Friday, 21 November 2014

The Science is Settled?

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared for 
The Carbon Sense Coalition by Viv Forbes 
and volunteer helpers. 

22 November 2014

Climate Research needs Re-direction


Governments are running huge deficits, but still spend billions on “climate research” especially trying to model the effect of the atmosphere and its trace of carbon dioxide on surface temperature. Benefits are hard to find. It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the main driver of weather or climate.




“What is referred to reverently as “climate research” is mainly just grubby advocacy supporting the political war on carbon. Why are we still funding scientists who believe that “the science is settled”? If they believe that they know the answers, what are they are doing with their research funds?”


Around the world there are five official weather data-bases, about 14 weather satellites (some say there are 88 of them!), 73 climate computer models, at least 30 research groups and thousands of academics receiving grants and attending never-ending climate conferences. Much of this torrent of public money is now focussed on trying to torture a climate confession out of one normally un-noticed and totally innocent trace gas in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide.

The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.

Earth’s mighty oceans cover 70% of the surface. Evaporation of water and convection in the atmosphere transfer large quantities of solar heat from the surface to the stratosphere. This process creates clouds, rain and snow and also forms low pressure zones which are the birthplace for cyclones and hurricanes. Wind direction and strength are related to sun-generated convection in the atmosphere, the transfer of solar heat from the equator to the poles, and the Coriolis effect of the rotation of the earth. Carbon dioxide plays no significant part in these processes.

Oceans also conceal most of the volcanic ring-of-fire and are home to huge numbers of volcanoes, many of which are active. The mighty weather-changing ENSO/El Nino starts with a pool of warm water in the eastern Pacific. Carbon dioxide plays no part in creating such hot-spots, but periodic eruption of undersea volcanoes may do it. We know less about the floor of the oceans and their volcanoes than we do about the surface of Mars.

The community is getting little benefit from much atmospheric research and most climate modelling, and that money should be redirected to more productive areas.

Half of “climate research” money should be spent on improving the ability of public infrastructure to survive natural disasters.

The remaining funds should be spent on real climate research - mapping the floor of the oceans, with particular reference to locating active volcanoes; and investigating how volcanism, solar variations and cycles of the sun, moon, planets and solar system impact long-term weather forecasts and future climate. This work should preferably be done by contracting private operators; and the climate models in public hands should be handed over to practising meteorologists to see if they are useful for short-term weather forecasting.

For those who would like to read more:

73 UN Climate models are wrong:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17

Where Was Climate Research Before Computer Models?

Why are there so many climate models:

Oceans important in past Climate Changes:

Super volcanos forming beneath Pacific Ocean:


Massive Hot Spot in Iceland:

Viv Forbes, 27/10/14


Warmists Watch Wrong Weather Warnings.

Climateers keep trumpeting alarms that glaciers and ice sheets are melting, thus threatening land-based life with rising seas and supporting their dubious claims that Earth faces catastrophic global warming.

Life on earth cannot be extinguished by a sun-warmed atmosphere or retreating ice – sea levels merely rise steadily as land-based ice melts, animals and plants migrate, and the slowly warming seas expel carbon dioxide. This allows the biosphere to thrive with more ice-free land in a benign, warmer, wetter, carbon-rich world.

The threats we should fear are the periodic violent eras of volcanism and the life-killing ice ages many of which start with massive snow/hail storms such as the one that suddenly extinguished the mammoths. This is why many ancient peoples celebrated the warmth of spring and worshipped the Sun God.

For too long the western world has been misled by alarmist claims that a tiny trace of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic global warming.



In the continuing drama of natural climate change, global temperatures are the result of far greater forces.  Climate research should focus more on the cycles of the sun and solar system and their effect on global climate and on the periodic eruptions along our vast sub-marine volcanic belts. These control the ebb and flow of ice ages and most of the many extinction events that Earth has suffered.

Most geological eras have ended with massive volcanism on land and in the long volcanic/tectonic rifts beneath the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian and Arctic Oceans. Outpouring of lava under the seas causes ocean warming and increased evaporation while the dust from land-based volcanoes darkens the skies, creating a frigid atmosphere. Warm seas and cold skies cause heavy precipitation of rain, hail and snow. The increased snow cover then reflects any solar energy that gets through the volcanic dust, thus maintaining surface cooling. That is how the life-killing ice sheets grow.

Atmospheric modellers have dominated the climate debate for too long. It is time to ask well-informed geologists about Earth’s ever-changing climate history which is written indelibly in the rocks. Instead of wasting billions on bigger computers for yet more atmospheric models, let’s do some factual research on volcanoes beneath the oceans. Then ask some astro-physicists about the possible influence of solar cycles, sunspots, cosmic rays, cloud formation, earth magnetism, rogue asteroids and movements of the solar system through the galaxy.

To believe that mankind can counter the effects of these powerful natural climate controllers by trading carbon credits and capturing a few sea breezes and sunbeams using green energy toys is, indeed, a sad sign of the modern climate madness.


For those who would like to read more:

Global Cooling?:

Volcano found under West  Antarctica:

Largest Volcano on Earth found under the Pacific Ocean:

Underwater volcanoes discovered in Southern Ocean:

Volcanic Carbon Dioxide:

Not by Fire but by Ice:
A book by Robert W. Felix, 2000, ISBN: 0-9648746-8-7, Sugarhouse Publishing

Viv Forbes, 14/10/14


Let’s Hear How They Will Do It. 

In January 2014 OECD Secretary-General, Angel Gurría, called for “a plan to achieve zero net greenhouse emissions globally.” Not to be outdone, Australia has an organisation named “Beyond Zero Emissions”.

Let’s hear how they will do it.

Try making steel without using coal and producing carbon dioxide.

Try making cement without producing carbon dioxide.

Try moving cattle road trains in the outback without producing carbon dioxide.

Try operating an aluminium refinery on wind power.

Try keeping electric trains, lifts and lights running on a still night without coal or gas backup.

Try powering a container ship with sails.

Try getting approval to build a nuclear power station or a new hydro-electric dam in Australia.

Try feeding the people of the world while burning half of the food crops as biofuel.

Try pedalling to the Paris climate-fest on a bicycle. 




The production of carbon dioxide is a direct measure of economic activity. To forcibly cut it must cause a recession. Russia, Poland, the Czechs, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Japan and Canada have already recognised this truth.

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is well below the optimum level for plant growth.  Human production of carbon dioxide plant food did fall during the Great Depression and added to plant starvation and crop failures in those bleak years.

“Zero Emissions” is another selfish and destructive green slogan which, if pursued, will turn into a nightmare of jobless-ness, poverty and hunger especially for the poorer people of the world.


For those who would like to read more:

OECD Secretary-General Calls for Zero net Emissions Globally:

Beyond Zero Emissions:

The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide – the Innocent Source of Life (Includes evidence of the fall in production of carbon dioxide during the Great Depression:

Poland will Veto EU 40% reduction proposal:

Viv Forbes, 20/10/14


The Overflow Column

Obama Baloney


If Obama really believed the nonsense he is spouting about a trace gas threatening the future of the Great Barrier Reef, he and his gas-guzzling entourage would have stayed at home. Perhaps we could create a new national dish to commemorate his Brisbane speech and call it Obama Baloney. It would of course be organic (carbon based), as is the two and a half thousand km reef which he is worried may disappear. A low carbon future is the dream of deluded ignorance and the stuff of political chicanery.

John McRobert, Brisbane, Australia.



Finally,
A Lone Australian Farmer Fights back against Kyoto Theft. He needs our help:


Carbon Sense” is an independent newsletter produced for the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational use of all energy resources including carbon energy.

Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed. 
We get no government grants and unlike many of our opponents, we do not pose as a charity and in fact pay GST and income tax on our operations. We live on subscriptions alone.

For more information visit our web site at www.carbon-sense.com
If you would like to keep Carbon Sense operating, send subscriptions to 
Carbon Sense Pty Ltd, by post to the address below, or direct deposit to: 
Acct No: 553 077 331
BSB: 334-040

Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.

Authorised by: Viv Forbes, Chairman, MS 23, Rosewood   Qld   4340   Australia

The Federal Government can’t take your assets without paying - “bigger than Mabo”


Ian Hampton has been posting re Peter Spencer’s story.

Remember that Peter was the Australian Property Owner who spent 52 days up a tree trying to show how the Commonwealth of Australia has used HIS carbon dioxide credits to keep the useless KYOTO protocol.



The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said the grazier had made ''an important point''.
''I think he's … highlighted the failures of the Labor Government, both here in NSW and federally, to deal with this issue.'' (link)

Ian Hampton has been keeping interested parties up to date on the Peter Spencer trial:

Ian's latest:
http://evacuationgrounds.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/peter-spencer-needs-your-help.html
Meanwhile, our friend, Joanne Nova, has written a magnificent summary HERE

Peter Spencer versus The Commonwealth — starts Monday in the Federal Court. Help Needed!

It’s a trial described as potentially “bigger than Mabo”

Peter Spencer’s story is one I didn’t think could happen in Australia. He is the farmer in New South Wales who bought a farm and then lost 80% of it when rules changed to stop people clearing native vegetation. Unable to use most of his property, he was slowly bankrupted. Though he broke no law, he lost his life’s work and his beloved farm in late 2010. There was no way out. He couldn’t sell the property — who would buy a piece of land that could not be used? Farmers all around Australia lost billions of dollars in assets as the value of their land and produce declined. The legality of this is finally being tested in the Federal Court in Sydney starting this Monday, November 24, and continuing for the next three weeks. Hold your breath. This could be an enormous case, with implications for land holders across the continent.

Much of his farm was native forest. This is the northern edge of Spencer’s property (Saarahnlee)

The Federal Government can’t take your assets  without paying, but the state governments can

The Native Vegetation Acts were brought in by the states to stop farmers clearing native plants — but no compensation was ever paid to farmers. The Federal Government used the carbon credits contained in that vegetation to meet Australia’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, yet the burden of supplying these credits fell on some farmers and not on other Australians.
The Commonwealth is not allowed to confiscate assets without due compensation — it’s in the Australian Constitution. But states can do it. So what if the Federal Government makes an arrangement with the states for the states to make the confiscatory laws instead — does that get around the Constitution, is that ok?

Carbon credits stored on farms are worth a lot of money

If Australia had emitted more than it was allowed to under the Kyoto Treaty then the Federal Government would supposedly have had to purchase carbon credits from overseas. As it happens Australia did meet its Kyoto obligations — our average emissions during 2008 through 2012 did not exceed 108% of the emissions in 1990 (the base year). In the event, after 2012, the countries that failed to meet their Kyoto obligations did not actually purchase credits, but when the Treaty was signed and when the Native Vegetation Acts were passed it was widely thought that they would have to. Some of the touted carbon credit prices were quite high– the recent Carbon Tax was $24.15 per tonne, for instance — and national emissions are measured in billions of tonnes.
Australia met its Kyoto obligations by stopping land clearing, but otherwise pretty much pursuing business-as-usual. The cost of meeting Australia’s obligations thus fell almost entirely on those farmers who were prevented from land clearing, and it was the Native Vegetation Acts of the states that did the preventing. In the 1990 base year, about 23% of Australia’s emissions were due to land clearing. By stopping land clearing, Australia could emit about 31% (= 8% + 23% ) more in the average year in 2008 to 2012 than in 1990, in all other sectors combined.
The Native Vegetation Act also has the perverse incentive of discouraging farmers from planting native plants. It now makes more sense to plant foreign species. What farmer could afford to let Australian trees grow?

Peter Spencer is doing this on behalf of all property owners in Australia and is determined not to give in


Peter Spencer
The funding ran out mid year,  so he is representing himself. Spencerapplied to the judge in October for more time to raise funds and find a lawyer to represent him, but the judge decided that the case was of public importance, had been delayed far too long already and he should go ahead without a lawyer. Spencer feels he has no choice but to make the most of it.

A satellite image of Saarahnlee It is almost all mountainous native bushland. Yellow markers show significant points on his farm.  (Click to enlarge).
Peter Spencer’s fight has been going on for years. Remarkably, he soldiers on, undaunted, long after most men would have given up. Read this ABC interview from 2005for a little background.
His farm, Saarahnlee, was possibly the highest altitude working farm in Australia, near Adaminaby at 1,500m.  Spencer was involved in research and development toward high altitude projects like Merino breeding programs with CSIRO, trout farming, Korean Ginseng, and forest harvesting of Mountain Gum and Mountain Ash. At the highest point of his property a study on wind farming with a hydro pump system was under development with the ANZ Bank. The aim was to make it profitable without government subsidies. Spencer was pursuing creative and experimental projects related high altitude farming in Australia.
Should Australia be  a country where honest work and personal assets can be randomly destroyed without compensation by the government?  Should a few citizens be forced to bear the costs of the many, or do we share the load fairly?
If we want Australia to be a free and fair land,  we need to do something: to draw the line — and stand up for what we know is right. The creeping power of capricious bureaucrats must be halted.
What kind of country do we want to live in?
He needs our help.

Saarahnlee is just south of the ACT (Click to enlarge).
———————————————————-
More information:
Peter Spencer’s new blog: (add your voice)
Support Peter Spencer on Facebook.
Details of the Federal Court Case in Sydney Please go if you can!
 ———————————————————-

How you can help

1. Help pay the costs

There are three ways to donate. 1: Paypal, 2: Direct Deposit, or 3: Cheque.
1.PayPal — The safer, easier way to pay online.(Paypal accepts credit cards from people without paypal accounts).
2. Direct deposit to: Bank Account Details: National Bank of Australia. Peter Spencer “Tower of Hope”BSB: No. 082335 Account No: 484643925
3. Send a cheque to: PO Box 4297, Pitt Town, NSW, 2756 Australia.

2. Urge the Australian Farmers Fighting Fund to fund legal counsel to represent Spencer

See the sample letter on Peter Spencer’s site or write your own to urge the AFFF to get back on the Spencer case. So many Farmers stand to benefit if this case is properly tested in the High Court.
Secretary: Sarah McKinnon
02 6269 5666

3. Tell the world — your friends, news editors, twitter and facebook

The more people that know — the better. That includes people, editors, and groups overseas. Australia does not have a big tradition of fighting for individual rights. We need all the help we can get and foreign pressure and advice will make a difference.
All Jo's posts on Peter Spencer

Climate Clown Flannery's Foolish "Facts."

ACS Graphic with thanks to
Larry Pickering
In Australia, the Climate Council is led by their Chief Councillor, Tim Flannery. The website describes their Chief (link)
Professor Tim Flannery is one of Australia’s leading writers on climate change.
They say this despite the sloppiness of his work - The Weather Makers. It was full of misinterpretations, contradictory statements, exaggerations and unsupported dogmatic statements.

Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor for the Australian, writes:
AUSTRALIA has done an exemplary job at controlling its carbon emissions and is on target to do an excellent job at reducing them. Certainly Australia has done better on most measures than the US, though you wouldn’t guess that from Barack Obama’s patronising, anti-Australian speech in Brisbane. You wouldn’t be able to discern the reality of Australia’s performance from most mainstream media coverage either.

In Flannery's report (see image above) titled LAGGING BEHIND, he lists 
FOUR KEY FINDINGS 
1 China and the US have firmly moved from laggards to global leaders on climate change. 
In the last five years most countries around the world have accelerated action on climate change as the consequences have become more and more clear. 
Australia, a crucial player in global climate action, moves from leader to laggard. 
Global action must accelerate to protect Australia and the world from the consequences of a changing climate, sea level rise and more frequent and intense extreme weather.
This is as sloppy as his Science Fiction Tome "The Weather Makers."

1: China And US


China has just announced their intention to keep increasing emissions until 2030. Tim, would you say that this is slightly "Laggard?"

US POTUS Obama did not announce a commitment but only his "intention" to reduce emissions and stifle the US economy. As he controls neither of the US houses, he would have to use "executive action" against the wishes of the US electorate. This "executive action" most surely would be overturned after he leaves office in two years.

As far as actual performance to date is concerned, as Greg Sheridan says: "Australia has done better on most measures than the US, though you wouldn’t guess that from Barack Obama’s patronising, anti-Australian speech in Brisbane."

Fact Fail, Tim!











2: Most Countries in the World


Although Flannery's report finding says:"most countries around the world have accelerated action on climate change..." Foreign Editor Sheridan says: [Australia's vast array of Climate Change Propaganda bodies] 
consistently present a false picture of what’s happening internationally mainly by presenting facts in a misleading or distorted fashion. Sometimes the distortions are so great they are virtually making new facts up altogether.
Thus they will talk about tiny pilot carbon emissions trading schemes, which charge zero dollars and have no measurable economic impact, as though they are the equivalent to the huge and punitive carbon tax Australia had under the Gillard government which the Abbott government repealed. Another distorting trick is to present the vaguest aspirations of foreign governments as actual policies operating today. Northern Hemisphere politicians are brilliant at grand visions and no implementation. Even Germany is now abandoning its 2020 targets.  
My own interest in this issue derives mainly from being a journalist involved in foreign affairs. I don’t think I have ever written about the science of climate change. The long pause in warming is surely intriguing and seems to be leading to some fascinating scientific re-evaluation. But my interest came from the travel I do as the foreign editor. It was abundantly obvious to me that virtually no other country in the world, and certainly none in Asia, had anything like our carbon tax. (bold added)
Fact Fail, Tim!










3: Australia moves from leader to laggard.  


As the previous two points show, this is a Flim Flam Lie and also a Main Stream Media Lie.

Fact Fail, Tim!










 4: Global action must accelerate to protect Australia and the world against

  • consequences of a changing climate, 
  • sea level rise and 
  • more frequent and intense extreme weather.

Consequence of Climate Change


As Climate has changed since the beginning of time, what consequence of climate change is the Flim Flam Man talking about? Does he mean the catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW)?

There has been no global warming for 18 years despite the continuing increase of falsely accused carbon dioxide. 

So, No Global Warming and therefore no consequence of Global Warming.

Sea Level Rise


Bob Carter, in his recent book "Taxing Air" wrote:
Do you know that Sea-level rise is natural, and declining in rate?
Looking at the big picture, when measured in metres, there has been no great sea level change for 2000 years.


Looking at the smaller picture, Professor Ole Humlum, using measurements done by the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at University of Colorado at Boulder, USA says that 
  the present simple empirical forecast of sea level change until 2100 is about +34 cm.
Hey, Tim! If those figures are right, that means that we have around 90 years to build a half-metre-high dyke around the world's lowlands.

More frequent and intense extreme weather 


The Alarmist IPCC has reluctantly rebutted this frequent furphy from fear-mongering falsifiers. The IPCC's recent report finally admitted the pause in warming and admitted that their models didn't predict the increase in Antarctic sea ice. 


As detailed from the IPCC report by Andrew Bolt (link)
But now the IPCC can’t be sure at all we’re suffering from many extreme weather events, either. It even admits its past warnings of more droughts were “overstated”.
 
In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.
 

On droughts:


In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.

On heatwaves: 


Table 2.13 shows that there has been a likely increasing trend in the frequency of heatwaves since the middle of the 20th century in Europe and Australia and across much of Asia where there are sufficient data. However confidence on a global scale is medium due to lack of studies over Africa and South America but also in part due to differences in trends depending on how heatwaves are defined (Perkins et al., 2012).This combined with issues with defining events, leads to the assessment that there is medium confidence that globally the length and frequency of warm spells, including heat waves, has increased since the middle of the 20th century although it is likely that heatwave frequency has increased during this period in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. 

On heavy rain events:


In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

On cyclones and storms: 


In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities…

Summary 


In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH).  Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data…
Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered. Little evidence exists of any longer-term trend in other ocean basins… Several studies suggest an increase in intensity, but data sampling issues hamper these assessments…
-
Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century although including 2010/2011 season data this trend becomes non-significant (i.e., a trend of zero lies just inside the 90% confidence interval). 

On the trouble with detecting trends in extreme weather events:


Changes in extremes for other climate variables are generally less coherent than those observed for temperature, due to data limitations and inconsistencies between studies, regions and/or seasons. However, increases in precipitation extremes, for example, are consistent with a warmer climate. Analyses of land areas with sufficient data indicate increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in recent decades, but results vary strongly between regions and seasons. For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North America, Central America and Europe, but in some other regions—such as southern Australia and western Asia—there is evidence of decreases. Likewise, drought studies do not agree on the sign of the global trend, with regional inconsistencies in trends also dependent on how droughts are defined. However, indications exist that droughts have increased in some regions (e.g., the Mediterranean) and decreased in others  (e.g., central North America) since the middle of the 20th century.
Remember, all these quotes come not from sceptics but from the IPCC, the United Nations body most responsible for spreading panic about global warming - and the body with a strong vested interest in keeping that panic alive.
This report should have had the words “Sorry we scared you” printed in big letters on the cover.  ..... The future is not catastrophic. The fear-mongers must now be held to account. 

That includes you, Tim Flannery!