Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Green Toys for Rich People?

Why should Consumers and Tax Payers keep Funding
Green Toys for Rich People?

by Viv Forbes & Helpers

30 January 2012

A print-ready copy of this issue of "Carbon Sense" can be downloaded from:

The Climate Scare/Green Energy Bubble will be the defining feature of our age. Never before have so many people wasted so much money and time on climate fables, alarmist handouts and energy toys.

Already it has spread further, distracted more people and wasted more community resources than the South Sea Bubble, the Tulip Mania or Y2K. Future generations will read in wonder how sensible people like Germans, British, Spanish, Danes, Californians, Australians and Kiwis lost their ability for critical thinking.

The guilty parties will never admit their foolishness, and the vested interests will fight to keep their privileges, so we will have to fight every inch of the way. They will have to be removed.

But reality and public opinion are on our side. We just need to keep illustrating and lampooning the cost of this foolishness. And keep Tony Abbott to his promise to:

Please help us by passing this on.

Coal Powered Cars

It is time to end all government promotion and subsidies for electric cars which are just the latest green fad, as costly and impractical as most other green fads.

Electricity is not a primary source of energy – it is a way of transmitting energy from primary sources or storages to electric applications and machines. In Australia, 93% of electricity is generated from carbon fuels, 77% from coal. This will not change dramatically in the near future.

Therefore most electric cars in Australia will run on coal power. Such vehicles will produce more carbon dioxide per kilometre than the petrol/diesel cars they replace. They do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions, even if that mattered. They increase emissions and move them somewhere else.

All vehicles need a method of storing energy while travelling between resupply stations. For cars and trucks, diesel petrol and gas provide highly concentrated energy in a form that can be conveniently stored in simple fuel tanks.

Electric cars need heavy batteries which are costly and have low energy storage capacity. They are so limited in range that most are supplied as petrol/electric hybrids – these are heavier, more costly and more complex than our current car fleet. Hybrids run mainly on petrol power, and they need two energy storage tanks – a petrol tank for the combustion motor, and a big battery for the electric motor.

Electric cars will also need a whole new industry to build and service the cars and supply their power outlets. Add to that the cost of scrapping an enormous industry of assets and skills built up around our current vehicle fleet.

And who is going to build the massive extra generating capacity needed to charge thousands of electric cars at 6pm every night, just as millions of stoves start to cook dinner?

The green fantasy is that electric car batteries can be recharged by solar cells on your house roof. Will this work? Yes, after a just few days plugged into the solar panel, the cute green car may be ready for a trip to the local shops.

Electric cars can have no effect on global climate – they are another example of costly green tokenism. They are rich men's toys.

Those who want them, not electricity consumers or tax payers, should pay for them.

More reading on Coal Powered Cars:

Electric Cars – technology of the Past?
"In the year 1900, 38% of vehicles in the US were electric, and another 40% were steam powered; only 22% used gasoline. There was even a fleet of electric taxis in New York City."

"The growing use of the electric automobile, with its many advantages of simplicity, ease of operation and noiselessness, has resulted in a demand for some means of conveniently charging the batteries."

 While that quote sounds like part of a pitch for a modern GE battery charger, in fact it’s taken directly from GE’s Bulletin No. 4772, published 100 years ago in September, 1910.

See: http://files.gereports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/GE-Bulletin-4772-Electric-Automobile-Appliances-1910.pdf

GE made electric cars from 1904 – 1920's. An electric car powered with a Bailey electric New Edison battery participated in the 1000 mile endurance run in the early 1900's.

But they could not compete with Ford's Model T and all the other internal combustion engines – they were cheaper, more reliable and could go further on a tank of fuel. Consumers deserted the electric cars. The same factors apply today.

Detroit Vintage Electric Car (1917)
See:  http://knol.google.com/k/detroit-electric-vintage-electric-car#

Feedback from a Canadian Reader (Reported in Canada Free Press).
A simple comparison demonstrates the point, namely the energy density per weight unit of the energy storage systems. For gasoline or diesel, the energy density is approximately fifty times higher than for any current type of battery.
Posted by: Klaus Kaiser Author of "Convenient Myths" the green revolution - perceptions, politics, and facts. 
Visit: http://www.convenientmyths.com

Electric Cars and City Pollution
Burning large quantities of coal, wood, gas, diesel or petrol in crowded cities is not a good idea – it reduces the oxygen content in congested downtown areas and produces suffocating and sometimes poisonous exhaust fumes. These are all easily dispersed in country areas but do reduce air quality in big cities.

Electricity has a long history of cleaning up city smog. "Clean Coal by Wire" and the banning of open combustion in cities such as London and Pittsburgh removed the smog.

Have a look at this short article:  http://carbon-sense.com/2008/08/04/clearing-the-smog/

Modern cars and trucks are continually improving their pollution control equipment. Electric cars may improve air quality in big cities, but with heavy cost and poor performance. Electric cars may make sense in Singapore but not in Alice Springs. Car owners and city authorities should make decisions on the trade-offs and they, not tax payers or other consumers, should pay for the costs of their actions.

The Shocking Truth about Electric Cars
"Consumers simply won’t pay a $20,000 premium for a vehicle that doesn’t go very far, isn’t very convenient, and runs out of juice as soon as you turn on the air conditioner."
See:    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-shocking-truth-about-electric-cars/article2149465/

Diesel powers the most economical car in the world.
The most economical car in the world has been developed by Volkswagen. It has a one cylinder diesel engine, one seater, goes 100km on 1 litre of fuel, 650 km on a tank.
See:  http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-vw-1-liter-car.htm

Compressed air may rival electric cars.

Tata Motors of India is producing the Mini Cat Air Car, a 6 seat minivan, driven by compressed air at up to 105 kph for 300 km on one tank of air costing about $2. The car is expected to sell for about $13,000 from 2012.
See:   http://www.caradvice.com.au/141944/tata-motors-mini-cat-air-car-to-debut-in-2012/

Obama sinks $5 billion of tax payer funds on green cars.
See:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-obamas-green-car-revolution-fits-and-starts/2011/11/29/gIQA0FdRdO_story.html 

How many people bought a Toyota Prius hybrid car in China last year?
For the answer see: http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/toyota-prius-china-sales-2011-08-23

Green Energy Is a Financial Parasite – Casey Research
Any politician who talks of a green, utopian US – where wind and solar produce most of our energy, electric cars put power back into the grid, green fields of corn produce clean fuels, and millions of Americans work in green technology factories – is creating a fanciful vision so far detached from reality it should really be called a lie.

For more see:  http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/green-energy-too-many-subsidies-too-little-performance 

Ban Petrol cars in UK?
UK Minister wants all petrol cars off the road, replaced by electric cars that get charged when/if the wind blows.
See:   http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/287847/Petrol-cars-to-be-banned-in-Huhne-s-green-revolution



Also, from Marc Morano's Climate Depot:

Climate Depot's coverage of green energy failures -- Round up of recent reports 

A small sampling of recent reports and coverage.


Monday, 30 January 2012

The Actual (Non-scientific) Method


h/t Ian Davies

Global Warming? No NASA says Cooling

From an article by David Rose - the (UK) Mail Online:

Pieter Bruegel: Frozen River Thames 1677
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Leading Scientists told the MailOnline that the sun is now heading to a minimum of its output.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
The Met Office has issued a paper that said there is a 92 per cent chance that Cycle 25 "and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830."

This blog previously posted the peer-reviewed paper by Dr Nicola Scafetta (link)
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the  Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
h/t Dr Michael Trigoboff


From the UK Met Office - (link)
 New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun's activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.
It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C.
This reduction would virtually cancel out the warming since the Little Ice Age. Hmmm...
The study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum - a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level - the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.
Graphs from NASA:GISS, Hadley CRUT and NCDC showing cooling this century:

Sunday, 29 January 2012

Ice free North Pole.

Arctic (tic) Penguins on retreating ice
TCS blog keeps hearing of predictions of a North Pole free of sea ice. Some predictions:

From Examiner.com: 14th December, 2009

Al Gore makes embarrassing mistake by severely misstating sea ice loss prediction

Those estimates far exceed even the direst predictions of climate scientists and set the room abuzz. The most often cited figure and the one used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns of a loss of sea ice by 2030.
"It is hard to capture the astonishment that the experts in the science of ice felt when they saw this," Gore said.
Not only were the ‘experts in the science of ice’ astonished, so too was Dr. Maslowski of the US Naval Postgraduate School, the scientist whose models supposedly came up with the five to seven year figure.
Maslowski told the UK Times, “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Other climate scientists and ice experts immediately disavowed Gore’s claims
From the Alaska Dispatch: 20th November 2011.

Grim new prediction: Arctic sea ice could disappear by 2015

New research from Cambridge University predicts that the North Pole could be ice-free in just a few years' time, all gone by the summer of 2015, according to various news reports this week.
From the (UK) Telegraph:   29 January, 2012

Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015'

Arctic sea ice could completely melt away by the summer of 2015, destroying the natural habitat of animals like polar bears, one of Britain's leading ocean experts has claimed.

A well educated friend keeps saying that this is evidence that the planet is warming. However the data from NCDC, NASA:GISS and Hadley CRUT all show that warming has stalled for around ten years. 
See the Hadley graph here. So why is the sea ice melting?

Or is it?

Daily Tech in 2008 reported:
Rapid Rebound Brings Ice Back to Levels from the 1980s.

An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels.  In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.
The Washington Times in 2010 reported:

An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing

A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn't we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers. They were so convinced the world was ending and only they could save it, yet now they have been exposed as at best wildly idealistic and at worst frauds.  
And now this week, in the Anchorage Daily News we read:

Ice in Bering Sea threatens crab fishery

Southward extension is farthest over the past 20 years.
Published: January 26th, 2012 02:23 PM
Sea ice is encroaching unusually early on the central Bering Sea, threatening to grind Alaska's economically important snow crab fishery to a halt at the peak of the season, leaving crabbers facing major losses.

Earlier-than-expected ice is moving south over prime crabbing grounds, forcing boats away from their catch and putting millions of dollars of equipment in jeopardy.
So who are we to believe? Is it scientists needing further research grants? Or is it the fishermen whose income whose income is threatened?

Physician Heal thyself?

Several days ago this blog posted an item re an Op-ed piece in  the Wall Street Journal signed by sixteen scientists. A quote: "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. " See here.

Canadian Journalist, Donna Laframboise,  who penned The Delinquent Teenager - an exposee of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has contrasted the Wall Street Journal piece with a piece in the Alarmist UK newspaper The Guardian.
Exhibit B is, therefore, a case study in bullying. It is a disturbing example of medical professionals targeting those who express opinions contrary to their own.

According to these people (none of whom appears to have participated in hands-on, hard-core climate research), climate change is "the biggest global health threat of the 21st century." How do they know this? Because, back in 2009, one of the publications they happen to be in charge of - Richard Horton's The Lancet - said so.
How's that for circular reasoning? A proposition is true because my own publication has declared it to be true. But it gets worse. Here's what these people say next:
Denying the links between greenhouse gas emissions and man-made climate change is akin to denying the links between HIV/Aids and unprotected sex, smoking and lung cancer, or alcohol consumption and liver disease.
In one case we have scientists discussing  from their field of expertise, climate science.
They insist that this science is not clear-cut, that profound uncertainties remain. 
Should we believe them? Or should the views of people who are expert in a totally different field - that of medicine - prevail?

Read Donna's post here.

Friday, 27 January 2012

It's all downhill from here.

Professor Ole Humlum has released his data (link in title above) for the calendar year 2011. Note that the graph above shows that, according to Hadley CRUT temperatures have been falling for 10 years.

Also note that for those same ten years, atmospheric CO2 has been rising. 
More evidence that the man-made CO2 emissions cause runaway global warming hypothesis has been busted.

How to be a Really Good Climate Change Alarmist

Guest Post by Anthony Cox

IPCC's James Hansen - Criminal
1: Be Condescending.

You are allowed to look down your nose at anyone who disagrees with you because you are SAVING THE PLANET! And, therefore, anyone who disagrees with you must be inferior because they don’t care about SAVING THE PLANET! You can be condescending in 2 ways; firstly, you can be avuncular and take the approach that you are dealing with people who are TOO STUPID to see your superiority and so must be guided gently but firmly into a proper subservient position. Or you can impersonate a dominatrix and whip and berate the idiots who disagree with you. For those who want to perfect this latter technique a few visits to the Open Mind and Deltoid blogs will bring you up to speed.

2: Be insulting

Hansen again - What  a Criminal...
Insults are allowed. And justified. Against those who disagree with you; because those who disagree with you are getting in the way of SAVING THE PLANET! Use comparisons; compare deniers to creationists, or tobacco addicts, or tobacco producers or anything to do with tobacco. You can say deniers are lackeys of big oil; or big coal; or big anything; except Big W, which doesn’t work. Use sesquipedalianisms; ‘Meme’ is good because Richard Dawkins uses it and he hates creationists and deniers; but be careful because so does Ian Plimer. Dunning-Kruger is also good but it can have blow-back, as can agnotology. Be personal; call Lord Monckton ‘monkey’ or ‘popeye’; it will reflect well on you; and it doesn’t matter what their qualifications are if, like Lindzen, Christy, McKitrick, they disagree with AGW and SAVING THE PLANET because their qualifications might as well have come out of a Cornflakes packet. 

3: Exaggerate. 

This is allowed because you are SAVING THE PLANET! And the means justifies the end; and all the best alarmists do it; you can “offer up scary scenarios” as Steven Schneider suggested; or you can “shock people” as Pachauri advises. Flannery wants to tell people “we’re ruining Earth”, which is very good, considering he must have got that information straight from the Earth since he can talk to Gaia. Hansen thinks we’ll end up like Venus and Professor Mike Sandiford compares humans to atomic bombs. So really the sky is the limit, fill it with exaggerations before they turn it the colour of rusty nails with geo-engineering projects to reduce CO2 levels.

4: Be hypocritical. 

Hypocrisy doesn’t count when you are SAVING THE PLANET! So, you can advocate arresting and prosecuting those nasty ‘deniers’ while you get regularly arrested yourself like Professor Hansen does. Or you can produce as much CO2 as you like as you deliver the message of reducing CO2, as Al Gore does in one of his many mansions, or as the fine people who fly everywhere to the conferences on how to SAVE THE PLANET do. If that isn’t enough for you why don’t you preach about rising sea levels while living by the sea, as Greg Combet, Al Gore, Kevin Rudd and our Cate Blanchet do? Double standards only apply to those who don’t believe in SAVING THE PLANET! Then there is the option of making a buck out of SAVING THE PLANET! Invest in solar panels, wind farms, get a grant; being virtuous has never been so lucrative!

The Abuse of Kids
5: Use children. 

Don’t be afraid to exploit children because you are SAVING THE PLANET! For the children. So, show images of blowing the kids up, running them down, hanging them and drowning them. Make them scared, or angry. They’ll get over being used, when they grow up and realise you were SAVING THE PLANET! 

6: Be misanthropic. 

Don’t stop at exploiting kids, hate everyone; after all you are SAVING THE PLANET from the evil humans who produce CO2; and guess what, all humans produce CO2! Become like Judge Death. Judge Death figured out the best way of controlling crime was to get rid of humans who after all were the people who committed crime. It’s the same with AGW; humans cause it so the solution is: get rid of the humans! Except for yourself, of course, and a few other superior people who think exactly like you.

7: Be ignorant (1); 

as in ignore every problem with the science supporting AGW. The evidence is in so what does it matter if it looks like Swiss cheese, it’s still settled and any problem can be either fixed by fiddling with the computers or the data. AGW is the orthodoxy now and since time memorial all orthodoxies were the source of truth. Just remember the 4 humours of Hippocratic medicine; today it is the 4 catastrophes of AGW so just talk about the death and destruction which is going to happen unless you are allowed to SAVE THE PLANET! And also remember the emails were stolen, were taken out of context and don’t change the fact that the science is settled.

8: Be ignorant (2); 

as in ignore every problem and expense with the ‘solutions’ to AGW. It doesn’t matter that people want to dump iron into the ocean or change the refractive index of the sky; these are worthwhile projects because they will SAVE THE PLANET! And it doesn’t matter that the total global amount of electricity from wind and solar power could not heat Al Gore’s mansion; these are new and exciting technologies and will improve if more money is given; to you; and it is not true that concentrating solar was invented by Archimedes or we have had the age of wind and it was called the 1800’s. Wind and solar will provide power 24/7; everywhere, not just on the space station; as long as more money is given; to you. And a few banks. And $2 companies based in the Bahamas.

9: Worship the UN and the IPCC. 

Genuflect. As a devout Alarmist you know the UN and IPCC are not just bureaucracies. Or corrupt. Or dominated by failed nation states. These vicious rumours are from disgruntled deniers who want to stop the UN and IPCC from SAVING THE PLANET! In fact the UN and IPCC are the source of all wisdom and information about AGW. Given this exalted position they should be running the world. It is not just you who says this. Bob Brown does as well so it must be true.

10: Don’t worry about Cognitive dissonance

It is not something you, or any other believer in AGW, suffer from. While it is true 99% of Green voters, the best AGW believers, live in cities and enjoy a lifestyle nonpareil in human history and will therefore be the ones who suffer most if cheap and abundant power is lost, this will not happen because wind and solar work; and the power will stay on even if all the dirty, disgusting coal and gas power is closed down; as it should be; and don’t even mention nuclear.

Consensus? What Consensus?

16 Scientists have written an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
This blog has previously written of Nobel Prize winner Ivar  Giaever's resignation from the American Physical Society (link & link.) The scientists write: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
 The article continues by mentioning the inconvenient truth that all the IPCC projections have greatly exaggerated the warming. As previously mentioned in these pages, this lack of warming has caused the alarmists to alter their rhetoric from (Man-made) Global Warming to Climate Change. This has also confused some to falsely call us Climate Change deniers. In fact, the alarmists tried to hide Climate Change by suppressing the LIA and MWP.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
 Well worth a read - here.

The 16 are:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Monday, 23 January 2012

Friday, 20 January 2012

Official - Antarctica Cooling - Did MSM report this?

Here is something that you won't hear on the ABC or read in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Antarctica is cooling.

Pierre Gosselin via his Blog NoTricksZone reports on the press release from Alfred Wegener Institute Antarctic Neumayer-Station III.

Alfred Wegener Institute Neumayer Station III: Antarctic Cooling Over The Last 30 Years!

Annual mean temperature for the years 1982 to 2011 measured at the Neumayer-Station (all graphics come from the Alfred Wegener Institute)
It’s official: the Alfred Wegener Institute Antarctic Neumayer-Station III is a meteorological observation station that’s been measuring air temperature and other magnitudes in Antarctica for 30 years, which is the period of time used to define climate for a region. The results are clear and indisputable.

M. Gosselin notes that they avoid saying that it has got cooler but report that it has not got warmer.
 According to Director Gert König-Langlo:
We check the stability of the measurement system on a regular basis using calibration thermometers.
At the station the annual mean temperature over the last 30 years was minus 16°C. The year 1996 with a mean temperature of minus 14.3°C was the warmest of the last 30 years and the year 2000 was the coldest with a mean temperature of minus 17.8° Celsius.”
With all the concern over global warming gripping Europe, you’d think this would be all over the news. Nope! Not a peep of this cooling trend has appeared anywhere in the German news as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, the AWI did not offer any explanation as to why they have measured cooling.
Not a peep in the Australian press either as far as TCS blog can tell.

Read more at NoTrickZone.

Global Temperatures in a crash

From Ice-cap.

Joe Bastardi of Weatherbell Analytics writes:
When the PDO turned cold, most of the meteorological and climate community understood that the pattern was turning very similar the last time of the PDO reversal, the 1950s, and it was a matter of time before the global temperatures, which have leveled off, would start falling in the same herby jerky fashion they had risen when the PDO turned warm at the end of the 1970s. I am not going to rehash the sordid details of how the AGW crowd simply ignores the major drivers of a cyclical nature. We all know that. Nor am I going to question them as to why they believe a trace gas like CO2 (needed for life on the planet) with a specific gravity of 1.5 as compared to the atmospheres 1.0, was going to mix with air in a way to affect the earth’s temperatures. Instead I am going to drive home points I have been making since 2007 and are now dramatically validating.
The La Ninas of 2008-09 and now this one had rapid mid level temperature drops that followed their onset and this years was nothing short of the most dramatic mid tropospheric drop since the start of the millennium. It is much more plausible to believe that rapid cooling in the mid levels would have an effect at leading to extremes, rather than what the warmingistas claim, which of course is anything that happens. In any case, one very interesting level that cooled to record cold levels was 400 mb, the very levels that the so called trapping hot spots were going to show up because of CO2...again a neat trick since somehow CO2 was going to defy the laws of Gravity, since, as mentioned above, its specific gravity is higher than the atmosphere (of course even if it was, it a) has not been proven to cause warming and b) man’s contribution is so tiny as to render it a non item anyway in climate considerations.
However first came the flip in the PDO, seen nicely here on the Multivariate Enso Index chart, which clearly illustrates the colder Pacific when the earth was colder, the start of the warming period coinciding with the satellite era, and now.
Now from the AMSU site, the amazing one year drop in temperature, the orange tan line being after the El Nino of 2009/10, the purplish line this past year and one can see the green this year… we are near record cold levels again.

Read More at ICECAP.

Saturday, 14 January 2012

Peer-reviewed: Natural, Predictable Climate Change.

Nicola Scafetta: Link
An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth’s solar system with little or no help from us. The research was conducted by Nicola Scafetta, a scientist at Duke University and at the Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab (ACRIM), which is associated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. It takes issue with methodologies applied by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) using “general circulation climate models” (GCMs) that, by ignoring these important influences, are found to fail to reproduce the observed decadal and multi-decadal climatic cycles.

The IPCC models fail to incorporate climate modulating effects of solar changes such as cloud-forming influences of cosmic rays throughout periods of reduced sunspot activity.

More clouds tend to make conditions cooler, while fewer often cause warming.
At least 50-70% of observed 20th century warming might be associated with increased solar activity witnessed since the “Maunder Minimum” of the last 17th century.

From natural observation, I think that I could confirm that - More clouds tend to make conditions cooler, while fewer often cause warming.

Is this the latest science?
Dr. Scafetta’s study applies an astronomically-based model that reconstructs and correlates known warming and cooling phases with decadal and multi-decadal cycles associated with influences of planetary motions, most particularly those of Jupiter and Saturn. This “astronomical harmonics model” was used to address various cycles lasting 9.1, 10-10.5, 20-21, and 60-62 year-long periods. The 9.1-year cycle was shown to be likely related to decadal solar/lunar tidal oscillations, while those of ten years and longer duration relate to planetary movements about the Sun that may have solar influences that modulate electromagnetic properties of Earth’s upper atmosphere which can regulate the cloud system.

It's Good News Week! Alarmists losing...

Three Stories today.

The First: James Taylor writing for Forbes Magazine in answer to a previous piece by Peter Gleick. I love his headline where he calls the Alarmists "The Deniers."
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Please, Global Warming Alarmists, Stop Denying Climate Change - And Science

Gleick’s global warming beliefs are misguided and unsupported by sound science, but I nevertheless empathize with his pain and frustration that few people seem to agree with him. A person of thinner skin than me might be offended by Gleick’s frustration-induced rant, but I believe the best remedy is truth and understanding. Accordingly, I understand Gleick’s pain and I will present some truths that might ease Gleick’s anguish if he listens to them with an open heart and mind.

Gleick sets the tone for his blog post in the very first sentence, where he begins his column by stating, “The Earth’s climate continued to change during 2011….” Here, in the first eight words of his column, Gleick unwittingly reveals one of the primary reasons why he is so wrong in his dire warnings of a human-induced global warming crisis. Gleick and his fellow global warming alarmists are the ultimate climate change deniers.
Read more at Forbes here.

The Second story is a real winner. Dr David Whitehouse had a win. He won a bet. (From The Observatory)
In December 2007 I wrote what I thought was quite a straightforward article for the New Statesman pointing out that it was curious that when so many voices were telling us that global warming was out of control, and that the global warming effect dwarfed natural fluctuations, the global annual average temperature hadn’t increased for many years. I wasn’t promoting any particular point of view just describing the data. The New Statesman jumped at it.

David writes that it created a storm of comments and a fuss in the office of The New Statesman. It reached the BBC's radio programme on numbers and statistics -"More or Less."
Almost at the last minute the programme-makers came up with the idea of a bet. It was for £100 that, using the HadCrut3 data set, there would be no new record set by 2011. It was made between climatologist James Annan and myself. His work involves analysing climatic data and validating climate models. He accepted enthusiastically as he has a perchant for taking on 'sceptics.' The presenter said that if the global temperature didn’t go up in the next few years, “there would be some explaining to do.”
Later today, January 13th, “More or Less” returns to the bet, which I am pleased to say I won, though I note that this bet, or its conclusion, is not yet mentioned on Annan’s Wikipedia entry despite his other climate bet being discussed.
Read also James Delingpole's comments on Annan and Paul Ehrlich here
Dr David Whitehouse is an astronomer, former BBC science correspondent, and the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley & Sons)

Third: Emeritus Professor Donald J Easterbrook of Western Washington University believes Earth is in a cooling period. (Link)
Easterbrook has studied climate change from the ice ages to the present day.  His focus is in studying the movements of glaciers from climate change, as well as doing isotopic analysis of the elements found in ice cores. 

He believes the Earth is currently in a cooling period.  He continues to research climate change with an international team of over 50 members, including solar physicists, atmospheric physicists and glacial geologists.  He is the author of eight books and more than 150 journal publications, including “Evidence-Based Climate,” which was published in September 2011.
Easterbrook: "The whole issue of climate change rests with data. My whole approach is to look at the data.  Unfortunately, a lot of politics has gotten involved with the sciences that relate to climate change, specifically because there are huge amounts of money involved, like hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars.  There’s a huge amount of power.
Climate change is being used as a lever to try to push for a world government.  This is being done in international conferences sponsored by the United Nations that meet every year. The last one was just in Durban. So, unfortunately because of that, there is a lot of rhetoric and a lot of selective media coverage.
My message is look at the data and make up your own mind.  My opinion versus somebody else’s opinion is something that you can argue about all day. If you look at the data, the data will tell you way more than anything anybody’s opinion will. I have worked with a lot of data that relates to the changing of climate. The data is very clear."

(h/t Marc Morano)

Wednesday, 11 January 2012

CO2 will defer Ice Age: BBC reports - Falsely?

Benny Peiser's CCNet published a paper (HERE) ESSAY: ON THE CAUSE OF ICE-AGES  By Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.
The renewal of ice-age conditions would render a large fraction of the world's major food-growing areas inoperable, and so would inevitably lead to the extinction of most of the present human population.
      Since bolide impacts cannot be called up to order, we must look to a sustained greenhouse effect to maintain the present advantageous world climate.
This was reported by Popular Science: Human CO2 Emissions Could Avert the Next Ice Age

Earth could be entering a new Ice Age within the next millennium, but the deep freeze could be averted by warming from increased carbon dioxide emissions. Humans could be thwarting the next glacial inception, a new study says.
Also reported by The American Interest: Global Warming To Save The Planet?
....an international team of scientists headed by Cambridge University researcher Luke Skinner projects that sometime in the next 1500 years a devastating new Ice Age will descend on Planet Earth.  As in past Ice Ages, glaciers would cover much of the northern hemisphere, many species would face extinction and the productivity of the biosphere would diminish as fertile farmlands went under the ice.
But, the scientists say, that won’t happen now, thanks to man’s new best friend: greenhouse gasses. Rising levels of CO2 will offset the natural forces leading to a new Ice Age, saving civilization from its greatest test yet.
Even the alarmist BBC got in on the action: Carbon emissions 'will defer Ice Age'
The Beeb's report is by Richard Black. (Does that name ring your alarm bells or should that be your alarmist bells?)
Human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next Ice Age, say scientists.
The last Ice Age ended about 11,500 years ago, and when the next one should begin has not been entirely clear.
Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit and other things to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one.
In the journal Nature Geoscience, they write that the next Ice Age would begin within 1,500 years - but emissions have been so high that it will not.
The important point that you have to accept with the above reports is the falsified hypothesis that CO2 causes runaway global warming. As this blog has persistently pointed out, warming comes first and then the rise in CO2 follows, with a lag of ~800 years (see eg here and here) At the moment we are around 800 years from the end of the medieval warm period (MWP)

Steve Goddard at Real Science points out:
That would be a real travesty if we delayed the next ice age, but there are a a couple of minor problems.
  1. They have no idea what they are talking about.
  2. There was an ice age during the Ordovician – with atmospheric CO2 10X the current (unprecedented) level.
  3. CO2 levels were much higher for almost all of modern geologic history. The only thing unprecedented is the ignorance of the experts.

Czech Physicist Luboš Motl also has panned the idea here.
It's refreshing to see that CO2 is sometimes getting good press. You really don't want the temperatures to drop by 10 °C. On the other hand, all the other "details" that are being written about these questions are preposterous beyond imagination.

It's being said that the warm era between two ice ages is usually around 11,000 years (whatever is the exact definition of the boundaries) but we have already enjoyed over 11,500 years since the last ice age so a new ice age is overdue.
CO2 will only be modified due to the human activity for a few centuries which is much shorter than the time needed for the ice age cycles to collect several Celsius degrees – that requires thousands or tens of thousands of years.

In particular, we will probably run out of fossil fuels in less than 300 years. I am being generous here; my expectation would be lower. At the peak, there will be some concentration which may be anywhere between 600 and 2000 ppm. I don't know how far the mankind will get. I am just sure that once the concentration will reach 1000 ppm, people will already be realizing very well that there's nothing wrong about such elevated concentrations and they will be able to understand that 2000 ppm isn't a problem, either.
Read more at The Reference Frame.

Saturday, 7 January 2012

Gillard's Carbon-Suicide Tax


James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. Writing in the UK Telegraph, James describes Julia Gillard's crazy, economy-killing tax on vital-to-life carbon dioxide as "Julia Gillard's carbon suicide tax."

James' column is headed:   

Ha ha Warmist losers. For you the war is over

  and he writes:

One of my resolutions this year is to write as little as possible about global warming. Not only will it make my wife much happier but it will also free me up to talk about more important things such as monetary collapse, hyperinflation and the imminent end of Western civilisation. Oh and also there's hardly much need for my input on climate change any more. That's because, basically, my side has won.
Here's how The Financial Times recently put it:
To the relief of many of the country’s biggest manufacturers and industries, there has been a distinct shift in the government’s tone on green issues. Even Steve Hilton, Mr Cameron’s chief policy adviser, and the man credited with coining the phrase “vote blue, go green”, appears to have had some serious second thoughts. “There is a clear disintegration of the green consensus,” says Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a critic of many climate policies. “We’re still at the stage of rhetoric rather than really strong rollback of policies, but it normally starts with the rhetoric before you start with policies.”
After some discussion about UK policy advisor Steve Hilton, he continues:
As you'll know by now, I'm not usually Mister Optimist. So what the hell am I doing crowing about victory in the climate wars when clearly there remains so much work to be done? We-e-ll: I think Benny Peiser nailed it in that quote above. Sure there are still heaps and heaps of really bad global-warming-related policies which remain on the statute books, notably such as the Climate Change Act in Britain, Julia Gillard's carbon suicide tax in Australia, and all those swingeing environmental laws which are wreaking such economic havoc in greentard US states like California. As far as the battle of ideas is concerned, though, the Warmists are on the run.

Read more - UK Telegraph HERE


Donna Lafromboise says that she is proud to be a Canadian (LINK) Her rationale?
First our leaders said ‘no’ to Kyoto. Then they stood up to green bullies.
Oh that Ms Gillard stood up to green bullies. Most say that she needs their votes to maintain government. TCS blog says that is equine excrement. Bob Brown (no relation) would never vote with Tony Abbot's Liberals in "green" or "leftie" areas. PM Gillard can pan the Greens and still be assured of their votes.


Green Peace Founder Patrick Moore on Wind Farms

Larry Pickering
As reported by Climate Realists:

RIDGETOWN - Southwestern Ontario's flourishing wind energy industry came under fire Wednesday from the co-founder of Greenpeace.

Dr. Patrick Moore told more than 1,000 area farmers the industry destroys more jobs than it creates, and causes energy prices to climb for all users.

“The industry is a destroyer of wealth and negative to the economy,'' said Moore, speaking at the 19th annual Southwest Agricultural Conference at Ridgetown campus of the University of Guelph.

Moore, who now refers to himself as the “sensible environmentalist,'' said the solar bubble has burst and thinks the wind bubble is about to burst.

“I'm happy for the farmers who are receiving royalties for allowing the wind towers to be built on their farms,'' he said. “They deserve it — but the cost to consumers will continue to climb — partly because of rate increases and partly due to tax increases.''

“They are ridiculously expensive and don't work half the time,'' he said. “And no matter how many are built, they won’t replace coal, gas or hydro or nuclear plants, because they are continuous and wind is not always reliable.''

Moore told his audience the wind energy industry in Spain has resulted in a 30% unemployment rate among people under the age of 30.

Read More at Climate Realists

Friday, 6 January 2012

Analysis of the BOM Annual Report.

The Bureau of Meteorology 2011 Annual Report. (LINK)
Guest post by Anthony Cox
What is going on with science information in this nation? It is this information from the BOM and CSIRO which provides justification for the introduction of the various anti global warming policies. So how reliable is this information from our two premier scientific research institutions?
In its 2011 report the BOM says:
“Australia was the only continent to record cooling and the nation’s 10-year average trend was still up”
This is a statement which is misleading in what it doesn’t say. For instance, the 10 year average temperature trend, based on the BOM’s own data, from January 2002 to December 2011, is this:
Clearly, the trend is down over this period regardless of whether this 10 year period is warmer than the preceding 10 year period.
In respect of Australia being the only continent to experience cooling over 2011, how then to explain this:
Image: Global Average Temperature [GAT] from land and satellites.

As can be seen the trend in the Global Average Temperature [GAT] is clearly down and that in 2011 GAT fell markedly. This down trend is clear in both the land based temperature [green] and the satellite temperature [purple]. How can Australia have been the only continent to cool in 2011 when GAT shows the whole world cooled?
The BOM is also reported as saying:
“Ocean temperatures – the warmest on record over the past two years – had actually assisted Australia’s heavy rainfall and cooler temperatures”
The clear implication from this is that the ocean is warming; it is not:
As can be seen there was a spike in the world’s sea surface temperature in 2009-2011, which is consistent with the BOM statement, but what is also plain is that the overall trend in sea surface temperature, over the last 10 years is down, further contradicting global warming.
It would appear that the only damage that global warming is causing is to the reputations of Australia’s scientific institutions.

IPCC's GCMs Seriously Fail - Peer reviewed paper

A new paper published by the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics, authored by Nicola Scafetta, 2012: Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation models. Entire paper available here.

From the Abstract:
We compare the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) to interpret the 20th century global surface temperature. The proposed astronomical empirical climate model assumes that the climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that, in previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the solar system planetary motion, which is mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn. We show that the GCMs fail to reproduce the major decadal and multidecadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature record from 1850 to 2011. 

From the conclusion:

The scientific method requires that a physical model fulfils two conditions: it has to reconstruct and predict (or forecast) physical observations. Herein, we have found that the GCMs used by the IPCC (2007) seriously fail to properly reconstruct even the large multidecadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature which have a climatic meaning. Consequently, the IPCC projections for the 21st century cannot be trusted.

From Dr Pierre Gosselin - No Trick Zone:
It’s not a secret that the IPCC models are all rigged to make CO2 look like the culprit for the last 150 years of warming. We say this because we now know their models completely ignore, or selectively distort, the potency of an array of drivers and amplification mechanisms.
In the paper, according to the abstract, Scafetta compares the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) and finds that the climate appears to be resonating with, or is synchronized to, a set of natural harmonics that have been associated to the solar system planetary motion.

h/t  Pierre Gosselin and Notrickzone.

Thursday, 5 January 2012

Heatwaves in New York and South Eastern Australia.

Ed Kohn wrote a book titled "Hot Time in the Old Town."

NPR review:
During the summer of 1896, a 10-day heat wave killed nearly 1,500 people, many of them tenement-dwellers, across New York City. Many thousands of people were crammed into tenements on the Lower East Side, with no air conditioning, little circulating air and no running water.

"This was 10 days [with temperatures reaching] 90 degrees at street level and 90 percent humidity, with temperatures not even dropping at night," Kohn says. "No wind — so at night there was absolutely no relief whatsoever."

Meanwhile, also in 1896, in South Eastern Australia, widespread heatwaves killed 437 including 47 in Bourke, New South Wales.  (http://www.disasters.ema.gov.au/ )
There must have been many jet flights and a multitude of SUVs warming the atmosphere in 1896.

Atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures

Paper published in Natural Science vol 3 No 12 December 2011 - here.

Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi
In this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect:

First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) quantifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. [1] that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale.

In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively. In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years.

Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.

RSS Satellite Data Shows No Arctic Warming For Seven Years


From Steven Goddard's Real Science