All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Saturday, 31 January 2015

Oops! One wrong equation caused the climate scare!

By a Subscriber
How did many usually sensible experts get "GLOBAL WARMING" so very wrong?


Oops! One wrong equation caused the climate scare!

RED FACES all around among the profiteers of doom. A wrong equation that falsely triples the tiny direct warming caused by doubling CO2 concentration has been discovered and exposed in a major peer-reviewed paper just published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences  (LINK - pdf), one of the world's top peer review science journals.

No rogue equation means no climate crisis.

It says the amount by which climate scientists multiply the direct warming from, say, CO2 to allow for “temperature feedbacks” – changes to the climate because it has warmed that make it warm still further – is equal to the reciprocal of 1 minus a third of the sum of all the feedbacks.
They say the feedbacks, measured in Watts per square meter of the Earth per Celsius degree of direct warming, add up to 2. So the equation tells them to multiply by 3. Just 1 Celsius degree of warming from doubling CO2 in the air suddenly, wrongly becomes 3 degrees. A non-event becomes a crisis.
James Hansen – the former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (who once said anyone who questioned his math should be tried for “high crimes against humanity”, for which the penalty is death) – had lifted the rogue equation, the Bode system-gain relation, from a 551-page tome by R.W. Bode about feedback amplification in electronic circuits, published 70 years ago.
Hansen, and the tiny handful of other climate scientists who realized the rogue equation came from electronic circuitry, had assumed it would work for all kinds of dynamical systems from electronic circuits to the Earth’s climate. But it doesn’t.
It applies only to certain systems whose output (in a circuit, the voltage) does not operate to bring the system back into balance after an overload. But in the climate rising temperature restores the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Warming acts against the feedbacks. It damps them down.
Also, in a circuit, when the feedbacks reach a threshold value the current suddenly changes direction and goes around the circuit the other way. A positive current instantaneously becomes a negative current. In process engineers’ jargon, the current flicks from the positive to the negative rail. But in the climate rising feedbacks cannot flick temperature down when they were driving it up just before.
Why does this matter? Because it means the true warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3 or 5 or 10 Celsius. All the scare stories have been wrong from the get-go. Scientists came up with these exaggerated predictions because, and only because, they were using the wrong equation.
Take the misplaced equation out of your computer model – as the paper by four leading researchers in the Science Bulletin demonstrates – and the climate “crisis” melts away. And it’s the only thing that will melt away. Just three months ago, the world had more sea ice than for 35 years. Also, despite record increases in CO2 concentration, there has been no global warming for 18 years 3 months.
Now we know why.
Not a single red cent need have been spent on making global warming go away. But in Paris this December world leaders – unless they and their advisers read the Science Bulletin – will approve a savage global-government treaty that will give the unelected UN unprecedented powers to tax and regulate elected governments in the name of Saving The Planet from Thermageddon.

And all because of one wrong equation.

Temperature Pauses and Climate Science

Anthony Cox

In 2011 Rahmstorf and Foster [F&R] supposedly proved temperature was really rising despite the pause because AGW warming was still occurring.

F&R claimed to have isolated the AGW warming signal by removing the temperature impact of exogenous factors such as volcanoes, ENSO and the sun. But they made a number of mistakes.

One of those mistakes is they include the temperature trend in the multivariate regression; they say this:
Using multiple regression to estimate the warming rate together with the impact of exogenous factors, we are able to improve the estimated warming rates, and adjust the temperature time series for variability factors.”

But trend is NOT an independent variable, it is dependent on exogenous factors so the issue is should the trend have been included in the multivariate regression analysis? The short answer is no because the trend itself is contributing to the finding of the trend; in effect F&R are using the GISS temperature to prove the GISS temperature. That is statistical chicanery.

Now we have another attempt by the AGW factory to prove the temperature pause isn’t happening and in fact the IPCC model predictions are consistent with the observations. This time the paper is by Marotzke and Forster. [M&R]

M&R look at 2 trend periods: 15 year, which coincidentally is the period officially recognised by the AGW factory as being the length of a temperature pause which is climatically significant [see page 24 here], and 62 years, which coincidentally is about the length of a full Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] cycle made up of clumps of El Nino and La Nina events.

Like F&R,  M&R also isolate exogenous radiative forcing but also claim to quantify internal factors like feedback and ocean uptake of heat. On this basis they conclude:
The differences between simulated and observed trends are dominated by random internal variability over the shorter timescale and by variations in the radiative forcings used to drive models over the longer timescale. For either trend length, spread in simulated climate feedback leaves no traceable imprint on GMST trends or, consequently, on the difference between simulations and observations.
This is an astounding claim. M&R, again like F&R, have used a multiple regression approach but unlike F&R who just treat temperature as an independent variable, M&R treat a dependent variable, feedbacks, as both a dependent variable and an independent variable as internal variability.

Feedbacks are climate responses to exogenous forcings. But as Spencer and Braswell show the distinction between feedbacks and forcings is artificial and unreal with such prominent climate factors as clouds capable of being both. It is therefore no wonder M&R find no traceable imprint on GMST trends by feedback only internal variability in the short term or 15 years, and radiative forcing in the long term, 62 years, because feedbacks are both examples of internal variability and forcing.

F&R used GISS temperature to prove GISS temperature; M&R have used feedbacks to prove no feedbacks.

There are other issues with the paper, like with F&R. M&R say they base their multiple regression approach on the Earth’s surface energy balance. That balance entirely proves a real temperature pause not a faux pause masking the inexorable upward trend of AGW temperature. The reason is readily apparent in the observations which show both no heat going into the ocean and an increase in longwave radiation leaving the Earth since 1998, when the temperature pause began:

The temperature pause is real and the attempts by the AGW factory to disprove it are becoming ludicrous. Roy Spencer simply rebuts them with this graph:

All the statistical shenanigans by F&R and M&R can’t disprove that.

Wednesday, 28 January 2015

Clear Real World evidence of the benefits of rising atmospheric CO2

Rising sea level, temperature, and precipitation impact plant and ecosystem responses to elevated CO2 on a Chesapeake Bay wetland: review of a 28-year study   Bert G. Drake* (link)Global Change Biology   Volume 20Issue 11pages 3329–3343, November 2014

Bert Drake in the Wetlands


An ongoing field study of the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on a brackish wetland on Chesapeake Bay, started in 1987, is unique as the longest continually running investigation of the effects of elevated CO2 on an ecosystem. Since the beginning of the study, atmosphericCO2 increased 18%, sea level rose 20 cm, and growing season temperature varied with approximately the same range as predicted for global warming in the 21st century. This review looks back at this study for clues about how the effects of rising sea level, temperature, and precipitation interact with high atmospheric CO2 to alter the physiology of C3 and C4 photosynthetic species, carbon assimilation, evapotranspiration, plant and ecosystem nitrogen, and distribution of plant communities in this brackish wetland. Rising sea level caused a shift to higher elevations in the Scirpus olneyi C3 populations on the wetland, displacing the Spartina patens C4 populations. Elevated CO2stimulated carbon assimilation in the Scirpus C3 species measured by increased shoot and root density and biomass, net ecosystem production, dissolved organic and inorganic carbon, and methane production. But elevated CO2 also decreased biomass of the grass,S. patens C4. The elevated CO2 treatment reduced tissue nitrogen concentration in shoots, roots, and total canopy nitrogen, which was associated with reduced ecosystem respiration. Net ecosystem production was mediated by precipitation through soil salinity: high salinity reduced the CO2 effect on net ecosystem production, which was zero in years of severe drought. The elevated CO2 stimulation of shoot density in the Scirpus C3 species was sustained throughout the 28 years of the study. Results from this study suggest that rising CO2 can add substantial amounts of carbon to ecosystems through stimulation of carbon assimilation, increased root exudates to supply nitrogen fixation, reduced dark respiration, and improved water and nitrogen use efficiency. (bold added)

Patience Required: Studying the Impact of Rising CO2 on a Chesapeake Bay Wetland

In this video, Smithsonian plant physiologist Bert Drake has studied one wetland's response to climate change for more than two decades. He gives a tour of the field experiment and explains some of the findings.

CO2 Science:
Advising us that "the question of whether rising atmospheric CO2 will cause the land sink for anthropogenic carbon to expand or contract has been the basis for most ecosystem studies to date," Drake writes that we now have, from the Chesapeake Bay study, "strong evidence that shoot and root biomass and net ecosystem production increased significantly" under real-world conditions of growing fossil fuel usage. And he thus infers - from the fact that (1) methane emission (Dacey et al., 1994) and (2) nitrogen fixation were also stimulated by elevated CO2 (Dakora and Drake, 2000), and that (3) inputs of soil carbon also increased - that "ecosystems will accumulate additional carbon as atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, as suggested by Luo et al. (2006)."

In a closely related matter, Drake also writes that the long duration of the Chesapeake Bay wetland study allows for a test of "the idea that some process, such as progressive nitrogen limitation, may constrain ecosystem responses to elevated CO2 in native ecosystems." But his and his associates' findings, as well as those of Norby et al. (2005) and Norby and Zak (2011), imply, as he notes, that quite to the contrary, Earth's ecosystems will continue to accumulate carbon as the air's CO2 content continues its upward trajectory.

Thus we find clear evidence from data obtained in the real world of important benefits conferred by rising atmospheric CO2 upon nature, evidence that many unfortunately continue to deny.

Monday, 26 January 2015

Electricity prices soar: blame the Greens and renewable policies not Air-con.

Anthony Cox

Reported this weekend in the MSM, which collectively lacks the wit to allocate blame where it
Cartoons by Josh
belongs, is the fact that electricity prices are going to rise especially for high cost equipment like air-conditioners.

Also reported is the compulsion for solar panel owners to move their panels to the West of the property so afternoon peak demand from the air-cons can be met by the repositioned solar panels.

This is beyond stupid. Coal and gas power can be delivered to doorstep in Australia for 1 - 2¢ per kilowatt hour. Check your bill and see the average kilowatt hour fee is about 30¢.

What happened?

A range of things. So called upgrades to the network which were neglected in NSW by a succession of ALP governments is one thing. But they are a one off.

The primary reason is the ongoing subsidisation of renewables and the enormous infrastructure expense to hook up the solar and wind farms to the grid. The costs of supplying electricity are illustrated in this government graph:

The wretched carbon price is gone but the far right columns still exist so that 71% of the capital and ongoing costs are specifically to do with renewables.

Renewables don’t work. They’re unreliable. Engineers Miskelly and Quirk show that the unreliability of specifically wind power, but the point can be extended to solar, is so great that in effect wind and solar do not produce any useful power at all. They show the probability of wind and solar producing their maximum power, the reliability point, is as low as 3% and no more than 10% at any one moment.

The practical consequences of that are two fold: firstly you cannot plan for definite electricity any time in the future; for instance if reliable power is required in 2 weeks for 3 hours -wind and solar cannot provide that.

Secondly the reliable sources of power, the fossils must be kept ‘spinning’ to back up the times when wind and solar fall out of production.

So, it doesn’t matter if the rooftop solar panels are moved to the West: on a hot, steamy overcast day they’re going to be just as useless as if they were under the house.

The other nonsense in this new policy is the idea that electricity has peak periods. This graph shows the daily demand fluctuation in Australia [from TonyfromOz]:

The base load never goes below a regular 18000 MW and peaks in the middle of the day. Renewables cannot ever supply this power because the power generated by renewable installations can vary from 0 to 100% in a day! How can you plan reliable regular grid demand with such variation? You can’t.

So to air-cons. TonyfromOz has looked at the myth of air-cons being responsible for peaks in electricity demand. It’s a lie and easily proved to be a lie. Tony looks at electricity demand on Xmas day and compares it with demand on a normal working day. If electricity demand were affected by air-cons in the way this new policy claims then when everyone is home on a hot Christmas day you would expect to see a greater spike and demand than a normal day:

No spike. The reason is simple. Much fewer people are at work, at shopping centres and other large non-residential locations which use air-con all the time.

The greens and the lie of AGW has caused the investment in renewables at great unnecessary expense to electricity users in Australia. Now the conservative governments have to fix up the green mess and they can’t even tell the truth about the ‘problem’ caused by the greens.

How hopeless is that.

Sunday, 25 January 2015

NASA:GISS; BoM; Send In the Clowns (OOPS - sorry - You already have.)

Although this blog is dedicated to exposing the "Man Made Global Warming Hoax;"  "the Greatest Deception in History": the falsified AGW hypothesis; we are open to any true data that show that man's emissions of Carbon Dioxide are causing runaway warming.

In fact we have re-published Melbourne Railway Engineer Driver and Unionist, Peter Faux' challenge here on this blog - but the original is on the blog of the adjudicator: (link)
Peter Laux, Locomotive Engineman from Australia, “will pay $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”
 Warmists of the world: The ball is in your court. The $10K Climate Challenge has been open for three plus years without a single serious challenge.

Reproduced from Denis Rancourt's Activist Climate Guy blog with Peter Laux's permission 

THIS challenge has been available for the Alarmists for more than three years; so far there has not been one serious scientific challenge to Peter's Challenge.

Wouldn't you think that the World Governments, the bodies who wish to penalise ordinary citizens who use fossil fuel sources of energy, would be running to support their (non-scientific) policy position.  But, with the exception of a few fairly unscientific attempts, Peter's $10K is still sitting safely in his coffers.

So why do we keep hearing stories like:

2014 was the hottest year ever.

When we look at the TRUE story, we find that Gavin Schmidt has tweeked (CHEATED?) the data; that even with NASA:GISS' massaged data, 2014 was only 0.02ºC (YEP - two hundredth of a ºC) above the so-called previous warm year.

But wait! There's more!

The error bars!


Yep! Their "hottest year ever" even with their massaged data, could only be found to be  0.02±0.1ºC above their previous "Hottest Year." (ie from  -0.08ºC BELOW the previous hottest year to 0.12º above.)

And then, when questioned about their certainty, this quavering body said they were only 38% sure; or 62% sure that their alarmist prediction was wrong, the prediction that they based on massaged figures.
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.
And when you look at the science, it was nowhere near the warmest, even of the last 18 years: (See below)
SO: How many news media reported the correction, when it was revealed that

2014 was NOT the hottest year ever 

And Down-under, the Prime Body for Temperature Date, The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) have updated their systems: (Has the Fairfax Press  updated their Editorial Staff for misspelling the name of our country?)

Hi-tech satellites to improve Australain weather forecasts (SMH)

Vastly more detailed images from two new international meteorology satellites could bring a much sharper focus to Australian weather forecasting.
This August body, the Bureau of Meteorology, announced  that the town of Alice Springs had had its hottest day ever this week: (link)
The ABC was told on Tuesday night the temperature at Alice Springs airport reached 46 degrees Celsius at 3:21pm
However, it turned out that the BoM misread a thermometer and the reading was 5ºC less than the announced record temperature.
"The details are still under investigation," (BoM) climatologist Joel Lisonbee told the ABC. It looks like we had an instrument fault with our automatic weather station at the Alice Springs Airport. We do have other thermometers on site."
"We have some mercury and glass thermometers that did not show that spike to 46C."They showed the maximum temperature yesterday to be only 41.5C."
This blog asks:

Did you hear 2014 was the hottest year ever?
Did you hear THEN that 2014 WAS not the hottest year ever?
Did you heat that 46ºC was the hottest hottest day ever for the Alice?
Did you THEN hear that Alice's Hottest day was a BoM error?

The Alarmist media announces the hottest year ever but doesn't announce the retraction.

The Alarmist media announce the Alice Spring Record Temperature but doesn't announce the retraction.

When will the mainstream media again become sceptical and question the fodder that they are fed?