification As public awareness grows that human caused warming is false the extent and degree of attempts to scare the public increases. The scare preference is for remote geographic
areas such as the Arctic or Antarctic or complex obscure topics ideally with global implications, which the public knows little about. The latest scare story is ocean
acidification, which combines these traits with the advantage of a word with negative connotations and used before in acid rain. (Tim Ball, CFP) Fishy sheep tales: Climate change: Bye-bye, black sheep?
- Another clue has been found in the Case of the Shrinking Sheep. -AFP PARIS - Another clue has been found in the Case of the Shrinking Sheep, an animal mystery in which climate change features as the principal culprit. And how did they determine these last few decades to be different due to global warming as opposed the normal multi-decadal cycles afflicting these
isles? Stupid game... Oh... Warmer Waters Shrinking European Fish A new study has found that Europe's fish are smaller than they have been in decades and the researchers believe global warming may be to blame. They warn that smaller fish
could eventually have a domino effect on the food chain. Funny, not so long ago it was selective fishing pressure making fish smaller and earlier breeders, now it's gorebull warming. Guess what? Protecting
fisheries from overfishing will likely have the desired effect, attempting to protect them from the phantom menace will not. Biased
Criticism of Anthony Watts For His Report “Is The U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” There is a You Tube video by Peter Sinclar titled “Climate
Denial Crock of the Week” which ridicules the important contribution of Anthony Watts in identifying poor siting issues with the US Historical Climate Network (see
his report). The video is clearly a biased presentation of what Anthony has accomplished, even resorting to the absurd connection of climate to how the health
issues of tobacco were reported. The video fails to recognize that the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) invited Anthony to present his work in Asheville, and
recently, one of the NCDC scientists invited him to co-author a research paper with him. I will report if NCDC refutes this personal attack against a well respected colleague who has provided a much needed analysis to the climate science community.
Stay tuned also for at least two peer reviewed papers which are quantitatively analyzing, using Anthony’s data, the impact of the poor sitings of the HCN sites on the
long term surface temperature trends and anomalies. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science) From CO2 Science Volume 12 Number 29 Editorial: Medieval
Warm Period Record of the Week Subject Index Summary Plant Growth Data: Journal Reviews: The Fire History of California's Lake Tahoe Basin: It suggests that the region's current mean annual
temperature is nowhere near as high as it was during the Medieval Warm Period. Amazon Forest Dynamics: In what ways have they changed over the past quarter-century? ... and why? Methane: Can It Be Produced by Plants?: The question has been pretty much settled: it can't. But plants can
help to move it around. The Rooting of Woody Plant Cuttings: How is it impacted by atmospheric CO2 enrichment? Could if but might maybe: Climate change could put the heat on
California crops Fruit and nut orchards in the Central Valley rely on winter chilling hours, but those cold chills are on a decline, according to a UC Davis study. (LA Times) Possibly too late, misanthropists have spent billions over the last decades getting us into this mess: Millions
spent to lobby climate bill Energy companies and industry groups with a major stake in climate change legislation are spending millions of dollars more on lobbying this year. From the Enron corner: Cap-and-trade legislation deserves industry support The House has passed, and the Senate will take up, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. It's easily the best bill I've seen, even if it's not perfect. The
energy industry should support this bill because it's a good start, and because we can make it better in the Senate. (Houston Chronicle) Coal giant offers cash for biggest clean rival - TransAlta hopes to green up its holdings through
hostile bid for largest wind farmer Canada's biggest generator of dirty power has launched a $1.5 billion hostile bid for the country's leading developer of clean power, including the two largest wind farms
in Ontario. PM Kevin Rudd told nuclear is best hope by Rio Tinto MINING giant Rio Tinto has urged Kevin Rudd to immediately begin work on a regulatory regime allowing use of nuclear energy in Australia, arguing the viability of energy
alternatives has been dramatically overstated. Automakers Worry About More Ethanol In U.S. Gasoline WASHINGTON - Major automakers asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency not to approve higher blends of ethanol in gasoline until the agency has adequate test results
showing the fuel would not damage vehicles. Mini reactors could bring jobs to Ontario - Cambridge plant in running to build units Go big or go ... small? Who’s afraid of electric vehicles? Green opposition even to eco-friendly electric cars shows that what environmentalists really dislike is travel itself. (James Woudhuysen, sp!ked) Capitalist Coal versus Socialist Electricity Last month, Chinese media outlets reported that over 3 million tons of coal had been piled up in the port at Guangzhou, while some 6 million tons of coal sat at the port
of Qinhuangdao in the north east. July 21, 2009
Closing schools won't stop pandemics: study WASHINGTON - Closing schools at the first sign of a new pandemic might delay the worst so health officials can prepare, but cannot prevent the spread of the disease,
British researchers said on Monday. Hmm... Salt may be culprit for uncontrolled blood pressure NEW YORK - People with high blood pressure that isn't controlled by multiple medications are likely eating too much salt, new findings in the journal Hypertension show. ... perhaps sodium interferes with the combination of 3.4 hypertensive medications (average) each of these patients were taking but that's a long way
from sodium intake causing hypertension. Very dubious. Support for Obama on healthcare slips: poll WASHINGTON - Public support for President Barack Obama's handling of healthcare reform, the pillar of his legislative agenda, has fallen below 50 percent for the first
time, a Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Monday said. Could also be that people are figuring out that socialized medicine is an unmitigated disaster, never to be implemented. UK health plans to squeeze other spending-report LONDON - A pledge by Britain's two main political parties to protect the state-run health service means other departments will face sharp spending cuts, an influential
fiscal report said on Monday. Eating fewer calories may not increase lifespan NEW YORK - Don't pay too much attention to the buzz around extending your life by eating less: New research with fruit flies suggests that, contrary to previous reports,
diet restriction may not increase lifespan. When Weight Is the Issue, Doctors Struggle Too The mother came out of the exam room to intercept me: she knew I would probably have to talk to her daughter about how she was gaining weight, she said, but please don’t
use the word “fat,” or even “overweight.” Don’t make her feel bad about herself. S.C. case looks on child obesity as child abuse. But is it? Jerri Gray was doing all she could to help her son lose weight, her attorney says. But something had gone terribly wrong for the boy to hit the 555-pound mark by age 14. Obesity Much Much Worse Than Swine Flu The world’s health authorities are in a state of alert regarding the emergence of the H1N1 swine influenza virus and have been issuing advice and medical recommendations
to anyone who will listen to them. It dawned on us in the Ukmedix Newsroom however that when the situation is looked at objectively the threat to humanity from the swine
influenza virus is nothing when compared to the threat of obesity. Seriously overstating obesity risk -- then again, Influenza A H1N1 risk tends to be seriously overstated, too. Drugs expose many premature babies to chemicals NEW YORK - Premature babies are often exposed to additives in their medications that could put them at risk of brain and lung damage, according to a new study. Senate takes up concealed weapons measure WASHINGTON — A measure taken up by the Senate Monday would give people the right to carry concealed weapons across state lines as long as they obey the concealed gun
laws of the state they are visiting. Changes in Litigation Windfalls for Environmental Advocacy Groups A number of environmental groups appear to have used ‘citizen suit’ provisions of key environmental statutes to obtain revenues rather than to improve environmental
quality. This would not be allowed with the Waxman-Markey bill to restrict carbon dioxide emissions which recently squeaked through the House of Representatives by a 219-212
vote. The estimated cost in the next decade alone for emissions allowances according to the Congressional Budget office is a whopping $846 billion. (1) Hopefully the bill,
which is nothing more than an energy tax in disguise, will find tougher sailing in the Senate, since the only encouraging thing about it at present is the elimination of the
citizen suit provision. Interior calls for 2-year hold on mining claims
near Grand Canyon - The freeze reverses a Bush-era ruling that opened the land to uranium mining. The Interior Department plans to study the environmental impact. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today called for a two-year "timeout" on new mining claims on nearly 1 million acres near Grand Canyon National Park in northern
Arizona. Oh... The end is near IT USED TO BE that apocalyptic warnings about the approaching end of time came from sign-holding religious nutcases. Now they come from hard scientists. Most discussion of
the threat of global warming is conducted in measured tones, with even dire projections offered with the necessary proviso that the future is uncertain. But as governments
fail to act strenuously enough against the villainous carbon emissions, and as the broad public continues in a state of environmental quietude, if not indifference,
scientific voices are sharpening the alarm. The Sun is still blank (mostly). China Dust Cloud Circled Globe in 13 Days HONG KONG - Dust clouds generated by a huge dust storm in China's Taklimakan desert in 2007 made more than one full circle around the globe in just 13 days, a Japanese
study using a NASA satellite has found. Article
On Arctic Sea Ice In The NASA Publication “The Earth Observer” There is a useful update of Arctic sea ice on pages 19-20 in the May-June 2009 issue of the NASA
publication “The Earth Observer” by Walt Meir and Stephanie Renfrow titled “Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis: Arctic Sea Ice Younger, Thinner as
Melt Season Begins”. This informative article includes the text “How vulnerable is the ice cover as we go into the summer melt season? To answer this question, scientists also need information about ice thickness. Indications of
winter ice thickness, commonly derived from ice age estimates, reveal that the ice is thinner than average, suggesting that it is more susceptible to melting away during the
coming summer.” “While ice older than two years reached record lows, the fraction of second-year sea ice increased compared to last winter. Some of this second-year ice will survive
the summer melt season to replenish the Arctic’s store of older ice; however, in recent years less young ice has made it through the summer. To restore the amount of older
ice to pre-2000 levels, large amounts of this young ice would need to endure through summer for several years in a row. But conditions may not always favor the survival of second-year and older ice. Each winter, winds and ocean currents move some sea ice out of the Arctic ocean. This
winter, some second-year ice survived the 2008 melt season only to be pushed out of the Arctic by strong winter winds. Since the end of September 2008, 150,000 mi2 (390,000
km2) of second-year ice and 73,000 mi2 (190,000 km2) of older (more than two years old) ice moved out of the Arctic (Maslanik et al., 2007; Fowler et al., 2004).” The entire article is worth reading. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science) Which global mean temperature is relevant? Steve McIntyre and Anthony
Watts have promoted a paper about East African temperatures by John Christy et al. in Journal of Climate. I would bet it's a very careful paper but I can't really
say because I haven't studied it in detail. Here is the full paper: Wildlife ‘keeping up’ with climate change CHURCHVILLE, VA—Global warming alarmists say at least a million wildlife species will ultimately be lost because the plants, trees and animals won’t be able to “keep
up” with the rapid pace of man-made global warming. Laying aside the fact that global temperatures are currently declining instead of warming, how can the wild species
hopefully adapt to further warming? Will climate change disorientate fish? Humans are regularly lost at sea but what about fish? New research suggests that climate change
could disorientate fish by enlarging their ear bones, which they use to navigate. Previous studies found that seawater rich in carbon dioxide (CO2) shrinks the shells of corals and shellfish by reducing the availability of the bio-mineral aragonite,
a form of calcium carbonate and key constituent of shells. The ear bones (otoliths) of fish are made of aragonite, too. David Checkley at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and his colleagues therefore expected the otoliths of
fish reared in CO2-rich seawater to shrink. To their surprise, the opposite happened. The more carbon dioxide they added to the water, the larger the fishes ear bones grew. Checkley's team reared the young of white sea bass in seawater containing three levels of CO2: low (380 uatm), medium (993 uatm) and high (2559 utam). The medium concentration here is approximately 2.5 times the current CO2 concentration, and is likely to occur in the atmosphere by the year 2100, the study
notes. The weight of ear bones rose by 10-14% in fish reared at the medium concentration of CO2, and by as much as 26% at the highest level. It is hard to overstate the importance of ear bones: when small but perfectly formed, in humans as in fish they help us navigate, stay upright and survive. And studies
show that fish with asymmetrical ear bones have difficulty navigating and are less likely
to survive than normal fish. Will fish with larger ear bones suffer a similar fate? It's too soon to tell, but right now there's no conclusive evidence that fish with larger ear bones fare worse than
normal fish. (Blog of Bloom) All this tells us is that the fish otoliths grew faster in the 7-8 days they were alive. Would the effect persist? Unknown at this time. Would this
happen with mere changes in atmospheric CO2 or must these levels be achieved in sea water? Would it matter even if it did? Again, no one knows and this is all
speculative. Replacing one pretend problem with another: Chemicals
That Eased One Woe Worsen Another This is not the funny kind of irony: Scientists say the chemicals that helped solve the last global environmental crisis -- the hole in the ozone layer -- are making the
current one worse. The great ozone depletion scare was the previously biggest problem that never was (until gorebull warming). By the way -- the world isn't warming
(although we are likely to wish it was). UN panel to study impact of climate change on poor
countries - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determined to increase understanding of regional effects of warming The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body of scientists drawn from around the world, will use its next assessment due in 2014 to look at how the impact of
global warming is falling unequally on the poorest developing countries. No modeling is capable of predicting climate or its effects anywhere on the planet. They might want to stop what they are doing with words before they go blind... Normative
Order and homo oecologicus The impact of Climate Change challenges not only to the institutional design of the European Union but also the normative pluralism of public and private actors in its
functional involvement to resolve the social patterns of Climate Change. Impressed by a global crisis of deregulated markets the political complacency weakens the European
capacity of ecological problem solving: The extension of industrial competition policy usurps the acuteness of restrictive emissions policies in the European Union and
shelves the claim of environmental sustainability for nature and civil society. Gotta love "homo oecologicus" -- they take themselves so seriously, even if they are totally insane :-) With friends like these... An
Interview With Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling, Part Two - Conor Clarke
...And what I don't know is whether Americans are really willing to understand that and do anything for the benefit of the unborn Chinese. Shriek! IPCC chief: Benefits of tackling climate change will
balance cost of action - The cost of tackling climate change will be paid for by benefits that would come from better energy security, employment and health, Rajendra
Pachauri says ahead of major announcement on 2013 reports Measures needed to tackle global warming could save economies more money than they cost, the world's top climate change expert said today. Isn't it marvelous? The only known costs of enhanced greenhouse is that of "addressing gorebull warming". That cost is easy to avoid --
just don't do it. Bill
Maher Shocked - Leading Dem Governor Doesn't Buy Democrats Global Warming Plan
Bill Maher received quite a shock on his show last Friday when his guest, Governor Brian Schweitzer (D-MT), said cap-and-trade was "the wrong approach." Climate change bill could push farm costs up Climate change is not just going to make you hot under the collar — if legislation now working its way through Congress becomes law, you’re likely to be paying more to
farm, says Tara Smith, congressional relations, American Farm Bureau Federation. European look at 'cap and trade' Many around the world believe the environment can be protected through regulation. Even the United States is going down this path now. Before it acts too swiftly, the
United States might want to consider some of the lessons that we have learned the hard way in Europe. In Provo, a call to action against federal climate bill The U.S. effort to counteract climate change is poised to not only destroy the U.S. economy, but dramatically increase global carbon dioxide levels. CO2 Caps Central to Climate Fight: UK LONDON - A dual system of both national emissions caps and carbon trading schemes should play a central role in cutting global greenhouse gas emissions, a report
commissioned by the British government said on Monday. China must 'pay' to cut greenhouse gases - U.S. WASHINGTON, July 20 - China and other developing nations must help "pay" for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming, U.S. Commerce
Secretary Gary Locke said on Monday, backing off a recent statement that put a greater burden on the United States. China Knows Climate Deals Are Ruinous What in the world is happening? Almost one year to the day after the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace predicted "China's economy will surpass that of the
United States by 2035 and be twice its size by midcentury," three ominous events may have been largely missed by the American people after the Independence Day holiday. Rudd picks Howard minister for
emissions job Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has appointed former Coalition environment minister Robert Hill to head a key element of the Government's emissions trading scheme. A lot of Australians still don't think much of Bob Hill but, at a time when Al Gore sold Americans down the river signing on to emission reductions at Kyoto,
Hill negotiated Australia's position as an 8% increase -- clearly the best negotiator at the table. Idiot! Malcolm Turnbull angers MPs as Coalition torn over climate CLIMATE change is looming as a major challenge for Malcolm Turnbull's leadership after he angered some senior colleagues yesterday by publicly floating a new strategy
despite failing to get shadow cabinet support for it. The only hope for the Coalition (and Australia) is to make sure emissions trading never becomes a realistic possibility, much less a reality. Turnbull feels the heat on climate ANY attempt by Malcolm Turnbull to compromise over climate change and pass the Government's emissions trading scheme next month will put the Opposition Leader on a
collision course with his party. Businesses outed as climate sinners AUSTRALIAN businesses have been outed as climate sinners – most of them are not doing anything to reduce their carbon footprints. (AAP) We agree with them, kind of... a little: Green Party of Pennsylvania says no to Carbon Sequestration This week, the Green Party of Pennsylvania spoke out against a plan by Governor Rendell to bury waste from power plants in the ground. Known as "carbon
sequestration," the technique is believed to be more environmentally friendly than releasing toxics into the air. Carbon sequestration is a patently stupid idea. Not because it is toxic in the free atmosphere (where it's actually an essential trace gas) but because
it is a marvelous resource we don't want to waste. A new analysis from Harvard researchers shows investing in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), or "clean coal" makes coal as expensive as any alternative
energy. Clean Coal: Competitive Someday, Just Not
Today As if Big Coal’s protests weren’t enough, here’s another reality
check for “clean coal.” Harvard’s Belfer Center just released an
analysis of the costs of carbon capture and storage for coal-fired plants. The good news? Clean coal could become an economically viable alternative source of energy down the road. The bad news? It’s a long road—and the short term isn’t
pretty. “The Realistic Costs of Carbon Capture,” which examined the economics of trapping carbon emissions from coal-fired plants now and in the future, concludes that making
coal plants “clean” will be an expensive undertaking until the technology is mature. Actually storing the stuff underground might cost more money, or might be a source of
revenue, depending whether it’s used to juice tired oil fields or just stuck in caves. How much will clean coal cost? The first generation of plants will be able to capture 90% of their carbon emissions at a cost of between $100 and $150 a ton. In layman’s
terms, that would add between 8 and 12 cents per kilowatt hour to the cost of coal plants (the national average electricity price is about 9 cents per kilowatt hour). Once the technology is mature and more efficient plants are up and running, the economics look better: It will cost between $30 and $50 per ton of carbon, or an extra 2 to
5 cents per kilowatt hour. To quote the report: “The range of estimated costs for [future] plants is within the range of plausible future carbon prices, implying that
mature technology would be competitive with conventional fossil fuel plants at prevailing carbon prices.” The problem is determining just when clean coal leaves behind its gawky adolescence and enters adulthood. It’s not a question of getting a couple of demonstration plants
up and running; rather the world needs to make a huge, concerted push to enjoy economies of scale and the like. Harvard figures that “maturity” means between 50 and 100
gigawatts of clean coal plants in operation. Right now, there are four demonstration plants in the world, not including FutureGen. One interesting tidbit: Less is not more. That is, “clean coal” doesn’t get any cheaper by capturing fewer of the plant’s emissions (as the reborn
FutureGen seeks to do). To wit: “Indeed for the benchmark of a conventional coal plant…costs decrease markedly with increasing capture rates… There do not seem to
be any grounds based on unit cost of abatement to prefer lower capture rates” for advanced coal plants. (Keith Johnson, WSJ) Riding a Wave of
Culture Change, DOD Strives to Trim Energy Demand Capt. John Hickey was on a mission. Why should we change the culture of an institution accustomed to having everything it needs to get its job done? We expect it to get its job done,
no matter what. Shouldn't they have everything they need to do just that? Stimulus Helps
Bring Calif. Petcoke Plant Closer to Reality A proposed power plant in Southern California that would turn coal and waste petroleum into cleaner-burning gas has garnered support from the state and stimulus funds from
the federal government. When wind power blows, jobs will fall You may recall the Beyond the Fringe sketch in which Squadron Leader Peter Cook tells Jonathan Miller, the doleful pilot, that he must set out on a doomed mission because
“we need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war”. Weaknesses In Chinese Wind Power Seeking to rein in its emissions of greenhouse gases, China is on an ambitious spending spree in wind power. The government is working on plans to shell out 1 trillion
yuan ($146 billion) to build seven massive wind farms with a combined capacity of more than 120 gigawatts, roughly equal to the world's total installed wind power plants last
year. July 20, 2009
Good news on phthalates--from an EPA guy! EPA researcher Dr. Robert Benson somehow found the hours to publish—on his own time, and independent of the Agency—a breakthrough human risk assessment on phthalates.
Benson examined human exposure in the US and Germany to all the phthalates that have been implicated in bad rodent effects, to see how this stacks up with current EPA
guidelines—replete with their enormous built-in safety factors. Specifically, Benson looked at dibutyl phthalate, diisobutyl phthalate, butylbenzyl phthalate, diethylhexyl phthalate, dipentyl phthalate, and diisononyl phthalate. Those
that recognize the names of these chemicals know that Benson's list is comprehensive. His conclusion: It is unlikely that humans are suffering adverse developmental effects from current environmental exposure to these phthalate esters. In other words,
average daily human exposure to all the measured phthalates combined, does not even reach the most stringent safety level set by the EPA. This mirrors the Canadian government's recent pronouncement on BPA. My latest HND piece covers this, along with a portion of the saga on endocrine disruptors (ED),
including the tale of notorious scientific fraudster Steven Arnold. Arnold was such a true believer in the nonsensical theory of ED synergism, that he completely fabricated
data in support of this hypothesis in a paper published in Science (1996). Not only was the paper retracted in August, 1997, but Arnold was banned from government
sponsored research for five years. Many thought he should have been banned for life. Don't feel bad if you never heard of Arnold's misdeeds. Given the non-PC nature of the story, the mainstream media largely took a pass. Of course, Arnold's results not being replicated is hardly unique in ED work. It's just that his findings were so important, and so vital to the ED cause, that numerous
researchers were compelled to jump into the fray. And, yes, he got caught. But, what about dozens of other efforts that purport to link ED exposure to all kinds of health
effects, based largely on questionnaires and data cherry-picking? Such studies may not be Arnold type fraud, in that data exists, yet they are still unworthy of being
published in once-reputable journals. Considering that the EPA alone has spent more than $80 million on endocrine research since 1999, not to mention untold amounts on testing and regulation inspired largely
by Arnold's fraudulent paper, isn't it time for Congress to investigate this entire matter? Or are you OK with major scientific research and regulatory budgets being controlled by feckless chemophobes? (Shaw's Eco-Logic) In Push for Cancer Screening, Limited Benefits “Don’t forget to check your neck,” says an advertising campaign encouraging people to visit doctors for exams to detect thyroid cancer. Benefits of breastfeeding 'being oversold by the NHS' NHS claims about benefits of breastfeeding are false and oversold, as there is little evidence that mother’s milk protects babies against illness or allergies, says a
leading experts. Today’s changing medical ethics — where it’s taking
us Last week, the Massachusetts’ state commission proposed a radical restructuring of how doctors, hospitals and healthcare providers will be paid in an effort to keep the
state’s model universal coverage program from bankruptcy. Their proposals give us even more disturbing insights on what is being envisioned for all of us with health care
reform. OK only if the "the other guys" pay for it? Democrats' New Worry: Their Own
Rich Voters A group of Democrats elected in recent years from some of the country's richest congressional districts have emerged as a stumbling block to raising taxes on the wealthy
to pay for President Barack Obama's ambitious health-care overhaul just as the plan has begun to meet increasing resistance over its cost. Governors Fear Medicaid Costs in
Health Plan BILOXI, Miss. — The nation’s governors, Democrats as well as Republicans, voiced deep concern Sunday about the shape of the health care plan emerging from Congress,
fearing that Washington was about to hand them expensive new Medicaid obligations without money to pay for them. White House Less Firm on Date for Health Care
Bill President Obama’s budget director on Sunday appeared to soften on the administration’s insistence that a health care reform bill be delivered by August. Oh goody! A public panic pact: New Pact to Let European Public Track Pollutants GENEVA - European citizens will be able to find out what dangerous substances are emitted in their neighborhoods under an environmental treaty to go into effect in 17
countries in October, the United Nations said on Friday. And what is the value of putting information in the face of people who cannot use it and certainly don't understand it? People are enormously tolerant of
dioxins, for example, with the only known effect being chloracne. DDT is not a human hazard either, despite all the activist nonsense repeated in the press. There is really
no upside to publicizing panic-inducing information but a great potential for anti-industrial, anti-corporate, anti-capitalist mischief. Presumably that's why greenies keep
pushing for this nonsense. This herbicide can also make corn more
nutritious My latest HND piece takes a look at an unexpected benefit coming from the herbicide mesotrione,
used on corn. Ag scientists have found that corn treated with this chemical shows increased carotenoid levels. More great strides have been made by modern scientists, who prove that Galileo (and, for that matter, Newton and Einstein) got it all wrong about gravity. No wonder he was
put under house arrest! The crucial sentence in a
remarkable scientific report on athletes was: The engineers discovered that the laws of locomotion mean
that they fall to the ground more quickly between each running stride or swimming stroke and therefore can outperform lighter competitors. So the old boy was wasting his time dropping things off the Tower of Pisa. It is now known that heavier bodies fall faster than light ones. Fortunately, our scientific
correspondent was on the ball not to miss this one. Naturally, extraneous factors such as leg length and musculature (or even global warming) have nothing to do with it.
(Number Watch) Simplistic but not exactly wrong: In
the fight against childhood obesity, playgrounds should be a frontline defense Childhood obesity rates are on the rise. Recent data indicates that they have risen to between 12.4% and 17.6%, depending on the age range. Aside from the teasing and
other social stigmas that go along with being overweight as a child, there are serious health risks for obese children that may not show up for several years. Asthma,
diabetes, and cardiovascular disease are all possible consequences of carrying too much weight during childhood. Encouraging play and physical activity is good, including "risky" competitive play, contact sports and all the self-testing tree climbing, rope
swinging, abrasion (and occasional broken bone) -inducing things kids used to do but are now prevented by nanny society. We didn't have a lot of ADHD or drugged-to-docility
kids when each hour or two's learning was separated by periods of frenetic childhood activity. The way Western society is going we are going to "protect" our kids
into early graves. Unhealthy
appetite: Is 'Fatsploitation' fuelling the obesity crisis? Fed by weekly magazines and reality TV, hunger for stories about the seriously overweight is insatiable. Is the coverage given to obesity helping to raise awareness – or
is it fuelling the problem? (The Independent) Freedom Fries or Social Justice:
Agriculture and Obesity The agriculture industry has and will continue to come under attach for contributing to obesity. These attacks are based on narrow special interests and ideology, but they
will be used to justify more regulation and an attack on the personal liberties of millions of Americans. It will be done in the name of protecting the poor from themselves
and the greed of agribusiness, as well as combating climate change. The end result will be forcing us to 'eat for social justice.' (Matt Bogard, AgWeb) El Nino threat blows commodity
prices higher - With the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) on the horizon and concerns over food shortages, crops are locked in a bull market. In 1798 Reverend Thomas Malthus published a pamphlet entitled An Essay on the Principle of Population. In it, he argued that population growth would eventually be stopped
by a widespread and catastrophic famine as the world could no longer feed all the mouths it contained. It was an apocalyptic doomsday scenario. India Monsoon Picks Up; Government Says no Need to Panic NEW DELHI - India has a contingency plan if annual monsoon rains remain below normal and there is no need panic, India's finance minister said on Wednesday. European Subsidies Stray From the Farm Arids Roma is a gritty Catalan construction company in the northeast of Spain that paves highways and churns out dusty gray mountains of gravel from several sprawling
factories. UK to spend £100m on supporting GM crops for world's poor - White
paper shows government plans major rise in investment in research, as report calls for moratorium and questions approach Britain is planning to quietly spend up to £100m on support for genetically modified crops for the world's poor despite not having allowed any of the controversial foods
to be grown commercially at home. Remember back in the '90s, when discussion of enhanced greenhouse effect and climate science was all the rage? Way back then we used to hear about "mechanisms"
and "supporting evidence" (younger readers may have to look those terms up, or ask a really old science teacher). One of the topics regularly mentioned was
"stratospheric cooling", an important metric because as increasing levels of greenhouse gas retained more thermal energy closer to earth's surface less outgoing
energy was supposed to be available to warm the stratosphere. You don't hear about that any more... ever wondered why? We may be able to help you out with that. Back in the day, after the explosive volcanic eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, the stratosphere showed sudden warming spikes with the eruptions
and then greater cooling (perhaps as volcanic debris increased ozone destruction -- ozone being a potent greenhouse gas). It was this cooling trend claimed by enhanced
greenhouse advocates as supporting evidence of carbon dioxide emissions trapping more warmth near the surface. Certainly it had a ring of plausibility and made energy balance
equations much easier. So, how's that working out in the longer term? Like this: Richard Lindzen has pointed out there's been no statistically significant tropospheric warming since 1995 and I arbitrarily split the above time series in June of that
year. As is obvious from the two trend lines, data certainly was on the side of the warmers -- until the mid 90s. What's that, you can't see the second trend line? It's the
reason the -0.5 anomaly grid line appears bold and solid and yes, it's close enough to dead flat with no trend evident in lower stratospheric temperatures since '95 (click on
the graphic to download a larger version). I'm only guessing but I suspect enhanced greenhouse advocates don't make a fuss of stratospheric cooling supporting their case any more because, well, it isn't and it
doesn't. Funny how a once-popular metric can just drop off the radar like that... Doesn't stop some people trying to claim noctilucent clouds as contrary evidence, however: Mysterious,
Glowing Clouds Appear Across America’s Night Skies Mysterious, glowing clouds previously seen almost exclusively in Earth’s polar regions have appeared in the skies over the United States and Europe over the past several
days. Photographers and other sky watchers in Omaha, Paris, Seattle, and
other locations have run outside to capture images of what scientists call noctilucent (”night shining”) clouds. Formed by ice literally at the boundary where the
earth’s atmosphere meets space 50 miles up, they shine because they are so high that they remain lit by the sun even after our star is below the horizon. The clouds might be beautiful, but they could portend global changes caused by global warming. Noctilucent clouds are a fundamentally new phenomenon in the temperate
mid-latitude sky, and it’s not clear why they’ve migrated down from the poles. Or why, over the last 25 years, more of them are appearing in the polar regions, too, and
shining more brightly. “That’s a real concern and question,” said James Russell, an atmospheric scientist at Hampton University and the principal investigator of an
ongoing NASA satellite mission to study the clouds. “Why are they getting more numerous? Why are they getting brighter? Why are they appearing at lower latitudes?” Nobody knows for sure, but most of the answers seem to point to human-caused global atmospheric change. Noctilucent clouds were first observed in 1885 by an amateur astronomer. No observations of anything resembling noctilucent clouds before that time has ever been found.
There is no lack of observations of other phenomena in the sky, so atmospheric scientists are fairly sure that the phenomenon is recent, although they are not sure why. Over the last 125 years, scientists have learned how the clouds form. At temperatures around minus 230 degrees Fahrenheit, dust blowing up from below or falling into the
atmosphere from space provides a resting spot for water vapor to condense and freeze. Right now, during the northern hemisphere’s summer, the atmosphere is heating up and
expanding. At the outside edge of the atmosphere, that actually means that it’s getting colder because it’s pushed farther out into space.
It’s not hard to see how a warming Earth could change those dynamics: as the globe heats up, the top of the atmosphere should get colder. “The prevailing theory and most plausible explanation is that CO2 buildup, at 50 miles above the surface, would cause the temperature decrease,” Russell said. He
cautioned, however, that temperature observations remain inconclusive. The global changes that appear to be reshaping noctilucent cloud distribution could be much more complex, said Vincent
Wickwar, an atmospheric scientist at Utah State University whose team was first to report a
mid-latitude noctilucent cloud in 2002. Temperature does not explain their observations from around 42 degrees latitude. “To get the noctilucent clouds you need temperatures that are about 20 degrees Kelvin colder than what we see on average up there,” Wickwar said. “We may have
effects from CO2 or methane but it would only be a degree or a fraction of a degree.” (Wired) The world has not warmed since 2001. Team-AGW reply #1: In the last decade we’ve had six (or seven or eight) of the top ten hottest years ever recorded. Skeptics Say: True, but it doesn’t mean much. Clusters and longer trends are all that’s left when you can’t say ‘2009, or 2008, or 2007 was the hottest…’ The kicker is that the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age of the 1700’s, long before SUV’s. And records only started around 100 years ago. That’s not
long. (See the Akasofu graph.) Plus, many records were set by ground based stations, and a lot of these can’t be trusted. The Urban Heat Island effect means thermometers in cities are really measuring
parking-lot-warming, or the-air-conditioner-effect, not global warming. Satellites have circled the planet 24 hours a day for 30 years recording temperatures continuously. If
temperatures were still rising, they would see it. AGW reply #2: This flat patch is just natural variation. Skeptics say: “Natural variation” is caused by something. And it’s more important than carbon dioxide, because it is overpowering any CO2 warming. Even if the
temperatures start going up again, the flat trend for seven years tells us the models are missing something big. Models can’t accurately predict the climate over eight years, why should they be right over 80? Conclusion: This doesn’t prove global warming is over, but it proves carbon dioxide is not the main driver. Something else is causing temperatures to
change, something the computer models don’t include. (JoNova)
The Morality of Climate Change: (Uploaded 18 July 2009) Obligatory gorebull warming fear in an otherwise sound piece: Great Lakes water levels rebound after
long slump LUDINGTON, Mich. -- Great Lakes water levels are rebounding after a decade-long slump that hammered the maritime industry and even fed conspiracy theories about plots to
drain the inland seas that make up nearly one-fifth of the world's fresh surface water. Schools foster climate illiteracy In ultra-green Portland, textbooks offer superficial take on global warming Actually Bill, you haven't got that right. I know qualified people who argue that the so-called greenhouse effect does not exist on the grounds
greenhouse gases produce no energy (which indeed they do not). Now, I disagree with such absolutes in terminology (in fact, I think it nonsense) but these are qualified and
intelligent people, deservedly called scientists. Still others argue from the grounds of "heat flow" that energy cannot flow from the cooler atmosphere to the
warmer Earth (confusing delay in cooling and net energy balance) but that does not disqualify them as scientists either. What Climate Change Can Do For the Left A review of Why We Disagree About Climate Change, by Mike Hulme (Cambridge University Press, 2009) Scientists zoom in on carbon dioxide in NYC NEW YORK—Wade McGillis peered up at the structure propped like a high-tech stick figure—minus the head—on an elementary school roof. Then he examined the electronics
attached to its spindly metal frame, looking out over the Harlem brownstones nearby and the skyscrapers farther away. But we don't want to "curb emissions of carbon dioxide". An offer you can't refuse -- Pay up or world faces a 'catastrophe' [Climate Depot Editor's Note: Obama's Commerce Sec. Gary Locke would have us believe that Mother Nature is running a mob-like operation. Americans need to pay up or
else! Pay hard-earned dollars to the government or face “floods, droughts and rising sea levels.” It appears Sec. Locke is attempting to serve as a climate henchman, offering Americans a deal they can't refuse -- pay up or you face climate induced bodily harm and
loss of property. Sec. Locke has also joined others in the "Climate
Astrology" movement. (see: G8 Leaders embrace 'climate astrology' - Trying to control Earth's
thermostat is 'madness of our age' - July 10, 2009 and Congressional Weather-Makers: 'Climate
Astrologer' Boxer warns of 'droughts, floods, fires, loss of species' -- if Senate fails to pass climate bill - July 11, 2009 and see Related Links below) Americans are now being told they can save Earth by paying for Chinese emissions? See: WSJ:
Commerce Secretary: Americans 'Need to Pay' for Chinese Emissions - July 17, 2009 Sadly, this is simply more misguided policies based on embarrassing scientific claims from this Administration.] Commerce Sec.: Americans 'should be required to pay for carbon content' of imports to help avoid climate 'catastrophe' - Reuters - July 17, 2009 Reuters Excerpt: To address the serious threat of global warming, Americans should be
required to "pay" for the carbon content of goods they consume from countries around the world, a top U.S. official said on Friday. "It's important that those
who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America -- and it's our own consumption activity that's causing the emission of greenhouse gases,
then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai. Locke spoke to the business group
after meetings this week with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and other officials on how the two countries could work together to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas
emissions blamed for global warming. Unless China, the United States and other countries begin to reduce output of the heat-trapping gases, the world faces a
"catastrophe" in the form of more frequent floods, droughts and rising sea levels, Locke said. For complete article go here.
[End Article Excerpt.] Also see: WSJ: Commerce
Secretary: Americans 'Need to Pay' for Chinese Emissions - July 17, 2009 (Marc Morano, Climate Depot) No... Trade and Climate When leaders of the world’s richest nations and the big developing countries agreed at the Group of 8 summit this month to restart global trade negotiations, they sent a
powerful signal about the need for concerted action to deal with the world’s economic emergency. ... the correct response is junk the stupid carbon farce altogether. New York Times: More Regulations For Climate The New York Times has an editorial today that weighs in on the troubles in finding international agreements on trade and climate. The paper certainly highlights some of
the sticky problems and should be lauded for its general concern about the economy and the negative consequences of a scheme that doesn’t involve many or most nations.
(Chilling Effect) Compelling
video: Angry voters confront Congressman who voted for cap and trade
At the 4:12 mark, a speaker says that he hopes Castle loses his Congressional seat over his support of cap and trade, and the crowd cheers. Castle smiles briefly, then his
face grows grim. Around the 7:12 mark, Castle is booed after he says he believes in AGW. The town hall listening tour on health care 3 days after his vote for Cap and Trade. June 30, 2009. Michael Castle: Information from Answers.com Michael Newbold “Mike” Castle (born July 2, 1939) is an American lawyer and politician from Wilmington in New Castle County, Delaware. He is a member of the
Republican Party, who served in the Delaware General Assembly, as Lieutenant Governor of Delaware, and two terms as Governor of Delaware. He is currently the incumbent
Republican U.S. Representative, serving his eighth term. In related news: Protesters show up at Space office | zanesvilletimesrecorder.com | Zanesville Times
Recorder Rich Miller, 76, of Zanesville, said he, too, is concerned about not just health care, but how the entire system is running. “I’m sick to death of the whole deal,” Miller said. “The government is taking everything they can out of the people’s hands.” Miller said he wants to see values in the country returned to the way they were more than a year ago. “It scares me to death what the people in Washington are doing to us,” Miller said. “I voted for Space but when he voted for the Cap and Trade, that was
it.” Zack Space: Information from Answers.com Zachary T. “Zack” Space (born January 27, 1961) of Dover, Ohio, is an American politician of the Democratic Party and presently serves in the U.S. House of
Representatives for Ohio’s 18th congressional district. (WUWT) Very late to the party: Cap-and-trade bill stirs WVa protests CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Hundreds of people flocked to the Capitol to protest the Obama administration's plan to allow industrial sources to buy and sell pollution permits. House Members Being Hammered Over Waxman-Markey I'm hearing that the popular reaction to the passage of the Waxman-Markey electricity tax bill in the House has blown House members away. The public outrage is really
hurting those who voted for it, and that's why the bill has been "parked" (as the Blair government used to say) in the Senate. Very good sign. We need that sort of
public pressure to defeat this monstrosity, and similarly for the health-care plans. If these two overreaches go down, Obama's political capital will be spent. How often has
a president become a lame duck by his own actions within a year of taking office? (Iain Murray, Planet Gore) D'oh! Will Global Warming Bill Kill Coal? CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Organizers of a series of West Virginia rallies against the global warming bill working its way through Congress argue one of their goals is to
"save coal." That's what this gorebull warming farce is designed to do! There is no environmental benefit in starving green plants, which is basically what
this assault on affordable energy will try to achieve. Argh! Where do you find these idiot believers? U.S. Should Pay for Carbon Content of Imported Goods: Locke SHANGHAI - To address the serious threat of global warming, Americans should be required to "pay" for the carbon content of goods they consume from countries
around the world, a top U.S. official said on Friday. Fight against carbon could put shackles on global free trade THERE is a serious danger the international adoption of cap-and-trade legislation to limit carbon-dioxide emissions will trigger a new round of protectionism. House climate bill full of sweetening
provisions As Democrats pushed for the bill's narrow victory last month, some 300 pages of last-minute amendments were added, many that would make money for the constituencies of
lawmakers on the fence. Good grief! Hillary Apologizes to India for Global Warming MUMBAI, India -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton opened a three-day visit to India on Saturday by urging India not to repeat American mistakes in
contributing to global pollution, and she passionately defended U.S. demands for help in fighting terrorism. India Sees Climate Change "Pressure," U.S. Upbeat GURGAON, India - An Indian official on Sunday complained about U.S. pressure on India to curb its greenhouse gas emissions, but U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
emerged from their talks upbeat about a solution. India Rebuffs New Efforts for Binding Carbon Targets GURGAON, India — India served notice on Sunday that it remains opposed to legally binding targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, digging in its heels against the
United States as the Obama administration begins marshaling support for a new global agreement on climate change. White House creates climate analysis job PROVIDENCE, R.I. - A scientist from the University of Rhode Island who headed research expeditions in the Arctic and the Indian Ocean will soon join the White House in a
new position that targets the worldwide issue of climate change. Con-Job and Lies On Climate
From White House US government's climate con-job Suppose a company doctored data, misrepresented study findings, replaced observations with computer simulations, and hired PR flacks to
promote its new "wonder drug." Senators Seek Climate Bill Analysis for Farmers WASHINGTON - Two Republican senators are pressing the administration ahead of an Agriculture Committee hearing next week for a detailed analysis of the impact of climate
change legislation on U.S. farmers and ranchers. No cost is "acceptable" for the simple reason the alleged crisis is purely fabricated. Catastrophic carbon dioxide-driven enhanced greenhouse
is simply not a real-world risk. UK government produces climate change
mouse, fortunately Yup, no doubt about it. The biggest threat the world faces today is international terrorism. Oh, sorry, no. The biggest threat the world faces today is from a pandemic of
swine ‘flu. Nope, wrong again. The biggest threat, the moral issue of our time, is climate change. Ah, that’s more like it. Carbon emissions trading system 'seriously flawed' The system of trading carbon emissions at the heart of the ambitious low-carbon plan announced by the government last week is seriously flawed and close to becoming
irrelevant, according to researchers behind a new analysis. A Real Choice on Climate Change: Do Nothing Global efforts to mitigate climate change are resulting in the most ineffectual diplomacy since U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide
Briand tried to end all war with international law—eleven years before Hitler launched World War II. Wong Horse Knackered but… “Carbon Tax” is Saddled and Ready The aging galloper “Ration-N-Tax” from the Wong stable is knackered. This author has an advanced degree in theoretical chemistry and a nominal 40 years of experiences in the world of hard science, including, but
not limited to nuclear science. There are tens of thousands of Americans like me. Of the thousands of science and engineering meetings I’ve attended in my career, a common feature was the decorum, respect, and the common values of science. Major
science and engineering decisions were always driven by the supportive underlying evidence, even when polite competition of solutions was discussed. As Nobel physicist
Richard Feynman admonished,
“It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are,
who made the guess, or what his name is---if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong." - Dr. Richard Feynman, (“The Character of Natural Law”, The MIT Press, 1965,
p. 156”).'''
Thus what is obvious to thousands of scientists around the world who are observing the global warming controversy are several disturbing features. Some of these were noted
by former New Hampshire governor and Reagan chief of staff, John Sununu, during the March International Conference on Global Warming.
In addition to the name-calling the warmers now are using yet another tool, the suppression of evidence and voices of their own allies. A good example of this was recently
found at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This is an excellent analysis of global warming issues and the EPA author expressed serious doubts about the EPA policy
itself. The links follow (http://tinyurl.com/lcyzse) and here (http://tinyurl.com/l8o37v).
Veteran EPA analyst Alan Carlin reported in his 98 page analysis “I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of
global warming.” The EPA attempted to suppress its own internal report of climate change because of its political inconvenience. Kim Strassel reminds us that President
Obama said in April the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over.. We should check with Mr. Carlin to
see how this policy is working out.
Many others would add that the other agencies have not paid enough attention to the science either such as NASA, NOAA, GISS, and NCDC. Even the National Research Council
(NRC) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are now suspected of dubious science (http://tinyurl.com/nbuql2). We
could include erroneous science from Secretary Chu and the Dept. of Energy (DOE) as well (http://tinyurl.com/cwfooz).
You read this correctly, your government is directly involved with the suppression of climate analysis which originated within the government itself. This is our
government using our tax dollars to keep our Congress, our voters, and the media uninformed, if not misinformed. ( Swanson’s
AGW Song, or How At RealClimate, It’s Always Naivety Time… Sometimes I ask myself if the RealClimate guys understand the implications of everything they publish on their site. For example some time ago Gavin Schmidt more or less told
the whole world that to him observations were of little interest apart than as a way to improve climate models (thereby denying the very possibility that climate models
could be demonstrated false, under any circumstance). Now it’s the turn of a guest blog
by Kyle Swanson, encouraged and published by Raymond T.
“Raypierre” Pierrehumbert. The stated intent of the blog is to show that Swanson and Tsonis’ recent paper about “Has
the climate recently shifted?” has “very little” to do with Global Warming, of the anthropogenic variety obviously. But its actual practical
consequences are more interesting. (1) Andy Revkin through Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog notes
that Swanson and Tsonis take off the steam yet again from anybody and everybody that tries to “portray
global warming as an unfolding catastrophe here and now“. That is, with RealClimate in tow, and after Swanson and Tsonis, we can yell out loud and clear that the scientific consensus says
that all AGW-related troubles that we could be concerned about, they belong to the future. Repeat with me: AGW as a matter of grave concern for the whole of humanity, is not happening. That is, there is no
scientific justification at all to discuss AGW as an issue for the present instead of properly, as a risk management question involving some decades in the future. (2) All this discussions about the recent “pause in warming” (in Swanson’s words…as if it had any meaning given the above) are ammunitions
that will be used to argue against AGW once the warming resumes (eventually, it will…). If 10 years can’t say much in a direction, they cannot say much in the
other direction either. (3) In other words, all scientific discussions in climatology should confine themselves to the climate of the end of the 1970’s.
Anything that has happened after that, it’s by definition too early to talk about. (3) Raypierre tries at length to justify Tsonis’s words published in an interview. Among those: “if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural
variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to
warmer were all natural“ I am afraid all “comments were taken out of context” (Raypierre’s defense) are excuses simply demolished by Swanson’s writing that: “humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and [...] there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond“ Repeat with me: We have little clue about the Earth’s climate will respond to anything, be it natural or man-made. The
final result might be a cooling, a warming, or no much change at all. And so about AGW, we should be spending time reflecting about
the opportunity of reducing that “poking”, not on idiotic multidecadal projections of various degrees of warming. ======= Let me finish by noticing two details. First of all, in Swanson’s words presumably approved by Raypierre/RC, Global Warming (AGW) is now “the century-scale
response to greenhouse gas emissions“. And I thought it was multidecadal? Not any longer: even 50 years of global cooling will
be compatible with AGW. But to conclude on a high note: the anti-skeptic RC filters of old don’t appear to have been heavily used this time. Who knows, it might even be a way to show that the
RC folks are thinking of getting rid of their aburd fear for debating. But don’t hold your breath about that…especially when they will realize what the stuff they publish actually means. (OmniClimate) Here we go again: Countries talk phase-down of HFCs The first talks among governments about how to limit the use of hydrofluorocarbons, a class of powerful greenhouse gases commonly used as coolants in refrigerators and air
conditioners, have been promising, officials said Friday. Montreal was always a nonsense protocol, let's not make things even worse! The Sun has gone back to blank after having had just one sunspot group that caused otherwise rational people to go off their heads… (Solar Science) 2009 SOI so far
refuses tango with El Nino The large climate groups including NOAA in the USA, are predicting an El
Nino event in 2009. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) said on 8 July “Leading climate models indicate that warming of the Pacific
will continue for the next few seasons, with very little chance of the current development stalling or reversing.” It is is noteworthy that the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI)
which should be trending towards negative monthly values for an El Nino – still shows a positive 30 day average value of 8.38 as of the 18th July 09. SOI
information. The BoM discuss effects of the “classical” or “canonical” ENSO events since 1900 and I have plotted
the month by month SOI numbers showing development of those El Nino events – adding in 2002 and 2006. We can compare 2009 with the series of strong El Nino’s and it is
clear that the SOI in 2009 is too positive for us to be expecting a “canonical” El Nino. I have put in a nominal 0 value for July but note that as I write the 30 day average at 18th July is 8.56. So it looks unlikely we will see a “canonical” El Nino start in 2009. But hey !!, we might see a weaker event. Interesting too that the TAO SST map for the El Nino regions for the 17th July seems to show the anomaly weaker than the BoM
inset shows re the 8th. The BoM say their next comment is on 22nd July – it will be interesting to examine the nuances in what they say – in the light of hard data. (Warwick Hughes) Clouds, Seas to Be Targeted by U.N. Climate Report OSLO - Cloud formation, sea level rises and extreme weather events are among areas set to get more attention in the next U.N. report on global warming due in 2014, the
head of the Nobel Peace Prize winning panel said on Friday. If only we understood the detail to cover... Chilling Stars Author Henrik Svensmark On Video In a five-part video series
featuring Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, the author of The Chilling Stars talks about his research into the effects that cosmic rays have on cloud formation. His
theories contradict the IPCC’s theory of anthropogenic global warming, which basically blames last century's rise in average global temperature on human CO2
emissions. As many good scientists outside of the inbred climate change community have noticed, carbon dioxide just isn't up to the job of causing last century's observed
global temperature rise. Instead, Svensmark and his colleagues hypothesize that clouds created by cosmic rays, which are in part controlled by the activity of the sun,
regulate Earth's climate. Because this contradicts the IPCC's view of global warming, Svensmark's theory has been ignored by the climate alarmists and Svensmark himself
vilified. We have previously written about how two computer modelers from CMU wrote a computer program to simulate the interaction of cosmic rays with Earth's
atmosphere. Because their model failed to predict significant increases in cloud cover, global warming activists claimed the theory linking cosmic rays to climate change was
discredited. As stated in our article “Attempt
To Discredit Cosmic Ray-Climate Link Using Computer Model,” a computer model can not provide empirical proof for or against any scientific theory. As reported,
preliminary experimental verification of Svensmark's theory was provided by the SKY Experiment, and now CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, has
decided to conduct more comprehensive verification in the CLOUD Project. According to Svensmark: “Instead of thinking of clouds as a result of the climate, it’s actually showing that the climate is a result of the clouds,
because the clouds take their orders from the stars.” He has released a new paper detailing the most recent results from his continuing study of a possible link between
cosmic rays, aerosols, cloud formation, and our climate, which concludes: Our results show global-scale evidence of conspicuous influences of solar variability on cloudiness and aerosols. Irrespective of the detailed mechanism,
the loss of ions from the air during FDs reduces the cloud liquid water content over the oceans. So marked is the response to relatively small variations in the total
ionization, we suspect that a large fraction of Earth’s clouds could be controlled by ionization. Future work should estimate how large a volume of the Earth’s
atmosphere is involved in the ion process that leads to the changes seen in CCN and its importance for the Earth’s radiation budget. From solar activity to cosmic ray
ionization to aerosols and liquid-water clouds, a causal chain appears to operate on a global scale. Below are five short (~10 minutes each) You Tube videos of Dr. Svensmark talking about his research, his theories and the struggle he has had
getting his researched published. Several of his collaborators also appear including Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. We examined the work
of both of these scientists in Chapter 11 of The
Resilient Earth. It is really worth the time to watch them all.
Thanks to our friends at Al Gore Lied for finding these videos and bringing them to
our attention. (The Resilient Earth) Global
Sea Level Updated at UC – still flattening There was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth when Dr. Roger Pielke mentioned
a couple of weeks ago in a response to Real Climate that “Sea level has actually flattened since 2006″. Today the University of Colorado updated their sea level graph after months of no updates. Note it says 2009_rel3 in lower left. Source here. Here is the next
oldest graph from UC that Pielke Sr. was looking at. The newest one also looks “flat” to me since 2006, maybe even a slight downtrend since 2006. Let the wailing and gnashing begin anew. Here is the text file of sea level data for anyone that wants to plot it
themselves. (WUWT) Out
of Africa: A new paper by Christy on surface temperature issues More weather station photos from Africa here. These stations shown and linked above are not GHCN stations as far as I can tell, but the siting was interesting nonetheless. This new paper by John Christy, who works with Dr. Roy Spencer on the UAH dataset, points out that Tmin seems to have a signal in Africa where Tmax does not. Land use
changes and aersols that affect the boundary layer at night are theorized and possible reasons. – Anthony Surface Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes ABSTRACT Results for the most data-rich 58 cell, which includes Nairobi, Mount Kilimanjaro, and Mount Kenya, indicate that since 1905, and even recently, the trend of TMax is not
significantly different from zero. However, TMin results suggest an accelerating temperature rise. Uncertainty estimates indicate that the trend of the difference time series (TMax2 TMin) is significantly less than zero for 1946–2004, the period with the highest
density of observations. This trend difference continues in the most recent period (1979–2004), in contrast with findings in recent periods for global datasets, which The differences between TMax and TMin trends, especially recently, may reflect a response to complex changes in the boundary layer dynamics; TMax represents the
significantly greater daytime vertical connection to the deep atmosphere, whereas TMin often represents only a shallow layer whose temperature is more dependent on the
turbulent state than on the temperature aloft. Because the turbulent state in the stable boundary layer is highly dependent on local land use and perhaps locally produced aerosols, the significant human development of
the surface may be responsible for the rising TMin while having little impact on TMax in East Africa. This indicates that time series of TMax and TMin should Some excerpts from the paper: c. Possible causes for TMax and TMin differences The fact that the trends in the two temperature measurements (TMax and TMin) are likely significantly different encourages
an examination of the causes for the warming of TMin and the significance of trends in TMin in the context of tracking global climate change. Given a lack of detail on
station siting and uncertainties in specifics on the boundary layer in East Africa, definitive reasons for the trends may not be available. However, general aspects of boundary layer behavior may provide some guide for interpreting the trends.Thus, the following should be viewed as a context and hypothesis for
the trend differences that deserve discussion and further attention. … From the conclusion: For the 100-yr period from 1905 to 2004 in this grid cell, the trends were near zero for both TMax and TMin, but confidence in these results is low because of the
relatively sparse data in the years before 1946. Beginning with 1946 and ending in 2004, near-zero trends were found for TMax. The TMin trends were more positive, and
significantly so based on both measurement error and temporal sampling error. It is difficult to assess the While it is possible that East Africa difference trends are indeed different than that of the globe as provided by Vose et al. (2005), there is concern that the reduced
number of stations in the 1979–2004 GHCN dataset may not be sampling many of the areas of the globe that are behaving like East Africa. Thus, it is important that the GHCN
dataset be expanded to include more stations distributed around the globe. The investigation of the surface temperature record as an indicator of human-induced climate change involves understanding the complex behavior of boundary layer processes
(where surface temperatures are actually measured) and how temperatures within it are affected by the numerous changes that occur. This is an area of research open for
considerable inquiry because it raises new questions concerning the types of At the least, the time series of both TMax and TMin should become separate variables to be studied for long-term changes. Full paper is available here as a PDF 1.9 MB
(WUWT) We have a new paper accepted. It is Fall, S., D. Niyogi, A. Gluhovsky, R. A. Pielke Sr., E. Kalnay, and G. Rochon, 2009: Impacts
of land us land cover on temperature trends over the continental United States: Assessment using the North American Regional Reanalysis. Int. J.
Climatol., accepted. This paper (and other such publications) avoids systematic biases in using reanalyses with respect to the the 2m temperatures that were identified by the Pitman and
Perkins (2009) paper (see,
see and see). As
explained by Eugenia Kalnay in an e-mail to me last week, working with anomalies eliminates those types of bias in the 2m temperatures. The abstract of the new Fall et al paper is “We investigate the sensitivity of surface temperature trends to land use land cover change (LULC) over the conterminous United States (CONUS) using the observation
minus reanalysis (OMR) approach. We estimated the OMR trends for the 1979-2003 period from the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN), and the NCEP-NCAR North American
Regional Reanalysis (NARR). We used a new mean square differences (MSDs) based assessment for the comparisons between temperature anomalies from observations and interpolated
reanalysis data. Trends of monthly mean temperature anomalies show a strong agreement, especially between adjusted USHCN and NARR (r = 0.9 on average) and demonstrate that
NARR captures the climate variability at different time scales. OMR trend results suggest that unlike findings from studies based on the global reanalysis (NCEP/NCAR
reanalysis), NARR often has a larger warming trend than adjusted observations (on average, 0.28 and 0.27ºC/decade respectively). OMR trends were found to be sensitive to
land cover types. We analyzed decadal OMR trends as a function of land types using the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) and new National Land Cover Database
(NLCD) 1992-2001 Retrofit Land Cover Change. Results indicate that when the dynamic nature of LULC is taken into account, the magnitude of OMR trends is larger than the ones
derived from a “static” LULC dataset and land use conversion often results in more warming than cooling. Overall, our results confirm the robustness of the OMR method for
detecting nonclimatic changes at the station level, evaluating the impacts of adjustments performed on raw observations, and demonstrating sensitivity to LULC changes at
local and regional scales. Since the majority of warming trends that we identify can be explained on the basis of LULC changes, we suggest that in addition to considering the
greenhouse gases driven radiative forcings, multi-decadal and longer climate models simulations must further include LULC changes.” Text in the conclusion includes “Since the majority of warming trends that we identify can be explained on the basis of land use/land cover changes, we suggest that in addition to
considering the well-mixed greenhouse gases and aerosol driven radiative forcings, multi-decadal and longer climate models simulations must further include land cover/land
use changes. In terms of using long term surface temperature records as a metric to monitor climate change, there also needs to be further work to separate the local
microclimate and non-climate station effects from the regional land use/land cover change effects on surface temperatures.” (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate
Science) Hmm... Ancient map Disproves Global Warming A recently discovered and publicized ancient map of the globe disproves the theory of man-made global warming. The enormous significance of the map has only now become
apparent as Congress considers sweeping legislation intended to combat global warming supposedly caused by human activity. The other half of the map, which is not shown, pictures the globe from the perspective of the North Pole. Continents and islands clearly pictured on the map above include
Antarctica (center), South America (lower right), Africa (lower left), Madagascar (left of center) and Australia (upper left). Vinland Map of America “No Forgery” The 15th century Vinland Map, the first known map to show part of America before explorer Christopher Columbus landed on the continent, is almost certainly genuine, a
Danish expert said Friday. Controversy has swirled around the map since it came to light in the 1950s, many scholars suspecting it was a hoax meant to prove that Vikings were the first Europeans to
land in North America — a claim confirmed by a 1960 archaeological find. Doubts about the map lingered even after the use of carbon dating as a way of establishing the age of an object. “All the tests that we have done over the past five years — on the materials and other aspects — do not show any signs of forgery,” Rene Larsen, rector of the
School of Conservation under the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, told Reuters. He presented his team’s findings at an international cartographers’ conference in the Danish capital Friday. The map shows both Greenland and a western Atlantic island “Vinilanda Insula,” the Vinland of the Icelandic sagas, now linked by scholars to Newfoundland where
Norsemen under Leif Eriksson settled around AD 1000. Yahoo/Reuters News: ‘Vinland Map of America no forgery,
expert says’ CRN comment: If the map is genuine it provides evidence of a relatively ice-free Arctic in the Medieval Warm Period that allowed the Vikings to sail unimpeded to North
America.
(Climate Research News) Vinland Map of America no forgery, expert says The 15th century Vinland Map, the first known map to show part of America before explorer Christopher Columbus landed on the continent, is almost certainly genuine, a
Danish expert said Friday. Skip related content Not so long ago greenies would have been screaming about "feral species"... HOT
ISSUE: Should we deliberately move species? LOS ANGELES — On naked patches of land in western Canada and United States, scientists are planting trees that don't belong there. It's a bold experiment to move trees
threatened by global warming into places where they may thrive amid a changing climate. A New Enforcer in
Buildings, the Energy Inspector AUSTIN, Tex. — Peering behind a bathtub in a newly built house, an inspector, John Umphress, spotted a big gap in the wall insulation. “Somebody took a lunch break!”
he complained to the builder, who sheepishly agreed to patch the hole. Yeah, hurray! Another name for "energy efficient" is "lacking ventilation"... We could wish... Global warming to open up north-east Arctic
tanker route Melting ice in the Russian Arctic will create a safer, shorter route cut for tankers, but will have even bigger implications for the global energy market (The Guardian) Federal Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Is Not the Solution Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracing,” is the process of using high pressure fluids to crack rock formations thousands of feet below the surface in order to
retrieve a greater amount of oil and gas resources than would otherwise be recovered. This process has been used to enhance production of hydrocarbons for over 60 years. It
is safe. It is effective. And it is essential element in the production of hydrocarbon supplies both today and in the future. It should not be regulated by federal
authorities. Climate change impacts? This gets stupider by the day: Government Rejects Oil Drilling Deal in Alaska Refuge ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has rejected a controversial land trade that would have allowed oil and gas drilling in part of a national wildlife
refuge in Alaska. Hybrid Drivers More Ticket- and
Accident-Prone Quite a few big-name auto insurers have been giving hybrid owners a discount on their premium. But those deals might not last much longer; as an insurance data-analysis
firm points out, the insurance industry could be losing big because of this. Coal carbon capture gets U.S. boost WASHINGTON, July 17 -- The United States and China are racing to see who can make dirty coal cleaner by trapping emissions and pumping them deep underground, sources said. Australia, with a 1,000 years of coal and no reason not to burn it... Atmosphere
is electric in wait for green funds SOME time over the next few weeks, the federal government will announce which projects have been chosen to receive some of the $300 million set aside to bring new baseload
energy technologies into commercial production. Look at the damage being done just by mislabeling an essential trace gas: Coal
holds back moves to clean, green technologies QUEENSLAND'S coal industry has welcomed what it enthusiastically describes as Premier Anna Bligh's decision to "go in to bat" for it. I thought it a tad ironic last week that, while the Prime Minister was using Al Gore and a new blog as props in his campaign for the August passage of the emissions
trading scheme through the Senate, the miners of his home State were telling the world that they have chalked up 887.4 million tonnes of export coal sales in the past six
years. At Risk From Rising Seas, Tuvalu Seeks Clean Power OSLO - The Pacific island state of Tuvalu set a goal Sunday of a 100 percent shift to renewable energy by 2020, hoping to set an example to industrialized nations to cut
greenhouse gases it blames for rising sea levels. Translation: can someone please pay for our energy supply -- diesel is so hard to pay for when you rely on tourism for income but frighten the tourists
away with nonsense sob stories about sinking beneath the waves. EU Biodiesel Output up 35 Percent, Capacity Growing PARIS - Production of biodiesel in the European Union rose by more than 35 percent in 2008 and capacity will grow again this year although half the plants are idle due to
poor demand, the EU producers group said on Wednesday. The Obscene Subsidies Behind The Ethanol Scam Whenever discussions of ethanol come up, remember these two numbers: 98 and 190. July 17, 2009
Lumo (physicist Luboš Motl from Pilsen Czech Republic) welcomes America to the
EU today with an animated flow chart of the healthcare system in the United States. It was created as a simplified visual of the healthcare reforms being proposed, perhaps as a last effort to get American’s to think about the reality of the bureaucratic
monster that’s been created. Each agency created to oversee some aspect of “quality” comes with another long set of regulations that needs another agency to oversee
compliance… and on and on. Behind every quality measure and every reform being proposed, of course, is a special interest that lobbied hard for it. Reform doesn't appear to
really be addressing what needs fixing. [Click here for larger image.] When have bureaucracies proven more efficient and to save money? With cable or telephone service, most people understand
the idea that monopolies and government mandates
raise costs, eliminate competition, reduce choice, and create shortages. Somehow that insight goes out the window when it comes to healthcare. Why are people so ready to
believe that any third party knows best and will make the soundest decisions on their behalf — and believe that such decisions will be objective and free from the influence
of special interests? Why are people so ready to believe that they need a massive bureaucratic network to come between them and their doctor? Worse, how can anyone believe
that such a system will save money, make things more efficient and make health care better? Imagine the savings of a flow chart that looks like this: Doctor ————> Patient Medical professionals in Europe have been writing impassioned articles for years,
urging Americans to investigate the realities of turning over their healthcare decisions and oversight to the government. They’ve revealed the costs they’ve seen to
access and quality of care for patients, sacrifices to research, and growing severe shortages of providers and resources, while the govenrment bureaucracy grows larger.
Rather than government guidelines being evidence-based, as we’ve
seen with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as well as here, they’re rife with bad science and special interests.
Sadly, consumers rarely read or hear about the medical literature or understand the concerns medical professionals are talking about and experiencing. One of the most
popularized beliefs among laypeople in the U.S. is that a government-run healthcare system would be more efficient, with less bureaucracy and waste. What is the evidence for
such a belief? There is none. The available evidence points to the opposite. The National Health Service, for instance, has seen skyrocketing growth in administrators and consultants
since 1992, while little growth in the number of professional doctors and nurses actually providing the care. But none of this is about the evidence or even very reasoned, is it? (Junkfood Science) Massachusetts' universal medical program is no longer universal. Coverage is being dropped for 30,000 because not enough money is around to pay for everyone. There's a
lesson in this for Congress. (IBD) New data from a nonpartisan think tank confirm our worst fears about health care reform: The plans proposed by the White House and Congress will lead to economically
ruinous tax hikes. (IBD) Britain prepares for 65,000 deaths from swine flu The NHS has been told to plan for a worst-case scenario of 65,000 swine flu deaths this year. The news came as the number of people to die after contracting the virus rose
sharply. W.H.O. Says It Plans to Stop Tracking Swine Flu
Cases In a move that caught many public health experts by surprise, the World Health Organization quietly announced Thursday that it would stop tracking swine flu cases and
deaths around the world. They'll probably manage to kill off a lot of sports enthusiasm, not sure about much else... $300m
in sponsorship at risk as booze bans loom PREMIER sporting codes would be stripped of up to $300 million a year in alcohol sponsorship under a radical blueprint for fighting disease and increasing life expectancy. U-M report raises question about role of obesity in severe H1N1 infections Possible pattern emerges as the University of Michigan cares for severely ill H1N1 flu patients; suggests new focus for community hospital care teams Hmm... this explicitly claims no other underlying health conditions (beyond adiposity) so, despite the small sample size, it is something that needs to
be tracked. The calorie delusion: Why food
labels are wrong STANDING in line at the coffee shop you feel a little peckish. So what will you choose to keep you going until lunchtime? Will it be that scrumptious-looking chocolate
brownie or perhaps a small, nut-based muesli bar. You check the labels: the brownie contains around 250 kilocalories (kcal), while the muesli bar contains more than 300.
Surprised at the higher calorie count of what looks like the healthy option, you go for the brownie. Study Finds Links Between Obesity And Adolescents' Social Networks Researchers from the Institute of Prevention Research at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California (USC) found in a recent study that overweight
youth were twice as likely to have overweight friends. Obesity Raises Risk Of Complications In Pregnancy, Study Shows Expectant mothers who are obese are much more likely to suffer from minor complications such as heart burn and chest infections during pregnancy, a study suggests. I have neither a therapist’s diagnosis nor any scientific literature to support the following claim, and I can’t back it up with more than a cursory level of detail.
So you’re just going to have to go with me on this: I was a baby bulimic. (Frank Bruni, NYT) Sometimes Kristof can write some sensible things, this is not one of them: Chemicals
and Our Health However careful you are about your health, your body is almost certainly home to troubling chemicals called phthalates. These are ubiquitous in modern life, found in
plastic bottles, cosmetics, some toys, hair conditioners, and fragrances — and many scientists have linked them to everything from sexual deformities in babies to obesity
and diabetes. Political assassination of another useful compound: Pesticide
too risky for chemical giant - but not for Australia THE multinational Bayer is expected to end global sales of endosulfan, replacing the toxic pesticide with safer alternatives. How to solve the medical
isotope crisis - The MAPLE reactors faced challenges. But they did work Why is the world facing a shortage of medical isotopes, a product vital in treating cancer and heart disease? You can point to the May shutdown at the National Research
Universal (NRU) reactor at Chalk River, the world’s largest producer of medical isotopes, and also the world’s oldest reactor. That’s the immediate cause of the
shortage — but it’s not the real reason. The misanthropists rise again: Limits on Logging
in Old-Growth Forest Reinstated In a move to protect endangered species, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Thursday that his department had reversed a Bush administration decision to double the
amount of logging allowed in and around old-growth forests in western Oregon. Ecopolitics 101: Hollywood's
Green Revenge California has many environmental firsts. From being first with its own state Endangered Species Act and climate change regulations, to first with regular vehicle smog
checks, first with requisite seasonal gasoline blends and first to require state-level coastal development permits. In 1970, the California Environmental Quality Act first
required environmental impact reports for actions that may significantly impact the environment. While many of these green regulatory initiatives have had tangible
environmental benefits, all have added to (inflated) the costs of living and doing business in the Golden State. Koalas doomed, warns former sustainability minister Andrew McNamara SOUTHEAST Queensland's celebrated koala colony is doomed unless human population growth is reined in, former sustainability minister Andrew McNamara warned yesterday. So what, Andrew? The smelly, noisy little mongrels are locally extinct in cities (big deal) but they are not endangered or threatened in the bush, where
they belong. Urban nonsense. While politicians are formulating plans to tackle climate change on the assumption that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is correct, scientists at CERN in Geneva are starting
a major experiment to test an alternative idea that cosmic rays are important in determining weather patterns because of their influence on cloud formation. The experiment
– called CLOUD 09 – will test the ability of high energy particles to initiate cloud formation under a range of conditions. They don't say... Solar cycle affecting global climate, say scientists
news Research led by scientists at the National Science Foundation-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, has shown that maximum solar
activity and its aftermath have impacts on Earth similar to that caused by ocean currents La Niña and El Niño in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Are the deserts getting greener? It has been assumed that global warming would cause an expansion of the world's deserts, but now some scientists are predicting a contrary scenario in which water and life
slowly reclaim these arid places. Hardly a new claim -- NASA satellite data showed greening of the Earth over the last few decades, mostly put down to aerial fertilization and increased
water efficiency of plants as the world recovers from desperately low carbon dioxide levels in the free atmosphere. Here's a link
to one of their releases. Here's another. This
one's about northern high latitude greening. Compare the above real-world results with with this computer-generated hand-wringing: Climate
Change in Your Backyard What kind of changes can you expect as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise? Here are some highlights of changes based on geographic region, from Global
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, a new report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program: (Smithsonian) Really fast GIGO: Oak
Ridge Supercomputers Provide First Simulation of Abrupt Climate Change Researchers use "Phoenix" and "Jaguar" to study climate's past and future This still relies on the guess that increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (cause unknown) leads to increase in global temperature, which is then used to
support the assumption increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide increases global mean temperature -- with no evidence carbon dioxide can do so outside the virtual realm of
PlayStation® climatology. Comments
On The Current Record Global Average Lower Troposphere Temperatures In the last couple of weeks, the onset of the El Niño, that was discussed on in my weblog on
July 11 2009 would appear to be a possible explanation for the sudden increase in lower tropospheric temperatures to a record level (e.g. see the latest tropospheric
temperature data at Daily Earth Temperatures from Satellite). This sudden warming is also discussed on other
websites (see and see). The current and recent anomalies at 500 mb (as representative of the tropospheric temperatures) are provided by the excellent NOAA analyses at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_nh_anim.shtml http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml The location for the sudden warming (in the global average tropospheric temperatures as reported from the AMSU data) at 500 mb in the Northern Hemisphere is
not obvious, however, except perhaps for a large area with weak positive anomalies in the lower latitudes. There is some warming in the El Niño area, but it is
relatively small. In the lower latitude eastern hemisphere In the southern hemisphere, there is a strong warm anomaly near Antarctica. Maybe that is part of
the reason for major region for the large positive AMSU temperature value. This record event is an effective test of two hypotheses. Hypothesis #1: Roy Spencer’s hypothesis on the role of circulation patterns in global
warming (e.g. see) might explain most or all of
the current anomaly since it clearly is spatially very variable, and its onset was so sudden. If the lower atmosphere cools again to its long term average or lower, this
would support Roy’s viewpoint. Hypothesis #2: Alternatively, if the large anomaly persists, it will support the claims by the
IPCC and others (e.g. see Cool Spells Normal in Warming World) that
well-mixed greenhouse gas warming is the dominate climate forcing in the coming decades and is again causing global warming after the interruption of the last few
years. Only time will tell which is correct, however, we now have short term information to test the two hypotheses. The results of this real world test will
certainly influence my viewpoint on climate science. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science) Comments
By Dennis P. Lettenmaier and Eric F. Wood On Seasonal Climate Prediction There is an insightful article in the May 2009 issue of Gewex News by Dennis P. Lettenmaier and Eric F. Wood titled
“Water in a Changing Climate: Challenges for GEWEX”. They provide important candid comments on the limitations of seasonal climate prediction. These include the
text “We argue that after a decade or so of attention, a major focus …..on seasonal climate prediction has borne little fruit, particularly as evaluated with respect to
any reasonable measure of prediction skill in the extratropics. While we don’t imply that some focus on seasonal prediction is not justified—where the rubber meets the
road so to speak in water resource applications, there are demonstrable and potentially large benefits if seasonal prediction skill can be demonstrated. However, in our
experience, most of the actual land hydrologic (and hence water resources) seasonal prediction skill comes not from an ability to forecast climate, but rather from hydrologic
initial conditions (see e.g., Wood and Lettenmaier, 2008; Li et al., 2008). These include knowledge of soil moisture and snow water storage. Furthermore, this skill is often
at the shorter end of the seasonal time scale (e.g., weeks). This suggests to us that land data assimilation (not just land surface modelling, which GEWEX Global Land Data
Assimilation System activities now emphasize) may well be a more fruitful path of inquiry than seasonal climate prediction.” This statement reemphasizes the finding that climate prediction is an initial value problem. The current treatment of multi-decadal climate prediction by the IPCC
and others fails to recognize this characteristic of the real climate system. We have discussed this issue in our papers, including Pielke, R.A., 1998: Climate prediction as an initial value problem.
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 79, 2743-2746. Pielke Sr., R.A., G.E. Liston, J.L. Eastman, L. Lu, and M. Coughenour, 1999: Seasonal
weather prediction as an initial value problem. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 19463-19479. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science) Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis? A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. The current hypothesis on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), presented by the U.N.’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is no exception to this principle. Indeed, it is the job of scientists to expose the weaknesses of this hypothesis as it
undergoes peer review. This paper will examine one key criterion for falsification: ocean heat. (William DiPuccio, SPPI) Fred Pearce with some predictable nonsense: Climate
pieces start to stack up IT'S like a giant game of Jenga. One by one, pieces of our green future are stacking up, some more precariously than others. How realistic are these "in the pipeline" claims? Admission at last: Ocean current switch due to warming could be
slower than feared CHICAGO — The nightmare global warming scenario which provided the plot for a Hollywood blockbuster -- the Atlantic Ocean current that keeps Europe warm shuts down and
triggers rapid climate change -- has long worried scientists. The urge to build climate-resilient nations naturally brings with it a desire for more detailed knowledge of the changes that lie ahead. Where local and regional
stakeholders have very specific information requests, on which multi-million-pound decisions rest, climate scientists can find themselves in a decidedly uncomfortable
position. This is especially true of government climatologists whose role is the provision of a bespoke service to society. But where conflict exists between user requirements for information and the ability of the science to meet those demands, clearly the latter must take priority. The
British government seemed to have lost sight of this the week before last, when the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) released the long-awaited
projections of UK climate impacts (Nature News, doi:10.1038/news.2009.586). The projections, produced in conjunction with Met Office scientists and those from the UK Climate Impacts Programme, undeniably represent a new frontier in climate
science, offering information on likely impacts up until 2080 at the scale of 25 square kilometres, with weather sequences resolved down to 5 square kilometres. It could be,
as claimed by DEFRA's chief scientist Bob Watson, that the new method used to produce them will soon be embraced by other nations and by the global climate community. But the concern of an independent review committee — that the results "stretch the ability of current climate science" — is legitimate and troubling (see http://tinyurl.com/netntg).
University of Oxford climatologist Myles Allen, who was on the committee, is just one of a number of noteworthy scientists worried that projections at such fine spatial
scales, particularly over long time periods, are of unknown reliability. If the science is stretched — and proves to be unreliable — then it could lead to the squandering of precious resources for climate planning. Worse still, it could
lead to a loss of public trust in even the most robust aspects of climate science. Before millions are invested on the back of the UK regional climate projections, DEFRA would be wise to take on board the recommendations of the independent review:
namely, the scientists involved should now aim to relieve concern over the validity of the methods used, by submitting them to a top-tier journal for formal peer review.
Moreover, DEFRA would do well to incorporate independent experts in the early stages of all future assessments, as advised by the independent review. Having a reliable climate forecast would considerably reduce the scale of the challenges ahead. But certainty is not a necessity for preparedness, as is evident from the
'no regrets' adaptation approaches of local communities in Africa (page 84). Nor is it a
promise that even the best of scientific endeavours can uphold. (Olive Heffernan, Nature Reports Climate Change) And that's the rub, isn't it? Climate is inherently unpredictable. We have no way of knowing whether the next year will be warmer or cooler than the
last. Farm Bureau blasts human-caused global warming The Utah Farm Bureau opposes the notion that humans are responsible for climate change, and this week at its midyear convention, the state's largest agricultural group is
making its case through the words of keynote speaker Tom Tripp. Following Calif. Off A Green Cliff A 2006 California law meant to lead the way on global warming looks like an economic disaster in the making. So far, Congress and Obama have ignored the warnings. U.S. lawmakers debate climate bills' economic impact WASHINGTON - U.S. lawmakers on Thursday clashed over what impact climate change legislation would have on U.S. employment and American consumers. Energy-Intensive Industries Want More CO2 Permits WASHINGTON - U.S. energy-intensive industries -- like aluminum, chemicals, paper and steel -- want the U.S. Senate to give them a bigger share of the free pollution
permits that would be needed to emit greenhouse gases under climate change legislation. (Reuters) Climate change dividing farm groups? The climate change legislation now before the Senate has succeeded in doing something neither the nation’s environmental groups or the Bush administration could do:
Create fault lines in the farm bloc. Haven't
accepted cap on temperature: Shyam Saran India's chief climate change negotiator Shyam Saran spoke exclusively to TOI as he tried to explain the Indian negotiations, which will intensify in the run-up to
Copenhagen 15. (Times of India) ETS: unworkable, unaffordable, ineffective Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, has recently said that by 2030, to meet international emission targets, the world will need to have a
carbon price of $US180 ($A225) per tonne. (from Bloomberg News) Ultimately, such costs will be borne by the tax-payer. Help Stop Another Threat to U.S. Energy Security Don’t look now, but another threat to America’s access to affordable energy looms on the horizon. Just what no one needs, a more efficient way to steal an essential resource from the biosphere: Bowl-Shaped
Molecule Promises Carbon Capture The accidental discovery of a new molecule could revolutionize carbon sequestration. A Maryland scientist's work could lead to true carbon control with a bowl-shaped
molecule. Where did you find this fool? China carbon capture costs worth
paying: U.S. energy sec BEIJING - The huge costs required to capture CO2 emitted by China's vast coal-fired power sector is a price worth paying to cut greenhouse gases to reasonable levels, U.S.
energy secretary Steven Chu said. There is no excuse for throwing away so precious a resource as atmospheric carbon dioxide and to waste more energy doing so is simply criminal. World dependent on fossil fuels for a century LONDON - The world will remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal for the rest of this century, despite the best efforts of governments to move
toward renewable energy, an energy economist said on Wednesday. An article in Monday's Wall St. Journal highlighted another of the more obscure provisions of the mammoth climate bill recently passed by the House of Representatives. The
section in question relates to the "Open Fuel Standard", which would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to require auto makers in the US to build a specified
proportion of "fuel choice-enabling automobiles", including flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) that can run on fuel blends containing a high percentage of methanol, as
well as the more common E85 ethanol blend. This harkens back to previous efforts to launch methanol as a consumer fuel. Fortunately, those failed to gain traction, and we
should hope that continues to be the case. Methanol makes a fine racing fuel but is entirely unsuited for mass market application. (Geoffrey Styles, Energy Outlook) Top Manager Sees "Huge Risk" in Alternative Energy as Proof of
Global Warming Cools Daniel Rice, manager of the BlackRock Energy & Resources Fund, is the
best-performing U.S. equity fund manager of the past decade, according to Morningstar. He's also not afraid to speak his mind, especially when it comes to the subjects of
global warming and alternative energy, as revealed in the accompanying video.
Rice paints a "pretty dire picture" of the whole alternative energy industry, with the possible exception of wind, based on the following: More government subsidies for alternative energy could be forthcoming but "governments across the world are being stretched" by the economic crisis, Rice notes.
"There's not a lot of excess money, excess credit, [and] not as much risk capital willing to go into these sector." So unless the global warming patterns reverse and go higher again or the global economy makes a major recovery, Rice believes alternative energies like Exxon's
algae fuel initiative will remain very much on the fringe, and investors in the space will face further disappointments. (Yahoo! Finance) UK industry’s energy bills to soar British industry’s energy bills are set to rise by 17 per cent over the next decade as a result of the government’s plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Miliband promises more green jobs but Vestas wind turbine plant is closing One of Britain’s biggest employers in the green energy industry is to cease production within hours of a government announcement today pledging as many as 400,000 green
jobs by 2015. The UK government has just published a new renewable energy white paper – the Low Carbon Transition Plan – together with three supporting documents: a Low Carbon
Industrial Strategy, a Renewable Energy Strategy and a Low Carbon Transport Plan. As a package, these plot the course for the country to reach a number of ambitious goals,
including a 34% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (from a 1990 baseline) and for 15% of energy to come from renewable resources by the same date. ‘Low carbon’ is code for low ambitions - The UK’s new climate change plan
shows how the green ethos is used to add a gloss of respectability to economic and visionary failure. Given its isolation, unpopularity and dysfunctional relationship with ‘the vision thing’, it seems highly unlikely that Gordon Brown’s government is capable of
starting a revolution. Yet that, apparently, is what it did yesterday. (Brendan O’Neill, sp!ked) We’ve flagged up Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband’s relationship with climate activists before. When he’s not snuggling
up to Franny ‘Age of Stupid’ Armstrong, he’s egging on airport
protesters and comparing them to past popular movements: When you think about all the big historic movements, from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid, to sexual equality in the 1960s, all the big political movements had
popular mobilization. Maybe it’s an odd thing for someone in government to say, but I just think there’s a real opportunity and a need here. He continued in this vein at the weekend when speaking to demonstrators at a Climate Justice event organised by Catholic
aid agency CAFOD and Christian Aid: The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband urged people to continue to fight for climate justice at a rally in Doncaster at the weekend,
emphasising the public’s ability to influence international green policies [...] “I think it’s incredibly important that we show governments around the world that people really care about these issues and days like today are incredibly
important” Miliband told the campaigners. “I think we are winning the battle” Miliband added. “It is an uphill struggle, but I think it’s a battle we can win and you are contributing to it by what
you do today and what you are doing in your daily lives.” “I genuinely believe that people will make the difference to whether this challenge is tackled or not and I urge you to not succumb to the defeatism that says,
‘oh well, people can’t make a difference in this, it’s really about whether governments do their bit or not’. “I think we need to keep up the good work between now and December if we are going to get the kind of ambitious deal on climate change that we need,” he added. But it’s not ‘the people’ influencing climate policies. Miliband is desperate, desperate, desperate to make it look like we’re all green now, and that we’re all
marching in the streets. But this image does not compare to reality. Just 400 people turned up to the rally, held in Doncaster, which has a population just shy of 300,000,
and lies just 20 miles from Sheffield (population 1.8 million). Even in his own constituency, with his own party activists, and with the support of a number of church groups
and environmental campaigning organisations, Miliband cannot raise more than a handful of supporters. There are, regularly, and throughout the country, village and school fêtes
with a bigger turn-out. More people were in supermarkets in Doncaster that day, than were at the rally. More people were in their cars, or enjoying the warm weather in their
gardens. Yet Miliband continues to play Noah. Why? Speaking at the end of the rally, he said: “I want to congratulate Cafod on its Climate Justice campaign. We need to keep up the good work between now and December if we are going to get the kind of
ambitious deal on climate change that we need,” Mr Miliband said. The electorate didn’t ever vote for what the Government are doing to ’save the planet’ - the UK public have been denied the opportunity to have their interest in
environmentalism tested at the ballot box - Miliband knows that. His public appearances are intended to maintain the illusion that he is responding to a popular movement, and
has to whip up as much support as he can muster from anyone prepared to pose alongside him. Miliband’s courting of the radical environmental movement has had the result of attracting their attention. The latest climate protest at the site of the planned
Kingsnorth power station aimed to form a ‘giant human chain’, or Mili-Band (geddit?) around the existing plant. But although this protest numbered a slightly bigger 1,000
activists (they reckon), this is hardly the demonstration of popular uprising that Miliband wants it to be, and the ‘giant human chain’ only extended a small way around
the site.
1,000 protesters turned up at Kingsnorth demanding that no new power plants should be built, and that they pledged to use direct action to prevent it. Meanwhile, the
remaining 60,942,912 people of the UK weren’t at the protest, and probably all of them used electricity. Oxfam activists were also in attendance at the Mili-Band. The ‘development’ charity encourages people to take direct action against… erm… development.
So few in numbers are these protesters, that the only way they can get their message across is by pulling stunts rather than actual ‘demonstration’ - the only thing
such small number really demonstrate is impotence. Impotence manifests as rage, however, and so conceited are these individuals that in spite of their failure to reproduce
their message, that they threaten sabotage if they aren’t heeded. So what is all this in aid of? This has all happened as New Labour starts making announcements about its Carbon Transition Plan, which outlines how it likes to think the UK will meet its target of a 34%
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020:
The protesters fancy themselves as revolutionary thinkers that stand against the government, and ‘the system’. But look, here they are, doing the government’s PR
work for them: organising events and speaking opportunities, and creating the illusion of grass-roots support. Behind this facade, the Labour Party are suffering perhaps
their worst domestic crisis of legitimacy ever. The UK government has lost any moral authority in the international arena that it ever had. A paltry opposition fails to
challenge any of its ideas. A supine media fails to hold it to account. And the activists come out ten-by-ten to save the whole undignified lot. This ark is a ship of fools.
It’s not designed to save people from the climate; it’s designed to save themselves from the near-total collapse of their credibility. (Climate Resistance) Wind farms
will be a monument to an age when our leaders collectively went off their heads Let us be clear: Britain is facing an unprecedented crisis. Before long, we will lose 40 per cent of our generating capacity. Institute Studies Clash Between Wind And Raptors A new group is attempting to better reconcile high velocity wind power development with its impact on avian victims. Show us the money - Good ideas are cheap, industrial policies
expensive SO MUCH for Labour’s fearsome media machine. On the morning of July 15th Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, was giving press interviews
in London trumpeting his government’s plans to cut Britain’s greenhouse-gas emissions and rebuild its economy around clean energy. The very next day the Vestas
wind-turbine plant on the Isle of Wight, the biggest in Britain, completed its final batch of turbine blades and shut up shop, with the loss of over 600 jobs. Airport bosses told to "stop
whingeing" by Transport Minister THE Transport Secretary yesterday told the owner of Durham Tees Valley Airport to stop whingeing about 'green' taxes, adding: 'You're doomed if you don't pay your fair
share'. July 16, 2009
How bad is swine flu? Without numbers, who knows? WASHINGTON - Many people are confused about just how many patients have been infected with the new H1N1 flu, which in turn makes it hard to tell how bad the pandemic is,
British researchers said on Tuesday. Oh... Bottle-feeding moms lack info, may overfeed kids NEW YORK - Many moms who bottle-feed lack important information on how to feed their infants safely, which could lead to overfeeding and heavy kids, new research from the
UK shows Tossing Out the Diet and Embracing the Fat FIVE-FOOT-NINE and 184 pounds, Kathryn Griffith, a retired teacher in Oakland, Calif., counted calories for decades, trying everything from the grapefruit diet to a
regimen based on cabbage soup. She also did Weight Watchers — 27 times. “I knew it wouldn’t be successful, but I went back anyway,” she said. The New York Times recently warned its readers about a wacky scientist in the Obama administration. But the fish wrap of record let the real nut job off the hook. Saving us from pretend problems: Saving
tomorrow's world: How the planet's environmental problems could be solved by technological innovation This year's Bosch Technology Horizons Award, in association with The Independent and the Royal Academy of Engineering, gave young people in two age groups the chance to
answer the question, "How can technology and engineering provide innovative solutions to today's global challenges?" (The Independent) Huge blob of Arctic goo floats past Slope communities IT'S NOT OIL: No one in the area can recall seeing anything like it before. Fugitive pythons terrorise Florida - Burmese
snakes that escaped from pet shop 17 years ago threaten Everglades' unique eco-system The alligators of the Florida Everglades are struggling to hang on to their status atop the famous swamp's food chain because of an invasion of Burmese pythons that first
escaped from local pet shops 17 years ago. The
Big Question: Can India's tigers be saved or are they now doomed to disappear? his week officials at the Panna Nature Reserve in the state of Madhya Pradesh, the so-called tiger state, revealed that there were no longer any of the big cats in the
entire park. After forest officials reported not sighting any of the animals for some time, a leading wildlife organisation carried out a survey. The state's forest minister,
Rajendra Shukla, confirmed that the reserve, which three years ago had up to 24 tigers, no longer had any whatsoever. Almost all are believed to have been killed by poachers.
(The Independent) Living in the occupied territories A little more than a year ago, struggling to come up with a title for the book I was working on about conservatives marooned in America’s most smugly self righteous
left/liberal locales, I attended a dinner party in my pleasant little suburban New York town. Since it was the height of the Obama/Hillary slugfest for the Democratic
nomination, the talk naturally soon turned to the glories of The Messiah. I didn’t want to be a party pooper, but nonetheless felt obliged to voice a mild cautionary note
about Obama’s lack of experience. At this, the guy beside me, whom I’d know all of ten minutes, turned my way with horrified incredulity, as if he’d just noticed I was
dressed in a white hood and Nazi armband. “I can’t believe I’m sitting next to a Republican!” he sneered. Green Hell: The Environmentalist Devil is in the Details Americans are bombarded with save-the-earth pleas to reduce their "carbon footprint." In this latest environmental fad, Americans are urged to alter their
lifestyles to combat global warming. Reducing a carbon footprint can entail driving less or buying a hybrid-fuel car, using organic cleaning products or sorting recyclables. Green crusaders promote wind
and solar power as alternatives to natural gas, coal and oil. It all seems simple enough, but it's hardly the whole story. As Kermit the Frog sings, it's not easy being green. In his latest eye-opening book, Green Hell: How the Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life (Regnery), Junkscience.com founder Steve Milloy exposes the agenda
of the environmentalists and what it could mean for America's future. Green goals, Milloy says, are actually quite unfriendly to those who genuinely want to protect the
planet while living a comfortable existence. Milloy contents that if environmentalists (or "greens," as Milloy calls them) had their way, the world would be a very different place. Americans would be
living in the close quarters of multi-family units in densely-packed cities, without cars and with restrictions on their rights to reproduce. Energy use would also be
regulated to the point of rationing - if someone exceeds his limit, he might find himself shut off from the power grid by bureaucratic decree. Milloy notes: "You may be tempted to dismiss all this as a gross exaggeration. But this is how the greens themselves describe their intentions... Their
words alone reveal their true intent: to curtail, to ration, to force, to deny, to compel and to squeeze." He stands by his contention with 492 well-researched
footnotes. It's not just words, but deeds. The green agenda already impedes Americans' lives and liberties: He's been even more blunt about the effects of "cap-and-trade" regulations on energy derived from coal: "[I]f somebody wants to build a coal-powered
plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." There's an enormous difference between someone doing their part for the planet by recycling or using public transportation and the excessive regulatory regime promoted by
environmentalists. Yet many express approval of environmental special interests without knowing the full extent of their agenda. Green Hell exposes the difference
between false perceptions and reality, and explains how the environmentalist agenda threatens the underpinnings of capitalism. Milloy cites poll data showing Americans' true beliefs about environmental priorities to demonstrate that these sentiments rarely match the rhetoric of the green movement. In Green Hell, Milloy presents his skepticism in a cogent and compelling way while exposing the lesser-known and most radical facets of environmental movement.
The end result is a provocative and impressive resource everyone should read. (Devon Carlin, National Center) Unless you have been sealed in a bomb shelter since 1987 you will no doubt have heard about global warming. Sometimes this is embellished with modifiers like
"catastrophic" or "dangerous" and it is given many names, e.g. "climate change" or "climate interference" but almost never do you hear
warming relative to what? According to Hansen: For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius,
i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58 F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse. NCDC suggest using the mean 1901-2000 of 13.9 °C, both then suggest we should
add the anomaly to derive the current mean temperature. The "trusted model" and 20th Century means, however, are not
identical with calculated expected values (or each other, for that matter). Moreover, estimates of Earth's mean temperature change through the year due to continental
configuration, with a low of 12 °C in January to a high of 15.8 °C in July, according to NCDC. To help you get some point of reference we have run up a little global energy balance model with just 3 adjustable parameters (marked (o) to
signify "tweakable dials"). The defaults are best-guess current values but allow considerable adjustment with TOA W/m2 valid from 1350-1380, albedo from
20-40% Incoming Solar Radiation and GHE 20-60% of Outgoing Longwave Radiation. Don't get too excited about calculating Earth's precise mean temperature since radiative balance has yet to measured within a precision of ± ~2 Watts per meter squared
and calculations in IPCC's AR4 WG1 are internally inconsistent. Estimated albedo could easily be out by 1-2% and "greenhouse effect" is a rubbery figure used to
adjust expected near-blackbody temperature to what we think we have measured. See, you haven't performed a single calculation yet and already you have an idea why we are unimpressed by claims of n thousandths of one degree warming in any
given year. As you test the effect of minor assumption changes on the expected temperature of the planet give some thought to claims of reconstructing the Earth's temperature within
0.5 K precision over the last 500 or 1,000 years. The bottom line is that we do not know what the planet's current temperature is, although satellite-mounted instruments and Argo autonomous floats are giving us a better
picture than we had before. We do not know what the planet's temperature was 100 years ago with any meaningful precision. We have no way of telling whether Earth will be warmer or cooler at the beginning of Solar Cycle 25 (SC24 is just sputtering to a start now and it is reasonable to
guess Earth will be slightly warmer in the midst of the roughly 11 year cycle, although there is no guarantee). Feel free to play with the planet's temperature by adjusting the parameters in our little global energy balance model form below. So, what value is a simple model like this? After all, GCMs have dozens, hundreds of tweakable parameters so what is the value of this simplistic thing? Actually, its very
simplicity is part of its value. You will note when adjusting the available parameters you can happily freeze or cook the planet without need of a multitude of knobs to twist
(just drop planetary albedo to 0.2 (20%) to turn the whole planet tropical, increase it to 0.4 (40%) to create an ice age). When global warming goes on
holiday Here
are two sentences that I believe capture the state of the science on global warming better than anything else I have read this year: “…..our examples lead to an inevitable conclusion: since the climate system is complex, occasionally chaotic, dominated by abrupt changes
and driven by competing feedbacks with largely unknown thresholds, climate prediction is difficult, if not impracticable” and “Hence, it appears that one should
not rely on prediction as the primary policy approach to assess the potential impact of future regional and global climate change. We argue instead that integrated
assessments within the framework of vulnerability …offer the best solution, whereby risk assessment and disaster prevention become the alternative to prediction.” They come from Roger Pielke Sr., who I interviewed recently (see here
and here),
and are found on his weblog, Climate Science. Roger Pielke Sr. believes that global warming is real, and a threat. But about half the global warming community characterises him as a 'denier,' and treat him as an
enemy. This is because he does not subscribe 100% to the received wisdom as put out by the most ardent proponents of anthropogenic global warming. They actually treat him as
badly, if not worse, than outright skeptics. (Historians amongst us will recall that the same dynamic played out in religious conflicts as well as more recently in political
struggles between factions of the Left--as a Leftist, I hate that this is true, and hate even more that this lack of logic has bled through to a scientific controversy.) The reason those statements are important today, perhaps more than they were yesterday, is because one of the bastions of the rigid climate change world view has published
an article saying that global warming may take a holiday. The weblog Real Climate (and please remember I've been sharply critical of their contributors recently, and some of
their commenters have been sharply critical of me--politics alert! I'm trying to play fair, but be advised...) titled Warming,
interrupted: Much ado about climate variability. It was submitted as a guest post by Kyle Swanson. (Thomas Fuller, Examiner) One thing I admit really irritates me in this whole enhanced greenhouse farce. While commentators and researchers like the Pielkes can certainly adopt
far more reasonable and human-friendly positions than most they still miss one key factor -- the benefit of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Climatologist Dr Garth Paltridge has finally had enough of the hysteria, hype and witchhunting that’s fed the great global warming scare. Out today is his new book, The
Climate Caper: (Patridge) discusses how and why climate scientists have vastly overstated the case for disastrous global warming. Among other things he explains why forecasts of a much dryer Australia in the future – forecasts which were the basis of the Garnaut economic recommendations which led
in turn to the Emissions Trading Scheme now before parliament – are probably nonsense.... He says of climate change research: “The whole business has hardened over the last couple of decades into a semi-religious crusade in which climate scientists
have developed an arrogance about their aims and activity which brooks no argument either with their interpretation of the science or with the way the science is
used."… Much of the book is devoted to examples and discussion of how ‘the system’ keeps scientific scepticism about forecasts of climatic doom from public view. As
for the rest of us, the attitude of a climate scientist can be coloured by politically correct ideas, by a need to be associated with a ‘cause’, by loyalty to
colleagues and by the rise of excessive research competition. These are all powerful forces which amplify a real fear within the research community that an expression
of scepticism about the current wisdom on global warming can be disastrous to one’s career. (No link to the Connor Court press release.) Paltridge is a critic not easily dismissed by our leading promoters of apocalyptic warming, such as mammal expert Tim Flannery, singer Peter Garrett, general practitioner
Bob Brown, economist Ross Garnaut, ex diplomat Kevin Rudd and former politican Al Gore, none of whom have any of his expertise in climate science: Dr Paltridge was a Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO and is a Fellow of the Academy of Science. His is a specialist in atmospheric physics and climatology.
He took part in the establishment of the World Climate Program in the mid-1970’s, and was with the US National Climate Office during 1989 at the time of the emergence of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For ten years he was CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre studying the role of Antarctica and the Southern
Ocean in climate. He is currently an Emeritus Professor at the University of Tasmania. But what would he know, right? (Andrew Bolt Blog) Warming Caused by Soot, Not CO2 A
new paper in Science reports that a careful study of satellite data show the assumed cooling effect of aerosols in the atmosphere to be significantly less than
previously estimated. Unfortunately, the assume greater cooling has been used in climate models for years. In such models, the global-mean warming is determined by the
balance of the radiative forcings—warming by greenhouse gases balanced against cooling by aerosols. Since a greater cooling effect has been used in climate models,
the result has been to credit CO2 with a larger warming effect than it really has. This question is of great importance to climate modelers because they have to be able to simulate the effect of GHG warming in order to accurately predict
future climate change. The amount of temperature increase set into a climate model for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is called the model's sensitivity.
As Dr. David Evans explained in a recent paper:
“Yes, every emitted molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) causes some warming—but the crucial question is how much warming do the CO2
emissions cause? If atmospheric CO2 levels doubled, would the temperature rise by 0.1°, 1.0°, or by 10.0° C?” The absorption frequencies of CO2 are already saturated, meaning that the atmosphere already captures close to 100% of the
radiation at those frequencies. Consequently, as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rise in temperature for a given increase in CO2
becomes smaller. This sorely limits the amount of warming further increases in CO2 can engender. Because CO2 on its own
cannot account for the observed temperature rise in the past century, climate modelers assume that linkages exist between CO2 and other climate
influences, mainly water vapor (for a more detailed explanation of what determines the Global Warming Potential of a gas see my comment “It's
not that simple”). To compensate for the missing “forcing,” models are tuned to include a certain amount of extra warming linked to carbon dioxide levels—extra warming
that comes from unestablished feedback mechanisms who's existence is simply assumed. Aerosol cooling and climate sensitivity in the models must balance each other in order to
match historical conditions. Since the climate warmed slightly last century the amount of warming must have exceeded the amount of cooling. As Dr. Roy Spencer, meteorologist
and former NASA scientist, puts it: “They program climate models so that they are sensitive enough to produce the warming in the last 50 years with increasing carbon
dioxide concentrations. They then point to this as ‘proof’ that the CO2 caused the warming, but this is simply reasoning in a circle.” A large aerosol cooling, therefore, implies a correspondingly large climate sensitivity. Conversely, reduced aerosol cooling implies lower GHG warming,
which in turn implies lower model sensitivity. The upshot of this is that sensitivity values used in models for the past quarter of a century have been set too high. Using
elevated sensitivity settings has significant implications for model predictions of future global temperature increases. The low-end value of model sensitivity used by the
IPCC is 2°C. Using this value results, naturally, in the lowest predictions for future temperature increases. According to the paper “Consistency
Between Satellite-Derived and Modeled Estimates of the Direct Aerosol Effect” published in Science on july 10, 2009, Gunnar Myhre states that previous values for
aerosol cooling are too high—by as much as 40 percent—implying the IPCC's model sensitivity settings are too high also. Here is the abstract of the paper: In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, the direct aerosol effect is reported to have a radiative forcing estimate of
–0.5 Watt per square meter (W m–2), offsetting the warming from CO2 by almost one-third. The uncertainty, however, ranges from –0.9 to
–0.1 W m–2, which is largely due to differences between estimates from global aerosol models and observation-based estimates, with the latter
tending to have stronger (more negative) radiative forcing. This study demonstrates consistency between a global aerosol model and adjustment to an observation-based
method, producing a global and annual mean radiative forcing that is weaker than –0.5 W m–2, with a best estimate of –0.3 W m–2.
The physical explanation for the earlier discrepancy is that the relative increase in anthropogenic black carbon (absorbing aerosols) is much larger than the overall
increase in the anthropogenic abundance of aerosols. The complex influence of atmospheric aerosols on the climate system and the influence of humans on aerosols are among the key uncertainties in the
understanding recent climate change. Rated as one of the most significant yet poorly understood forcings by the IPCC there has been much activity in aerosol research recently
(see Airborne Bacteria Discredit Climate
Modeling Dogma and African Dust Heats Up Atlantic Tropics).
Some particles absorb sunlight, contributing to climate warming, while others reflect sunlight, leading to cooling. The main anthropogenic aerosols that cause cooling are
sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon, whereas black carbon absorbs solar radiation. The global mean effect of human caused aerosols (in other words, pollution) is a cooling,
but the relative contributions of the different types of aerosols determine the magnitude of this cooling. Readjusting that balance is what Myhre's paper is all about. Discrepancies between recent satellite observations and the values needed to make climate models work right have vexed modelers. “A reliable
quantification of the aerosol radiative forcing is essential to understand climate change,” states Johannes Quaas of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg,
Germany. Writing in the same issue of Science Dr. Quaas continued, “however, a large part of the discrepancy has remained unexplained.” With a systematic set of
sensitivity studies, Myhre explains most of the remainder of the discrepancy. His paper shows that with a consistent data set of anthropogenic aerosol distributions and
properties, the data-based and model-based approaches converge. Myhre argues that since preindustrial times, soot particle concentrations have increased much more than other aerosols. Unlike many other aerosols, which
scatter sunlight, soot strongly absorbs solar radiation. At the top of the atmosphere, where the Earth's energy balance is determined, scattering has a cooling effect,
whereas absorption has a warming effect. If soot increases more than scattering aerosols, the overall aerosol cooling effect is smaller than it would be otherwise. According
to Dr. Myhre's work, the correct cooling value is some 40% less than that previously accepted by the IPCC. Not that climate modelers are unaware of the problems with their creations. Numerous papers have been published that detail problems predicting ice cover,
precipitation and temperature correctly. This is due to inadequate modeling of the ENSO, aerosols and the bane of climate modelers, cloud cover. Apologists for climate
modeling will claim that the models are still correct, just not as accurate or as detailed as they might be. Can a model that is only partially correct be trusted? Quoting
again from Roy Spencer's recent blog post: It is also important to understand that even if a climate model handled 95% of the processes in the climate system perfectly, this does not mean the
model will be 95% accurate in its predictions. All it takes is one important process to be wrong for the models to be seriously in error. Can such a seemingly simple mistake in a single model parameter really lead to invalid results? Consider the graph below, a representation of the
predictions made by James Hansen to the US Congress in 1988, plotted against how the climate actually behaved. Pretty much what one would expect if the sensitivity of the
model was set too high, yet we are still supposed to believe in the model's results. No wonder even the IPCC doesn't call their model results predictions, preferring the more
nebulous term “scenarios.” Now that we know the models used by climate scientists were all tuned incorrectly what does this imply for the warnings of impending ecological disaster?
What impact does this discovery have on the predictions of melting icecaps, rising ocean levels, increased storm activity and soaring global temperatures? Quite simply they
got it wrong, at least in as much as those predictions were based on model results. To again quote from David Evans' paper: None of the climate models in 2001 predicted that temperatures would not rise from 2001 to 2009—they were all wrong. All of the models wrongly predict
a huge dominating tropical hotspot in the atmospheric warming pattern—no such hotspot has been observed, and if it was there we would easily have detected it. Once again we see the shaky ground that climate models are built on. Once again a new paper in a peer reviewed journal has brought to light significant
flaws in the ways models are configured—forced to match known historical results even when erroneous values are used for fundamental parameters. I have said many times
that, with enough tweaking, a model can be made to fit any set of reference data—but such bogus validation does not mean the model will accurately predict the future. When
will climate science realize that its reputation has been left in tatters by these false prophets made of computer code? Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical. (Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth) Someone's advocacy is showing: Ancient Climate-Change Event Puzzles Scientists Carbon dioxide (CO2) gets a bad rep for contributing to global warming, and deservedly so. But scientists say they can't entirely blame the greenhouse gas for a curious
spike in Earth's temperature 55 million years ago. New research reveals that something else also seems to have warmed the planet during that time, though no one's quite sure
what it was. We have not now, nor have we ever had any realistic reason to suspect CO2 levels control global mean temperature. All evidence is for
atmospheric CO2 tracking temperature, not the other way 'round. A confused mainstream media notes but does not realize the implication: Past warming
shows gaps in climate knowledge -study SINGAPORE, July 15 - A dramatic warming of the planet 55 million years ago cannot be solely explained by a surge in carbon dioxide levels, a study shows, highlighting gaps
in scientists' understanding of impacts from rapid climate change. (Reuters) USA Today is beginning to see the problem: Could we be
wrong about global warming? Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong? (USA Today) Bob Ellis is rather less reticent: New Study
Rocks Confidence in Climate Change Models, Predictions A lot of information has come to light in the last day or so which blows yet another hole in the fantasy of anthropogenic global warming. (Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice) Natural Climate Shifts: Swanson v Tsonis Tsonis et al have published 3 interesting studies (2007, 2009,
2009) on how natural climate cycles could account for the
climate/temperature shifts in the 20th and 21st centuries. The main authors Anastasios Tsonis and Kyle Swanson appear to have slightly conflicting opinions in media articles
as to the significance of their work to the case for man-made global warming. A Discovery News article quoting Swanson on 2nd March 2009 is entitled: Warming might be on hold, study finds, Authors sense hibernation, but warn of ‘explosive’ rise
later Swanson is quoted as saying (excerpts): Earth’s climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas
concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat. “This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then had firm causes, like
eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn’t have one.” Instead, Swanson and colleague Anastasios Tsonis think a series of climate processes have aligned, conspiring to chill the climate. In 1997 and 1998, the tropical Pacific
Ocean warmed rapidly in what Swanson called a “super El Nino event.” It sent a shock wave through the oceans and atmosphere, jarring their circulation patterns into
unison. How does this square with temperature records from 2005-2007, by some measurements among the warmest years on record? When added up with the other four years since 2001,
Swanson said the overall trend is flat, even though temperatures should have gone up by 0.2 degrees Centigrade (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) during that time. “When the climate kicks back out of this state, we’ll have explosive warming,” Swanson said. “Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there
and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.” Meanwhile, on 15th March 2009, Tsonis is qouted in a separate article for ABC’s wisn.com : in which Tsonis is quoted as saying (excerpt): Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have? “But if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural
variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to
warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said. Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs. More recently Swanson has written a guest post for the ‘Real Climate’ ‘consensus pushing’ weblog on 12th July 2009: Warming, interrupted: Much ado about
natural variability Roger Pielke Jr has an interesting take on this on his blog: Two Decades of No Warming, Consistent with….. “Over at Real Climate they are busy giving climate skeptics reason to cheer: We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the
1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If
this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020. Imagine, twenty-two or more years (1998 to ~2020) of no new global temperature record. What would that do to the debate? Real Climate does say something very smart in the piece (emphasis added): Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic
storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that
humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond. As I’ve argued many times, uncertainty is a far batter reason for justifying action than overhyped claims to certainty, or worse, claims that any possible behavior of
the climate system is somehow “consistent with” expectations. Policy makers and the public can handle uncertainty, its the nonsense they have trouble with.” (Climate
Research News) UN
IPCC Scientist: 'Natural climate change denial of the last decade is not sustainable anymore' UN IPCC Scientist Richard Courtney responds to new peer-reviewed study calling climate models "fundamentally wrong." (See: Study
shakes foundation of climate theory! Reveals UN models 'fundamentally wrong' - Blames 'Unknown Processes' -- not CO2 for ancient global warming - 'Global warming: Our best
guess is likely wrong' July 14, 2009) Breaking: Europe - Belief in Gore's global warming fraud plunges
from 30% to 18% in less than a year EUROPA - Public Opinion analysis - Eurobarometer Special Surveys Doesn't matter how it's sliced, mud pie is still mud pie: New Method May Help
Allocate Carbon Emissions Responsibility Among Nations Just months before world leaders are scheduled to meet to devise a new international treaty on climate change, a research team led by Princeton University scientists has
developed a new way of dividing responsibility for carbon emissions among countries. And when it comes down to it, no amount of turd polishing changes the fact of the turd. Carbon rationing is still completely stupid and unnecessary. The Transcript of my presentation “Considering
the Human Influence on Climate” by Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Sr. May 14, 2009 is now available, courtesy of the George C. Marshall Institute. The
transcript also includes questions from the audience along with my answers. The overview of the talk is
also available. Dr. Mike Macracken and I both have discussed the talk in weblogs (see
and see). Excepts from the transcript include the discussion on vulnerability where, I said So what is my suggestion? There is no doubt in my mind that there are multiple types of human climate forcings. CO2 is important and we need to look at it, but there
is a range of other forcings. Policymakers should look for win-win policies in order to improve the environment that we live in. The costs and benefits of the regulation of
the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere need to be evaluated together with all other possible environmental regulations. The goal should be to seek politically and
techno-logically practical ways to reduce the vulnerability of the environment and society to the entire spectrum of human-caused and natural risks. I want to give an example here. Figure 28 is from some work that I published about a year ago8 with respect to a Colorado report on climate change. In that report they
took the IPCC model assessments and were trying to tell the water managers in Colorado and other parts of the west what the weather conditions are going to be for the next
twenty, thirty, forty and fifty years into the future. I was asked to write a short essay, because they knew I disagreed with taking the IPCC models and using them on a
regional scale. I said, “Let’s look at the natural variation in the past.” This is work by Connie Woodhouse at the University of Arizona. The graph in Figure 28 is tree
ring data and is basically a measure of dryness in the western part of the United States go-ing back to about 800 A.D. What you see is that it goes up and down and the
message of this data is that there were more serious droughts in the natural record prior to European settlement than there have been in the 20th century. That means that we
are already at risk and we don’t know whether human disturbance of the climate system pushes us toward or away from having more frequent droughts. The bottom line is that
because they have happened in the past, we need to be prepared for droughts anyway. That is a bottom-up, resource-based perspective; it is not one you can drive by changing
CO2. I think this is a message that needs to be communicated. I asked one of the IPCC authors whether his model results fall inside or outside of this envelope. He said it falls inside of the envelope. The bottom line is that in
spite of what the IPCC models state, we need to do something. In fact, if you are a strong advocate of the IPCC models, factor that into your vulnerability assessment, but
don’t consider that is the universe of what could happen in the future, because that is not what has happened in the past. You can also see this is a very chaotic signal
and it never repeats itself. We have a different environment now with different CO2, land use, and aerosols. We do not know our trajectory, and here is how I propose that we
move forward: we need a bottom-up, resource-based focus rather than relying on downscaling from global climate models. I have done a lot of work on downscaling and showed
that you are not really adding anything with downscaling. I can talk about that at another time, if you like. The IPCC focus is top down, meaning you take a global model and
downscale it and give it to the resource people and say, “this is what is going to happen in 2030 or 2040.” I think that is a mistake. What we need to do is look at the
risks that the resources face. Figure 29 shows one example of that: water resource vulnerability. How can we reduce our vulnerability to problems with water quality and water quantity? Obviously in
the west that is a major issue. There are a variety of threats: natural landscape change, land management changes, long-term weather variability and change, human population
demands, animal and insect dynamics, industrial and vehicular emissions and so forth, and they all interact with each other. We should look at our vulnerability to risk with
today’s society and what we anticipate the society might be ten, twenty, or thirty years from now and try to make our system more robust to these resources. We should make
our system robust to risk from the environment and from human activity, rather than relying on these IPCC models to tell us what is going to happen to the future and assuming
that we can actually control climate, which I think is hubris. We can’t say that we have to prevent human intervention in the climate system; we are already intervening in
the climate system.” (Climate Science) Recommended
Reading Of the Weblogs Of Tom Fuller Of Examiner.Com Tom Fuller of Examiner.com continues to publish insightful discussions of the climate
science and policy issues. His articles are accurate and informative. We need more journalists of his quality and professionalism. His post
from yesterday , for example, accurately summarized my perspective on these issues as well as the responses I receive from some others within the climate science
community. I recommend readers of my weblog bookmark his excellent website. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science) “Just unspoilt
landscapes and the opportunity to consider the threat of climate change” (Things I Don't Understand) Here's what I wrote in last year's column titled "Global Warming Rope-a-Dope" (12/24/2008): "Once laws are written, they are very difficult, if not
impossible, to repeal. If a time would ever come when the permafrost returns to northern U.S., as far south as New Jersey as it once did, it's not inconceivable that
Congress, caught in the grip of the global warming zealots, would keep all the laws on the books they wrote in the name of fighting global warming. Personally, I would not
put it past them to write more." On June 28, 2009, the House of Representatives, by a narrow margin (219-212), passed the Waxman-Markey bill. The so-called "cap and
trade" bill has been sold as a system for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the struggle against global warming. There's a full-court press on the U.S. Senate to pass
its version of "cap and trade." Sen. George Voinovich blocks EPA nomination over climate
change bill analysis Sen. George Voinovich, a Cleveland Republican, is blocking an EPA deputy administrator's nomination until he's satisfied with EPA's analysis of the energy bill passed by
the House of Representatives. Examiner Editorial: Cap and
trade - The path to ‘global governance’ It’s been nearly a year since President Barack Obama spoke in Berlin as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. There, he described himself as not merely a
citizen of the United States, but as a “fellow citizen of the world.” What was originally a rhetorical flourish has become a particularly revealing indicator of the
president’s sentiments on national sovereignty. Palin Vs. Kerry (And MoveOn.org) John Kerry, replying to an op-ed Sarah Palin wrote on cap-and-trade,
suggests the Alaska governor "check the view from her front porch." What she sees from there, senator, is energy wealth going to waste. Waxman-Markey: An Exercise in Unreality Ed. Note: Reprinted with the permission of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. Originally published as an AEI Energy and
Environment Outlook, July 2009. Boxer
planning Sept. 8 rollout for climate bill Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) plans to unveil a major global warming bill immediately after Congress returns from the August
recess, she said today…. Boxer predicted she would have at least one Republican co-sponsor on her bill, though she would not name names. So E&E News PM (subs. req’d) reported last night. I see this delay as a sign that she is
serious about trying to craft a bill that can garner 60 votes, which will not be easy (see “Epic
Battle 3“). I don’t think the Republican cosponsor will be someone from the committee. Maybe it will be one of the two Maine senators. (Climate Progress) U.S.: Global Climate Talks in
Copenhagen Likely to be ‘Inadequate’ The top U.S. climate envoy is doubtful that any meaningful global agreement on climate change can be forged at December’s climate talks in Copenhagen. Oh boy... A Glass Partly Full - The long, fractious
road to global climate talks in Copenhagen SO THE CLIMATE talks at the Group of Eight summit in L'Aquila, Italy, with the world's 17 major greenhouse gas emitters didn't go as planned. Unrest back home forced
Chinese President Hu Jintao to leave before he could get down to negotiating with an engaged American president. Developing nations balked at committing to long-term
emissions reductions goals because industrialized countries balked at setting short-term targets. And they were none too pleased that rich nations wouldn't make a firm
commitment to help them deal with the effects of climate change. All this spells disaster if you have a glass-half-empty worldview. Shhsssh – whatever you do don’t mention the global warming science-war The real reason I’ll fight in the Senate on
climate change Climate change is real. Yes that’s right, contrary to the misreporting in the media, I do believe in climate change. Way better than nothing but of course we don't really know if climate is changing unusually at all -- it could simply be measurement artifact. Why do so many of our leaders ignore the obvious? [Is] it not a fact that the climate has always changed? If the theory of anthropogenic global warming is correct, it
cannot explain the massive climate changes which have occurred since the creation of the world. It can only explain a tiny sliver of that time. Sheesh! EU teams up with MTV on climate change BRUSSELS — The European Union is teaming up with music channel MTV to raise awareness among teens about the dangers of climate change. Chinese President Hu Jintao left the G-8 summit before the international conference had tackled the issue of climate change. He was needed at home as violence raged in
Xinjiang province as the Uighur protested against being made a minority in their own land by Beijing policy. There was much wailing in the media that the absence of China's
leader made it more difficult to reach a global agreement on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The problem, however, is China's position in talks with the G-8, not who is
presenting it. Why Poor Countries Won't Curb Emissions If I were an environmental activist, I would be despairing right around now about ever getting meaningful action on global warming. Over the last eight years, eco-warriors
had managed to convince themselves that the main obstacle to their grand designs to recalibrate the Earth's thermostat was a stupid and callow U.S. president unwilling to
lead the rest of the world. Britain may go back on its promise not to buy
‘permits to pollute’ from poor nations Britain’s plan to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by more than a third by 2022 could be achieved by buying “permits to pollute” from poor countries rather than
genuine reductions in domestic emissions, according to documents seen by The Times. No, no, NO! Carbon dioxide is not "dirty"! Coal Industry Turns to Chemistry to
Make Coal Power Cleaner and Greener In an effort to make coal a cleaner energy source, an increasing number of companies are engaged in multimillion dollar efforts to develop and test technologies to capture
and store carbon dioxide, a source of global warming. That’s the topic of a noteworthy article in the current issue of Chemical & Engineering News, ACS’ weekly
newsmagazine. (AZoCleantech) Energy Department signs off on Ill. FutureGen site ST. LOUIS — Long-delayed efforts to build an experimental coal-fired plant in Illinois have passed a crucial milestone with President Barack Obama's administration
formally signing off on the proposed site as environmentally fit. Britain pins climate goals on clean energy LONDON, July 15 - Britain will double the share of its energy from low carbon sources by 2020 as part of plans to counter global warming, the government said on Wednesday. Moonbat doesn't believe the government's own admissions: Energy
bill rises to tackle climate change are tiny Compared with wildly fluctuating wholesale gas and electricity prices, the cost of cutting emissions will scarcely be detectable on future energy bills (George Monbiot,
The Guardian) Unlike silver-spoon sons of wealthy industrialists, George, most people readily detect an extra £250 on their energy bills: Fuel
bills could rise by £250 per annum to pay for switch to renewables Energy bills could rise by as much as £250 in the next decade, the Government admitted, under plans to tackle climate change. (Daily Telegraph) Ed Miliband committed to wind energy despite pressure
from nuclear sector Ed Miliband today promised to meet "over 30%" of Britain's green energy targets with wind and other renewable energy sources by 2020, but for the first time his
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) opened the door to that figure being revised downwards. Mr Lemuel
Gulliver Visits Milibandia ‘Gulliver's Later Travels’ (2009), or ‘Later Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts.’ By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a
Captain of several Ships. Everything must change and yet nothing must change, Ed Miliband insisted yesterday as he set out a plan to make Britain a low-carbon society by 2020, while leaving most
aspects of modern life as they are. His long and fascinating white paper offers a schedule of works for the re-engineering of a country: green power, electric trains and
efficient homes among many other good things, all contributing towards a 34% cut in emissions by 2020 on 1990 levels and an even greater fall after that. But it comes with
the audacious suggestion that this can be achieved without depriving people of the comforts of their present, carbon-intensive, lives. Plans to cut CO2 emissions from
transport announced Green transport measures that will cut carbon dioxide emissions by an additional 85 million tonnes were announced today by the Government. Want to live in an
eco-town? It will cost you £13,000 to park there Drivers who want to live in an environmentally friendly "eco-town" will have to pay £13,000 for a parking space, Government documents reveal. (Daily telegraph) Watchdog 'muzzled by fear of
energy companies' Ofgem feared the reaction of the energy companies if it made sweeping reforms to the UK's £25bn-a-year energy sector, internal documents passed to The Independent
suggest. They might be asked what's expected under a new regime? Terrifying... Feds to fund high-tech solar power
studies WASHINGTON, July 15 -- The U.S. Energy Department says it will provide as much as $52.5 million to research and develop solar power systems that can produce electricity
day and night. Basin discovery comparable to NW Shelf Karoon Gas Australia Ltd chief Robert Hosking says indications are his company's Browse Basin project is comparable to Woodside Petroleum Ltd's original North West Shelf
discovery. Time for Australia to evolve to
nuclear power: experts Australia should drop the "caveman" approach to electricity and build some nuclear power stations, experts say. Nanotechnology-Based Process Holds Promise for Generating Pollution-Free Electrical Energy A new method for capturing significantly more heat from low-temperature geothermal resources holds promise for generating virtually pollution-free electrical energy.
Scientists at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory will determine if their innovative approach can safely and economically extract and convert
heat from vast untapped geothermal resources. July 15, 2009
Past flu viruses circulated before pandemics arose HONG KONG - Flu viruses that sparked the three worst pandemics in the last century circulated in their near-complete forms for years before the catastrophes occurred,
researchers in Hong Kong and the United States have found. WHO says new flu "unstoppable," calls for vaccine WASHINGTON - Saying the new H1N1 virus is "unstoppable," the World Health Organization gave drug makers a full go-ahead to manufacture vaccines against the
pandemic influenza strain on Monday and said healthcare workers should be the first to get one. Pandemic flu shows need for pharma incentives: WHO GENEVA - Pharmaceutical firms need incentives, including lucrative patents, to keep creating drugs and vaccines against emergent threats such as the H1N1 influenza
pandemic, the World Health Organisation's head said on Tuesday. "If", "might" & "maybe" of the day: Toxins
may have doomed ancient forests - Pollutants found in fossil fuels may have destroyed woods, killed dinosaurs The same noxious compounds released from burning coal and crude oil may have devastated forests and the early dinosaurs that lived in them 200 million years ago. Anti-obesity pill 'could cut weight by
a quarter' An anti-obesity pill which could dramatically reduce weight has been developed by scientists. Synthetic peptide 'cures' obesity US researchers have 'cured' obesity in mice by injecting them with a synthetic peptide that simultaneously mimics two naturally occurring hormones. The weight loss in the
mice has been described as 'staggering', and opens the prospect for the development of a drug treatment for obesity in humans - something that has so far proved elusive.
(RSC) When Eating Disorders Strike in Midlife Margie Hodgin, a nurse in Kernersville, N.C., had struggled to lose weight since she was a teenager. But it wasn’t until she turned 40 that she finally took off the
extra pounds, and then some. FDA Would Limit Antibiotic Use on U.S. Livestock WASHINGTON - The Food and Drug Administration believes antibiotics should be used on livestock only to cure or prevent disease and not to promote growth, a common use,
said a high-ranking FDA official on Monday. Senate panel backs 12-year biotech drug shelter WASHINGTON - Biotechnology medicines would be protected from cheaper rivals for 12 years under a plan that cleared a U.S. Senate committee on Monday. This is getting weirder Hansen's GISTEMP shows its greatest divergence yet from atmospheric temperature anomalies -- more than
six-tenths of a degree (C) for the month of June. More temperature series here. Forecasters See Stir in Atlantic Tropical Waves NEW YORK - While most of the Atlantic basin remained quiet on Tuesday, some forecasters said a large tropical wave in the central tropical Atlantic appeared to be slowly
organizing into what could become the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season's next tropical depression or first storm. Still hoping to get a forecast right some year: Climate scientists warn
of wild weather in the year ahead as El Niño begins El Niño expected to increase drought, floods and other extreme events, and cause a hot summer in the UK (John Vidal, The Guardian) Sea Surface Temperatures since 1996 – the movie Animations of Weekly SST Anomaly Maps from January 3, 1996 to July 1, 2009 Texas mulls massive `Ike Dike' to prevent flooding GALVESTON, Texas — It has been dubbed the "Ike Dike" - a 55-mile barrier, 17 feet high, that would be built along the Texas Gulf Coast to fend off the sort of
devastating flooding inflicted by last year's Hurricane Ike. Variation in
monsoon not due to climate change: Ramesh NEW DELHI: Climate model studies has shown no significant impact on change in the mean onset of monsoon in the country, government said. Al Gore and friends create climate of McCarthyism ANYONE who questions green orthodoxy is accused of committing treason. Al Gore lies on ABC television - or at least deceives by omission - about
criticism of his wildly alarmist An Inconvenient Truth: HEATHER EWART: There was also, though, a British judge who ruled that there were in fact, I think, nine errors when it was challenged in court? AL GORE: Well, the ruling was in my favour. Pardon? Here, in fact, is what the judge actually said ”in
favour” of Gore’s film: However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context
of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis... And which nine errors did the judge identify? Read on (for the proof of Gore’s deception and for some updates)… 1. ‘Error’… Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future... This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore’s ‘wake-up call’. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but
only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future,
is not in line with the scientific consensus. 2. ‘Error’… Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states “that’s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”. There is no evidence of any such evacuation
having yet happened. 3. ‘Error’… Shutting down of the “Ocean Conveyor”. In scene 17 he says, “One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream
comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the
prevailing winds and the earth’s rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor … At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and
Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that’s not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any
big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]”. According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut
down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down. 4. ‘Error’… Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. [This “connection” is now more
dubious that the judge then believed, since temperatures actually rose before CO2 levels - AB.] 5. ‘Error’… The snows of Kilimanjaro. Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming… However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to 6. ‘Error’… Lake Chad etc The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains 7. ‘Error’… Hurricane Katrina. In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to
show that. 8. ‘Error’… Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: “A new scientific study shows
that The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is
not to say 9. ‘Error’… Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: “Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species
that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.” The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching
and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as
over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. Note [that in the official guidance to British schools on how to use Gore’s film] there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way
of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 ‘errors’, the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or
misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant
planks in Mr Gores’s ‘political’ argumentation. Consider: If Gore can interpret such a devastating ruling as one that’s in his “favour”, what faith can you have in his interpretation of other evidence about the truth or otherwise of man-made global warming? UPDATE Gore defenders in comments below insist that the ruling was in Gore’s favour because the judge still let the film be shown to British students, with amended warnings about its inaccuracies. Desperate. (Andrew Bolt Blog)
UK Lawyer Slams Gore Over Court Case Claims A leading UK lawyer, who represented the parent that sued Al Gore in the British High Court, has laughed off claims by the former vice-president that the judge ruled in his favour. Speaking from London John Day, a senior partner in Malletts Solicitors, said Mr Gore was misrepresenting what the judge had found. Mr Day represented a British parent who sued the UK Ministry of Education when they wanted to distribute and show Mr Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth to every British school child. In the 2006 documentary Mr Gore claimed humanity is in danger because of man made Global Warming. He also claimed flooding and disease would increase with the destruction of most of the world's major cities including New York, London and Shanghai. As a result Mr Gore was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and the documentary won an Oscar.However, after a lengthy hearing a High Court Judge, Mr Justice Burton, found that An Inconvenient Truth contained significant scientific errors in nine key areas. But questioned about the embarasing High Court decision during a current trip to Australia Mr Gore stated on ABC Australia "Well, the ruling was in my favour". However, this has been rejected by Mr Day who said Mr Gore's latest claims are "difficult to square with the reality of the judgement". "The judge found there were nine serious scientific errors in the film." He said the court ordered that the film was "not suitable to be shown in British schools without a health warning". "Mr Justice Burton said an Inconvenient Truth wasn't fit to be shown in British schools without suitably corrected guidance which drew attention to the errors in the film and its political partisanship." Among the errors listed by Mr Justice Burton were Mr Gore claims that rising sea levels would destroy cities in the near future, that the polar bear was endangered and that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting all because of Global Warming. The judge found these to be scientific errors. He also dismissed Mr Gore's claims that Hurricane Katrina was caused by Global Warming. (Not Evil, Just Wrong)
This week’s cartoon: Gore’s Global Governance (Chilling Effect)
Does NASA's James Hansen Still Matter in Climate Debate? When NASA climatologist James Hansen testified to Congress in 1988 about the dangers of global warming, his words became a rallying cry for environmentalists and
politicians determined to control heat-trapping gases.
The Lady Doth Protest too Much… After a 20-year-long role at the BBC, Peter Sissons has attacked the anti-journalistic culture at the BBC. Writing in the Mail on Sunday (the article has been taken off-line for some reason), Sissons outlines some key reasons for his decision to leave. This bit caught our eye - look out for a familiar name.
The BBC is not able to challenge politicians in its mainstream output. Sure, there are occasionally sceptic opinions permitted onto the airwaves, but for a high-profile journalist to ask a challenging question is to speak out of turn. As Sissons implies, the BBC sees its responsibility principally to reproduce environmental ideology, not to hold politicians to account. But let’s not single out the BBC. The culture that exists at the BBC is symptomatic of a wider phenomenon of which the BBC is just another victim. Lucas’s reaction demonstrates that she is simply not used to being challenged. Rather than seeking to explain Sissons’s challenge - perhaps using the very science she claims gives her political ideas legitimacy - she merely gets angry. It’s not even as if Sissons’s questions were particularly probing. She could easily have replied along the lines that a single bout of cold weather does not detract from an upward trend, for example. It is the fact that she does not that makes the question so revealing. As we have argued here on Climate Resistance, climate change has become the means by which journalists and politicians alike have sought to reorientate their moral compasses. Accordingly, the world is increasingly seen through the prism of climate change. But by grounding themselves in ‘facts’, rather than in more philosophical commitments to principles, values, or even political ideas, politicians and journalists make themselves vulnerable. It means that if the ‘facts’ are challenged, their entire perspective on the world crumbles, and their value as journalists/politicians disintegrates. This is why we find journalists and politicians reacting so angrily to even the merest hint or whiff of ‘denial’. Environmentalism is a symptom of being unable to explain the world, particularly on behalf of the establishment. It seeks to ground itself on facts, but cannot tolerate criticism. As we are fond of saying, the crisis is in politics, not in the sky. (Climate Resistance)
The Beeb not sufficiently extreme for moonbat's taste: BBC still walking with dinosaurs when it comes to climate change The BBC's output treats the findings of thousands of scientists on climate change as no more than 'views' or 'opinion' (The Guardian)
Robert W. Endlich: Let's deal with the facts on global warming The notion of man's use of CO2 as a possible driver of climate has been the subject of several recent Letters to the Editor in the Sun-News. Over geologic time. there has
been 15 to 25 times more CO2 than current concentrations; the claim that this time we will reach a tipping point is alarmist, ludicrous, and totally without foundation.
50 Grand tab for AB32 Global Warming Solutions Act – Nevada looking better and better. For those that don’t operate a business in California like I do, I was surprised today to learn that Sacramento State College of Business Administration and Center for
Small Business have complete a study of the AB32 Greenhouse gas law, and its impact on California small businesses.
Calif. board postpones decision on pollution tax SACRAMENTO -- California regulators are again delaying a decision on the nation's first statewide carbon fee on utilities, oil refineries and other polluting industries.
Poor girl actually sounds like a believer: The Summit of Green Futility Two headlines caught my eye last week. "Summit Leaders in Climate Deal" read the one on the front page of the Wall Street Journal Europe. Above it was a picture of 10 smiling heads of state -- the leaders of the Group of Eight, plus China and India. Below was an article that, in contradiction to the cheerful photograph, described how the world's political leaders had failed, once again, to halt climate change by decree. The group could not agree on short-term emissions targets, could not agree on how developing countries would be compensated for meeting the targets and, indeed, could not even decide from what baseline any targets would be calculated. (Washington Post)
The rich can relax. We just need the poor world to cut emissions. By 125% British and G8 climate strategy just doesn't add up. As soon as serious curbs are needed it turns into impossible nonsense (George Monbiot, The Guardian)
More eye-rollers: The dawn of carbon budgeting: now every tonne counts The government's new climate change strategy should mean greater emphasis on emissions savings rather than trading and shared responsibility (The Guardian)
Maldives' environment minister proposes green tourist tax Mohamed Aslam told the 6,000-strong crowd at the music festival at the Eden Project in Cornwall that the Maldives is at the 'frontline' of climate change (The Guardian)
Though the EPA says a cap-and-trade bill will do nothing if the developing world doesn't cut CO2 emissions, Democrats are intent on passing a global warming law anyway. What is their real goal? (IBD)
Is Cap-And-Trade Just Political Posturing? If Not, It Could Mean Economic Suicide President Obama's climate change legislation, the so-called "clean energy" bill, has passed the House of Representatives and is now being debated in the Senate. The president claims the bill will "spark a clear energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet." (Guy Sorman, IBD)
EU Approves State Aid for British CO2 Scheme BRUSSELS - The European Commission approved on Tuesday state aid involved in a British scheme for trading carbon dioxide emissions, part of the country's effort to fight
global warming.
Fighting Climate Change With Patents GENEVA -- World leaders are talking a lot about climate change, not least in their flashy statement on controlling global temperatures at the recent Group of Eight summit
in Italy. One of the smarter ways they can put this determination into effect will be to protect the intellectual property of green innovators from a growing onslaught by
developing-world politicians and mistaken activists.
Reviewing the Evidence for Climate Realism When I was in college, I was drawn to both the natural and social sciences. I studied physics for a few years but then changed my major to economics. I am sure that my
fascination with the issue of global warming arose because it encompasses concepts from a number of scientific and socioeconomic disciplines. It is obvious that the science
is important. But economics is equally important. It is at the heart of the alternative fuel question and necessitates costs that dwarf even the current expenditures related
to the banking crisis.
A Climate Change Paradox (Part II) Part I was posted in The antidote to 150 million quadrillion joules. This is the updated and revised calculation. Michael Hammer previously calculated that if the IPCC were right, the oceans should have absorbed a lot more heat, but just how much? He has revised his previous calculation after discovering an error. Now instead of oceans missing as much as 90% of the heat capacity, they are missing less, but it’s still around two-thirds. Its a lot of energy that somehow, somewhere, is not being absorbed. Where is the energy that greenhouse gases are supposedly ‘trapping’? Not in the air, and not in the water. What sort of radiative imbalance is this? Not one to get scared of. Naturally, as always, Michael is keen for people to check his numbers and give us feedback. Here is another example of a skilled expert doing pro bono work because he is concerned at the state of the science and the unnecessary damage to our society that it will bring. Michael Hammer has around 20 patents in the field of spectroscopy, that means he’s produced work that’s so useful and original that his employers have shelled out hundreds of thousands of dollars to get those ideas checked, assessed and recorded. That doesn’t mean he’s right, but it means he’s worth listening too, and it’s another powerful example of the grassroots movement at work. The Bumper Sticker Message still stays the same: One of the new bluffs is rising ocean temperatures, or increasing oceanic heat capacity. The big number 15 x 1022 Joules looks frightening but translates to just 0.15 °C over 40 years. That’s an immeasurable 0.003 °C per year. (JoNova)
In my weblog Real Climate Permits The Continued Presentation Of Misinformation I requested answers from Real Climate to the questions posed below. Gavin Schmidt is the appropriate scientific colleague at Real Climate to address these questions. “Here is what I propose to Real Climate in an attempt to move to a constructive dialog. I request that they answer these questions: 1. Using the upper ocean heat data from 2004 to the present, what is the Real Climate best estimate of the accumulation of heat in Joules? 2. Using that value of heat accumulation, what is the diagnosed global average radiative imbalance over the time period? How does this compare with Jim Hansen’s value of an imbalance of 0.85 W/m2 for the end of the 1990s?” I said I would update you on their response. They, including Gavin Schmidt, have ignored this request for a scientific dialog. This, by itself, illustrates to all of us yet again that Real Climate (including Gavin) is not a useful inclusive resource if one wants to read about the scientifically supported views on the current issues in climate science. Real Climate and Gavin clearly find the above questions “uncomfortable” as their answers, no matter how they might seek to spin them, would invariably document that we know less about the climate system than they claim. That they are seeking to spin the lack of recent warming is clearly evident from their recent guest weblog by Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, whose implication is effectively summarized at Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog. The Real Climate weblog by Kyle Swanson is also incomplete in his statement that “The climate system has well known modes of variability, such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), that are active on inter-annual time scales. We are interested in how this short time-scale (from the climate perspective!) variability impacts climate anomalies over multi-decadal time periods.” He ignores longer term natural climate variations (such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and others we undoubtedly do not yet recognize). He is making the implicit (and incorrect in my view) assumption that the system becomes dominated by the more-or-less monontonic radiative forcing of the added well-mixed greenhouse gases on the multi-decadal time scales. A quasi-linear behavoir of the climate system on these time scales has never been seen in the real world climate system, as we documented in our paper Rial, J., R.A. Pielke Sr., M. Beniston, M. Claussen, J. Canadell, P. Cox, H. Held, N. de Noblet-Ducoudre, R. Prinn, J. Reynolds, and J.D. Salas, 2004: Nonlinearities, feedbacks and critical thresholds within the Earth’s climate system. Climatic Change, 65, 11-38 We also wrote in the Rial et al 2004 paper “…..our examples lead to an inevitable conclusion: since the climate system is complex, occasionally chaotic, dominated by abrupt changes and driven by competing feedbacks with largely unknown thresholds, climate prediction is difficult, if not impracticable” and “Hence, it appears that one should not rely on prediction as the primary policy approach to assess the potential impact of future regional and global climate change. We argue instead that integrated assessments within the framework of vulnerability …offer the best solution, whereby risk assessment and disaster prevention become the alternative to prediction.” This should be another take away message from the Real Climate guest weblog by Kyle Swanson. (Climate Science)
More Perspective on The Real Climate Weblog By Kyle Swanson On March 15 and 16 2009 there was a news interview of one of the authors of the study discussed by Kyle Swanson at Real Climate and on Roger Pielke Jr’s Blog. (and thanks to Paul Biggs to alerting us to it!). My weblog also commented on the Swanson weblog earlier today (see). The interview of Dr. Anastasios Tsonis from the ABC website www.wisn.com is titled The news article reads “MILWAUKEE — The bitter cold and record snowfalls from two wicked winters are causing people to ask if the global climate is truly changing. The climate is known to be variable and, in recent years, more scientific thought and research has been focused on the global temperature and how humanity might be influencing it. However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down. Scientists at the university used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years. “Imagine that you have four synchronized swimmers and they are not holding hands and they do their program and everything is fine; now, if they begin to hold hands and hold hands tightly, most likely a slight error will destroy the synchronization. Well, we applied the same analogy to climate,” researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said. Scientists said that the air and ocean systems of the earth are now showing signs of synchronizing with each other. Eventually, the systems begin to couple and the synchronous state is destroyed, leading to a climate shift. “In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century,” Tsonis said. “The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001.” The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000. Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have? “But if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said. Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.” (Climate Science)
Finally catching up with what we have been pointing out for years: Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong - Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might
be incorrect. CO2 Science Volume 12 Number 28: 15 July 2009 Editorial: Medieval
Warm Period Record of the Week: Subject Index Summary: Plant Growth Data: Journal Reviews: The Little Ice Age in East Antarctica: A new study adds to the growing evidence for the global extent of this extremely cold interval of the current interglacial period, and to some important implications about what it implies about 20th-century global warming. Keeping Up With Climate Change: Is it possible for animals to migrate fast enough to stay within their "comfort zones" in a rapidly warming world? Oil-Palm Biofuel Plantations: Doubly Bad for the Biosphere: How a "feel-good" policy prescription has led to unintended detrimental consequences. Soil as a Sink for Nitrous Oxide?: How can that be? ... especially when the IPCC says that soil is the main source of the potent greenhouse gas. What's going on here? (co2science.org)
Climate Change Bill Not Good for Indiana or Agriculture The climate change bill that squeaked through the House last month is now before the US Senate; and, again Indiana and agriculture stand to lose if the bill is passed. American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman testified before a Senate committee on Tuesday that "Cap-and-trade legislation will have little or no impact on the climate because greenhouse gas emissions require a global response,” AFBF also contends that the bill will raise food prices for consumers unless an offset program is put into place to defray production input costs. An agricultural offsets program administered by the Agriculture Department is an essential cost containment measure, but revenues from offsets will only partially defray increased costs and not all agriculture sectors will benefit from offset opportunities. (Hoosier Ag Today)
KEVIN Rudd's carbon "coup" is actually a damning if unintended admission that the 'climate change game' is over.
Aarrgh! Feds move on $2.4B carbon capture project WASHINGTON, July 14 -- The U.S. Department of Energy says it is moving forward toward the first commercial scale, fully integrated carbon capture and storage project in
the nation.
Insurers Attempt to Reduce Risks of Carbon Capture & Storage In January the Swiss insurer Zurich Financial Services AG launched two insurance products to cover liabilities for Carbon Capture & Storage.
The madness is spreading: Nine firms mull Rotterdam CO2 capture project AMSTERDAM, July 14 - Nine energy firms including utility E.ON EONG.DE and oil major Shell (RDSa.L: Quote, Profile, Research) are considering funding a large chunk of a
proposed carbon capture project in Rotterdam, the project's initiator said on Tuesday.
A Sea Change in China's Attitude Toward Carbon Capture When European and Chinese scientists first agreed to collaborate on capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and storing it underground, China's entire carbon capture
and sequestration "team" was composed of two Tsinghua University graduate students.
Exxon Mobil Corp., the biggest US energy company, seeks to create a ''new source of oil'' in its $US600 million ($759 million) algae-to-gasoline development project and
stands ready to invest billions of dollars if the research succeeds.
NY Times Targets Renewable Energy CHURCHVILLE, VA—Just as congress is set to tax fossil fuels out of the U.S. economy, the New York Times has reasserted its utterly foolish demand that we tear out
existing hydroelectric dams—the dams that provide most of our renewable energy in the form of water-generated electricity..
Oh... Energy white paper is set to shake up the green industry Energy secretary Ed Miliband says legally binding carbon budgets will revolutionise policy-making (The Guardian)
Climate change measures will cause rise in fuel bills says minister Households will be forced to install a range of green energy measures over the next decade to avoid a massive hike in fuel bills. (Daily Telegraph)
UK needs total energy revamp for 2050 carbon goal LONDON - Britain will need completely new transport and energy infrastructure to meet its ambitious carbon emissions target for 2050, the head of the Energy Technologies
Institute (ETI) said.
Australia Government Approves New Uranium Mine CANBERRA - Australia's government approved on Tuesday the development of a new uranium mine in South Australia state with strict environmental conditions. (Reuters)
July 14, 2009
How Politicians and the Media Change Our Minds Unbeknownst to us, our lives are filled with messages that have a profound effect on our emotions, beliefs, values, and behaviors. These messages can be as obvious as a
tornado siren in Kansas or as secretive and stealthy as the viruses and bacteria that invade your biological organs. What is guaranteed is that, for good or evil, the message
never ends, and its impact is powerful!
New flu resembles feared 1918 virus: study WASHINGTON - The new H1N1 influenza virus bears a disturbing resemblance to the virus strain that caused the 1918 flu pandemic, with a greater ability to infect the lungs
than common seasonal flu viruses, researchers reported on Monday.
Pesticide cases could be upended - An L.A. judge's dismissal of Nicaraguan banana workers' litigation against Dole puts numerous related cases in jeopardy. The unraveling of multimillion-dollar Los Angeles cases alleging that Nicaraguan men had been sterilized by pesticide exposure is now threatening to upend hundreds of
other claims in U.S. courts, as judges examine charges that plaintiffs' lawyers orchestrated an extraordinary international fraud.
Sleeping With the Enemy (Bed Bugs) AFTER virtually disappearing for decades, bed bugs have made a comeback throughout the nation, with particularly bad infestations in densely populated apartment buildings.
Senate Democrats want to tax soda. House Democrats want to tax carbon and higher incomes. California Democrats want to tax everything.
Calorie restrictive eating for longer life? The story we didn’t hear in the news This should have been the lead:
But that’s not what made the news, of course. Instead, we’ve been bombarded with a thousand news stories all reporting in lockstep that low-calorie diets have been proven to add years to our lives. (Junkfood Science)
Obesity 'link to same-sex parent' There is a strong link in obesity between mothers and daughters and fathers and sons, but not across the gender divide, research suggests.
Citrus-derived Flavonoid Prevents Obesity, Study Suggests A flavonoid derived from citrus fruit has shown tremendous promise for preventing weight gain and other signs of metabolic syndrome which can lead to Type 2 Diabetes and increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The study, led by Murray Huff of the Robarts Research Institute at The University of Western Ontario looked at a flavonoid (plant-based bioactive molecule) called naringenin. (ScienceDaily)
Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions - 'Comprehensive Planetary Regime could control development, distribution of all natural resources' The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions. (WorldNetDaily)
British Company Barcodes Trees to Protect Forests LONDON - Deep in the world's tropical rainforests, workers are hammering thousands of barcodes into hardwood trees to help in the fight against illegal logging, corruption
and global warming.
Intensive farming hits European animal habitats: survey (BRUSSELS) - Intensive farming is damaging the habitats of hundreds of species of European animals, the European Commission warned Monday, and urged EU member states to
redouble their efforts to protect them.
Another record wheat year is forecasted for Uruguay Uruguay could be heading for another record of farmland dedicated to wheat and although it is too early to have the exact data, estimates are above 500.000 hectares. Good climate and lower input costs, mainly from fertilizers, could be anticipating a record harvest next December overtaking the 480.000 hectares and 1.2 million tons of the 2008 crop, according to reports in the Montevideo press based on official and private estimates. (MercoPress)
I call Bullshit! Getting Serious About Climate Change Climate “policy as usual” is not working. In the 20 years since serious global discussions on climate change have been underway, atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and average temperatures have continued to rise. (NYT)
Two Decades of No Warming, Consistent With . . . Over at Real Climate they are busy giving climate skeptics reason to cheer:
Imagine, twenty-two or more years (1998 to ~2020) of no new global temperature record. What would that do to the debate?
As I've argued many times, uncertainty is a far batter reason for justifying action than overhyped claims to certainty, or worse, claims that any possible behavior of the climate system is somehow "consistent with" expectations. Policy makers and the public can handle uncertainty, its the nonsense they have trouble with. (Roger Pielke, Jr.)
Since fears of manmade global warming — and potential legislation or regulations of carbon dioxide emissions — are based mostly upon the output of climate models, it is important for people to understand the basics of what climate models are, how they work, and what their limitations are. Climate Models are Computer Programs Generally speaking, a climate model is a computer program mostly made up of mathematical equations. These equations quantitatively describe how atmospheric temperature, air pressure, winds, water vapor, clouds, and precipitation all respond to solar heating of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Also included are equations describing how the so-called “greenhouse” elements of the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) keep the lower atmosphere warm by providing a radiative ‘blanket’ that partly controls how fast the Earth cools by loss of infrared to outer space. The equation computations are made at individual gridpoints on a three-dimensional grid covering the Earth (see image below). In “coupled” climate models, there are also equations describing the three-dimensional oceanic circulation, how it transports absorbed solar energy around the Earth, and how it exchanges heat and moisture with the atmosphere. Modern coupled climate models also include a land model that describes how vegetation, soil, and snow or ice cover exchange energy and moisture with the atmosphere. You can make computer visualizations of how these processes evolve as the model is run on the computer, such as the nice example shown below produced by Gary Strand at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). This particular image shows sea surface temperatures, near-surface winds, and sea ice concentrations in one of the NCAR
models at some point during a run of the model on a supercomputer. [Note the model does not have an actual physical shape in the computer…it is just a long series of
computations.] If you want to see how a climate model simulation evolves over time, a striking YouTube video of the NCAR CCSM climate model is shown here. The Importance of Energy Balance in Climate Models Climate models are usually used to study how the Earth’s climate might respond to small changes in either the intensity of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth, or in the case of anthropogenic global warming, the addition of manmade greenhouse gases that further reduce the atmosphere’s ability to cool to outer space. For it is the balance between these two flows of radiant energy – solar energy in, and infrared energy out of the climate system — that is believed to control the average temperature of the climate system over the long run. If the two radiant energy flows are in balance, then the average temperature of the climate system remains pretty constant. If they are out of balance, the average temperature of the climate system can be expected to change. If this fundamental concept of “energy balance” sounds foreign to you, it shouldn’t because it is part of your everyday experience. For instance, the temperature of a pot of water warming on the stove will only increase as long as the rate of energy gain from the stove is greater than the rate of energy loss by the pot to its surroundings. Once the pot warms to the point where the rate of energy loss equals the rate of energy gain, its temperature then will remain constant. Similarly, the temperature of the inside of a car sitting in the sun will increase only until the rate at which sunlight is absorbed by the car equals the rate at which heat is lost by the hot car to its surroundings. In the same manner, any imbalance in the average flows of energy in and out of the climate system can be expected to cause a temperature change. When averaged over the whole Earth, the rates of absorbed solar energy and infrared energy lost are estimated to be about 235 or 240 Watts per square meter. I say “estimated” because our satellite system for measuring the radiative energy budget of the Earth is still not quite good enough to measure it to this level of absolute accuracy. A variety of adjustable parameters in the model are tuned until the model approximates the average seasonal change in weather patterns around the world, and also absorbs sunlight and emits infrared energy to space at a global-average rate of about 235 or 240 Watts per sq. meter. The modelers tend to assume that if the model does a reasonably good job of mimicking these basic features of the climate system, then the model will be able to predict global warming. This might or might not be a good assumption – no one really knows. It is also important to understand that even if a climate model handled 95% of the processes in the climate system perfectly, this does not mean the model will be 95% accurate in its predictions. All it takes is one important process to be wrong for the models to be seriously in error. For instance, how the model alters cloud cover with warming can make the difference between anthropogenic global warming being catastrophic, or just lost in the noise of natural climate variability. Anthropogenic Global Warming in Climate Models Our addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is estimated to have caused an imbalance of about 1.5 Watts per sq. meter between the 235 to 240 Watts per sq. meter of average absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared radiation. The extra CO2 makes the infrared greenhouse blanket covering the Earth slightly thicker. This energy imbalance is too small to be measured from satellites; it must be computed based upon theory. So, if the Earth was initially in a state of energy balance, and the rate of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth was exactly 240 Watts per sq. meter, then the rate of infrared loss to outer space would have been reduced from 240 Watts per sq. meter to 238.5 Watts per sq. meter (240 minus 1.5). This energy imbalance causes warming in the climate model. And since a warmer Earth (just like any warmer object) loses infrared energy faster than a cool object, the modeled climate system will warm up until energy balance is once again is restored. At that point, the rate at which infrared energy is lost to space once again equals the rate at which sunlight is absorbed by the Earth, and the temperature will once again remain fairly constant. What Determines How Much the Model will Warm? The largest source of uncertainty in climate modeling is this: will the climate system act to reduce, or enhance, the small amount of CO2 warming? The climate model (as well as the real climate system) has different ways in which an energy imbalance like that from adding CO2 to the atmosphere can be restored. The simplest response would be for the temperature alone to increase. For instance, it can be calculated theoretically that the ~40% increase in atmospheric CO2 humans are believed to have caused in the last 150 years would only cause about 0.5 deg. C warming to restore energy imbalance. This theoretical response is called the “no feedback” case because nothing other than temperature changed. But a change in temperature can be expected to change other elements of the climate system, like clouds and water vapor. These other, indirect changes are called
feedbacks, and they can either amplify the CO2-only warming, or reduce it. As shown in the following figure, all 20+ climate models currently tracked by the United Nations’
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now amplify the warming. This amplification is mostly through an increase in water vapor — Earth’s main greenhouse gas — and through a decrease in low- and middle-altitude clouds, the primary effect of which is to let more sunlight into the system and cause further warming. These indirect changes in response to warming are called feedbacks. The models amplify the CO2 warming with positive water vapor feedback, and with positive cloud feedback. But is this the way that the real climate system operates? Uncertainties in Climate Model Cloud and Water Vapor Processes The climate model equations are only approximations of the physical processes that occur in the atmosphere. While some of those approximations are highly accurate, some of the most important ones from the standpoint of climate change are unavoidably crude. This is because the real processes they represent are either (1) too complex to include in the model and still have the model run fast on a computer, or (2) because our understanding of those processes is still too poor to accurately model them with equations. This is especially true for cloud formation and dissipation, which in turn has a huge impact on how much sunlight is absorbed by the climate system. The amount of cloud cover generated in the model in response to solar heating helps control the Earth’s temperature, so the manner in which clouds change with warming is of huge importance to global warming predictions. Climate modelers are still struggling to get the models to produce cloud cover amounts and types like those seen in different regions, and during different seasons. The
following NASA MODIS image of the western U.S. and eastern Pacific Ocean shows a wide variety of cloud types which are controlled by a variety of different processes. The complexity of clouds is intuitively understood by everyone, experts and non-experts alike. It is probably safe to say that all climate modelers recognize that the modeling of cloud behavior accurately is very difficult, and is something which has not yet been achieved in global climate models. All of the IPCC climate models reduce low- and middle-altitude cloud cover with warming, a positive feedback. This is the main reason for the differences in warming produced by different climate models (Trenberth and Fasullo, 2009). I predict that this kind of model behavior will eventually be shown to be incorrect. And while the authors were loathe to admit it, there is already some evidence showing up in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that this is the case (Spencer et al., 2007; Caldwell and Bretherton, 2009). I believe that the modelers have mistakenly interpreted decreased cloud cover with warming in the real climate system as positive cloud feedback (warming causing a cloud decrease), when in reality it was actually the decrease in clouds that mostly caused the warming. This is basically an issue of causation: one direction of causation has been ignored when trying to estimate causation in the opposite direction (Spencer and Braswell, 2008). The fundamental issue of causation in climate modeling isn’t restricted to just clouds. While warming will, on average, cause an increase in low-level water vapor,
precipitation systems control the water vapor content of most of the rest of the atmosphere. As shown in the following illustration, while evaporation over most of the
Earth’s surface is continuously trying to enhance the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by adding water vapor, precipitation is continuously reducing the greenhouse
effect by converting that water vapor into clouds, then into precipitation. But while the physics of evaporation at the Earth’s surface is understood pretty well, the processes controlling the conversion of water vapor into precipitation in clouds are complex and remain rather mysterious. And it is the balance between these two processes — evaporation and precipitation — that determines atmospheric humidity. Even in some highly complex ‘cloud resolving models’ – computer models that use much more complex computations to actually ‘grow’ clouds in the models – the point at which a cloud starts precipitating in the model is given an ad hoc constant value. I consider this to be a huge source of uncertainty, and one that is not appreciated even by most climate modelers. The modelers tune the models to approximate the average relative humidity of the atmosphere, but we still do not understand from ‘first principles’ why the average humidity has its observed value. We would have to thoroughly understand all of the precipitation processes, which we don’t. In the end, many of the approximations in climate models will probably end up being not very important for forecasting climate change…but it takes only one critical process to be wrong for model projections of warming to be greatly in error. The IPCC admits that their largest source of uncertainty is low cloud feedback, that is, how low cloud cover will change with warming. And, as just mentioned, I believe how precipitation efficiency might change with temperature is also a wild card in climate model predictions. Sources of Global Warming: Humans or Nature? At this point hopefully you understand that climate modelers think global warming is the result of humans ‘upsetting’ the Earth’s radiative energy balance. And I agree with them that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere must have some effect…but how large is this change in comparison the energy imbalances the climate system imposes upon itself? It turns out that the modelers have made a critical assumption that ends up leading to the their conclusion that the climate system is very sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions: that the climate system was in a state of energy balance in the first place. There is a pervasive, non-scientific belief in the Earth sciences that nature is in a fragile state of balance. Whether it is ecosystems or the climate systems, you will hear or read scientists claims about the supposed fragility of nature. But this is a subjective concept, not a scientific one. Still, it makes its way into the scientific literature (read the abstract to this seminal paper on the first satellite measurements of the Earth’s energy budget…look for “delicately balanced”). Just because nature tends toward a balance does not mean that balance is in any way ‘fragile’. And what does ‘fragile’ even mean when nature itself is always upsetting that balance anyway? Why is this important to climate modeling? Because if climate researchers ignore naturally-induced climate variability, and instead assume that most climate changes are due to the activity of humans, they will inevitably come to the conclusion that the climate system is fragile: that is, that feedbacks are positive. It’s a little like some ancient tribe of people believing that severe weather events are the result of their moral transgressions. If the warming observed during the 20th Century was due to human greenhouse gas emissions, then the climate system must be pretty sensitive (positive feedbacks). But if the warming was mostly due to a natural change in cloud cover, then the climate system is more likely to be insensitive (negative feedbacks). And there is no way to know whether natural cloud changes occurred during that time simply because our global cloud observations over the last century are nowhere near accurate enough. So, climate modelers simply assume that there are no natural long-term changes in clouds, water vapor, etc. But they do not realize that in the process they will necessarily come to the conclusion that the climate system is very sensitive (feedbacks are positive). As a result, they program climate models so that they are sensitive enough to produce the warming in the last 50 years with increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. They then point to this as ‘proof’ that the CO2 caused the warming, but this is simply reasoning in a circle. Climate modelers have simply assumed that the Earth’s climate system was in a state of energy balance before humans started using fossil fuels. But as is evidenced by
the following temperature reconstruction for the last 2,000 years (from Loehle, 2007), continuous changes in temperature necessarily imply continuous changes in the Earth’s
energy balance. And while changes in solar activity are one possible explanation for these events, it is also possible that there are long-term, internally-generated fluctuations in global energy balance brought about by natural cloud or water vapor fluctuations. For instance, a change in cloud cover will change the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth, thus changing global temperatures. Or, a change in precipitation processes might alter how much of our main greenhouse gas — water vapor — resides in the atmosphere. Changes in either of these will cause global warming or global cooling. But just like the tribe ancient people not understanding that there are physical processes at work in nature that cause storms to occur, climate modelers tend to view climate change as something that is largely human in origin – presumably the result of our immoral burning of fossil fuels. Faith-Based Climate Modeling There is no question that much expense and effort has gone into the construction and improvement of climate models. But that doesn’t mean those models can necessarily predict climate 20, 50, or 100 years from now. Ultimately, the climate researcher (and so the politician) must take as a matter of faith that today’s computerized climate models contain all of the important processes necessary to predict global warming. This is why validating the predictions of any theory is so important to the progress of science. The best test of a theory is to see whether the predictions of that theory end up being correct. Unfortunately, we have no good way to rigorously test climate models in the context of the theory that global warming is manmade. While some climate modelers will claim that their models produce the same “fingerprint” of manmade warming as seen in nature, there really is no such fingerprint. This is because warming due to more carbon dioxide is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from warming due to, say, a natural increase in atmospheric water vapor. The modeler will protest, “But what could cause such a natural change in water vapor?” Well, how about just a small change in atmospheric circulation patterns causing a decrease in low cloud cover over the ocean? That would cause the oceans to warm, which would then warm and humidify the global atmosphere (Compo and Sardeshmukh, 2009). Or how about the circulation change causing a change in wind shear across precipitation systems? This would lead to a decrease in precipitation efficiency, leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere, also leading to a natural ‘greenhouse’ warming (Renno et al., 1994). To reiterate, just because we don’t understand all of the ways in which nature operates doesn’t mean that we humans are responsible for the changes we see in nature. The natural changes in climate I am talking about can be thought of as ‘chaos’. Even though all meteorologists and climate researchers agree that chaos occurs in weather, climate modelers seem to not entertain the possibility that climate can be chaotic as well (Tsonis et al., 2007). If they did believe that was possible, they would then have to seriously consider the possibility that most of the warming we saw in the 20th Century was natural, not manmade. But the IPCC remains strangely silent on this issue. The modelers will claim that their models can explain the major changes in global average temperatures over the 20th Century. While there is some truth to that, it is (1) not likely that theirs is a unique explanation, and (2) this is not an actual prediction since the answer (the actual temperature measurements) were known beforehand. If instead the modelers were NOT allowed to see the temperature changes over the 20th Century, and then were asked to produce a ‘hindcast’ of global temperatures, then this would have been a valid prediction. But instead, years of considerable trial-and-error work has gone into getting the climate models to reproduce the 20th Century temperature history, which was already known to the modelers. Some of us would call this just as much an exercise in statistical ‘curve-fitting’ as it is ‘climate model improvement’. The point is that, while climate models currently offer one possible explanation for climate change (humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions), it is by no means the only possible one. And any modeler who claims they have found the only possible cause of global warming is being either disingenuous, or they have let their faith overpower their ability to reason. Even the IPCC (2007) admits there is a 10% chance that they are wrong about humans being responsible for most of the warming observed in the last 50 years. That, by itself, shows that anyone who says “the science is settled” doesn’t know what they are talking about. Conclusion There is no question that great progress has been made in climate modeling. I consider computer modeling to be an absolutely essential part of climate research. After all, without running numbers through physical equations in a theoretically-based model, you really can not claim that you understand very much about how climate works. But given all of the remaining uncertainties, I do not believe we can determine — with any objective level of confidence — whether any of the current model projections of future warming can be believed. Any scientist who claims otherwise either has political or other non-scientific motivations, or they are simply being sloppy. REFERENCES CITED: Caldwell, P., and C. S. Bretherton, 2009. Response of a subtropical stratocumulus-capped mixed layer to climate and aerosol changes. Journal of Climate, 22, 20-38. Compo, G.P., and P. D. Sardeshmukh, 2009. Oceanic influences on recent continental warming, Climate Dynamics, 32, 333-342. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, report, 996 pp., Cambridge University Press, New York City. Loehle, 2007. A 2,000 year global temperature reconstruction on non-treering proxy data. Energy & Environment, 18, 1049-1058. Renno, N.O., K.A. Emanuel and P.H. Stone, 1994. A Radiative-convective model Spencer, R.W., W. D. Braswell, J. R. Christy, and J. Hnilo, 2007. Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L15707 doi:10.1029/2007GL029698. Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008. Potential biases in cloud feedback diagnosis: A Trenberth, K.E.., and J.T. Fasullo, 2009. Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L07706, doi:10.1029/2009GL037527. Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007. A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288. (Roy W. Spencer)
News Report On The Role of Landscape Processes On Weather and Climate There is a news article that further documents the role of landscape on weather and climate. It is Cityscape, “wet regions” fueled Atlanta tornado by Brian Fisher Johnson of Earth Magazine. Excerpts from the article read “We were getting a one-two punch,” Niyogi [Professor Dev Niyogi of Purdue University] says. “We had the storm coming in over the dry, hot regions where it was getting its heat, then it went over a wet region, and it got its moisture.” To add fuel to the fire, Niyogi says, Atlanta’s concrete-, glass- and metal-dominated landscape radiated more heat than the surrounding countryside. This urban “heat island” combined with other effects of the urban landscape, including added shearing as the storm’s high winds confronted taller buildings. Together, these factors caused the storm to rise more quickly and intensify into a tornadic system. “….Niyogi adds, the Atlanta tornado shows the impact of urban landscape on weather. “I think this work is very important because it provides evidence that we have to think beyond carbon dioxide as a major human driver of the climate system,” says Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder who was not involved in the new study. “Land use change has really had a major impact on local and regional weather.” (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Always seeking imagery because science fails to support their case: Can an artist's wheatfield in Hackney switch the mood on climate change? Curators are searching for an iconic image that can smash indifference and succeed where science and statistics fall short (Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian)
Computer models... Calm before storm - Report: Computer predictions missed fall blast that closed Cobequid Pass OTTAWA — Federal weather forecasters were blind to a vicious snowstorm that stranded 1,500 vehicles in Nova Scotia last fall because every one of their computer models
failed to predict it, says an internal report.
No wonder skeptics consider the left's belief in man-made global warming as akin to a fad religion - last week in Italy, G-8 leaders pledged not to allow the Earth's
temperature to rise more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Frightening proposals to address a pretend problem: Twenty ideas that could save the world Ingenious, madcap and perhaps not strictly legal: the Guardian's search for the greatest plan to tackle climate change (The Guardian)
When politicians talk science, doubt everything they say We should always be skeptical of government. But when politicians, bureaucrats or individuals otherwise employed with public money make claims about science we should be
especially watchful. And the reason is quite simple. Most government officials are ruthless careerists in the business of solving problems, and the problems they are called
upon to solve are often science related.
Here's a problem: Cap-and-Trade Support Hinges on Economy: Survey NEW YORK - U.S. manufacturers would be much more likely to support cap-and-trade legislation to limit pollution if they believed the industrial economy was about to
improve, according to a survey.
CBO Lowballs Waxman-Markey Cost Supporters of economy-killing cap-and-trade legislation not only misquote the Congressional Budget Office's report lowballing the costs. They ignore how CBO cooked the books to get its numbers. (IBD)
EDITORIAL: The rise of the carbon oligarchs Washington is enjoying one of the mildest summers in memory. The irony should not be lost as the Senate grapples with the Waxman-Markey "cap-and-trade" bill,
which is supposed to address global warming.
Letter to Congress on Waxman-Markey Congress, if you won't read Waxman-Markey (aka American Clean Energy and Security Act ) before voting, at least read this
CO2 World Police Crack Down on Top Billion Polluters A new paper by a group of “sustainability scientists” has called for an end to “business as usual” in efforts to curb CO2 emissions. The authors advocate
allocating CO2 emissions targets based on the ‘‘common but differentiated responsibilities’’ of individuals, rather than nations. Their proposal moves beyond per
capita considerations to identify the world’s high-emitting individuals, regardless of the country they live in. Don't laugh—if you are reading this post on the Internet
you are probably one of the targeted billion.
U.S. Officials to Prod China on Climate Change WASHINGTON - U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke visit their ancestral homeland this week to press China to join with the United States in
stepped-up efforts to fight global warming.
Move to avert patents clash at climate change meeting Efforts to avert a damaging clash between the US and emerging economies over patents at a climate change meeting this year will top the agenda at a conference organised by
the UN's intellectual property agency which opens today.
UK Climate Change Policy: Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know “And so the Emperor set off under the high canopy, at the head of the great procession. It was a great success. All the people standing by and at the windows cheered
and cried, “Oh, how splendid are the Emperor's new clothes. What a magnificent train! How well the clothes fit!” No one dared to admit that he couldn’t see anything,
for who would want it to be known that he was either stupid or unfit for his post? None of the Emperor’s clothes had ever met with such success. But among the crowds a
little child suddenly gasped out, "But he hasn’t got anything on." And the people began to whisper to one another what the child had said. "He hasn’t got
anything on." “There’s a little child saying he hasn’t got anything on." Till everyone was saying, "But he hasn’t got anything on." The Emperor
himself had the uncomfortable feeling that what they were whispering was only too true. "But I will have to go through with the procession," he said to himself. So
he drew himself up and walked boldly on holding his head higher than before, and the courtiers held on to the train that wasn't there at all.” [From: ‘The Emperor’s New
Clothes’ [‘Kejserens nye Klæder’] by Hans Christian Andersen (1805 - 1875), version by Stephen Corrin (1964)]
Calif. climate change law cost underrated: study SAN FRANCISCO - California's fight against global warming will cost small businesses $183 billion per year in lost output, about 10 percent of state production, according
to a study released on Monday.
Snared in the misanthropists' PC trap: ExxonMobil is not a climate change denier - We have the same concerns as everyone on energy and greenhouse gas emissions, says Nick Thomas You report the views of Bob Ward from the Grantham Research Institute, who attempts to portray us as climate change deniers (ExxonMobil is still funding groups that
question global warming, 2 July). We are not. We take climate change seriously and have the same concerns as people everywhere - how to provide the world with the energy it
needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Letter of the moment: Temperature Not Emissions In 1988 global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were increasing at a rate of about 0.37Gt/y (gigatonnes of CO2 per year). It was assumed that CO2
emissions from fossil fuels were the prime contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 that was used in climate model projections for global warming.
He's still at it: Al Gore trains people at The Climate Project Asia-Pacific Summit The Hon. Al Gore trained 261 people gathered at The Climate Project Asia-Pacific Summit in Melbourne over the weekend.
Seize climate change challenges: Gore The massive challenges of climate change should be viewed as opportunities, US climate campaigner Al Gore says. (SMH)
Wrong and disgustingly so: Fires a reason to act on climate change: Gore Former US vice-president and environmental activist Al Gore says Victoria's recent bushfires underline the importance of a global deal on climate change.
Gore tells PM to lead climate change AL Gore has challenged the Rudd government to show leadership by rolling out its carbon pollution reduction scheme before the global climate talks in Copenhagen in
December.
Steve Fielding wants to convince Al Gore he's wrong
THIS is the chart climate change sceptic Senator Steve Fielding hopes will convince Al Gore that global warming is not real. Senator Fielding is trying to score a one-on-one meeting with Mr Gore, who is in Australia promoting several environmental causes, to prove to him that climate change sceptics are right.Senator Fielding has promised to clear his schedule for any chance to meet the former US vice-president and Nobel Prize-winning environmental campaigner. "The ball's in his court," a spokesman for the senator said. The spokesman has said Mr Gore is aware that Senator Fielding holds a crucial vote in parliament and that any major green schemes - such as the Government's model to reduce carbon pollution in Australia - essentially rely on his support. "(Mr Gore) said 'look, the schedule's tight but hopefully we can work something out'," when Senator Fielding approached yesterday for a meeting on the issue, the spokesman said. "Al Gore's very aware that Steve has a crucial vote in the Senate." It is believed Mr Gore will only be in the country for another day or so. Senator Fielding wants to present a graph to Mr Gore which argues global temperatures have stabilised during the past 15 years, even as carbon emissions have risen. The graph was used by the UN in its reports on the effects of climate change. (Herald Sun)
'Inconvenient fact': Fielding courts climate change rebels Family First Senator Steve Fielding has written to senators on both sides of politics urging them to demand more proof from the Government that carbon emissions are the
main driver of climate change.
Attempting to tackle climate change by trapping carbon dioxide or switching to nuclear power will not solve the problem of global warming, according to energy calculations
published in the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming.
In climate change debate, all eyes on Sen. Bayh On top of Sen. Evan Bayh’s desk is a Congressional Research Service chart that color-codes states with the most carbon emissions per capita in varying shades of red.
Temperatures are normal, it’s the Politics that are Wrong There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact
of nature is absolutely certain. A. N. Whitehead.
As cap-and-trade advocates tie their knickers in knots over so-called ``global warming," Mother Nature refuses to cooperate. Earth's temperatures continue a chill that began 11 years ago. As global cooling accelerates, global-warmists kick, scream, and push their pet theory ― just like little kids who cover their ears and stomp their feet when older children tell them not to bother waiting up for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. (Deroy Murdock, Scripps Howard News Service)
Deadly and destructive cold... Maybe I’m more sensitive to it than most, but when I stepped outside this morning I noticed that it was slightly darker than recent mornings at the same time. I know
that the sun is rising a little later every day as we drift toward autumn, but today was the first day that it actually seemed a little darker, and that has me thinking about
colder times ahead…but how much colder? Here are a few stories from around the world from the past week. From the BBC: “Almost 250 children under the age of five have
died in a wave of intensely cold weather in Peru”. “This year, freezing temperatures have arrived almost 3 months earlier than usual.” From CBC news: “Temperatures
dropped to a record low in Prince Edward Island overnight Tuesday (July 7 into July 8) with reports of frost throughout the province (in southeast Canada).” “…a
meteorologist with Environment Canada said that to his knowledge, frost has never been reported before in July in Prince Edward Island.”
Hand-wringer du jour: The planet's future: Climate change 'will cause civilisation to collapse' Authoritative new study sets out a grim vision of shortages and violence – but amid all the gloom, there is some hope too. (Jonathan Owen, Independent)
In the land of make-believe: Indian Monsoon Among Risks From Rapid Climate Change SINGAPORE - Rising seas, a rapid weakening of the Indian monsoon and spiraling costs of adapting to a warmer, drier world are just some of the looming risks from rapid
climate change, a report for the Australian government says.
Oh... Climate Change May Spell Demise Of Key Salt Marsh Constituent Global warming may exact a toll on salt marshes in New England, but new research shows that one key constituent of marshes may be especially endangered.
EU President Sweden Says U.N. Climate Talks Too Slow BEIJING - Global climate talks are progressing too slowly and too many countries are demanding action from others rather than acting by themselves, Sweden's Environment
Minister Andreas Carlgren said on Monday in Beijing.
Global Climate Deal Still Possible: Brazil's Lula BRASILIA - Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Monday that a global climate deal could still be ready by a December summit in Copenhagen despite
differences that resurfaced last week between rich and poor countries.
Small Island Nations Demand More Emissions Cuts UNITED NATIONS - This week's pledges by G8 leaders to cap increases in the world's temperature are insufficient, a group of small island countries that face potential
catastrophe from climate change said on Friday.
Change in perspective? Politicians must champion the 'age of sensible', says science museum boss People more likely to act on climate change if offered positive vision of low-carbon future, says Chris Rapley (The Guardian)
Idiots! We don't want to contaminate the energy supply with destabilizing wind generation at all: Debate on Clean Energy Leads to Regional Divide WASHINGTON — While most lawmakers accept that more renewable energy is needed on the nation’s grid, the debate over the giant climate-change and energy bill now before
Congress is exposing a fundamental rift. For many players, the energy not only has to be clean and free of carbon-dioxide emissions, it also has to be generated nearby.
Britain's green revolution will power economic recovery Two centuries ago, Britain was at the forefront of a new industrial age that transformed our small island into the workshop of the world and a global economic powerhouse.
CBI calls for rise in UK's nuclear energy spending - Britain needs to reduce its emphasis on renewables and increase its investment in nuclear energy or risk a system "not fit for purpose" by 2030, according to the CBI. A new report by consultants McKinsey, commissioned by the CBI, says failure to act could result in electricity prices for both industry and consumers rising 30pc by 2030.
Low-carbon strategy will raise household energy bills by £200 a year Household energy bills will rise by more than £200 a year under the Government’s low-carbon strategy being announced next week.
Seriously stupid: Energy independence opportunity Just after Independence Day, America finds its economic future tied to the whims of unstable, and sometimes hostile, foreign powers that control our energy supply.
Although we consume 25 percent of the world's oil, we possess only 3 percent of the world's reserves. In April alone, we imported 375 million barrels of oil, at a cost of
$18.6 billion.
Power cuts loom as financing fails ELECTRICITY generators are cutting back major maintenance work, raising the risk of California-style power brown-outs, because of uncertainty caused by the federal
government's carbon pollution reduction scheme.
Obama's Russian (energy) roulette President Barack Obama is playing Russian roulette with America's quest for energy independence by rushing to replace fossil fuels with unreliable and expensive renewable
energy.
New Renewables Grid Initiative touts for more members - European energy firms invited to join new super-grid lobbying group The newly formed European Renewables Grid Initiative has confirmed it is looking to recruit further members from across the continent's energy sector as it seeks to
bolster its lobbying efforts.
Initiative launches €400-billion African solar power project Twelve companies on Monday launched a €400-billion ($560-billion) German-led initiative to set up huge solar farms in Africa and the Middle East to produce energy for
Europe.
July 13, 2009
Too good to pass up: BPA "health effects": Reductio ad absurdum? While the previous post describes excellent work that pretty much sets the record straight on human exposure to BPA—at actual real-world levels—we note that the University of Illinois is touting an unpublished fear-mongering study, by the very aptly named Dr. Jodi Flaws. Under the rather sensational headline "Plastics chemical retards growth, function of adult reproductive cells," the press release from the university goes onto say that "Their study is the first to show that chronic exposure to low doses of BPA can impair the growth and function of adult reproductive cells." You have to get deeper into the article to find that Flaws really WAS testing the effect of BPA on cells. She used cell cultures, not whole animals! Cell cultures cannot metabolize and eliminate BPA, and the BPA concentration used—10 micrograms per milliliter—is hardly a "low dose." In fact, such levels are orders of magnitude higher than normal human exposure. The press release begins with the bogus contention that "Bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in plastics and known to cause reproductive problems in the offspring of pregnant mice exposed to it." We would remind the good Dr. Flaws that numerous studies on lab animals (not just their cells) have failed to show evidence of fertility issues even at doses one million times higher than typical human exposures. Of course, I don't know exactly what she means by "reproductive problems," and she doesn't define what she means, either. Let's see, normal human exposure to BPA causes no problems. Let's try mice at extremely high levels, and get dubious results. I've got it! Let's try mouse cells—separate from the animal—at even higher levels. For those of you who forgot their Latin, reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions. In this case the reductio ad absurdum refers to the lab work, itself. Thank you Dr. Flaws, and maybe you'll get some hard questions when you present this work at your poster session on July 19th in Pittsburgh. (Shaw's Eco-Logic)
Leave it to Health Canada to finally put a stake through the heart of the BPA fear-mongering nonsense. Those of you who have been following this issue have often read that Canada protects the health of its citizens ever so much better than our own FDA. Since EWG and NRDC are fond of promoting this idea, let's see what the good scientists at Health Canada discovered... They tested the following classes of products for BPA:
In all cases, dozens of products and different brands were tested, and in all cases, levels were exceedingly low. This new data confirms Health Canada's previous conclusion that exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and young children. In fact, Health Canada stated that an adult would have to drink approximately 1,000 liters (264 US gallons) of water from polycarbonate water cooler bottles every day to approach the science-based safe intake limit for BPA recently established in Canada. While all of the glass water bottles showed BPA concentrations below the minimum detectable level, so did many of the plastic bottles and the one water can brand tested (Perrier). No BPA was detected in any of the canned powdered infant formula samples tested. The level of BPA found in baby food packaged in jars clearly indicates that exposure to BPA through consumption of these products is extremely low. Health Canada's new data provides further support for recent assessments from eleven regulatory bodies around the world that determined BPA is safe for use in food contact products. These regulatory bodies include: the European Food Safety Authority, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, French Food Safety Authority, Swiss Office for Public Health, and Food Standards Australia-New Zealand. I hope that this latest round of data will convince the public, but as long as grants are given out to the likes of Freddie vom Saal, Shanna Swan, and the rest of the endocrine disruptor gang, this trumped-up issue—based almost entirely on over-interpretation of data in rodents—will be with us. Why not reach out to the gang, and ask them what they think of these new findings? Here's the contact information: Fred vom Saal vomsaalf@missouri.edu (573) 882-4367 Shanna Swan shanna_swans@urcm.rochester.edu (585) 273-3521 And, while you're at it, drop a quick e-mail to the feckless journos at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel who did a big story on how bad BPA is, basing nearly the entire 30,000 word series on input from...Freddie vom Saal. Susanne Rust srust@journalsentinel.com Meg Kissinger mkissinger@journalsentinel.com If you think I'm being too hard on old Freddie, check out this direct quote: "The science is clear and the findings are not just scary, they are horrific," vom Saal said. "When you feed a baby out of a clear, hard plastic bottle, it's like giving the baby a birth control pill." That's just the kind of level-headed thinking that should be driving this issue, don't you think? (Shaw's Eco-Logic)
Worth repeating: STATS: Media ignored science in BPA coverage In a review of American media coverage of the controversy of bisphenol A, researchers at STATS (a nonprofit, nonpartisan Statistical Assessment Service affiliated with George Mason University), say the media failed to properly weight different studies based on their size and research methodology and relied too heavily on sources like the University of Missouri biologist Frederick vom Saal (bio page), a man STATS takes pains to discredit. View the full 49-page pdf here. (Covering Health)
The MSM keeps reporting that businesses are poisoning us. I myself, when younger and stupider, reported on the danger of pesticides and food additives. My TV show has suggested that Teflon pans and cell phones may poison you. The list of scares is endless, and yet somehow Americans keep living longer. Our survival hasn’t deterred the MSM, however. Reporters still give credulous attention to alarmists, while treating business spokesmen like liars. (John Stossel, ABC News)
Massachusetts was to be the nation’s test ground for universal health insurance. MassCare has been held up as the model for similar policies on a national level. Its key elements are part of the national healthcare reform measures being proposed for all of us. It is newsworthy what the experiment has learned and how things have been working. Yet, national media has been quiet on news about what is happening… even when the most anticipated benefits have not been proven out, and in fact, have been made worse. (Junkfood Science)
Pfizer begins work on drugs to treat autism BOSTON - Pfizer Inc, the world's largest drugmaker, has begun developing treatments for autism, its head of research and development said on Friday.
Media Tend To Doomsay When Addressing Environmental Issues This study, undertaken by researchers from the University of the Basque Country (UBC), analyses the role played by the media in creating and spreading a stance regarding
the protection of the environment, sustainable development and natural heritage.
Pigs at risk from people as new flu spreads LONDON - There is a growing risk that pigs will catch the new H1N1 flu strain -- commonly known as swine flu -- from humans, German researchers said on Thursday.
UK records first H1N1 death in healthy patient LONDON - British health authorities said on Friday they had recorded the first death from H1N1 flu in an otherwise healthy patient.
Obesity emerges as risk factor in severe flu WASHINGTON - People who are obese but otherwise healthy may be at special risk of severe complications and death from the new H1N1 swine flu virus, U.S. researchers
reported on Friday.
Study: Rising obesity changes perceptions BOSTON, July 11 -- Researchers say that as the U.S. population becomes heavier perception of what is a normal weight has also increased.
Congress Needs A Read-The-Bill Bill Lawmakers voted on the stimulus and global warming bills without having read either. Eventually they'll vote on health care legislation that could fund unrelated items.
Time to end this systemic fraud.
The Double Hell Of Science-Led Policy Scientists should be on tap, but not
on top. A chilling story just published in the BBC News online Magazine shows all that can go wrong when Science is taken as the one-stop-shop for all answers, and all decisions
Mr Taylor, known to late-night Radio4 listeners for his rather peculiar “Thinking Allowed” programme, proceeds with explaining how his mother made large use of “scientific principles“. That is, of the child-rearing notions set up by a Doctor Truby King in New Zealand.
What was behind Dr King’s push to reach out to parents and help educate the children of the world?
And here the core messages:
In hindsight, there was little Science, rather something very sinister in Dr King’s thinking, since his “childcare organisation rallied under the alarmingly patriotic slogan: ‘The race marches forward on the feet of little children.’“. The white race, most likely, rather than the rat race… Was that something Mr Taylor’s parents should have spotted on their own? We cannot be sure. What we can infer is that they were all for what they perceived as “Science”. And that made their child a victim: and their child’s child
============= Note how the abuse of Science as the answer to everything leads also to an avoidance of responsibility
============= There we have it all. Excessive confidence in Science. Disregard of anything not already fully boxed-in to the Science (we may call that “skepticism”). Disregard of people’s aspirations and personalities. Victims all around, sacrificed to a hell-on-earth or a higher purpose. And when disaster strikes, a quick hand-washing, blaming Science. Finally, a backlash in the opposite direction, creating a new kind of hell for even more victims. Is that what the XXIII century book “A Brief History of the AGW Obsession” will talk about? (OmniClimate)
World Population Day: Malthus lives! Invented crises justifying massive public-sector spending are deceptions which disadvantage ordinary people everywhere
The Population Boom Four Decades On - Are We Still Doomed? International Policy Network <media@policynetwork.net>
Does global warming diminish when measured accurately? Part 3 In parts one and two of this series, we saw that temperature measurements in the U.S. should not be considered completely reliable. The heating they show is possibly an artifact of poor instrument placement, urban development, faulty analysis, or some combination of all three. We also saw that U.S. stations now make up over half of all stations in the world, as opposed to only a quarter in 1975. As we might expect similar problems to be found throughout the world, it seems mistaken to use land surface temperatures as proof of global warming. (Thomas Fuller, Examiner)
Does global warming diminish when measured accurately? Part 4 We noted earlier in this series that surface temperature measurements over land may not be reliable for measuring the extent of global warming. (See here, here, and here.) But we've been measuring temperatures using satellites for 30 years. Why not use them? It's a bit curious that the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by NASA, does not use satellite measurements for their analyses. I've never seen an explanation of why, although I've spent a lot of time on their website. James Hansen of GISS (yes, that James Hansen) developed his own software program for managing the ground measurement data set, and that may have something to do with it. Satellite measurements in theory should be more accurate--they don't really measure temperatures, but radiance, and then analysts compute temperatures from that. But they cover all of the globe except the poles, and it doesn't suffer from the problem of having a road built up next to a measurement station. (Thomas Fuller, Examiner)
New Climate Change Report: More Scary Scenarios from Climate Extremists Just before the House of Representatives voted on a massive climate bill, the government released a report on climate change. It reiterated the Oscar-winning theme from An Inconvenient Truth – impacts from human-induced climate change are already occurring and that they are going to get worse. Much worse. But the report is so extreme that it would make Al Gore blush. The authors appear to have learned much from the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate – be extreme and loose with the facts. Oh, and that timing is everything, especially when it comes to congressional legislation. The report is so extreme that I’m not sure where to start. Fortunately, Bradford Plumer, writing in the New Republic, has highlighted what he sees as its scariest scenarios. I’ll start there. (David Legates, Cornwall Alliance)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is widely regarded in the media as the ultimate authority on climate change. Created by two divisions of the United Nations, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, its pronouncements are received as if they come down from Mount Olympus or Mount Sinai. The common presumption is that the IPCC has assembled the best scientific knowledge. Let's take a closer look at this organization to see whether it merits such uncritical deference. (Mark W. Hendrickson, The Center for Vision & Values)
Andy Revkin of the NYT has a piece up "The two-degree solution," which includes the statement:
Actually, I'd like to see the argument that the IPCC is "proscribed from" making such judgments, by its charter, to which the IPCC no longer provides ready access and which it has replaced with a soothing one-paragraph distillation of how it views its mandate, instead. [Moonbats and others who shout out the IPCC as "research" which supports their alarmism might take note of the second sentence, which opens "The IPCC does not conduct any research. . . "] I do see that, like the IPCC reports — which have never referenced any work establishing CO2 as having driven warming now, or in the past — this still assumes human-induced global warming. I also recall that the same charter tasked them with supporting a possible future global-warming treaty (IPCC was chartered in 1988). Informative to the IPCC's view of others telling it what to do, however, is its serial refusal to answer the threshold question in the future global warming treaty, the UNFCCC ("Rio" treaty, 1992) and its amendment, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is what constitutes "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." (Rio Art. 2). The IPCC says, each time it is asked to answer that threshold question — for some reason, governments had thought that this was the IPCC's job and kept asking — that to do so would be to make a political decision, which is not their job. That the IPCC seeks to steer clear of politics is as plausible a notion as that a question of atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and dangerous influence with natural processes is not a scientific question. (Chris Horner, Planet Gore)
Global Warming: The Precautionary Principle Backfires I'll probably be posting quite a bit about global warming, and you might wonder why I think it's a big issue for a site devoted to peace. Well, peace is easier if we
aren't all scrapping with each other to eke out an existence in a starving world. True peace (which includes peace with all our nonhuman friends) requires we don't do things
that will harm wildlife or damage Earth's capacity to feed us all. True peace should make everyone happy; and if you've seen Gitie's and my wild bird website
(wingedhearts.org, you'll know I don't reserve "everyone" just for people.
Sheesh! A Lesson on Warming President Obama had hoped to emerge from this week’s Group of 8 summit meeting in Italy with a tentative agreement uniting rich and developing nations in a common fight
against global warming. Instead he got a lesson on how divided the world remains on the issue — and how hard he will have to work to pull off an agreement.
Most Americans don't believe humans responsible for climate change, study finds Barack Obama's sense of urgency in getting Congress and the international community to act on climate change does not appear to have rubbed off on the average American, a
new study published today reveals.
Peter Sissons: BBC standards are falling - and bosses are too scared to do anything about it Peter Sissons, the veteran newsreader who announced his retirement last month, has launched a withering attack on the BBC - claiming standards have fallen and accusing
producers of being too mired in political correctness to do anything about it.
Lean's at The Telegraph now? Can Barack Obama save us from hell? As G8 leaders in L'Aquila wrestle with climate change, Geoffrey Lean reports on the US President's mission to prevent global catastrophe. (Daily Telegraph)
Climate change: The sun and the oceans do not lie - Even a compromised agreement to reduce emissions could devastate the economy - and all for a theory shot full of holes, says Christopher Booker. The moves now being made by the world's political establishment to lock us into December's Copenhagen treaty to halt global warming are as alarming as anything that has
happened in our lifetimes. Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2
emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution,
this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity
machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against
Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train.
Politicians exploit naïve twits? Imagine that...Disillusioned Environmentalists Turn on Obama as Compromiser For environmental activists like Jessica Miller, 31, the passage of a major climate bill by the House last month should have been cause for euphoria. Instead she felt
cheated.
Senate won’t bow to global warming propagandists, hopefully Despite every contemptible argument made in support of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade scheme, it appears the Senate may find its backbone and reject the hysteria-driven legislation. (Cameron English, Examiner)
The world’s war on carbon emissions isn’t going well. In just six months, the UN sponsored Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change will seek to launch a worldwide
anti-carbon strategy with teeth. Billed by alarmists as “the last chance to save our planet,” all the signs are that Michael Jackson has a better chance of recording new
material than Copenhagen has of delivering a meaningful international accord.
King Canute at the G-8 - World leaders tell the Earth's temperature not to rise. When King Canute of lore wanted to teach his citizens a lesson, he set his throne by the seashore and commanded the tides to roll out. Canute's spirit was back in business
this week at the G-8 summit in Italy, where the assembled leaders declared that the world's temperature shall not rise: "We recognize the scientific view that the
increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees [Celsius]," or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, said the summit declaration.
Global Warming: News of the Weak It hasn’t been an all-together good week for global warming alarmists. We wanted to highlight a couple of small items we were alerted to by Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com. First, of course, is the news that James Hansen — alarmist extraordinaire — has decried the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill as “a monstrous absurdity…less than worthless!” We’ve noted Mr. Hansen’s preference for a carbon tax (the lesser of evils, we would say), but this is a strong rebuke to the absurdity and obscenity of the House’s recently passed legislation. Then, of course, there was Al Gore’s Just like we wouldn’t want to call the bottom in the stock market, we won’t officially declare this week the high point of the global warming hysteria fever. But if there’s a global warming shark, consider it jumped. (Chilling Effect)
Global warming alarmism enriches Gore, bankrupts the rest of us Let us begin today with full disclosure: For those who don't know my position on global warming alarmism and its insidious uses, it is that this phenomenon is the greatest hoax in modern times and is being used to achieve things - bad things - quite apart from its ostensible goal of "saving the planet." Al Gore wanders the spheroid he is determined to save, spouting increasingly inane observations as his bank account grows and his "carbon footprint" becomes ever more Godzilla-like, considering all the jet fuel burned as he hurtles from appearance to appearance. I have read that his speaking fee is now $175,000 a pop, a fee for which his audiences are fed what seems to me to be an amazing concoction of lies, distortions and flights of fancy. (Ron Smith, Baltimore Sun)
Harper/Gore/Pope: “(call for)…Global Governance” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: "There Is Going To Have To Be Global Governance"July 10, 2009 This is sickening. Just listen to the world leaders calling for a global governance, and look around at each other. This is what you voted for. This is the change you voted for. Global governance. But he is not alone in his call for global governance. (Politics, Economics, Religion and People)
Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About 'Global Governance' Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.” “I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times. “Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C. Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming. “But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor's Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.) Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac's call in 2000. On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,” Chirac added. Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed UN's Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.” In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.” (Marc Morano, Climate Depot)
Cap-and-Tax: Government vs. America There is still time to stop the legislative monstrosity known as the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill before the Senate approves it. But for that to happen, Americans must
learn how bad it is.
Benny Peiser: G8 stalemate shows it’s time for climate cool-down - After years of inflamed global warming alarm, we are beginning to see a period of sobering-up Negotiations over the future of an international climate treaty remain as deadlocked as ever. Predictably, the latest round of talks at the Group of Eight (G8) summit in
L’Aquila, Italy, was unable to reconcile conflicting positions and incompatible demands on CO2 emissions and climate billions that divide the world’s industrialized and
emerging nations.
India needs climate action: UN scientist The leading Indian scientist who heads the UN's influential climate change advisory body says the Indian Government is missing opportunities to take action on global
warming.
Blaming global warming seems to be the favourite pastime in the corridors of power. State health minister Suryakanta Mishra is the latest to join the group. On Wednesday
Mishra said in the Assembly that malaria has increased significantly in the Calcutta Municipal Corporation area this year due to global warming.
Climate pact faces hard slog: Rudd Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says world leaders face a "hard slog" as they race to overcome huge hurdles he fears could stop them from signing a new climate change
pact.
Rudd privately admits: climate deal a dud An open mic, and a caught-out Kevin Rudd, have exposed the fantasy that the world is on the brink of a deal to slash the emissions we’re told are heating the world to hell. (Andrew Bolt Blog)
Climate comment rains on Rudd's victory parade THE US President, Barack Obama, has urged world leaders to banish their pessimism about thrashing out a climate-change deal with developing countries, heralding a new era
for the US and citing Australia's carbon capture project for plaudits.
Tories may sacrifice Africa to fund climate change fight A Tory Government could cut Britain's £9bn-a-year overseas aid budget by diverting up to £2bn of it to tackling climate change, aid agencies warned today.
Gore picked the wrong war for global warming Al Gore spoke out again against global warming in London yesterday: "Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilization in World War II... We have everything we need except political will but political will is a renewable resource." I guess it pretty clearly shows how he views himself and his followers, and also what he thinks of his opposition. I have to wonder why AGW proponents need to find political will. The U.S. has just passed the first hurdle in bringing a (badly flawed) cap and trade bill into existence. The United Kingdom where Gore was speaking has the strongest emissions reduction program in the world already in place. His army seems to be winning--for what does he need political will? It's sad that a public policy issue that boils down to how we will spend about 5% of the world's GDP should be characterised as a war. If Gore's army wins, we will spend it on limiting emissions--and even if it's useless at affecting global temperatures, many of the actions have merit in and of themselves, such as developing greener energy sources. If the skeptic side prevails, even if Gore's right about global warming, we will spend slightly more money combatting its effects on short notice. That's not a war--that's boring technocratic politics. (Thomas Fuller, Examiner)
Gaia’s Right - Environmentalism seeks to return us to the age of kings. According to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, we only have 96 months left to save the planet.
He then got in his limo and was driven to his other palace. (Mark Steyn, NRO)
“Rudd supports resource destruction”. A Statement by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia. Australia’s PM Rudd, Santa Clause of the Global Warming Industry, wants to waste another $100 M per year of other people’s money on his Carbon Capture and Storage
Institute.
Does global warming diminish when measured accurately? Part 5 One group of workers in the field of climate change has managed to make global warming appear worse than we originally thought. This group includes Michael Mann, Eric Steig, Caspar Ammann and Stefan Rahmstorf. They are all also contributors to the Real Climate weblog, a compendium of global warming information that strongly supports the theory that humans are endangering the planet by emitting CO2 and warming the planet. (Thomas Fuller, Examiner)
David Attenborough is a well-respected naturalist and one of television's most recognisable and best loved presenters. When he speaks on a topic, people take notice. This
week, he co-chaired a meeting of marine scientists at the Royal Society, talking of the world's "moral responsibility" to save corals, threatened by rising levels
of carbon dioxide. His is the familiar name, but he was not the only one to voice their concerns. This from Alex Rogers, director of the International Programme on the State
of the Oceans: "The kitchen is on fire and it's spreading round the house. If we act quickly and decisively we may be able to put it out before the damage becomes
irreversible. That is where corals are now".
Ken Tapping: Still no sign of the next cycle Previously on this blog, I’d mentioned my skepticism that one decent sunspot marked the end of the hiatus in the solar cycle we’ve seen for nearly two years. It might be my nature, but everybody has been wrong before. As part of my public duty to actually ask real scientists monitoring the Sun, I wrote to Dr Ken Tapping of Canada’s National Research Council at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics in British Columbia:
and Dr Tapping replied (with my emphasis):
Now this is what I’d thought, that the nice sunspot (1024) we’d seen did not presage a change in the behavior of the Sun: the solar wind speed remained subdued, coronal holes remained very small, there were no prominences to speak of. It also baffles me how “some theorists have suggested the new cycle is currently under way, but that for some unknown reason we are not getting the spots to go with it”. If there are very few sunspots and the radio flux remains extremely subdued, on what basis are these theorists making their statements? It could be that this is the first “radio quiet” solar cycle … anyone believe that? So for solar physicists, it remains “interesting times” and probably a time to clear out some old theories and start again. My thanks to Dr Tapping for the correspondence. (Solar Science)
AMO, The Key Global Climate Indicator The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years
at a time and a difference of about 1F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years. [per NOAA].
In the assessment of climate variability and change, the term “weather noise” often comes up. The idea is that a long term climate change is embedded within much more variable shorter term weather patterns, and that long term trend assessments are needed in order to filter out these shorter term effects. However, this concept of “weather noise’ has several problems with it: 1. There is an implication with the use of this term that there well defined separations in time scales between weather and climate. That this is false has been shown in numerous studies summarized, for example, in Rial, J., R.A. Pielke Sr., M. Beniston, M. Claussen, J. Canadell, P. Cox, H. Held, N. de Noblet-Ducoudre, R. Prinn, J. Reynolds, and J.D. Salas, 2004: Nonlinearities, feedbacks and critical thresholds within the Earth’s climate system. Climatic Change, 65, 11-38 where we wrote “The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm.” The paper Seidel D. J., J. R. Lanzante (2004), An assessment of three alternatives to linear trends for characterizing global atmospheric temperature changes, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D14108, doi:10.1029/2003JD004414, illustrates one way to deal with this nonlinearity in the climate system where they write “Historical changes in global atmospheric temperature are typically estimated using simple linear trends. This paper considers three alternative simple statistical models, each involving breakpoints (abrupt changes): a flat steps model, in which all changes occur abruptly; a piecewise linear model; and a sloped steps model, incorporating both abrupt changes and slopes during the periods between breakpoints….These models are applied to the instrumental record of global monthly temperature anomalies at the surface and to the radiosonde and satellite records for the troposphere and stratosphere. The alternative models often provide a better fit to the observations than the simple linear model…..Results for tropospheric data suggest that it is reasonable to consider most of the warming during 1958–2001 to have occurred at the time of the abrupt climate regime shift in 1977.” What is really meant by the term “weather noise” is provide by the definition of the term “climate change” by the IPCC glossary. “Climate change” by their definition is Climate change: Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Thus “weather noise” are those changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that occur on time scales less than decades. It should more accurately be called “short term climate variability”. 2. More importantly, with respect to the focus of this weblog, there is a distinction between the short term variabiltiy of climate variables, such as temperature at 2m, precipitation, etc, which do not include mass weighted quantities, and global climate heat content, global average sea level, etc which include mass as part of their definition (see also). These mass weighted quantities are integral climate variables since they are volume averages. Since they are integral quantities, they are a type of low pass filter in that high frequency variations are naturally filtered out of the signal. The use of integral climate variables is particularly useful with respect to monitoring global warming and cooling (i.e. “global warming”). The use of these variables permits differences in time slices (i.e. “snapshots”) of the values to indicate what has been the climate system change in heat content for that time period. There is no need to compute a linear trend. Indeed, if the heat suddenly was reduced to an earlier value, the “trend” up to that time is irrelevant. As I wrote in Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335 “A snapshot at any time documents the accumulated heat content and its change since the last assessment. Unlike temperature, at some specific level of the ocean, land, or the atmosphere, in which there is a time lag in its response to radiative forcing, there are no time lags associated with heat changes.” Thus, while sampling issues are certainly relevant, the concept of “weather noise” itself is not particularly relevant to the use of the global average upper ocean heat content (or the global average sea level rise) to assess climate change. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Development Of The 2009 El Niño The 2009 El Niño On the website The Blackboard, there is a plot of the latest sea surface temperature anomalies from the Hadley Center. It has jumped dramatically in just one month. The reason is clearly related to the 2009 El Niño which has developed quickly over the last several months as seen in the ECMWF ocean data (see). The ECMWF vertical cross-sections (see, see, see and see) provide a useful perspective in that substantial cool (as well as warm) anomalies exist at depth. The El Niño signal is clear in the equatorial cross-section. There are two messages in this data. First, the sudden development of this El Niño illustrates that it is dominated by ocean and atmospheric circulation changes, not an annual global average radiative forcing. Second, the regional variation in the patterning of heating further reinforces that climate is dominated by spatial variations in circulation features, and not a global-annual average surface temperature trend or other climate metric averaged on this space scale (see and see). (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Last year, 29 protestors stopped and boarded a train carrying coal to Drax, the UK's largest power station, and spent the next 16 hours shovelling coal onto the tracks.
Last week, 22 of them were convicted of obstruction. They are to be sentenced in September, but the judge has already ruled out a custodial sentence.
Lawrence Solomon: Fill up with subsidies Billionaire energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens has a two-step plan to cash in on climate change. Today: Step one
TCE Exclusive Interview: Watch Out For Politically Correct Energy On occasion, The Chilling Effect interviews experts on environment and energy. This week, we discuss current events with Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research. (Chilling effect)
Green fuel bill shock: Families face a charge of up to £120 to fund thousands of wind turbines Millions of families face being hit with higher fuel bills to pay for a new 'green energy revolution' due to be unveiled by Labour next week.
July 10, 2009
Would You Let This Girl Drown? It’s the Group of 8 summit in Italy, and world leaders are strolling along when they spot a girl floundering in a pond, crying out and then dipping beneath the surface.
Hmm... Movies spur smoking more than sports teams do NEW YORK - Kids who play team sports are less likely than their peers to smoke, but sports cannot beat the influence of movies, a new study suggests.
Childhood obesity linked to steep rise in hospitalizations Hospitalizations for children diagnosed with obesity almost doubled between 1999 and 2005, a new national study reports. Costs have almost doubled too, even though federal figures measuring the prevalence of childhood obesity appeared stable over the same period of time. (White Coat Notes)
'Lower' Asian obesity threshold The threshold for being overweight and obese should be lowered for British Asians, international experts say.
What's In That Bottle? Congress Says Water Unclear WASHINGTON - Bottled water makers make millions off people who believe their products are purer than tap water, but consumers do not realize that they are less regulated
than plain old tap water, according to a U.S. Congressional report released on Wednesday.
Who’s afraid of billions of people? It is UN World Population Day on Saturday 11 July, when various United Nations bodies will try to convince us that population growth is the cause of much of the planet’s economic and environmental crises. Here, we publish an edited version of a speech given by spiked editor Brendan O’Neill in London on 3 July, in which he argued against all attempts to curb human numbers. (sp!ked)
Government anti-smoking efforts not as effective as first thought In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) claimed that “Research shows that the more states spend on comprehensive tobacco control programs, the greater the
reductions in smoking—and the longer states invest in such programs, the greater and faster the impact.”
Charlie... Nature, the biggest bank of all, could go bust, warns Prince Charles The Prince of Wales has said that "Nature, the biggest bank of all, could go bust" in an apocalyptic warning that the Earth is on the brink of environmental disaster. (Daily Telegraph)
Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles The price of capitalism and consumerism is just too high, he tells industrialists (The Independent)
The IPCC's Third Assessment Report reduced their estimate of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide's heating effect by about 18% from earlier reports. Here is the simplified formula used for calculating increased or 'excess forcing' due to increased atmospheric CO2, which reads, in part:
What does all that mean? Basically, every time you double the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide you add 3.8 watts per meter squared of Earth's surface. You can work out the change in forcing from origin by calculating 5.35 x natural log (revised value / 280), which for 2006 resolves as 5.35*ln(380/280) = 1.633792 expressed as Watts per meter squared (W/m2). We'll include a form at the end of this item so you can play with atmospheric heating. Since this is "excess forcing" or, as Hansen puts it "Human-made climate forcings, mainly greenhouse gases, heat the earth’s surface at a rate of about two watts per square meter—the equivalent of two tiny one-watt bulbs burning over every square meter of the planet" we are going to ignore the "natural" heat budget with all its complexities and look only at the additional or "excess" forcing. One Joule is the equivalent of one Watt.second. That is, according to the IPCC, increased atmospheric CO2 is applying 'excess' surface heating at the rate of 1.633792 Joules every second over every square meter of the Earth's surface. Knowing Earth's surface area, the number of Joules of "excess forcing" and the mass of the atmosphere we can work out how much the atmosphere heats in response to specific carbon dioxide levels, like the following sample: Atmospheric warming in 2006 from increased atmospheric CO2 forcing is 2.62949 x 1022 J (added forcing) / 5.162685 x 1021 J (heat required to raise atmospheric temp by 1 °C) = 5.09 °C in 2006. Oh, wait... the atmosphere didn't actually warm 5 °C in 2006, did it? In fact the total net warming estimate 1850-2000 is 0.6 ± 0.2 °C. We know how much CO2 increased and we have IPCC's formula to see how much that heated the atmosphere, so where did all that heat go? Perhaps Hansen can tell us:
Um, no... that can't be right because the warming of the oceans from the 1990s up to 2002 did not persist (see, e.g., “Correction to ‘Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean’” by Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson and John Gilson) -- the oceans may not have cooled but they didn't get any warmer either and the previous warming trend is now believed to be an artifact of measurement. As far as we are aware no one claims ocean heat content increase since 2002, which leaves quite a conundrum. What happened to an estimate of surplus heat sufficient to warm the atmosphere some 30+ °C over 6 years? It didn't go into the oceans, where researchers have been looking for it. It most certainly didn't warm the atmosphere (where everyone would've noticed) and it for sure didn't all go into melting ice since that much heat would've melted enough ice to raise the oceans by more than 4 feet (something also sure to be noticed). It is possible, however unlikely, that heat is being transferred and stored in a manner escaping the multi-billion-dollar annual effort to observe it. It is possible we are entirely wrong about the laws of physics and heat simply disappears. It is significantly more likely that climate models and IPCC assertions are wildly erroneous and the alleged trace gas-driven warming did not exist to begin with, which would explain why we cannot observe it. Odd that even Hansen's GISTEMP, itself a galloping outlier in the warming stakes, claims a trend hundreds of times smaller than that which the IPCC's simplified formula insists must be... Users will have to decide for themselves whether to believe PlayStation® Climatology or their own lying eyes. Of course, there is another explanation. It could be that people telling you "human-made climate forcings, mainly greenhouse gases, heat the earth’s surface at a rate of about two watts per square meter—the equivalent of two tiny one-watt bulbs burning over every square meter of the planet" are not providing the right calculation to start with. The above calculations, while perfectly valid in themselves, produce obviously ridiculous answers and must be based on flawed premises, which indeed they are. Alleged radiative imbalance from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide does not and can not produce surface warming at the rate of 1.63 Joules every second. As promised above, following is a form for you to play around with atmospheric heating. Additionally, this form introduces another layer of complexity, that of oceanic absorption. Bear in mind that every 10 meters of water column is equivalent to one entire atmosphere (10 cubic meters of water has a mass of 10,000 Kg, the same as a 1 meter square column through the atmosphere), meaning that the oceans are an enormous heat sink. There is a theory that we can not find atmospheric warming because the oceans are absorbing it and 300 atmosphere's worth of oceans make the temperature change far too small to measure. To use the form simply fill in the atmospheric carbon dioxide level in parts per million (ppmv), this can be the current or some future estimated level and the form will accept any value from 280 (pre-Industrial Revolution) to 2400 (8xCO2). By default the form will deliver atmospheric heating only but you have the option of including oceanic warming to a depth of your choice (simply enter the depth in meters, the default is zero, maximum 3,000). Your result is the expected warming over one year provided no increase in radiation efficiency occurs (that is, if all additional Joules are retained in the system rather than any increase in radiation to space, no alteration in specific humidity, precipitation efficiency...). Notice that even small carbon dioxide perturbance not shared with the ocean produces warming which we could easily detect but have not. This tells us that either the warming is true but the oceans are sharing it with the atmosphere -- in which case there is little atmospheric warming to worry about -- or that other mechanisms are increasing Earth's emission efficiency such that the warming is not occurring to begin with. Whichever the case it should be obvious after using this simple model that the people waving their hands and claiming catastrophic warming over short time frames are not accurately depicting the world. If heat is being retained in the system according to the enhanced greenhouse effect then it is being distributed through the system and why not? Nature hates a temperature gradient and as soon as one develops in the fluid atmosphere it will be dealt with by transport. Some of this excess could be absorbed by the oceans but, as you can see from the simple model here, we couldn't detect such trivial increases even if we could measure them because our baseline data is not up to the task. Neither are we able to tell yet whether small increases in precipitation efficiency, cloud formation, convective towers and poleward transport are increasing Earth's radiation to space. The IPCC says (AR4 WGI, pg 277) "...outgoing LW radiation over the tropics appears to have increased by about 0.7 Wm-2 ..." which would mean more Joules are leaving the system. The same calculations show solar radiation being absorbed more (2.1 Wm-2), which doesn't make sense (i.e. theory would say that outgoing LW should decrease while solar should stay the same more or less, thus in the net, joules should be accumulating) so it's a fair bet our measurement precision is not yet up to the task. People are even trying to measure Earth-shine reflected from the moon to try to figure out what's going on. One thing we do know. The atmosphere is not heating at around 5 °C per year and so one or more of the following must be true:
Murdock: The chills of Global Cooling As cap-and-trade advocates tie their knickers in knots over so-called "global warming," Mother Nature refuses to cooperate. Earth's temperatures continue a chill that began 11 years ago. As global cooling accelerates, global-warmists kick, scream, and push their pet theory -- just like little kids who cover their ears and stomp their feet when older children tell them not to bother waiting up for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. (Deroy Murdock, Scripps Howard News Service)
NASA Warming Scientist Hansen Blasts Obama's 'Counterfeit' Climate Bill - Calls it 'a monstrous absurdity...less than worthless!' Below is an excerpt of NASA scientist James Hansen's critique of the President Obama supported Waxman-Markey global warming cap-and-trade bill that passed the House and is now under consideration in the U.S. Senate. Hansen's full critique appeared on July 9, 2009 in The Huffington Post. Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, but he writes on this policy-related topic as a private citizen. (Marc Morano, Climate Depot)
A matter of faith? Americans value science, but not all of it: survey CHICAGO - Many Americans still value the nation's scientific achievements, but unlike most scientists, they often pick and choose which scientific findings they agree
with, especially in the areas of climate change and evolution, according to a survey released on Thursday.
Democrats Feel the Heat From the Heartland, Push Back Timeline on Global Warming Legislation WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, today commented on the announcement that
Senate Democrats will push back their timeline on climate legislation.
Obama's drive for climate change bill hits delay WASHINGTON - As President Barack Obama encouraged world leaders meeting in Italy to intensify the fight against global warming, legislation to cut U.S. emissions of
greenhouse gases suffered a delay in the Senate on Thursday.
Waxman Climate Bill is California Dreamin Thirty-four-year US Representative, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman of Los Angeles is the key sponsor of the recently-passed (yet unread) American Clean Energy and Security Act; a.k.a., the “Waxman-Markey Climate Bill.” The thousand-paged bill narrowly passed the House along partisan lines, and is expected to be severely scaled back or killed in ongoing Senate deliberations. Waxman’s bill copies the costly and ubiquitous green regulations that have caused businesses and the middleclass to flee California in recent decades. In the midst of recession, the fanciful green economy of Waxman- Markey carbon taxes and bureaucratic bingeing for purely symbolic, marginal environmental improvements that now cripple California will surely stall any national economic recovery. (Paul Taylor, LA Ecopolitics Examiner)
EPA Admits Cap-and-Trade Won't Work With the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passing the House on June 26th, we turn our attention to the Senate side of the debate. And it’s already starting:
G8, err, G7 ban ice ages and order a global economic collapse The leaders of several G8 countries suffer from a psychiatric disorder. They have commanded the Earth and the waters to keep their temperature within two degrees. Moreover, the CO2 output of most countries should drop by 80 percent or more - by a factor of five or more - by 2050. Yes, it is hysterical. (The Reference Frame)
Poorer Nations Reject a Target on Emission Cut L’AQUILA, Italy — The world’s biggest developing nations, led by China and India, refused Wednesday to commit to specific goals for slashing heat-trapping gases by 2050, undercutting the drive to build a global consensus by the end of this year to reverse the threat of climate change. (NYT)
G8: World leaders fail to agree specific target for climate cuts in L'Aquila - Rich and developing countries agree only to 'substantially reduce' global emissions by 2050 World leaders, including the developing nations, yesterday committed themselves only to "substantially reducing global emissions by 2050", but failed to agree a
specific target, according to a draft of the communique due to be issued later today.
Channeling King Canute, G-8 leaders agree to wreck the world's economy, and ours, by pledging to prevent temperatures from rising more than 4 degrees by 2050. What if the Earth has other plans? (IBD)
Funny how ideologues invoke 'science': UN chief rebukes G8 over climate failures L'AQUILA, Italy — The U.N. chief sharply rebuked the Group of Eight leaders on Thursday for failing to make more commitments to reducing climate change in the near term,
saying they must do so if the heavily polluting developing world is to follow suit.
Obama vows U.S. will lead the way on climate change The president, speaking from a forum in Italy, commended efforts by assembled leaders to set guidelines, including an 80% reduction in emissions by industrialized nations by 2050. (LA Times)
China On Carbon Tariffs: Drop Dead It didn’t take long. On July 5, just nine days after the House passed the cap and trade bill (also known as Waxman-Markey) Chinese officials made it clear they are
opposed to any carbon taxation scheme. Yao Jian, the spokesman for China’s Commerce Ministry, said the bill violates basic principles of the World Trade Organization and
said that the ruse of environmental protection was being used to protect trade and that it could induce a trade war.
Did Al Gore and the IPCC deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? Discuss. According to the eponymous Alfie, a Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'. So what's it doing in the hands of Al Gore and the IPCC, wonders Dr Jon Barnett in the latest edition of the journal Climatic Change. Sure, Gore and Co. opened society's eyes to the dangers of global warming, but climate change research has also given the world a jolly good excuse to gear up for war, he points out. War. As in the opposite of peace. Why? Because an apocalyptic vision of climate-induced chaos is music to the ears of thumb-twiddling national security forces in the West, opines Dr Barnett, an associate professor at the University of Melbourne's Department of Resource Management and Geography. 'Security and defence agencies require problems to justify their continued existence in a world where the threat of war has diminished since the end of the cold war', Dr Barnett suggests. 'They seem to be appropriating the dangers of climate change to serve these institutional agendas'. To illustrate his point, Barnett cites a report commissioned by the US military, which eagerly warned that climate change will 'potentially destabilize the geopolitical environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints'. (More money, please.) Of course, none of this is the fault of Al Gore and the IPCC: they are but pawns in a wider geopolitical game. As Al Gore said in his Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech about something entirely different, 'we never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war.' (Blog of Bloom)
Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick James Delingpole talks to Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist, whose new book shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact. Shame on the publishers who rejected the book. (James Delingpole, The Spectator)
Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, July 10th 2009 Welcome to the hippie-head popping round-up of all things inconvenient and skeptical from the wacky world of global warming. (Daily Bayonet)
Poor George Monbiot is even miserabler than usual:
His problem is that lots of commenters don’t agree with him. And Monbiot flatters himself that there can be only reason for that - someone must be paying them to do so:
Monbiot even once went as far as challenging one of the commenters, who ignored him. Which has got to prove something:
As it happens, we’ve been making the odd venture into Comment is Free discussions recently, and the funny thing is that the vast majority of our time on there has been spent fending off accusations that we are paid deniers, astroturfers, corporate sock-puppets, and that we’ve been posting under multiple aliases as part of an orchestrated campaign. Monbiot’s preoccupation with astroturfers and the like sits hilariously with the fact that it is environmentalism that claims to be the grassroots movement trying to be heard above the din of the well-funded denial machine. The truth is of course that environmental orthodoxy is being driven from the top down, and comprises a range of corporate interests, policy-makers, media types, academics, NGO’s and private-school activists. The group it has most spectacularly failed to win over is the electorate. There’s a whole lot of people out there who disagree vehemently with Monbiot - too many for any denial machine to be able to afford to pay. This failure is explained by the Monbiots of this world as the result of the influence of ‘deniers’, of course. Deniers have accordingly become the key antagonists in environmental mythology. But rather than taking on the arguments of the deniers, George has a fantasy battle in his own head. These fantasy deniers say so much more about George than they say about the real world. (Climate Resistance)
Hey Paul Krugman, Here are 2.4 Billion More Traitors Some questions defy answers. Among the most famous of those: “What’s the sound of one hand clapping?” Over the past week, another question has been added to the
answer-defying list: “how do you charge 2.4 billion people with treason?”
Inevitable consequence of bad business decisions: The Climate for Climate-Related Insurance at AIG Turns Bleak A debate about climate change was coming to a boil at the highest levels of American International Group in 2006. Leaders of the once-reigning insurance giant were
wrangling over the company's position on human responsibility for the Earth's warming.
Shifting rains impact Pacific Islands A prominent band of rain that circles the equator has moved hundreds of kilometres north over the last few centuries, probably because of a changing climate.
Critters adapt and exploit new niches? Who'd figure? Seals Quickly Respond To Gain And Loss Of Habitat Under Climate Change Southern Elephant seals responded rapidly to climate and habitat change and established a new breeding site thousands of kilometres from existing breeding grounds,
according to new research.
As promised, Professor Andy Pitman has prepared a guest weblog GUEST WEBLOG BY ANDY PITMAN In a recent web blog, our paper (Pitman and Perkins, “Global And Regional Comparison Of Daily 2m And 1000 hPa Maximum And Minimum Temperatures In Three Global Re-analyses” was profiled. It is stated in the blog that: “The finding of the large uncertainties in the 2m temperatures raises serious questions as to how accurately can the multi-decadal global climate models predict 2m temperatures decades into the future (and for past time periods) if the near surface boundary layer representation in the models, as represented by the reanalyses, is so poor. The reanalyses even have observed real world atmospheric data to constrain the model results. The answer, of course, is that multi-decadal global models cannot skillfully predict 2m temperatures, even IF the atmosphere above the surface were realistically simulated. This indicates we should have little or no confidence on predictions of surface air temperatures, even on a global average, in the coming decades.” I will deal with each of these in turn since it is an interpretation of our paper that I do not think is valid. Specifically, while someone may have the view that the statements above are right they are not views I share and they are not views that can be reasonably concluded from our paper. 1. “The finding of the large uncertainties in the 2m temperatures raises serious questions as to how accurately can the multi-decadal global climate models predict 2m temperatures decades into the future (and for past time periods) if the near surface boundary layer representation in the models, as represented by the reanalyses, is so poor. The reanalyses even have observed real world atmospheric data to constrain the model results.” This is a misunderstanding. As discussed on the paper, reanalyses add or remove soil moisture from the soil – they nudge soil moisture – to minimize errors in the atmosphere [not the 2m air temperature – the lowest model layer temperature]. This nudging is a fudge – it is a fudge for the best of reasons [to minimize atmospheric errors] but it means that there is a non-conservation of energy and water at the surface. This means in my view that you should never ever use soil moisture, latent heat flux or sensible heat from a reanalysis. It also means that soil moisture etc is adjusted – and it is these quantities that influence the lower boundary condition for the reanalysis when an interpolation is performed to try to estimate the 2m air temperature. Exactly how 2 m air temperature is affected is not possible to determine since the boundary layer schemes and the precise formulation of the methods used to derive the 2m temperatures are not published so far as I know. It turns out that the way the soil moisture is fudged affects the 2m air temperature. We explored the probability density functions of the latent heat fluxes – these were not included in the paper since there was no resemblance between the three reanalyses and we could not evaluate them using observations. The appropriate conclusion is – do NOT use the 2m air temperature blindly from reanalyses [the 1000 hPa and lowest model temperatures are not affected by this issue and I suspect are very reliable and useful products]. What does this mean for IPCC AR4 models? Nothing. AR4 models do not assimilate soil moisture – they conserve energy and water at the surface. The problem we have identified does not affect or influence AR4 climate models. The blog hints that AR4 models use similar boundary layer schemes to the reanalyses. This is not something we can know specifically because we do not know precisely how the reanalyses implement the interpolation to 2m temperatures [the codes are not published]. It may be that there are flaws in the AR4 boundary layer schemes. It may be that there are problems with the AR4 2m temperatures but: (a) this cannot be assumed. Out paper does not hint at anything to do with the AR4 models and extrapolated our results to the AR4 models is invalid at worse and guess work at best. (b) A paper by Perkins, S.E., A.J. Pitman, N.J. Holbrook and J. McAneney, 2007, Evaluation of the AR4 climate models’ simulated daily maximum temperature, minimum temperature and precipitation over Australia using probability density functions, J. Climate, 20, 4356- 4376. did look at PDFs of daily maximum and minimum 2m temperatures. This paper showed that some AR4 models were stunningly good in simulating the 2m temperatures. Of course, this was limited to Australia – it may be that the AR4 models work beautifully over Australia on our measure but fail elsewhere but that s guess work and someone should explore this. The blog also said 2. “The answer, of course, is that multi-decadal global models cannot skillfully predict 2m temperatures, even IF the atmosphere above the surface were realistically simulated. This indicates we should have little or no confidence on predictions of surface air temperatures, even on a global average, in the coming decades.” I do not understand this statement. I do not understand how a reanalysis method of fudging soil moisture that affects the 2m air temperature can be used to comment on the AR4 models which do not use this method. This is like finding a fault in your car and interpreting it to be a problem for someone’s aeroplane. Our results do not indicate anything whatsoever about AR4 projections since we did not use AR4 models. Other evidence that we have (the Perkins et al. paper) forms a partial case – circumstantial evidence perhaps – that some AR4 models can quite superbly simulate the 2m air temperatures. But lets be rigorous here – our evidence is partial. It is indicative. Our metric is by no means definitive and needs to be applied elsewhere to falsify or support the Perkins et al. conclusions. In summary, our new paper – the subject of this blog - means the following. Do not use 2m air temperature blindly from the reanalyses. Do not use soil moisture, latent heat or sensible heat fluxes from the reanalyses. You can use the 1000 hPa or other free atmospheric quantities. I do not think other interpretations of our paper are scientifically sound. Andy Pitman (Climate Science)
Barack Obama: Incompetency’s Gift to Big Oil? During the 2008 election, Barak Obama constantly quipped about “Big Oil” (i.e. successful American energy providers.) They allegedly ran the Bush administration; they
had filled John McCain’s pockets with dirty money; they were profiting from the high oil prices that they had somehow magically caused; and they were gleefully killing the
Earth (which, of course, oilmen won’t need anymore after they take their ill-gotten gains back to their sunless home world deep in the Crab Nebula.)
Oil Industry Group CEO Calls for More Drilling U.S. energy policy should encourage more conventional oil and gas exploration in addition to fostering the development of alternative energy resources, said Jack Gerard,
president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, an advocacy group for the industry.
Is There an Oil Spike on the Horizon? So, have the past 12 months been a blip in the relentless charge ahead or were speculators the cause of an unsustainable boom?
Sierra Club hates green plants: Utah coal plant scuttled, 100th in U.S. since 2002 LOS ANGELES - The Intermountain Power Agency said on Thursday it will not continue efforts to seek an air permit for a third 900-megawatt coal-fired power unit at its
plant in Utah.
A Rational Look at Climate Change Concerns & the Implications for U.S. Power Companies Written by Kimball Rasmussen President – CEO of Deseret Power
UK facing 'energy crunch' as North Sea oil and gas cash dries up The UK is heading for an "energy crunch" after new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea dropped 57pc in the first half of this year. (Daily Telegraph)
Ukraine to Avert New Gas Crisis With Russia Europe is working overtime to avoid a repeat of last winter’s Russian gas cuts that left millions without heat and electricity. But its challenge is formidable. The Europeans must convince international lenders -- who are in the midst of a credit crisis -- to give billions of dollars to Ukraine’s notoriously unreliable state energy company, Naftogaz Ukrainy. And to make things a bit more complicated, Naftogaz is tangled in an intensifying internal political feud ahead of Ukraine’s presidential elections. (ET)
Israel’s Tamar Gas Field to Yield More Than Expected The natural gas reserves at the Tamar 2 drilling site off the coast of Haifa are now estimated to be up to 30 percent greater than expected and may reach 180 billion cubic
meters, TheMarker has learned.
Shipping Industry To Feel Heat Over CO2 Emissions LONDON/BRUSSELS - Failure by the U.N.'s shipping agency to come up with bold enough proposals to address carbon emissions by the industry could compel the European Union
to impose solutions directly.
Car Makers Losing Fight Against EU Chemicals Ban BRUSSELS - Auto makers look set to fail in their attempts to delay an agreed 2011 European ban on climate-damaging chemicals in the air conditioners of new car models, a
letter from the EU's industry chief shows.
Ed. Note: This article first appeared on Geoffrey Styles' blog, Energy Outlook.
July 9, 2009
Remembering the care in healthcare In light of what we’ve seen planned for Medicare coverage and from comparative effectiveness analysis, mention of an old essay for nurses and medical professionals on medical ethics felt like an especially important reminder. I first read it when it was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association nearly a dozen years ago. (Junkfood Science)
PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge unrealistic WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama promised to fix health care and trim the federal budget deficit, all without raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans.
It's a promise he's already broken and will likely have to break again.
Another claim you can catch fat? Is Obesity An Oral Bacterial Disease? A scientific team from The Forsyth Institute has discovered new links between certain oral bacteria and obesity. In a recent study, the researchers demonstrated that the salivary bacterial composition of overweight women differs from non-overweight women. This preliminary work may provide clues to interactions between oral bacteria and the pathology of obesity. This research may help investigators learn new avenues for fighting the obesity epidemic. (ScienceDaily)
USDA to oversee school snack food: Senate ag chair WASHINGTON - The U.S. Agriculture Department would be given the power to regulate all food sold in schools -- including vending machine snacks -- when Congress renews
child nutrition programs, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee said on Tuesday.
Can't balance the budget? Blame fatso... Economic toll of obesity and inactivity exceeds $41 billion in California The excess weight and inactive habits of many Californians don't only exact a personal toll, they're saddling businesses and taxpayers with more than $41 billion in annual
costs, according to a report released today.
Obesity worries lift health food prospects in Asia TAIPEI - It's the growing number of customers such as Bill Chung, who is on a diet after packing on 30 kilograms, that food companies hope to attract as they expand health
food lines in Asia.
Who can you trust? Not scientists, say ... scientists ExxonMobil is still pumping money into organisations which publish 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change, according to the Guardian. How rotten of them. How shocking. Or is it? According to new research published in the journal PloS ONE, scientists (all of 'em, not just the ones in the pay of ExxonMobil) regularly publish 'unreliable' research. 'Even if conducted at best possible practice, scientific research is never entirely free of errors', note Thomas Pfeiffer at Harvard University and Robert Hoffman at MIT. Now get this. Researchers who work on 'hot' subjects like climate change (and yeast, apparently) are more likely to get it wrong than those who slave away over the less glamorous aspects of science. Fine, everyone makes mistakes. But what if members of the scientific community are deliberately publishing misleading and inaccurate research? 'In highly competitive fields there might be stronger incentives to 'manufacture' positive results by, for example, modifying data or statistical tests', concludes the study. Worrying stuff. If it's true - here's hoping that the study's authors made a few mistakes themselves. (Blog of Bloom)
'Reverting back to nature': 'For every acre of rainforest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing' Jan. 30, 2009: New York Times: 'Galloping jungle': Farmlands reverts back to nature as
saving the rainforests becomes 'less urgent' - 'For every acre of rainforest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing' 'Save the trees' more political myth than environmental truth - Jan. 2009 Flashback to the year 2000: Climate Depot's Executive Editor Marc Morano was producer and correspondent for documentary "Amazon Rainforest: Clear-Cutting the Myths." Below are reprints of articles and interviews from 2000 regarding the groundbreaking documentary. (Marc Morano, Climate Depot)
Environmental vandals deface Mt Rushmore: Greenpeace members charged in Mount Rushmore G-8 protest Eleven members of Greenpeace pleaded not guilty to federal charges after they were arrested for hanging a banner on South Dakota's Mount Rushmore Wednesday to protest
global warming as the G-8 summit in Italy begins.
Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, warned Congress that it has been “badly misinformed” about
man-made global warming fears.
Luetkemeyer Bill Would Save Taxpayers $12.5 Million, Denies Funding for UN's Junk Science WASHINGTON, D.C. _ U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) today introduced legislation that would save taxpayers $12.5 million this year and millions more in the future by
prohibiting the United States from contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is fraught with waste and is engaged in dubious
science.
G8 Agrees To Limit Global Warming; China, India Resist L'AQUILA - The G8 agreed on Wednesday to try to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius and cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent, but it failed to persuade
China and India to join a bid to halve world emissions.
Copenhagen Climate Deal Depends On U.S.: Analyst London - The emergence of a global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Copenhagen in December hinges on the United States passing its own climate bill before then,
analysts at Point Carbon said on Wednesday. "The probability that an international agreement with quantative targets will be signed in Copenhagen in December is at least
50 percent," the research group said in a report.
Economy-killer as a stimulus... does it get any more stupid? Lousy Economy Could Swing Climate Change Vote Though Republicans portray climate change legislation as an energy tax that would cost families thousands of dollars a year, the worsening budget woes in dozens of states
are increasing chances the Senate will enact a bill this year.
Gov. Barbour Dives, Once More, Into the Climate Fray Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour jumped back into the climate debate yesterday, seemingly eager to face the wrath of environmentalists.
Byrd Blasts ‘Cap and Trade’ - Senior W.Va. senator stands firmly behind coal WHEELING - He is not yet back to work in the Senate chamber, but U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd is opposing "cap and trade" legislation pushed by the Obama
administration.
Climate change bill pits environment against economy in Senate WASHINGTON— Expert panelists and senators questioned at a hearing Wednesday whether U.S. trade competitiveness abroad would be hurt by a House-approved climate change
bill.
McCaskill: House Climate Bill Won't Pass The Senate The climate change bill that squeaked through the House just before recess doesn't have a chance in the Senate, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said Tuesday.
Rep. Waxman giving Senate room to work on climate change bill The chief architect of the climate change bill that barely squeaked by the House last month indicated Wednesday that he’s open to seeing the bill significantly altered
by the Senate if that’s what it takes to ensure its passage.
Russia rejects G8 emissions cut target - Kremlin aide L'AQUILA, July 8 – Russia refuses to back a target of an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 proposed by other Group of Eight countries, a Kremlin aide said on
Wednesday after the first day of the G8 summit in Italy.
Group of 8 Agrees On a Ceiling for Temperature Rise - Broader Carbon Proposal Is Rejected L'AQUILA, Italy, July 8 -- The world's leading industrial nations tentatively agreed Wednesday to try to prevent global temperatures from rising above a fixed level, after
a more far-reaching proposal to slash production of greenhouse gases fizzled, according to U.S. and European negotiators.
G8 welcomes developing states, eyes climate, trade L'AQUILA, Italy - Leaders of the world's richest and main developing nations meet on Thursday to try to find common ground on global warming and international trade, with
the poorer countries seeking concessions.
Poorer Nations Reject a Target on Emission Cut L’AQUILA, Italy — The world’s biggest developing nations, led by China and India, refused Wednesday to commit to specific goals for slashing heat-trapping gases by
2050, undercutting the drive to build a global consensus by the end of this year to reverse the threat of climate change.
G-8 climate deal elusive for President Obama L’AQUILA, Italy—President Barack Obama is likely to come home from a series of back-to-back international summits here without agreement on the crux of a global deal to limit climate change, after developing countries balked at setting numerical targets to reduce their carbon emissions, U.S. officials said. (Politico)
NCGA: Climate Change - At The Table Or On The Table? In an article to appear in our upcoming quarterly report, National Corn Growers Association President Bob Dickey discusses the importance of the organization’s playing
an active role in the pending Waxman-Markey climate change bill, to ensure that if it passes Congress it more clearly accommodates the needs of U.S. farmers. “As a result
of our being ‘at the table,’ the climate change bill that recently passed in the House is dramatically different and much more favorable than the initial bill.”
U2's 'massive carbon footprint' called into question U2 and Bono’s long-held commitment to “save the planet” has come into question after it emerged they have a carbon footprint big enough to fly the band to Mars and
back.
They need to decide which faith they adhere to, Christianity or Pagan Earthism: Church must repent for climate change sins The Methodist Church is calling upon Christians to acknowledge and repent of the sins they have committed that have contributed to climate change. (Christian Today)
Something Troubling is In the Air You may want to think twice before taking your next deep breath. Every time you exhale, you’re supposedly endangering the planet -- by contributing to global warming.
The Medieval Warm Period linked to the success of Machu Picchu, Inca Empire According to Wikipedia, the Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around AD 800-1300 during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying
Of course, there’s many researchers, such as Michael Mann and his thoroughly discredited “hockey stick” that try mightily to make the MWP disappear. News flash to IPCC. Now a scientist has linked the MWP to success of the Inca civilization in the southern hemisphere. It is not going away any time soon, it is spreading. The new study is called “Putting the Rise of the Inca within a Climatic and Land Management Context” and was prepared by Alex Chepstow-Lusty, an English paleo-biologist working for the French Institute of Andean Studies, in Lima. Link to paper (PDF) is here (h/t to WUWT reader Corey)
Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill? Forecasting accuracy of Global Climate Models is something that has been at the very heart of the global warming debate for some time. Leif Svalgaard turned me on to this paper in GRL today: Reifen, C., and R. Toumi (2009), Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L13704, doi:10.1029/2009GL038082. PDF available here It makes a very interesting point about the “stationarity” of climate feedback strengths. In a nutshell, it says that climate models break down after a time because both forcings and feedbacks don’t remain static, and the program can’t predict such changes. (WUWT)
There is a news article Heffernan, O, 2009: UK climate effects revealed in finest detail yet. 19 June 2009, Nature, doi:10.1038/news.2009.586, which presents detailed predictions for the United Kingdom in the 2080s. The abstract reads “Scientists in London yesterday delivered unprecedented regional climate projections for the United Kingdom, detailing how the nation — piece by piece, in sections measuring just 25 square kilometres — will probably be affected by climate change. The projections, which update the findings of the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) from 2002, are the first of their kind worldwide.” See also: UK ‘must plan’ for warmer future [Thanks to Eric Gillies for alerting us to this article]. This study, which has not even been peer reviewed, is an embarrassment to the scientific method; e.g. Short Circuiting The Scientific Process - A Serious Problem In The Climate Science Community Nature clearly is using it to promote an agenda. The article includes the text “Their main message is that without substantial efforts to cut global greenhouse-gas emissions, Britons could be in for a hard time by the 2080s. Although the risk of flooding will worsen in the North West of the country, the South East will face an anticipated 22% decline in summer rainfall. Depending on the rate of future emissions, London could see a temperature increase of between 2°C and 6°C, and as much as a 36-centimetre rise in local sea levels.” There is some balance in the news article; e.g. “Originally slated for release in November 2008, the projections were delayed by an independent review commissioned late last year to check the methodology. University of Oxford climatologist Myles Allen, who was on the review committee, worries that the results are ’stretching the ability of current climate science’”, but the study itself is clearly a subversion of the scientific method. To state that that climate science is being stretched is quite an understatement. There is absolutely no multi-decadal prediction skill on the spatial scales presented in this study. The scientists who present the viewpoint of skillful multi-decadal regional predictions to policymakers are deliberately and dishonestly misinforming the public and policymakers. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Follow Up On The Weblog On The New Pitman And Perkins 2009 Paper When I posted the weblog I sent it to Professor Pitman to alert him to its posting. He replied and said he does not agree with the conclusion regarding the lack of skill in the prediction of the 2m temperatures by the multi-decadal global climate models. He concludes that the reanalyses place any near surface errors into the soil moisture, and that the reanalyses do not conserve energy or water, and this error likely affects 2m temperatures. He states that the weblog is misleading as their paper cannot be used to say anything about the AR4 models, since those models conserve energy and water, and therefore do not add a bias to the lower atmosphere. Andy referred to his paper Perkins, S.E., A.J. Pitman, N.J. Holbrook and J. McAneney, 2007, Evaluation of the AR4 climate models? simulated daily maximum temperature, minimum temperature and precipitation over Australia using probability density functions, /J. Climate/, *20*, 4356- 4376 to support his view with respect to the skill of the multi-decadal global model simulations. There are reasons that I disagree with him on this subject including the following: 1. A fundamental question is the relative role of the reanalyses surface layer parameterization along with the temperature and moisture data from 1000mb, 850 mb etc, versus the use of observed surface temperatures and moisture in obtaining the 2m temperatures, and how this differs with the AR4 models (where the surface temperatures and moisture are predicted). 2. The 1000 mb values, of course, agree closely among all the reanalyses since this is a standard radiosonde level. For the AR4 models to obtain results as accurate as the reanalyses at 1000 mb (which is a prerequisite for skillful 2m temperatures), they must predict these levels with at least the same accuracy. This cannot be tested with a probabilistic approach but needs to be performed on an event basis. 3. Given that the reanalysis use real world observed data to assimilate into the models that are used for the reanalysis (e.g. the temperatures and moisture at 1000mb and 850mb), the AR4 models must achieve at least as good a prediction of the 1000mb and 850mb temperatures and moisture. These levels are essential data to properly diagnose the 2m temperatures. Professor Pitman has agreed to complete a guest weblog on this issue, and we will post as soon as available. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
More huge errors in HadCRUT3 gridded temperature data The brave prediction, “Sydney’s climate to ‘become like Brisbane’s’” for 2100 by staff
at James Cook University means that Sydney Airport will warm by ~2.75 degrees C relative to Brisbane Airport (based
on 1961-1990 averages) for this prediction to come true. It is obvious that the Sydney Urban Heat Island (UHI) has already notionally moved Sydney north but we will all be
departed when it falls due to adjudicate on this claim by JCU staff in 90 odd years time.
NOAA/NASA sunspot prediction increasingly irrelevant in mid 2009 Updating my January 2009 post, the ROYAL OBSERVATORY OF BELGIUM have
published their June RI number at 2.6. Space Weather Operations in Boulder CO are yet to publish their SWO
number.
I have just been told of this very readable and informative website translated into English by Spanish climatologist Antón Uriarte. I am enjoying his pages and thought I would share. (Warwick Hughes)
A single sunspot means the minimum is over?
And here is the same sunspot previously reported: Now while I might welcome the return of the sunspot cycle, I caution everyone to be patient, as we’ve had these false dawns many times before. Here’s the animation, courtesy of Solarcycle24.com: The question is: have the other indicators of sunspot activity similarly risen? More in a moment…
How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course A report from a worldwide consortium of research institutes led by Oxford and the London School of Economics and Political Science argues that climate policy needs to focus on improving energy efficiency and decarbonising the energy supply, as opposed to setting emissions targets. With the G8 set to meet in Italy this week, a report from a worldwide consortium of research institutes is arguing that the only policies that will work are those which focus on improvement in energy efficiency and the decarbonisation of energy supplies. The report, published by the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society at the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics and Political Science’s Mackinder Programme, argues that this approach is more effective than a model based on emissions targets. Called How to Get Climate Policy back on Course, the report argues that the recent Japanese ‘Mamizu’ climate strategy is the world’s first to start down this ‘real world’ course in sharp contrast to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the UK Climate Change Act and the US Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation. Professor Steve Rayner, Director of InSIS at the University of Oxford, said: ‘The world has centuries of experience in decarbonising its energy supply and Japan has led the world in policy-driven improvements in energy efficiency. These are the models to which we ought to be looking.’ Professor Gwyn Prins, from LSE, said: ‘Worthwhile policy builds upon what we know works and upon what is feasible rather than trying to deploy never-before implemented policies through complex institutions requiring a hitherto unprecedented and never achieved degree of global political alignment.’ The paper’s 12 co-authors come from leading research institutes in Europe (England, Germany, Finland), North America (Canada, USA) and Asia (Australia, Japan). The report points out that between 1990 and 2000 the carbon intensity of the global economy was 0.27 tonnes for every additional $1000 of GDP. In the period 2001 to 2006 this rose to 0.53 tonnes. The Obama Administration has argued that one should never waste a good crisis. How to Get Climate Policy back on Course shows how deep the crisis of climate policy really is and gives a real world alternative to the continued pursuit of policies that have so clearly failed. How to Get Climate Policy back on Course is the sequel to The Wrong Trousers: Radically Re-thinking Climate Policy (2007), its influential LSE/Oxford predecessor. Download the full report: How to Get Climate Policy back on Course (pdf) Media contact:
More evidence doesn't change minds More and better scientific data on climate change will only convince the convinced - a new study shows that people will question the research behind climate change if the
results clash with their beliefs.
Thanks to George Carty for pointing us to the Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum, where someone named Klaus Allmendinger has spotted something strange in the small print of a new report from WWF and Allianz insurance that claims to rank G8 countries in terms of their progress towards CO2 emissions targets:
Not only does the report clearly not do what it claims to do, and not only is this another instance of Big Insurance joining forces with Big Environment to whip up alarm (not to mention premiums) about environmental risks (Allianz join Munich Re, RMS and Catlin), but, by ranking countries in terms of energy - rather than CO2 - production, it also supports our suggestion that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in human aspirations. (Climate Resistance)
Not So Fast With Those Electric Cars A government report says reliance on electric cars will do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and may merely shift our dependence on foreign sources from one set of
dictators to another.
July 8, 2009
More bad news for the endocrine disruptor gang Virtually all of the "scary" work on endocrine disruptors has been based on overblown findings in rodent studies. Although many of us think we know some human rats, the fact is that: Rodents are not good models for human fetal germ cell development and, in view of the contrasting effects of phthalates on certain fetal characteristics in rats and mice, it is unclear whether the rat is a suitable model for the human. {Mitchell R, Cowan G, Morris KD, Anderson RA, Fraser HM, Mckenzie KJ, Wallace WHB, Kelnar CJH, Saunders PTK, Sharpe RM. Germ cell differentiation in the marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) during fetal and neonatal life closely parallels that in the human. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:2755-2765.} As such, the marmoset, a non-human primate, was used in a recent study to investigate if phthalate exposure can affect testis development. { McKinnell C, Mitchell RT, Walker M, Morris K, Kelnar CJ, Wallace WH, Sharpe RM. Effect of fetal or neonatal exposure to monobutyl phthalate (MBP) on testicular development and function in the marmoset. Hum Reprod 2009 Jun 2. [Epub ahead of print] }This study comprised two portions, one in which pregnant marmosets were dosed with monobutyl phthalate (MBP), and another in which newborn males were dosed with the same amount of MBP per body weight. No measurable effects were observed in either portion of the study. That's right: Despite doses of 500 mg/kg of body weight per day, nothing happened. I wonder what Freddie vom Saal, Shanna Swan, and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine crew (all charter members of the endocrine disruptor gang) have to say about this?Listen to Chris Bryant, managing director of the American Chemistry Council: "This new research adds significantly to earlier work, and increases the overall weight of scientific evidence that suggests primates, which include humans, are more resistant to the effects of phthalates than are lab rodents. Japanese research published in 2006 by Tomonari et al showed that huge doses of a phthalate that can affect rodents showed no testicular effects in developing infant marmosets. It is worth noting that there are significant differences even between rats and mice in the way they react to phthalates. So it is not at all surprising that there would be significant differences between rodents and primates." Rodents, of course, have long been favored by researchers since they are cheap, don't take up too much space, and are easy to care for—and kill, for that matter. The problem is that rodents are not humans. Sad to say, non-applicable rodent endocrine disruptor results are only the tip of the iceberg. Untold billions have been spent on cancer therapies that cure mice, but not humans. It's long past time that we leave the rats and mice on the sinking ship of useless rodent results. (Shaw's Eco-Logic)
Big love: Marriage is linked to obesity A new study seems to prove the old yarn that claims people let themselves go once they marry.
Another contrived 'crisis': Childhood Obesity: A National Health Disaster in the Making? Despite aggressive public efforts to curb the rise in obesity, Americans in most states are becoming more obese with each passing year, according to the most recent in a series of annual reports from the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). This discouraging trend emphasizes the failure of policies aimed at healthful nutrition and physical activity, and suggests the country is unlikely to achieve the health goals set forth by Healthy People 2010—an effort aimed at reducing the prevalence of overweight and obesity to less than 15 percent among adults and to less than 5 percent among children by the year 2010. (HealthNews)
Press releases regurgitated as "news": Smart snacking to combat obesity Big news today: We're getting fatter. Obesity rates in adults increased in 23 states and didn't decrease in a single state over the past year, according to this report
released Monday by the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. I suppose this news isn't so shocking, considering that the trend has been going on
for some time. Two thirds of us are now overweight or obese.
New Culprit Behind Obesity's Ill Metabolic Consequences Obesity very often leads to insulin resistance, and now researchers reporting in the July 8 issue of Cell Metabolism, a Cell Press publication, have uncovered another factor behind that ill consequence. The newly discovered culprit—a protein known as pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF for short)—is secreted by fat cells. They also report evidence to suggest that specifically blocking that protein's action may reverse some of the health complications that come with obesity. (ScienceDaily)
Yippee!
Why is the public broadcaster indoctrinating children? BBC calls on children under six to do one thing for nature in Green Balloon Club Week BBC Learning in partnership with the popular CBeebies' Green Balloon Club is calling on youngsters this summer to go outside and do one thing for nature during their
school holidays.
Oh... Tunza International Children’s Conference on the Environment The United Nation Environment Programme in cooperation with UNEP National Committee for the Republic of Korea will be hosting the 2009 Tunza International Children’s Conference on the Environment in Daejeon, Korea from the 17 to 20 August 2009. The Conference whose theme will be Climate Change: Our Challenge will collectively bring together about 400 participants (aged 10 to 14) from over 100 countries. (UNEP)
TUNZA for Children: Junior Board The Tunza Junior Board typically comprises a group of ten child leaders between the ages of 10 and 12 (at the time of election). They work closely with UNEP to provide guideance on how to make UNEP processes more appealing to children, and how to sensitize children on environmental issues. The Board also helps to increase the participation of children in UNEP’s work by informing children’s groups and organizations about UNEP's activities. (UNEP)
FDA cracks down on eggs to reduce illness WASHINGTON - U.S. egg producers will have to adopt tougher food safety measures during production, storage and transportation to help prevent the spread of a deadly strain
of Salmonella bacteria, the Food and Drug Administration said on Tuesday.
European Hot Air - The economic reality of climate-change policy is sinking in at last. Climate change is set to figure prominently in this week's Group of Eight summit in Italy, but take any pronouncements about greenhouse-gas emissions targets with a grain
of salt. While leaders may still think it's good politics to sing from the green hymnal, other realities are finally starting to sink in, especially in Old Europe. To wit:
Restrictions on greenhouse-gas emissions involve huge costs for uncertain gains and are just what economies in recession don't need.
But The Crone doesn't get it: As U.S. Shifts on Climate, Qualms in Europe Remain WASHINGTON — The United States, long a laggard in international efforts to reduce global warming pollution, will arrive at the meeting of the world’s major powers in
Italy this week carrying a newly assertive message on the dangers of climate change and the steps needed to address it.
Can we make China quit the opium of the gases? - Join our crusade against carbon and we’ll keep buying your goods, says the West. But Beijing doesn’t see this as a fair trade Drums are beating for war with China. Tariff swords are being sharpened in Washington and muskets primed with quotas in Brussels. The argument is over a gas, carbon
dioxide, and battle will soon engage the West in a self-righteous crusade against the emerging markets of China and India.
Critique of U.S. Action On Climate Expected at Summits At a pair of international summits dealing with climate change this week, President Obama will be able to point to something no previous president has: a House-approved
bill that would cap U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.
EPW Republicans to Majority: American Public Deserves to Know What Is In the Global Warming Bill - Republicans Send Letter to Majority Demanding More Transparent and Open Process WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, along with all EPW Republican members, today sent a letter to Chairman Boxer requesting that the majority hold hearings on actual climate legislation, so that the American people know which global warming bill will be considered by the Senate. The Republicans write in the letter, “In the House, critical components of their bill were not made public and transparent for review until hours before the final vote on the floor--and only a few days before final vote in the Committee. Certainly you would agree with us that the American people and their elected representatives deserve a public, transparent, and thorough review of this legislation. Recognizing the complexity and the magnitude of this legislation, we request you hold several legislative hearings on the text of legislation that you will mark-up in the Committee.” (EPW)
Waxman: GOP "rooting against" USA Henry Waxman, who has had an eventful couple of weeks to say the least, is slamming the House GOP — saying their opposition to climate change legislation and the stimulus indicates they're cheering against the good 'ol U S of A. (Politico)
Dems won unexpected GOP support for climate bill House Democrats were surprised at the number of Republican votes they won on the razor close climate change vote, which allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to
let a few more Democrats cast their own no votes.
Obama Needs to Engage GOP on Climate Bill: Expert LONDON - Even with the new 60-seat Democrat majority in the U.S. Senate, President Barack Obama needs to cross party lines to gather support for new climate change
legislation, a U.S. climate expert said on Tuesday.
Small Businesses Irate Over Climate Change Bill A growing number of business owners and taxpayers are mobilizing nationwide against the House-approved cap-and-trade energy bill, which would reduce energy consumption but could raise energy prices and harm small businesses. (Joseph Abrams, FOXNews.com)
Part of the scam or just plain stupid? Dow exec: Start cap-and-trade now Washington -- An executive for one of Michigan's biggest manufacturers told a Senate panel today that Congress should act quickly to pass a cap-and-trade program to fight
climate change.
Senate Surprise: EPA Administrator More Honest Than Energy Secretary in Climate Hearing At today’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on carbon control, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) showed EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and Energy Secretary Steven Chu a chart depicting the extremely limited impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations that would result from unilateral action on emissions by the US. The chart had been developed by the EPA for last year’s Warner-Lieberman bill. When Inhofe asked Chu if he agreed with the chart — i.e., whether unilateral US action would have only a negligible impact on the CO2 level — Chu said he disagreed. When Jackson got her turn to comment on the chart, she essentially agreed that the chart was correct and unilateral US action would accomplish little. I guess Chu didn’t win his Nobel for honesty. Here’s the video:
(Green Hell blog)
Or not: A Daily Dollar Could Prevent Climate Change: EPA WASHINGTON - The average American family would pay at most $1 a day more to fight climate change, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told a Senate
committee on Tuesday.
Europeans seek quick G8 pledge to reduce greenhouse emissions As Italy gears up to host the G8 summit, European countries are pushing for a commitment from developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But not all G8 members are on the same page. (Deutsche Welle)
Oh BRITISH Prime Minister Gordon Brown says he has won Kevin Rudd's backing for a bold proposal to create a $122 billion-a-year climate change fund for poorer countries, in
the hope of breaking the deadlock threatening a new global agreement to fight climate change.
We need collective climate plan: Kevin Rudd LEADERS of 17 major economies meeting in Italy this week should try to agree on a collective global goal for limiting climate change Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said.
Is the climate warming or cooling? You may have heard that the climate has been 'cooling' since 1998. And you would be right, according to new
research published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Solar Physicist Predicts Ice Age. What happened to global warming? Timo Niroma, a physicist from Finland, publishes a Solar Report each month. He has given his permission to use it and distribute it to all so here it is. It will be a regular feature here and I hope you look forward to it as much as I do. The report is not written in the usual user-friendly way, but is rather intended for scientists that are familiar with the information contained in it. I will attempt to simplify and explain the details of the report and how it could impact you and, of course, Al Gore and company. As the predictions come true, as I assume they will, the green lobby will go on unemployment compensation. Let's start at the beginning and take it piece by piece. (Kirtland Griffin, New Haven County Environmental Policy Examiner)
Rolling Stone spots ‘global warming bubble’ Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi does a terrific job of exposing Goldman Sachs in his article “The Great American Bubble Machine.” Particularly relevant here, Taibbi spotlights the “global warming bubble” as Goldman’s current pump-and-dump scheme. He’s not the first to write about this ongoing phenomena, but it is nice to see that Rolling Stone raises at least some questions about the rush to global warming. I don’t believe Taibbi’s full article is available on the web yet, so you’ll have to get a hold of a print copy of Rolling Stone — it’s a very worthwhile read. (Green Hell blog)
Goracle: My Struggle Against Global Warming as Significant as the Battle Against Nazi Germany.... He's comparing a pseudo-science that lines his pockets to the battle against the Nazis and their systematic extermination of six million Jews.....
(Weasel Zippers)
Al Gore has likened his crusade against global warming to the world's struggle against Nazis. He said this while speaking in a country that is organizing a team of
environmental storm troopers.
Big Al speaks on climate (and neuroscience) - July 07, 2009 I got to hear Al Gore speak today at the close of the World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment in Oxford, and I was amazed to be treated to a pop neuroscience lecture. Rather than climate, Gore opened by talking about human psychology and physiology. Climate change, he said, is "ultimately a problem of consciousness". He went on: "What is being tested is the proposition of whether or not the combination of an opposable thumb and a neocortex is a viable construct on this planet". That's pretty deep, but Gore got deeper. Evolution, he said, had trained us to to respond quickly and viscerally to threats. But when humans are confronted with "a threat to the existence of civilization that can only be perceived in the abstract", we don't do so well. Citing functional magnetic resonance imaging, he said that the connecting line between amygdalae, which he described as the urgency centre of the brain, with the neocortex is a one way street: emotional emergencies can spark reasoning, but not the other way around. Gore went on to speak about lots of other stuff: how better management of soil would be critical to solving the climate crisis. How geothermal energy had the potential for enormous development, and how existing technologies, such as coal-fired power plants had to become more efficient. But in the end, he brought it back to human consciousness. Until the majority of citizens perceive climate change as a true crisis, he said, politicians will be sluggish to act. That's the bad news. The good news, though, is that when we do decide to act, we will be able to do so more rapidly than anyone currently thinks is possible. "Just remember, when we become aware of what we have to do, and when we have the tools available to us to get the job done, it can change", he said. "We ought to approach this challenge with a sense of joy." I'm not sure what it says about human consciousness, but it certainly is an interesting insight into Mr. Gore's psychology. I'm curious to hear what neuroscientists make of his analysis. If you want to hear the whole speech, have a listen here (audio quality isn't brilliant, sorry about that). (The Great Beyond)
The Truth about RealClimate.org RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.
Hysteria is the real threat, not global warming With Tony Blair launching his own plan to save the world (groans), and the G8 leaders also unveiling their thoughts about global warming, this is a big week for
environmental fanaticism.
Does global warming diminish with accurate temperature measurements? Part 1 If we don't know what the temperature is today, how can we say it is getting warmer? If we don't know what the temperature was in the past, how can we say it is, umm,
getting warmer?
Does global warming diminish with accurate temperature measurements? Part 2 Who can we trust when we start talking about temperatures and global warming? I wrote yesterday that there seem to be significant problems with the U.S. data set. But how
about the rest of the planet?
There is an interesting new paper with respect to the ability of models, as applied to reanalyses, to simulate temperatures at 2m [thanks to Willie Soon for alerting us to this article!]. This, of course, is the height which is used to construct regional and the global average surface temperature anomalies and multi-decadal trends. The reanalyses use the same type of atmospheric models and boundary layer parameterizations that are used within the global climate models. Although not specifically discussed in the article, the findings in the paper raise serious questions on the ability of multi-decadal global climate models to skillfully predict regional and global 2m temperature anomalies and trends. The issue of the ability of models to skillfully predict near surface temperatures along with the much more appropriate metric of global warming and cooling (i.e. the ocean heat content changes) was raised in the paper Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001: Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s oceans. Science, 292, 270-274 where they wrote “…..a climate model that reproduces the observed change in global air temperature over the last 50 years, but fails to quantitatively reproduce the observed changed in ocean heat content, cannot be correct. The PCM [Parallel Climate Model] has a relatively low sensitivity (less anthropogenic impact on climate) and captures both the ocean- and air-temperature changes. It seems likely that models with higher sensitivity, those predicting the most drastic anthropogenic climate changes in the future, may have difficulty satisfying the ocean constraint.” The new paper is Pitman A, Perkins S (2009) Global and regional comparison of daily 2m and 1000 hPa maximum and minimum temperatures in three global re-analyses. Journal of Climate: DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI2799.1 In Press The abstract reads “A comparison of three global re-analyses is conducted based on probability density functions of daily maximum and minimum temperature at 2m and 1000hPalevels. The three re-analyses compare very favourably in both maximum and minimum temperatures at 1000 hPa, in both the mean and the 99.7th and 0.3rd percentiles of both quantities in most regions. At 2m, there are large and widespread differences in the mean and 99.7thpercentiles in maximum temperature between the three re-analyses over land commonly exceeding ±5°C and regionally exceeding ±10°C. The 2m minimum temperatures compare unfavourably between the three re-analyses over virtually all continental surfaces with differences exceeding ±10°C over widespread areas. It is concluded that the three re-analyses are generally interchangeable in 1000 hPa temperatures. The three re-analyses of 2m temperatures are very different due to the methods used to diagnose these quantities. At this time, the probability distribution functions of the 2m temperatures from the three re-analyses are sufficiently different that either the 2m air temperatures should not be used, or all three products should be used independently in any application and the differences highlighted.” The three Reanalyses are the ECMWF ERA-40; NCEP/Department of Energy NCEP-2 and Japanese Meteorological Agency JRA-25. The conclusions include the findings “The three global re-analyses’ estimate of 2m TMAX and in TMAX are more dissimilar to each other than the 1000 hPa temperatures. Large regional differences are apparent but overall no re-analysis appears inferior to the other two.” “At the regional scales there are marked similarities in the PDFs between the three re-analyses’ simulation of TMAX and observations, with the exception of the Amazon where all three re-analyses fail to match the observations. NCEP-2 simulates a high probability of 2m air temperatures at 0.0 C in the Baltic and Mackenzie Basins which does not appear in the observations…..” “These results imply that users of re-analyses can use the daily data for the 1000 hPatemperatures, including relatively extreme values, assured that each of the three reanalyses produce broadly similar results. This paper could not verify whether the three re-analyses were accurate since there is no observed data to compare them withbut no single re-analysis appears inconsistent with the other two. The use of the 2m air temperatures is substantially less reliable and the rarer values within a distribution are simulated very differently between the three products” “We suggest that the use of the 2m air temperatures from the re-analyses should either not be used or all three re-analyses should be used independently (we strongly advise against the temptation to average the three products) and results should reflect uncertainty resulting from the variations in the 2m air temperatures between the reanalyses.” “Finally, we make three suggestions. First, evaluating the three re-analyses using monthly or annual averages hide very significant differences in some modelled products……Second, we suggest there is merit in a systematic documentation and comparison of how the 2m temperatures (and other products) are derived. It is not possible to determine this from the literature in enough detail to explain why the three re-analyses produce such similar 1000 hPa products but so different 2m products….Finally, it would be useful if all three re-analyses could report comparable near instantaneous daily TMAX and TMAX in the future.” The finding of the large uncertainties in the 2m temperatures raises serious questions as to how accurately can the multi-decadal global climate models predict 2m temperatures decades into the future (and for past time periods) if the near surface boundary layer representation in the models, as represented by the reanalyses, is so poor. The reanalyses even have observed real world atmospheric data to constrain the model results. The answer, of course, is that multi-decadal global models cannot skillfully predict 2m temperatures, even IF the atmosphere above the surface were realistically simulated. This indicates we should have little or no confidence on predictions of surface air temperatures, even on a global average, in the coming decades. My weblog has discussed this modeling shortcoming in several weblogs, including Climate Model Problems in Representing Near-Surface Temperatures at Night Research Papers On The Accuracy Of Weather and Climate Modeling Simulation and Prediction Of The Stable Atmospheric Boundary Layer (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
From CO2 Science this week: Editorial: Medieval
Warm Period Record of the Week: Subject Index Summary: Plant Growth Data: Journal Reviews: Historical Land Cover Changes in Australia: How have anthropogenic-induced land cover changes from pre-European to modern times impacted climatic extremes experienced over the eastern part of the continent? The Carbon Status of Earth's Peatlands: How is it affected by global warming? Carbon Sequestration in China Over the Past Century: Did it increase or decrease? ... what were the factors that caused it to do what it did? ... and what are the implications of what occurred? That's One Tough Protist!: It can tolerate exposure to CO2 concentrations beyond the wildest imaginations of the world's climate alarmists and still come bounding back. (co2science.org)
Moving the goalposts: Arctic ice thinned dramatically since 2004 - NASA WASHINGTON, July 7 - Arctic sea ice has thinned dramatically since 2004, with the older, thicker ice giving way to a younger, thinner kind that melts in the northern
summer, NASA scientists reported on Tuesday.
Naturally, all the media pick it up: NASA data shows 'dramatically thinned' Arctic ice WASHINGTON — Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thick older ice shrinking by the equivalent of Alaska's land area, a study using data from a NASA satellite showed. (AFP)
Like the ever-reliable Seth Boringtheme: Satellite shows big thinning of old Arctic sea ice WASHINGTON — New NASA satellite measurements show that sea ice in the Arctic is more than just shrinking in area, it is dramatically thinning. (AP)
Emerging El Nino Set to Drive up Carbon Emissions SINGAPORE - Across the globe an emerging El Nino weather pattern threatens to cause droughts and floods and trigger a spike in planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from
burning forests.
Studies foresee dilemma over forest carbon storage GRANTS PASS, Ore. – Scientists conclude in two government-funded studies that forests in the Pacific Northwest have a huge potential to store more carbon to combat
global warming, but not if they are heavily thinned to prevent wildfire.
Nuclear Power May Be Climate Change Bargaining Chip In the middle of this Post story on the political wrangling over Waxman-Markey in the Senate, there's an interesting tidbit. The Democrats may need to offer new permits for nuclear power plants to lure a few Republican votes and avoid a filibuster: (Capital Commerce)
Winds shifting for Pickens' wind farm plan T. Boone Pickens' massive wind farm, planned for Texas, is looking for a new home.
July 7, 2009
When public health becomes a public nuisance The bizarre advice given to us doctors on how to deal with swine flu confirms that top-down scaremongering is destroying medical practice. (Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, sp!ked)
The Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, just released proposed changes to its policies for paying doctors. The new rules will pay physicians based on the relative value of their services and adherence to performance measures, as determined by the Secretary of HHS. This affects more than one million medical professionals in our country who are paid under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which determines the pay rates for medical care in doctors’ offices, hospitals and communities. (Junkfood Science)
Seafood Community Issues Open Letter to News Media - Message Details Errors in Coverage and Negative Impact on Public Health Washington, DC – July 6, 2009 – The National Fisheries Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to education about seafood safety, sustainability, and nutrition, issued an open letter to the news media challenging reporters, editors and producers to apply ‘strict scrutiny’ to activist claims about fish consumption, nutrition and sustainability. (NFI)
Again with the acrylamide farce? Food safety body sets French fries, baby food rules MILAN - An international food safety body has set rules to cut levels of cancer-causing chemicals and bacteria in various food items ranging from French fries to baby
food, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said on Monday.
Science-Based Catchphrase-Making The Bush administration’s unorthodox stance on climate change and stem-cell research led to widespread accusations that it conducted a war on science. The Democrats’ response has been to promise to ‘let science guide us, not ideology’, to ‘make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology’, and that ‘the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over’. (Climate Resistance)
Long-haul travel confirmed as blood-clot risk (kind of) NEW YORK - A study published Monday strengthens the evidence that long-distance travel can lead to potentially fatal blood clots in some people -- showing that the risk
grows in tandem with the length of the trip.
Bikes: a zero-carbon ticket to infertility? Freaking out about the Telegraph's claim that 'male cyclists could be risking their fertility and should consider freezing their sperm if they want to have a family
later'?
Creating prosperity: How capitalism can protect the environment There’s a terrible misconception held by most on the Left. It’s the idea that the environment will suffer if left unprotected by government because profit-seeking
capitalists will consume every last natural resource they can get their greedy hands on, which will lead to unfathomable ecological disaster.
Does science demonstrate the inefficiency of capitalism? Capitalism drives leftists up the wall. For whatever reason, they loathe it and work for its demise by any means possible. And in recent years, these anti-capitalist ideologues have enlisted the help of science to aid them in their crusade against free markets and individual choice. (Cameron English, El Dorado County Conservative Examiner)
Cheers! Men rejoice as research suggests beer bellies caused by genetics - not by the booze Beer lovers across Britain will be raising a glass to the latest research on drinking.
CHURCHVILLE, VA—I learned last week how to live longer.
Compelling reason not to engage in gorebull warming nonsense: Recession pushed 90 million into extreme poverty-UN GENEVA - The global recession has pushed up to 90 million more people into extreme poverty, the United Nations said on Monday, warning that a reduction in foreign aid
could cause more hunger and disease.
The climate bill approved by the House last month started out as an idea -- fight global warming -- and wound up looking like an unabridged dictionary. It runs to more than 1,400 pages, swollen with loopholes and giveaways meant to win over un-green industries and wary legislators. (David A. Fahrenthold and Steven Mufson, Washington Post)
Obama's "Cap and Trade" Energy Plan Will Cost Jobs A quick look at the details of the Energy Plan working its way through Congress shows that Obama's energy plan will cost jobs. Please consider Energy job losers could get windfall. (Global Economic Analysis)
The Risk of Impacts from Climate Change is Growing The risk of impacts from climate change is rapidly growing—not from potential future changes in the weather, mind you, but instead, from potential massive government
oversight in how we generate and consume energy. The government is seriously considering rules that will impact the daily lives of each and every one of us—in the name of
protecting the earth’s climate.
Crank of the Week - June 29, 2009 - The U.S. House of Representatives The US House of Representatives has barely managed to pass a sweeping climate change bill that had the bill's supporters bringing at least one house member out of rehab to ensure passage. The 1,200 page bill—formally known as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act”—has been called “the worst piece of legislation in the history of the House.” The massive bill would affect all aspects of the U.S. economy: the way electricity is generated, how homes and offices are designed, how foreign trade is conducted and how much Americans pay to drive cars and to heat their homes. (The Resilient Earth)
Supply-Side Environmentalism - Down with cap-and-trade, up with green-energy tax cuts! You cannot fight something with nothing. This simple fact should be chiseled in stone above the House and Senate Republican cloakrooms.
Carbon: The Real “Progressive” Tax International lefties are taking aim at progress in the name of, well, progress. Ugg:
Congratulations. You’re rich. You work hard, pay your taxes, and struggle to provide a good life for your family. But because you’re an American, European, or Australian, get ready to pay the privilege tax. Never mind, of course, the continuing emissions to pour out of nation states with large populations but relatively low per-capita income/emissions. And there’s this:
Yes, GREAT. Notice that those levels start high so it’s tough to impair the economies of the West’s rivals. After all, only a fool in a developing country would wreck his economy and advantage. We have truly lost our collective mind. (Chilling Effect)
Europeans Seek G8 Pledge to Halve Greenhouse Gas ROME - Italy, France and Britain called on Monday for major developing economies like China and India to sign up for a goal of halving the world's greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 at this week's expanded G8 summit in Italy. (Reuters)
Major Nations Should Set Clear 2050 CO2 Cuts: UN OSLO - Major nations should set clear and ambitious goals for 2050 cuts in greenhouse gas emissions this week as a step toward a new U.N. climate pact, the U.N.'s top climate change official said on Monday. (Reuters)
Binding Limits For all on Emissions, Canada Urges OTTAWA - China and other emerging economies must agree to binding limits on carbon emissions as part of any international climate agreement, the Canadian government said on Monday. (Reuters)
Success! EU's Barroso Seeks Two Degrees Celsius Pact at G8 BRUSSELS - European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said on Monday he will press the United States and other nations to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius at this week's Group of Eight summit. (Reuters)
Aarrrgh! Just add lime (to the sea) – the latest plan to cut CO2 emissions Putting lime into the oceans could stop or even reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, according to proposals unveiled at a conference on climate change
solutions in Manchester today.
Geoengineering help global warming but not ocean acidification? According to researchers at Stanford University, geoengineering would cool the planet but would not save coral reefs. You don't say, Stanford University! If Al Gore is Mr, Global warming, then Stanford is Global Warming University. This is the home of Steven Schneider, the former global cooling alarmist turned global warming alarmist who said in an interview with Discover Magazine in 1989:
So it's OK to lie if it suits your purpose. The ends justify the means. Not the way I learned it. (Kirtland Griffin, New Haven County Environmental Policy Examiner)
Eye roller: Do Farrah Fawcett hairdos give climate change a boost? Yet another reason not to waste time trying to copy the late Farrah Fawcett's inimitable trademark tousled tresses: hair sprays have hair-raising emissions to match,
according to new research by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Incredible as it seems: Environment Agency sets up green police The boys in green are coming as the Environment Agency sets up a squad to police companies generating excessive CO2 emissions.
China Says "Carbon Tariffs" Proposals Breach WTO Rules BEIJING - Proposals to impose "carbon tariffs" on imported products will violate the rules of the World Trade Organization as well as the spirit of the Kyoto
Protocol, China's Ministry of Commerce said.
Obama adviser: ‘How to become an extremist’ On this blog, many of us have commented from time to time on the remarkable unanimity of politicians, the media, public institutions and, sadly, scientists about what they see as the clear truths that mankind’s CO2 emissions are the cause of potentially dangerous global warming (now “climate change”) and that painful action is essential to curb such emissions if we, and in particular our grandchildren, are to avoid a dreadful future. As many of us see it, it is extraordinary how these opinions are expressed with such utter certainty in view of the powerful arguments that question that thinking - arguments that rarely get even a hearing in mainstream public discourse. We wonder - how can this have happened? (Robin Guenier, Harmless Sky)
"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless
misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all
right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
Eco-Minister Flunks global Warming Test CHURCHVILLE, VA—When last we heard from Australian Senator Steve Fielding, he had paid his own way to a Washington, D.C. conference of climate skeptics—and armed himself with some questions about why Australia needs heavy carbon taxes on its energy use. (Dennis T. Avery, CGFI)
This Week’s Cartoon: Climate Cops in Oz News from Australia is that beat cops can expect reassignment to become carbon police to meet new climate change regulations, see our earlier post. Here’s this week’s cartoon…
In the realm of make-believe: Sydney winters to get warmer, says study SYDNEY'S weather will be much more like Brisbane's by the end of the century, featuring hotter, wetter summers, drier winters and much less annual rainfall, if the march of tropical regions towards the poles continues, climate scientists have predicted. (Sydney Morning Herald)
Oxfam has degenerated to superstitious gibberish: Millions Hungry as Warming Shifts Seasons: Oxfam NASSAPIR, Uganda - The rainmakers were convinced the god was angry.
Expect more of these idiotic companion scare pieces in the run up to COP15: Reefs Could Perish by End of Century, Experts Warn LONDON - Increasingly acidic oceans and warming water temperatures due to carbon dioxide emissions could kill off the world's ocean reefs by the end of this century,
scientists warned on Monday.
This idiotic claim, again: Sea turtles, climate change and the 'Germaine Greer Effect' Climate change may not look like a militant feminist but it's turning sea turtles female and could eventually wipe out males altogether, according to research published in
the journal Global Change Biology.
Many news outlets are reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming. While this has conspiracy theorists all a twitter, the truly shocking thing is the content of that report. The executive summary contains a list of items contradicting claim after claim put forth by the IPCC and global warming alarmists. The contents are nothing short of incendiary. (Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth)
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen mocked man-made global warming fears in a July 2, 2009 radio interview on WRKO's Howie Carr program. (Full audio of Lindzen's
interview available here.)
Goldilocks Graphs: Not too close, not too far Have you noticed, the scaremongers are being boxed into reusing the same graph over and over. We sceptics are not afraid of any graph, but alarmists just don’t want to
look from too close or too far away…
Sigh... New method may help allocate carbon emissions responsibility among nations Just months before world leaders are scheduled to meet to devise a new international treaty on climate change, a research team led by Princeton University scientists has developed a new way of dividing responsibility for carbon emissions among countries. (Princeton University)
Could Human CO2 Emissions Cause Another PETM? When it comes to climate, the early Paleogene period (~65-34 mya), at the start of the Cenozoic Era, had one of the most Eden like climates of the Phanerozoic. As the Cenozoic progressed a cooling trend set in leading up to the formation of permanent ice caps and the Pleistocene Ice Age we are still experiencing. But before the world started to ice up our planet underwent one of the most dramatic bouts of global warming known to science—the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM. Recently, global warming activists have tried to liken human CO2 emissions to the cause of the PETM, 55 million years ago. Is it true, that our actions may trigger a sudden sharp rise in global temperature? (Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth)
The antidote to 150 million quadrillion joules
A Climate Change Paradox Guest Post By Michael Hammer AUSTRALIA’S Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, recently suggested that most of the global warming since 1960, about 85 percent, has happened in the oceans and that change in ocean heat content is thus the most appropriate measure of global warming. But, calculating from first principles, according to this data the oceans have absorbed far less energy than the IPCC estimates for the impact of rising carbon dioxide levels. While the government data suggests a warming rate of 0.38 watts/ m2 the IPCC data suggests a warming rate of 3.6 watts/ m2. This is a significant discrepancy of nearly 10:1 and needs to be resolved. If the oceans really are the major heat sink for the planet where is the rest of the energy going? Alternatively, is the error in the IPCC estimates. Here’s my logic: On June 24, 2009, the Minister for Climate Change posted a ‘Response to Senator Fielding’s questions about the climate change science’. This article included the above graph and comments reproduced below. The straight red line on the ocean heat content graph, however, is my addition and was not part of the original article. The line was placed by eye and is not claimed to be a least squares line of best fit. The quoted items below are taken from the Minister’s website. “In terms of the climate system as a whole, only about five percent of the warming since 1960 has taken place in the air.” “Most of warming since 1960 (about 85 percent) has happened in the oceans. Thus, in terms of a single indicator of global warming, change in ocean heat content is the most appropriate.” “The change in ocean heat content since 1960 is shown in the figure below. Note the significant warming trend since 1998.” I note that the graph is labeled ocean heat content which cannot be correct given that the value is shown as zero prior to 1975. However the text suggests it is actually change in ocean heat content which would seem reasonable. I have assumed that to be the case. The graph shows that over the last 30 years the oceans have absorbed 15×1022 joules of energy and as the red line shows this has been very close to linear over that time. Using a linear approximation implies the oceans have absorbed about 15×1022 / 30 or 5 × 1021 joules per year. How does this compare with the claimed degree of global warming from rising carbon dioxide – expressed in watts / m2. Convert ocean warming first to watts = joules per second. There are 60 × 60 × 24 × 365 seconds per year = 3.15 × 107 seconds per year. So the oceans are absorbing 5 × 1021 / 3.15 × 107 joules per second = 1.6 × 1014 watts. Now to get watts / m2 we need to divide the watts by the surface area of Earth. The Earth is a sphere of radius 3960 miles = 6336 km. Its surface area = 4 × pi × radius2 = 5 × 108 sq km (Wikipedia quotes 5.1 × 108 sq km). Since there are 106 m2 per km2 this equates to 5 × 1014 m2. Thus the oceans are absorbing energy at the rate of 1.6 × 1014 / 5 × 1014 watts/ m2 which equals 0.32 watts/ m2. The article states that 85 percent of the warming has taken place in the oceans which would seem to be saying that 85 percent of the retained heat due to AGW is being stored in the oceans. From this it follows that the total retained heat is 0.32/0.85 or 0.38 watts/ m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their 4th assessment report (summary for policy makers) claim (page 12, 4th bullet point) that “…..global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C”. Now to get a 3°C rise at the average claimed emission temperature (255K) requires an additional energy input (additional energy retained by greenhouse gases) of 11.3 watts/ m2. This assumes the 3°C is an equilibrium level. If it is not then the retained energy must be still higher so the 11.3 is a minimum figure. The ocean heat graph from the Minister ends in 2006. According to Mauna Loa data in 2006 the carbon dioxide concentration was 383 ppm which represents 0.45 doublings and hence an increase in global warming retained energy of 11.3 × 0.45 = 5.1 watts/ m2. Not all of this represents energy absorbed by the planet because of the claim that the planet has warmed. This warming will increase the energy radiated back out to space. The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia shows the claimed warming in 2006 was 0.4°C. SkepticalScience.com shows temperature rise graphs from three sources and all show about 0.4°C temperature rise in 2006. Using the same claimed effective emission temperature as above (255K), a rise of 0.4°C will increase emitted energy by 1.5 watts/ m2. Thus the net additional energy retained by Earth will be 5.1 – 1.5 = 3.6 watts/ m2. This presents a considerable conflict. Ocean heat assessment suggests earth is gaining energy at the rate of 0.38 watts/ m2 while carbon dioxide analysis suggests the rate is 3.6 watts/ m2. This is a difference of nearly 10:1 in two different analyses of the same quantity. Both cannot be right. I note that the Minister specifically draws attention to the “significant warming trend since 1998”. This could be taken to mean a claim that the linear slope does not apply. This is a somewhat risky assumption since there are other periods where the slope is well above the slope of the red line. None the less, using the local slope over the years since 1998 corresponds to about 8.8 × 1021 instead of the average of 5 × 1021. That would make the retained heat in the oceans about 0.56 watts/ m2 for a total retained heat of 0.66 watts/ m2. This is still 5.5 times lower than IPCC claim for the impact of carbon dioxide. Also, if we accept the higher slope since 1998 it means the average ocean energy absorption over the earlier years is reduced to 8 × 1022 joules over 23 years corresponding to 0.22 watts / m2. Since the carbon dioxide concentration from the Mauna Loa data in 1998 was 366.6 ppm this represents 0.39 doublings equivalent to an additional 4.4 watts / m2 or about 3 watts/ m2 after allowing for temperature rise making the discrepancy over those years worse (3 vs 0.22 is a ratio of 13.6:1). What the Minister’s own data shows is that the oceans have only absorbed between about 9 and 14 percent of the excess anthropogenic global warming energy implied by IPCC data. Yet they claim the ocean absorption represents 85 percent of this energy. The oceans are by far the biggest heat sink on the planet. If they are only absorbing at most 14 percent of the excess energy it is extremely difficult to see where the rest of the energy could be going. Could the error be in the ocean heat content – maybe the exponent should be 23 not 22? Oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth’s surface or 3.5 ×1014 m2. If the energy is spread over the top 700 m as the graph caption states, the volume of water is 3.5 × 700 × 1014 = 2.45 × 1017 m3 . Water has a thermal capacity of 4.18 million joules per degree per m3. Hence the 15 × 1022 joules will raise the surface ocean temperature by 15 × 1022 / ( 2.45 × 1017 × 4.18 × 106 ) degrees = 0.15°C (This by the way is exactly the same result as Bill Kinninmonth cited in his email to Professor English). This result assumes the energy is distributed uniformly throughout the 700 meter depth. If it is concentrated near the surface the rise would be higher. To match the IPCC predictions the energy absorption would have to be 5.5 to 10 times higher suggesting an ocean temperature rise of at least 0.8°C to 1.5°C over the last 30 years. No such rise has been reported. It would seem that the only plausible alternative left is that the error is in the IPCC estimates and that the current value should be about 1.5 + 0.38 = 1.88watts/ m2 (additional energy radiated plus rate of energy storage in the oceans). If so by 2070 the additional energy input over today would be 1.88 × 0.55/0.45 = 2.3 watts / m2. (We have had 0.45 doublings with a further 0.55 to go by 2070). Such an energy rise at equilibrium would give an additional temperature increase of 0.6°C. This is of course if we assume that the currently claimed temperature rise is correct and is all due to carbon dioxide. So many assumptions and such a paradox! Michael Hammer,
Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists Samuel Johnson said, “Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity
encourages.” Climate change is a major battlefield in the US political war over the amount of government power and control. Diminution of the truth and exploitation of
falsehoods are rife and public credulity is exploited by general lack of understanding. A common comment after a presentation is “I had my suspicions, but I didn’t know
enough to know.”
U.S. Government Scientist's Shock Admission: 'Climate Model Software Doesn't Meet the Best Standards Available' - Plus: Another Gov't Scientist admits 'chaotic component of climate system...is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically' Two prominent U.S. Government scientists made two separate admissions questioning the reliability of climate models used to predict warming decades and hundreds of years
into the future.
Recommended Weblog By Tom Fuller “Next Generation Questions For Global Warming” Their is an excellent weblog by Tom Fuller on the website Examiner.com titled “Next generation questions for global warming“. He identifies the need for testing the science in his text “As with all scientific hypotheses, global warming will have to stand up under scrutiny over time. As there is no recognised clearinghouse that presents objections and answers in a structured fashion, this leads to scattergun efforts where multiple objections are raised and only partially addressed in the same forum.” The negative comments that he has received on his post just illustrate the attempt to silence the scientific method (e.g. see). Readers of my weblog are encouraged to read his excellent set of posts on the climate science issues. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
There is a very informative summary of a number of the issues raised on my website in a post on weblog The Resilient Earth by Doug L. Hoffman on June 16 2009. The post is titled Seven Climate Models, Seven Different Answers The post is worth reading and their website should be bookmarked. The conclusion of their weblog states “Earth’s climate system is amazingly complex and modeling is fraught with pitfalls and danger for even the most experienced computer scientists. No climate model predicted the current downturn in global temperatures, though many are now scrambling to predict possible decades of unchanging or cooling climate “within the general warming trend.” Still, climate science remains enthralled by its computerized playthings. I have to echo Professor Pielke’s question, how many years of wrong results are necessary before we reject the IPCC reports and the models they are based on?” The plan to regulate CO2 by the EPA, and the intent of Congress and the President to introduce a “cap and trade” program for carbon emissions, in order to regulate climate, should require that the basis for these policy decisions be scientifically robust. It is essential to include all human climate forcings on climate (including land use/land change effects) in assessing the ability of their plans to actually alter climate. They clearly have ignored doing this, and we will have a costly yet ineffective climate policy as a result. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Real Climate posted a weblog on June 21 2009 titled “A warning from Copenhagen”. They report on a Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress which was handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in Brussels the previous week. Real Climate writes “So what does it say? Our regular readers will hardly be surprised by the key findings from physical climate science, most of which we have already discussed here. Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago - such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″, says the new report. And it points out that any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years - because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.” First, what is “physical climate science”? How is this different from “climate science”. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system. More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the statement that the following climate metrics “are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” ; 1. “rising sea levels” NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis. Sea level has actually flattened since 2006. 2. “the increase of heat stored in the ocean” NOT TRUE; see Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions. Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003. 3. “shrinking Arctic sea ice” NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased. These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving. Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Republican Comment On EPA Endangerment Findings Last year, I testified before a House Subcommittee on the Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2008: A Broader View of the Role of Humans in the Climate System is Required In the Assessment of Costs and Benefits of Effective Climate Policy. Written Testimony for the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Hearing “Climate Change: Costs of Inaction” – Honorable Rick Boucher, Chairman. June 26, 2008, Washington, DC., 52 pp. [View PDF of Oral Summary]. I am pleased that my testimony was referred to in the Republican comment on the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act issued by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). More importantly, the comments provide further documentation in the public record as to major issues with regulating CO2 and several other well-mixed greenhouse gases as pollutants. Of particular relevance to my expertise, the EPA Findings are not scientifically robust; e.g. see Brief Overview Of Several Climate Science Research Findings As I wrote in the last weblog listed above “In conclusion, the EPA Endangerment findings is the culmination of a several year effort for a small group of climate scientists and others to use their positions as lead authors on the IPCC, CCSP and NRC reports to promote a political agenda.” I look forward to reading how EPA responds to the issues that are raised in the comments by the House Members. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Article in Ski Area Management By Allen Best Titled “Slightly Skeptical Look At Global Warming” There is an informative article in the magazine “Ski Area Management” by Allen Best titled Slightly Skeptical Look at Global Warming. It is refreshing to see a news article which is reasonably balanced and sought a diversity of viewpoints. Excerpts from the article are reproduced below: “Several years ago a college in Colorado issued a report that confidently predicted the precise levels of retreat of snowlines at ski areas in the Rocky Mountains during coming years as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere. By 2081, for example, the report predicted Taos will lose 89 percent of its April 1 snowpack…..” “But too often, the story of climate change gets oversimplified or oversold. In some cases, predictions like the one above become branded with a certainty that just does not yet exist—and may never exist.” “In fact, global warming theory is rife with gaps. Scientists believe they have the big picture right. Temperatures will rise—that is clearly understood. But whether the increases will be 2º F or 10º F in the next 100 years, no one can say for sure. Precipitation levels remain uncertain. Above all, while scientists say they understand the global energy balance well, local energy balances are more uncertain.” “THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE Kevin Trenberth, a native of New Zealand, heads the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He admits to squirming a bit when hearing some blanket statements from Al Gore and others. “We know enough to know there is a substantial problem, and the planet will become a very different planet in 50 years, based on our current knowledge. But the science is far from being done in terms of specifying any detail about that, especially locally and regionally,” says Trenberth, who was lead author of the scientific assessments issued in 1995, 2001 and 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “I don’t think people have accurately reflected those uncertainties in their statements about the future,” he says, referring especially to some environmental groups. While there are compelling reasons to change our combustion of fossil fuels, he went on to say, climate change, unlike the disappearing ozone hole, is not necessarily an unmitigated disaster. “If it occurs gradually enough, some of the changes are not necessarily bad, and I don’t think that is sometimes adequately appreciated.” There will be, Trenberth says, both winners and losers. Houston and Miami will lose because of rising sea levels. The Rocky Mountains, being high and inland, might be OK in the shorter time frame, but lose in the longer term because of increased wildland fires, longer droughts, and far shorter and warmer winters. Ski areas, in time, could become big-time losers as they’re currently operated, unless the change is slowed. This is not to suggest that there is unanimity about global warming theory. There is not. The dissent cannot be simplistically attributed to brainless “deniers.” Particularly those scientists trained as meteorologists have reservations. There are others, as well, including Freeman Dyson, a highly regarded theoretical physicist and mathematician, whose skepticism on aspects of global warming theory was documented in a New York Times Magazine profile published in March. One long-standing critic is Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research associate in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Pielke does not dispute that the climate is changing. He does argue the relative responsibility of various causes. For decades he has maintained that mainstream climate change theory attributes too much causality to emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas emitted by human activity. He believes that changes in land use resulting from the activities of people and what he describes as the spatial variations in pollution particles bear at least equal responsibility. “Tropical deforestation clearly has an effect on both regional and global climate that is at least as important as the radiative effect of adding carbon dioxide,” Pielke told one interviewer in 2007, and he made similar comments to a Congressional committee in 2008. The role of land resource processes was underreported in the body of the 2007 IPCC report, he claims, and essentially ignored in the companion IPCC Statement for Policymakers. Aerosols—tiny particles suspended in the atmosphere resulting from wildfires, combustion of fossil fuels, and dust storms—also have an underappreciated role, he insists. If Pielke is correct, reduction of carbon dioxide should be just one of a host of menu options. “The current focus on using reductions in C02 emissions as the primary currency for achieving benefits to society and the environment clearly represents a very flawed approach,” he told EcoWorld.com. Trenberth—and the majority of climate change scientists—reject many of Pielke’s assertions as overstated or downright wrong. But Trenberth readily concedes the failure of computer global climate models to reflect the enormous heterogeneity of land surfaces. “You need only look out the window to see all the different human influences, the roads and villages and towns, that are altering the landscape,” he says. “Those are not adequately dealt with in climate models, there’s no doubt about that.” “And, finally, there is the role of natural variability in changes now being observed. Nobody disputes that the climate, independent of human activities, changes. The question is to what extent changes now underway can be attributed to natural variability. “So far, in the 21st century, global warming has stabilized and no one really knows why,” writes Dr. William Cotton, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. “None of the ‘known’ climate forcing mechanisms can explain the discrepancy.” We know too little about natural variability of the climate to confidently make predictions, he insists.” In response to the article, I wrote the following to Mr. Best “Hi Allen Thank you for sending me the link. It is a valuable new (more balanced) news article than has been typical on this topic! I do disagree with several of statements, including “Scientists believe they have the big picture right. Temperatures will rise - that is clearly understood.”; “Trenberth - and the majority of climate change scientists - reject many of Pielke’s assertions as overstated or downright wrong.” The 2005 NRC report and the 2004 IGBP-BAHC reports illustrate that there is more diversity of viewpoints than captured in the above statements. Kevin may feel this way ( as well as others) but a significant group of climate scientists agree with my perspective. I recommend that you follow up as to what assertions of mine are “downright wrong”. Here are the links to the two reports National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing
Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press,
Washington, D.C., 208 pp. Kabat, P., Claussen, M., Dirmeyer, P.A., J.H.C. Gash, L. Bravo de Guenni, M. Meybeck, R.A. Pielke Sr., C.J. Vorosmarty, R.W.A. Hutjes, and S. Lutkemeier,
Editors, 2004: Vegetation, water, humans and the climate: A new perspective on an interactive system. Springer, Berlin, Global Change - The IGBP Series, 566 pp.
Response By Roger A. Pielke Sr. To The Real Climate Weblog “More Bubkes” UPDATE July 4 2009: Hans Henrik Hansen has provided us with the link to the Copenhagen Report which was referred to in the original Real Climate webog; he also noted that the ocean heat content data in Figure 4 of the Report was only up to 2003, which, of course, is before the cessation of the warming since then; which, of course, is another clear example of cherrypicking!. Real Climate has posted a response titled “More bubkes” to my weblog of July 30 2009 titled Real Climate’s Misinformation. First, it is clear they are (deliberately?) misinterpreting what I wrote on the weblog. Embedded in the personal attack comments that Real Climate permits be posted, there are several that recognize that the error in the original Real Climate post was their statement ”Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”. As I documented in my weblog of June 30 2009, their statement is clearly and documentably false (and is not a “wild allegation”). They present a set of observational evidence regarding the longer term trends, and I have no disagreement with them on this. Indeed, in the past I posted a weblog that supported the retrospective skill of the GISS model in simulating upper ocean heat content increases at least until the last few years; Comparison of Model and Observations Of Upper Ocean Heat Content. I wrote in that weblog “The conclusion that the GISS model is consistent with the observations for the time period in the second figure is clear from this comparison. The absence of a positive radiative imbalance in the last 4 years, however, that is anywhere neat the 0.85 Watts per meter squared value in Hansen et al. 2005, needs to be reconciled.” More recently, I questioned further their skill for the last several years; see Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions. Real Climate is correct that the time period to make conclusions on longer term trends is too short. However, they weaken the confidence in the scientific objectivity when they report that “Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” . Why do they feel they need to do this when this is obviously not true? By overstating what is actually occurring within the climate system (which they clearly did in their original weblog and perpetuated in their second weblog), they provide fodder for those who conclude that the human intervention in the climate system is minimal. To emphasize my view, it is summarized in my weblogs Summary Of Roger A. Pielke Sr’s View Of Climate Science Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On Adaptation and Mitigation Real Climate could be an important venue to permit the presentation and debate on the diversity of peer reviewed perspectives on climate. However, they need to permit all such viewpoints to be presented, as well as not attack (or permit their commenters to) colleagues with whom they disagree. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
The National Climate Data Center (NCDC) has responded to the excellent report Watts, A. 2009: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? 28 pages, March 2009 The Heartland Institute [hard copies available from The Heartland Institute 19 South LaSalle Street #903 Chicago Illinois 60603] which I weblogged on at “Is The U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” By Anthony Watts. The NCDC “Talking Points” released on June 9, 2009 are available at Talking Points related to: Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable? Unfortunately, the author of the NCDC Talking Points cavalierly and poorly responded to Anthony Watts report. They did not even have the courtesy to cite the report! {UPDATE 7/3/09: They have now cited Anthony’s report, but retained the original date of the Talking Points of June 9 2009). Below, I comment on their response. NCDC Talking Point #1 Q. Do many U.S. stations have poor siting by being placed inappropriately close to trees, buildings, parking lots, etc.?
Climate Science Response Their answer confirms what Anthony Watts and colleagues have carefully documented. An obvious question is why did not NCDC elevate this as a priority sooner? Moreover, if the current sites can be “adjusted” to be regionally representative, why does NOAA even need the new Climate Reference Network? The answer to that is that they have recognized for years that there is a problem with the siting of the surface stations, but deliberately attempted to bury this issue until Anthony Watts and colleagues confronted NCDC with the issue. NCDC Talking Point #2 Q. How has the poor siting biased local temperatures trends? A. At the present time (June 2009), to the best of our knowledge, there has only been one published peer-reviewed study that specifically quantified the potential bias in trends caused by poor station siting: Peterson, Thomas C., 2006: Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87, 1073-1080. Written by a NOAA National Climatic Data Center scientist, it examined only a small subset of stations – all that had their siting checked at that time – and found no bias in long-term trends. The linear trend in adjusted temperature series over the period examined was nearly identical between the stations with good siting and the stations with poor siting, with the stations having poor siting showing slightly less warming. The following questions address implications from that paper. Climate Science Response This is blatantly untrue and the author of these talking points know that. Tom Peterson, for example, was even a reviewer of the Pielke 2007a and 2007b papers, and was aware of the Pielke et al 2002 paper. Pielke Sr., R.A., T. Stohlgren, L. Schell, W. Parton, N. Doesken, K. Redmond, J. Moeny, T. McKee, and T.G.F. Kittel, 2002: Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: An example from eastern Colorado, USA. Int. J. Climatol., 22, 421-434. Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007a: Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928. Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007b: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229. In the second paper, we wrote “Peterson’s approach and conclusions, therefore, provide a false sense of confidence with these data for temperature change studies by seeming to indicate that the errors can be corrected.” The decision of the NCDC Talking Points to ignore these papers illustrates the state that NCDC is in with respect to Climate Science. NCDC, as led by Tom Karl, is not interested in an inclusive assessment of climate science issues (in this case the multi-decadal surface temperature trends), but are only interested in promoting their particular agenda and in protecting their particular data set. NCDC Talking Point #3 Q. Does a station with poor siting read warmer than a station with good siting? Not necessarily. A station too close to a parking lot would be expected to read warmer than a station situated over grass far from any human influence other natural obstructions. But a station too close to a large tree to the west, so that the station was shaded in the afternoon, would be expected to make the afternoon maximum temperature read a bit cooler than a station in full sunlight. Many local factors influence the observed temperature: whether a station is in a valley with cold air drainage, whether the station is a liquid-in-glass thermometer in a standard wooden shelter or an electronic thermometer in the new smaller and more open plastic shelters, whether the station reads and resets its maximum and minimum thermometers in the coolest time of the day in early morning or in the warmest time of the day in the afternoon, etc. But for detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature – whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station over grass – but how that temperature changes over time. Climate Science Response The answer correctly reports on the variety of issues that affect surface temperatures. However, where we disagree is that the multi-decadal surface temperature trends and anomalies also depend on the details of the observing sites and how these details change over time. This can be illustrated from our 2007 BAMS paper, where the set of relatively closely spaced stations shown in Figure 10 (reproduced belw) have significantly different long term trends, as summarized in Table 5 (reproduced below) from that paper. Despite being relatively close together, the variations in both the local enviroment and the station exposure result in distinctly different trends [Using the categories in the Watts, 2009 report, the stations had the following Trinidad (3); Cheyenne Wells (1); Las Animas (5); Eads (4) and Lamar (4)]. Even sites that are locally in a category 1 class, such as Cheyenne Wells, however, also have issues with the landscape in their local surroundings, as we documented for locations in northeastern Colorado in Figures 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of Hanamean, J.R. Jr., R.A. Pielke Sr., C.L. Castro, D.S. Ojima, B.C. Reed, and Z. Gao, 2003: Vegetation impacts on maximum and minimum temperatures in northeast Colorado. Meteorological Applications, 10, 203-215. Depending on wind direction, the air that reaches the observing site can have a different temperature. Changes in the wind directions over time can result in temperature trends that are due to this effect alone. This local landscape variation as a function of azimith can be seen in the photographs for the Cheyenne Wells site in Davey, C.A., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2005: Microclimate exposures of surface-based weather stations - implications for the assessment of long-term temperature trends. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., Vol. 86, No. 4, 497–504, where depending on the wind direction and time of year, the air that the temperature sensor monitors may transit a dirt road, crops, or other land surface varations, each with a different surface heat budget., before reaching the temperature observing site. The NCDC Talking Points ignore informing us why all of these local landscape effects on multi-decadal surface temperature trends would be random and average out. NCDC Talking Point #4 Q. So a station moving from a location with good siting to a location with poor siting could cause a bias in the temperature record. Can that bias be adjusted out of the record? A. A great dealof work has gone into efforts to account for a wide variety of biases in the climate record, both in NOAA and at sister agencies around the world. Since the 1980s, scientists at NOAA’s NationalClimatic Data Center are at the forefront of this effort developing techniques to detect and quantify biases in station time series. When a bias associated with any change is detected, it is removed so that the time series is homogeneous with respect to its current instrumentation and siting. The latest peer-reviewed paper which provides an overview the sources of bias and their removal (Menne et al., 2009 in press), including urbanization and nonstandard siting. At the time that paper was written, station site evaluations were too incomplete to conduct a thorough investigation (that analysis is forthcoming). However, they could evaluate urban bias and found that once the data were fully adjusted the 30% most urban stations had about the same trend as the remaining more rural stations. Climate Science Response The failure of NCDC to correct for all of the recognized biases has been documented in Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229; a paper NCDC has chosen to ignore [another surface temperature analysis group has been open to scientific debate, however; see]. NCDC has also ignored Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, K.C. Crawford, M. A. Shafer, and T. Matsui, 2007: An examination of 1997-2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma. Geophys. Res. Letts., 34, L24705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031652, where we document a bias in the use of a single level surface temperature (the minimum temperature, in particular) to monitor multi-decadal surface temperature trends. The NCDC talking points also mention the Menne et al (2009) paper, which, unfortunately, perpetuates the NCDC failure to adequately consider all of the biases and uncertainties in the surface temperature record. The Menne et al paper was weblogged in Finally, we have several other papers in the review process, and look forward to communicating them to you when accepted for publication. NCDC Talking Point #5 Q. What can we say about poor siting’s impact on national temperature trends?
However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information available so we conducted a preliminary analysis. Two national time series were made using the same gridding and area averaging technique. One analysis was for the full data set. The other used only the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yetthe two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication for this analysis that poor current siting is imparting a bias in the U.S. temperature trends. Climate Science Response This is a cavalier response. In order to show that there is little effect on surface temperature anomalies due to station siting, they need to assess the anomalies over time in the same region for each category of station siting. A national average which includes includes large regional variations (e.g. see Figure 20a in Pielke et al 2007a ) tells us little about the quality of the data. They also do not provide the details of how (or even if) they “homogenized” their data using other surface temperature information. As we wrote in Pielke et al 2007b “….attempting to correct the errors with existing adjustment methods artificially forces toward regional representativeness and cannot be expected to recover all of the trend information that would have been obtained locally from a well-sited station.” NCDC Talking Point #6Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years? A. None at all. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable.
For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier Menne, Matthew J., Claude N. Williams, Jr. and Russell S. Vose, 2009: The United States Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data – Version 2. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, in press.
Climate Science Response Their claim that temperatures have been “rising rapidly” over the past 50 years is based on the surface temperature record in which there are reported warm biases; e.g. see Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229. NCDC also is misinformed with respect to the other climate metrics. For example, they write “Plants are blooming earlier in the spring.” However, a new paper in press (see) White, M.A., K.M. de Beurs, K. Didan, D.W. Inouye, A.D. Richardson, O.P. Jensen, J. O’Keefe, G. Zhang, R.R. Nemani, W.J.D. van Leeuwen, J.F. Brown, A. de Wit, M. Schaepman, X. Lin, M. Dettinger, A. Bailey, J. Kimball, M.D. Schwartz, D.D. Baldocchi, J.T. Lee, W.K. Lauenroth. Intercomparison, interpretation, and assessment of spring phenology in North America estimated from remote sensing for 1982 to 2006. Global Change Biology (in press), writes “Trend estimates from the SOS [Start of Spring] methods as well as measured and modeled plant phenologystrongly suggest either no or very geographically limited trends towards earlier spring arrival, although we caution that, for an event such as SOS with high interannual variability, a 25-year SOS record is short for detecting robust trends.” IN CONCLUSION NCDC would be a much more valuable resource in the climate community if they worked to be inclusive in presenting all peer reviewed perspectives in climate science. Currently, they are only reporting on information that supports their agenda and not communicating real world observational data that conflicts with that agenda. The fault for this failure in leadership is with Tom Karl who is Director of NCDC. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Gavin Schmidt’s Interview On Media Hype On Climate Science Issues I was pleased to see an interview of Gavin Schmidt in Popular Mechanics on July 3 2009 with the headline “5 Climate Studies That Don’t Live Up to the Hype” [and thanks to Joe D'Aleo for alerting us to it!]. This news article is refreshing, after the Real Climate’s recent overstatement on climate (see and see), as it provides a balanced presentation of the subject by Dr. Schmidt. Hopefully, this will translate to more balance, and less personal criticisms on Real Climate than we have seen repeatedly in the past and as recent as this week [e.g. More bubkes]. The article is introduced with the text “A leading climate scientist argues that overbroad claims by some researchers—coupled with overblown reporting in the media—can undermine the public’s understanding of climate issues. Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate modeler, author and PM editorial advisor, concurs with the consensus view that the planet’s temperature is rising due largely to human activity. But, he says, many news stories prematurely attribute local or regional phenomena to climate change. This can lead to the dissemination of vague, out-of-context or flat-wrong information to the public.” (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Real Climate Permits The Continued Presentation Of Misinformation Over at Real Climate, quite a few of the comments that they post continue to incorrectly interpret the observed behavior of the global average upper ocean heat content changes and sea level rise over the last 5 years (see the misinformation in the comments on the Real Climate weblog More bubkes). The authors of Real Climate, unfortunately, are permitting this erroneous information (and personal insults) to be posted without their comments and correction. Apparently, the balance provided by Gavin Schmidt that I reported on in my weblog Gavin Schmidt’s Interview On Media Hype On Climate Science Issues was just a fluke. In this weblog, I will correct two of the major errors made in a number of the comments on the Real Climate website. One of the commentators on Real Climate list three papers that purportedly refute the finding of no recent upper ocean warming and that the sea level rise has flattened since 2006 . These papers are Levitus S. et al. (2009) Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 Cazenave A. et al. (2009) Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo Glob. Planet. Change 65, 83-88 Leuliette E.W. and Miller L. (2009) Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE Geophys Res. Lett. 36, art # L0406 I have already weblogged on two of these papers: This paper includes the text “From the results presented in this study, we see that confronting independent estimates of ocean and land contributions to sea level with altimetry results leads to a rather coherent picture for recent years variations. This can be summarized as follows: since 2003, sea level has continued to rise but with a rate (of 2.5 +/-0.4 mm/yr) somewhat reduced compared to the 1993-2003 decade (3.1+/-0.4 mm/yr). “ “The steric sea level estimated from the difference between altimetric (total) sea level and ocean mass displays increase over 2003-2006 and decrease since 2006. On average over the 5 year period (2003-2008), the steric contribution has been small (on the order of 0.3+/-0.15 mm/yr), confirming recent Argo results (this study and Willis et al., 2008).” This paper supports both conclusions in my recent weblogs (see and see) that the sea level rise has flattened and that the upper ocean heat content changes have been essentially flat since 2004. On the Levitus et al paper, I weblogged on this in Even a causal view of the Levitus et al figure, which is reproduced in my weblog, shows that upper ocean heat content has been flat in their data for the last 4 years. The large rise just before than is suspicious (as I am told by colleagues working of this subject), and, moreover, is not consistent with the sea surface temperature trends for this time period (see the GISS data on the ocean surface temperature trends at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig2b.gif). Thus even the group that Gavin Schmidt works for (GISS) presents data with no sharp spike that is at all consistent with the Levitus et al analysis and, moreover, the GISS analysis shows that the global average sea surface temperature has been essentially flat since 2002! All of these analyses are consistent with no significant heating in the upper ocean and a flattening of sea level rise, and even more clearly, that these climate metrics are not “progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”. Real Climate has it backwards; these climate metrics are changing less than was expected a few years ago! The Leuliette et al paper states “An analysis of the steric and ocean mass components of sea level shows that the sea level rise budget for the period January 2004 to December 2007 can be closed…….we find that the sum of steric sea level and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/a over the period.” This finding is not flat, but it is not still does not support the claim by Real Climate that this climate metric “is progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”. In fact, this rate of sea level rise is even less than reported in Cazenave et al 2009! Here is what I propose to Real Climate in an attempt to move to a constructive dialog. I request that they answer these questions: 1. Using the upper ocean heat data from 2004 to the present, what is the Real Climate best estimate of the accumulation of heat in Joules? 2. Using that value of heat accumulation, what is the diagnosed global average radiative imbalance over the time period? How does this compare with Jim Hansen’s value of an imbalance of 0.85 W/m2 for the end of the 1990s? These are well defined scientific questions. If Real Climate provides clear answers to them, we have moved forward to a more constructive scientific debate. I will keep you posted. (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Real Climate Permits The Continued Presentation Of Misinformation Part II There are comments on the Real Climate weblog More bubkes regarding why I did not comment further on Arctic sea ice trends. This is because I weblogged on it in June in my post A Comment On A 1999 Paper “Global Warming And Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent By Vinnikov Et Al I concluded that weblog with the text “Until later in 2007, the sea ice areal extent continued to decrease in a manner which, at least visually, is consistent with the Vinnikov et al 1999 predictions (although the actual values of areal coverage differ substantially between the observations and the predictions, perhaps as a result of their formulation to compute areal coverage). However, since 2006, the reduction has stopped and even reversed. Perhaps this is a short term event and the reduction of sea ice extent will resume. Nonetheless, the reason for the turn around, even if short term, needs an explanation. Moreover, this data provides a valuable climate metric to assess whether the multi-decadal global models do have predictive skill as concluded in the Vinnikov et al 2009 paper.” It should be recognized that the Vinnikov et al plots are not at the time of the September minumum. I agree completely that the minumum in sea ice coverage in the last few years has been at record low levels, and, currently, the sea ice is melting at a rate that is greater than average (see). I also want to repeat what I wrote in my July 2 2009 weblog Response By Roger A. Pielke Sr. To The Real Climate Weblog “More Bubkes” By overstating what is actually occurring within the climate system (which they clearly did in their original weblog and perpetuated in their second weblog), they provide fodder for those who conclude that the human intervention in the climate system is minimal. To emphasize my view, it is summarized in my weblogs Summary Of Roger A. Pielke Sr’s View Of Climate Science Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On Adaptation and Mitigation House Testimony of Roger A. Pielke Sr. “A Broader View of the Role of Humans in the Climate System is Required In the Assessment of Costs and Benefits Effective Climate Policy” (Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)
Bob Ward is at it again. In an article for the Guardian, he writes that - shock, horror - ExxonMobil continues to fund organisations he disagrees with, even though he has told them not to. (Climate Resistance)
Pay More, Drive Less, Save the Planet - To fight climate change, Washington wants you to take a bus. What is the appropriate response to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who as General Motors prepared to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection declared that he wants to "coerce people out of their cars"? One might be inclined to dismiss these words as overkill -- except for recently introduced legislation by some congressional heavy-hitters that would take us down this road. (Gabriel Roth, WSJ)
Prius drivers put foot down over car's performance BUYERS of hybrid cars aren't as concerned about the environment as they would like us to believe, according to the maker of the world's most popular brand.
Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge SANTA ROSA, Calif. — When Congress passed a new energy law two years ago, obituaries were written for the incandescent light bulb. The law set tough efficiency
standards, due to take effect in 2012, that no traditional incandescent bulb on the market could meet, and a century-old technology that helped create the modern world seemed
to be doomed.
Well, duh! US Power Plant Emissions Fall as Regulation Looms HOUSTON - U.S. power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide dropped sharply in the first half of the year as the electricity industry prepared for tighter regulation in 2010,
Genscape said Monday.
Solar Power – a Subsidised Appendage Australian electricity consumers can look forward to soaring charges for electricity and blackouts if state and federal politicians continue to undermine the power grid by
mandating and subsidising solar power generation.
July 6, 2009
New flu may not spread like regular flu -studies WASHINGTON, July 2 - The new H1N1 influenza strain may be just a little less catching than seasonal flu, but seems a little better able to cause stomach upsets,
researchers reported on Thursday.
Oh boy... Risk Of Mad Cow Disease From Farmed Fish? NEW YORK - Three U.S. scientists are concern about the potential of people contracting Creutzfeldt Jakob disease -- the human form of "mad cow disease" -- from
eating farmed fish who are fed byproducts rendered from cows.
We honor July 4th by attacking EWG's sunscreen scares Declare your independence from fear-mongering Greenie fund-raising groups!
Kristof should do better than this: It’s Time to Learn From Frogs Some of the first eerie signs of a potential health catastrophe came as bizarre deformities in water animals, often in their sexual organs.
Another clueless journo weighs in on endocrine disruptors NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who usually writes about politics has now taken on science, but science is so politicized these days, there's not much difference anymore. (Shaw's Eco-Logic)
Vegetarian diet found to weaken bones PEOPLE who live on vegetarian diets have slightly weaker bones than their meat-eating counterparts, Australian researchers said.
Even obesity paradoxes can’t “excuse” fatness I wasn’t going to even cover this study looking for correlations between obesity and risks of dying. The predominance of evidence and carefully-designed studies have repeatedly failed to support BMI a measure of health or predictive of our risks for dying. The value of null studies is wasted with yet more research in that direction. But this study has been so widely misrepresented in the media, that a quick look at what the data actually revealed may be helpful and clear up some myths being floated about the obesity paradox. (Junkfood Science)
Bird Strikes A Growing Problem At U.S. Airports NEW YORK - Despite renewed efforts by New York officials to keep skies around the city's airports clear of wildlife, a passenger plane was damaged after hitting a bird as
it landed this week in what is a growing industry problem.
Triumph of the misanthropists: 10 Years, 430 Dams Ten years have gone by since a modest but important moment in American environmental history: the dismantling of the 917-foot-wide Edwards Dam on Maine’s Kennebec River.
In S.F., thou shalt compost: It's the law San Francisco, renowned for its civic will to save the planet, is now ordering residents and businesses to compost food scraps and biodegradables, or risk fines for not properly sorting their garbage. (Sacramento Bee)
Belatedly: Environment Groups Find Less Support on Court WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard five environmental law cases in the term that ended Monday, and environmental groups lost every time. It was, said Richard J.
Lazarus, a director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University Law Center, “the worst term ever” for environmental interests.
Compare this with the idiot claims of n species going extinct every [second/minute/day...] More Than 800 Wildlife Species Now Extinct WASHINGTON - More than 800 animal and plant species have gone extinct in the past five centuries with nearly 17,000 now threatened with extinction, the International Union for Conservation of Nature reported on Thursday. (Reuters)
Loss Of World's Seagrass Beds Seen Accelerating MIAMI - The world's seagrass meadows, a critical habitat for marine life and profit-maker for the fishing industry, are in decline due to coastal development and the
losses are accelerating, according to a new study.
Rebellion on the Range Over a Cattle ID Plan HORSE SPRINGS, N.M. — Wranglers at the Platt ranch were marking calves the old-fashioned way last week, roping them from horseback and burning a brand onto their
haunches.
Global Food Supply Far From Secure: Farming Expert GENEVA - Africa's farmers need help to access loans, fertilizer and export markets to avoid future food supply crises caused by climate change and commodities speculation,
a top agricultural expert said on Tuesday.
EU Paves Way to Prolong Biotech Maize Cultivation BRUSSELS - The European Union took a step closer on Tuesday toward 10 more years of biotech cultivation after leading scientists reconfirmed the safety of the only genetically modified crop as yet commercially grown in Europe. (Reuters)
Paul Krugman (hysterical, in both senses): Betraying the Planet So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
Thomas L. Friedman: Just Do It There is much in the House cap-and-trade energy bill that just passed that I absolutely hate. It is too weak in key areas and way too complicated in others. A simple,
straightforward carbon tax would have made much more sense than this Rube Goldberg contraption. It is pathetic that we couldn’t do better. It is appalling that so much had
to be given away to polluters. It stinks. It’s a mess. I detest it.
Obama Focuses on Senate After First Climate Win WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama, fresh from his first legislative victory on climate policy, expressed confidence on Monday that new greenhouse gas emission limits would become law with help from the U.S. Senate. (Reuters)
The House’s approval last week of a bill capping greenhouse gases was a remarkable achievement, almost unthinkable six months ago. Yet all of the hard work — the hearings, the negotiating, the arm-twisting — will add up to zero if the Senate cannot be persuaded to do the same, and preferably better. The country would be left with an outdated energy policy and the planet would be stuck with steadily rising emissions. (New York Times)
Might salvage something out of this nonsense: As House Climate Bill Passes, GOP Parties Like It's 1993 As Democrats and the White House cheered House passage Friday of a comprehensive climate and energy bill, Republicans were hustling to portray the vote as a political weapon that would allow them to regain large numbers of House seats in 2010. (Greenwire)
The House passed a sweeping energy and global warming cap and trade bill Friday. This bill, titled “America’s Clean Energy and Security Act,” or better known as
Waxman-Markey, is the Democrats’ answer to the worst recession in decades: a national energy tax -- a tax designed to impose economic pain through higher energy prices and
lost jobs. Or, as a recent Washington Post editorial put it, the bill “contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to the specs on hot tubs, and it will
reshape America’s economy in dozens of ways that many don’t realize”…
Nicholas D. Kristof: When Our Brains Short-Circuit Our political system sometimes produces such skewed results that it’s difficult not to blame bloviating politicians. But maybe the deeper problem lies in our brains.
John M. Broder: With Something for Everyone, Climate Bill Passed WASHINGTON — As the most ambitious energy and climate-change legislation ever introduced in Congress made its way to a floor vote last Friday, it grew fat with
compromises, carve-outs, concessions and out-and-out gifts intended to win the votes of wavering lawmakers and the support of powerful industries.
The Carbonated Congress - Orszag nails it: The 'largest corporate welfare program' ever. President Obama is calling the climate bill that the House passed last week an "extraordinary" achievement, and so it is. The 1,200-page wonder manages the
supreme feat of being both hugely expensive while doing almost nothing to reduce carbon emissions.
'Present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them'
Cap and Trade and the Illusion of the New Green Economy I don’t think Al Gore in his wildest dreams could have imagined how successful the “climate crisis” movement would become. It is probably safe to assume that this
success is not so much the result of Gore’s charisma as it is humanity’s spiritual need to be involved in something transcendent – like saving the Earth.
Congress Votes to CAP Our Economy and TRADE Your Freedoms Our nation is fading fast, and Washington D.C. is voting on legislation at such a blinding pace, it is difficult for most people to keep up with the changes. Late Friday
afternoon, when most people in this country were discussing important matters such as the death of Michael Jackson, and their weekend plans, Congressional Democrats were hard
at work forcing through a piece of legislation called the Waxman-Markey climate bill, more popularly known as Cap-and-Trade.
In these pages we have frequently remarked that the British experience should be taken as a warning of what could happen in the USA . Nevertheless, Americans have gone
ahead with their own experiment in authoritarian socialism. Typical of the phenomenon is hurriedly and ill drafted legislation that puts power into the hands of minor and
unelected officials. It is an unfortunate characteristic of some people that such power goes to their heads, and many of those in positions that once were intended to
represent servants of the people now come to regard themselves as the masters. In Britain much of the primary legislation comes directly from Brussels in the form of
“Directives”, which are diktats, emerging from a secretive bureaucracy, that have never been properly debated or received the benefit of expert advice.
Cap and Trade; a Solution to a Non-existent Problem with Devastating Consequences D.H. Lawrence said, ”Never trust the teller. Trust the tale.” But what happens if the tale is wrong? What happens if the teller knows or should know the tale is wrong?
The key word is trust. A relationship must have trust. A society can only exist with trust. Political leaders can only succeed with trust. Trust cannot exist when an
unnecessary end is reached by false means, which is happening with the US climate and energy policies.
China Welcomes U.S. Climate Bill, Says More Needed BEIJING - China's top climate change official on Friday welcomed a U.S. climate change bill but said Washington needed to take stronger action to ensure success at year-end talks to settle a global framework on warming. (Reuters)
Propaganda or wishful thinking? U.S. Vote Boosts Hopes For Australia Carbon Laws SINGAPORE/CANBERRA - Australia's emissions trading laws look more likely to pass a hostile Senate after U.S. Congressional support for a similar climate bill eroded political opposition in Australia to carbon trading. (Reuters)
Australian PM Hails U.S. Greenhouse Bill Passage SYDNEY - Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on Sunday hailed as an example to Australia the U.S. House of Representatives passage of a bill to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States.
Interestingly... Canada and Japan blocking climate-change deal, Sir David King warns Canada and Japan were blocking a possible deal on climate change at the Copenhagen summit, Sir David King, the former Chief Scientific Adviser, warned yesterday.
Canada and Japan obstruct climate deal Hopes of a climate treaty in Copenhagen later this year are fading according to British former Chief Scientific Advisor, who envisions a US-Chinese agreement backed by
others instead.
US carbon tariffs, still long way off, draw Asia ire BEIJING/NEW DELHI, July 3 - China and India lashed out on Friday at the possibility of tariffs slapped on carbon-intensive exports, even though analysts said proposed U.S. measures were years away and would be hard to implement. (Reuters)
China blasts US climate bill enabling penalties on trade partners China said Thursday it was "firmly" opposed to provisions in a new US clean energy bill that will make it easier to impose trade penalties on nations that reject limits to globe-warming pollution. (AFP)
Rich Must Pay $100 Billion Yearly On Climate, Says UK's Brown LONDON - Developed countries must fund a $100 billion a year fight against climate change in the developing world by 2020, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Friday. (Reuters)
Green-industrial complex gets rich from carbon laws THE word environmentalist usually conjures images of down-at-heel campaigners in tie-dyed T-shirts who eat only organic muesli. In truth, going green has become big
business. We are witnessing the emergence of a green-industrial complex, an alliance between national governments, corporations and powerful individuals that is using the
politics of fear to transform the economic and political worlds.
India Will Reject Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets NEW DELHI - India will not sign up to targets to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions but will instead focus on fighting poverty and boosting economic growth, the
environment minister said Tuesday.
India Seeks More Talks on Contentious Climate Draft NEW DELHI - Indian negotiators have played down a proposal for major economies to consider setting a goal of halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, saying there were contentious ideas in the draft on the cuts needed. (Reuters)
INTERVIEW-Brazil Wants C02 Cuts Based On Historic Emissions BRASILIA - Brazil wants historic emissions to be the basis for greenhouse gas pollution targets, slated for discussion during December climate talks in Copenhagen,
Brazil's top climate negotiator said in an interview.
The Wong Fielding Meeting on Global Warming — Documents These are the documents arising from the meeting between Senator Fielding and the Minister for the Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, on 15 June 2009.
Scientists call for Royal Commission* into Climate Change Science Released today. Four independent scientists respond in detail to the evidence that government scientists claim shows that carbon dioxide causes significant global warming. The real debate continues. After the return fire from the skeptical experts, there was not a single point left standing. (Jo Nova)
Ocean temperatures: The new bluff in alarmism There has been a change in direction by the alarmists, as shown by their new “Synthesis Report.” The independent scientists noticed it during the Wong-Fielding
meeting.
New Paper: Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols and Clouds Henrik Svensmark et al have a new GRL paper in press entitled: ‘Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds’
New Paper: Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Temperatures and Pressures in Europe A new paper has been published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics by Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Elena Blanter, Mikhail Shnirman, and Vincent
Courtillot, entitled: ‘Evidence for solar forcing in variability of temperatures and pressures in Europe.’
"95% water vapour" Global warming debunked by New Zealand Meteorologist ED NOTE: Today the US House voted 219-212 to pass a $2 trillion scheme to control human output of Carbon Dioxide emissions. The so-called Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax will next go to the US Senate for a vote. Nobody more succinctly debunked the claim upon which this economy-wrecking scheme is based than the late Augie Auer, Chief Meteorologist for the Meteorological Service of New Zealand. (Hawaii Free Press)
As the years pass and data accumulate, it is becoming evident that global warming is a fraud. Climate change is natural and ongoing, but the Earth has not warmed significantly over the last thirty years. Nor has there been a single negative effect of any type that can be unambiguously attributed to global warming. (David Deming, LewRockwell)
From CO2 Science Volume 12 Number 26: 1 July 2009: Editorial: Medieval
Warm Period Record of the Week: Subject Index Summary: Plant Growth Data: Journal Reviews: Climate and Beavers in Yellowstone National Park (USA): How are they related? ... and what do they reveal about the region's past? Reconstructing Seawater pH in the South China Sea: How is it affected by atmospheric CO2 enrichment? CO2 Enrichment at Sea: How does it affect the photosynthesis and growth of marine micro- and macro-algae? N2 and CO2 Fixation in a Unicellular Marine Cyanobacterium: How are these important life processes affected by elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations? ... and what do they imply about the future of earth's marine life? (co2science.org)
Obama's 'Climate Astrologer': Energy Sec. Chu claims he knows 'what the future will be 100 years from now' - 'Shouldn't Chu be touting these scary predictions of the year 2100 on a boardwalk somewhere with a full deck of Tarot Cards?' Climate Depot Editorial: Sec. Chu -- Obama's 'Climate Astrologer'
June 2009 Global Temperature Anomaly Update: 0.00 deg. C (Roy W. Spencer)
Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, July 3rd 2009 (Daily Bayonet)
Anyone with even a casual acquaintance with the global-warming industry knows that this crowd's first response to any challenge, of any sort, from any source, is to go ad hominem. When the climate facts are not helpful, ad hom is their way to change the subject. They know what they need to know — that climate legislation is the instrument at hand for long-desired "social change," and whatever means that are necessary will be employed. To these people, facts and logic are for losers —and often enough, ad hominem is used to conceal the ideologues' staggering ignorance on the issues (ignorance of the sort that President Obama revealed with his recent claim that carbon dioxide "contaminate[s] the water we drink and pollute[s] the air we breathe" — he said, opening a Perrier and exhaling a sigh). (Chris Horner, Planet Gore)
The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign. Wherever Jim Hansen is right now -- whatever speech the "censored" NASA scientist is giving -- perhaps he'll find time to mention the plight of Alan Carlin.
Though don't count on it.
Why the EPA should have listened to Alan Carlin on global warming As reported earlier in this series of articles (see here, here and here), EPA analyst Alan Carlin wrote a report in March that urged the EPA to conduct further review of evidence on the science of global warming. Some of the specific scientific issues he mentioned are indeed being debated within the scientific community, including what is actually happening to the ice covering Greenland, whether or not hurricanes are becoming more frequent or stronger, if IPCC calculations of CO2 emissions and concentration are accurate, and, of course whether or not temperatures are really climbing. You will not have to search very far to find active discussion of each of these points on the Internet. (Thomas Fuller, Examiner)
Climate Change Alarmist Claims Arrival of Summer Is Really Global Warming Some people seem to have forgotten what seasons are (Steve Watson, Infowars.net)
Opportunity knocks, again, in the Andes The last time global warming came to the Andes it produced the Inca Empire. A team of English and U.S. scientists has analyzed pollen, seeds and isotopes in core samples taken from the deep mud of a small lake not far from Machu Picchu and their report says that "the success of the Inca was underpinned by a period of warming that lasted more than four centuries." (Nicholas Asheshov, Living in Peru)
Back in the land of make-believe: Crops Face Toxic Timebomb in Warmer World: Study SINGAPORE - Staples such as cassava on which millions of people depend become more toxic and produce much smaller yields in a world with higher carbon dioxide levels and more drought, Australian scientists say. (Reuters)
Sheesh! Climate war could kill nearly all of us, leaving survivors in the Stone Age We need a climate change 'Churchill' to lead us away from planet-wide devastation, writes James Lovelock in the latest edition of Conservation magazine, part of the Guardian Environment Network
Eye-roller: Climate Change Shrinks Scotland's Wild Sheep LONDON - Wild sheep on a remote Scottish island are shrinking, and scientists blame global warming.
Groan... Green concrete - A secret to low-carbon, sustainable construction lies in the more than 2,000-year-old roof of Rome’s Pantheon The Institution of Civil Engineers, founded in 1828, is the oldest such institution in the world. It defines civil engineering as “The Use of the Forces in Nature for the Benefit of Mankind.” I like that, and I am proud to be a civil engineer. My area of expertise is concrete, and I would like to address two main and seemingly incongruous themes: sustainability and green concrete. (John A. Bickley, Financial Post)
The Dirty War Against Clean Coal WHILE President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal to reduce greenhouse gases has been the big topic of recent environmental debate, the White House has also been pushing a
futuristic federal project to build a power plant that burns coal without any greenhouse gases. Sounds great, right? Except the idea is a rehash of a proposal that went bust
the first time around.
Dills... Los Angeles Will End Use Of Coal-Fired Power LOS ANGELES - Los Angeles will eliminate the use of electricity made from coal by 2020, replacing it with power from cleaner renewable energy sources, Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa said.
Three Mile Island Reactor Gets Environment OK NEW YORK - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission completed the environmental part of the license renewal proceeding for Exelon Corp's 786-megawatt Unit 1 at the Three
Mile Island nuclear power station in Pennsylvania, the NRC said in a release Friday.
UK Wind Boom Spikes Prices, Threatens Plants: Study LONDON - The dramatic growth in wind turbines around the British Isles may lead to huge spikes in power prices by 2030 and threaten the viability of backup plants needed
for calm periods, according to Poyry Energy Consulting.
EPA Approves California Auto Emissions Standard WASHINGTON - The Obama administration on Tuesday approved California's long-standing bid to set its own tough standards for vehicle emissions, a decision in tune with a
national plan to boost fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases linked to climate change. |