Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Has the time of the Rational Environmentalist arrived?


Rydges World Square 389 Pitt Street Sydney October 20-21 2012  (Link)

Has the time of the Rational Environmentalist arrived? 

Details and Registration -
 Friday October 19th

7.00pm Informal get-together at the Square Bar on the Lobby level 

Saturday October 20th 

8.30am Registration at Horden 1 room on the Lobby level.

9.00am Welcome by
Max Rheese & the Acting AEF chairman

9.15am Opening Address

9.45am Greens and sustainable development
Alan Oxley

10.15am Morning Tea

10.45am Demonising Carbon Dioxide: Science of the Absurd
Dr David Evans  

11.15am Taxing Carbon Dioxide: Politics of the Absurd Dick Warburton 

 11.45pm Are wind farms too close to communities? Steven Cooper
12.15pm Lunch

1.15pm Water Security and Climate Change
Assoc. Professor Stewart Franks  

1.45pm Are Fisheries or Science in decline? Dr Walter Starck
2.15pm Is temperature or the temperature record rising? Dr David Stockwell 

 2.45pm Close of day programme

3.10pm Depart Rydges for Tall Ship Discovery cruise on Sydney Harbour

5.30pm Tall Ship cruise passengers return to Rydges

7.00pm Pre-dinner drinks

7.30pm Welcome to the Gala Dinner. Dinner Speaker
Professor Jeff Bennett 

Sunday October 21s

7.30am Conference Breakfast

8.00am Author of The Biggest Estate on Earth Bill Gammage 

9.15am Close of breakfast

9.30am Annual General Meeting followed by an Open Forum 

11.30am Conference close 

All conference functions will be held on the Lobby level, refer to hotel signage

What is the Greenhouse effect?? Parts 1 and 2

Real Greenhouse is unlike the Greenhouse effect theory!
What is the Greenhouse effect ??? 
Parts 1 and 2.  

Derek Alker 
14th August 2012. 

If you feel that an open and public discussion is necessary, but has not happened yet in almost any respect of the supposed natural greenhouse effect, the greenhouse effect “theory” itself, nor it’s application to reality, ie man made global warming fears (AGW), then please join the open to all facebook group,There is no greenhouse effect. to increase the numbers demanding such a discussion take place ASAP. 

Part 1

The supposed natural Greenhouse effect. 

We have all heard there is a greenhouse effect that keeps us warmer than we would otherwise be. We have been told there is an invisible atmospheric "blanket" that keeps in and reflects back heat to earths surface. That is why, as we have been told, we are warmer than we would otherwise be. We have been told time and time again about the greenhouse effect and how our emissions of greenhouse gases are affecting, and increasing, the natural greenhouse (GH) effect, which is resulting in man made global warming. 

Currently, this is the GH effect as taught on the BBC (GCSE) bitesize web page. Please note the use of the word "trapped" in 3) - It is physically impossible to trap heat. Heat is energy in transit.
What are we teaching? "We" are teaching the physically impossible, as if it were the truth of the matter.

  1. Sun’s rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere
  2. Heat is reflected back from the Earth’s surface
  3. Heat is absorbed by carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) and as a result becomes
    trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere
  4. The Earth becomes hotter as a result

Humans can now observe our planet from space using satellites. The earth is observed as a planet in space that emits thermal infrared radiation (IR) at an overall average power of 240 W/m2. This average power of emission of IR can be converted into temperature using the Stefan Boltzman (S/B) Law. When the power of earths IR emissions is converted using S/B Law it shows that earth appears to be an object in space with an average temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius (°C). Humans have also measured earths near surface air temperature for many years, and global mean near surface air temperature is generally agreed to be about 15°C. The difference between these two figures is 33°C, and so it is said that the natural greenhouse effect keeps us 33°C warmer than we would otherwise be. 

It is obviously true that greenhouses do indeed keep their interiors warmer than they would otherwise be. This is due to the physical presence of a barrier, ie the walls and ceiling, that prevent the loss of sensible and latent heat (of water vapourisation), from inside the greenhouse to the atmosphere. Without the walls and ceiling the greenhouse interior would be no warmer than the surroundings. Literally without walls and ceiling there is no greenhouse. Patently, in the atmosphere there is no physical barrier to heat loss, this then seemingly begs the question is there a greenhouse type of effect (misnamed as such) in the atmosphere? In short, the consensus within climate science at present is that greenhouse gases absorb outgoing IR and "back radiate" (ie bounce it), back to the earths surface, which then warms the earth surface higher than received solar insolation (sunlight) could do alone. This is a possibility that climate science has spent many years and has expended much effort in trying to show, with as yet no proof whatsoever. However, is there another possible explanation? 

Is the natural GH effect actually just the temperature difference due to gravity hence pressure? Is all the talk of imaginary "blankets" just a misdirection to avoid talking about gravity, and hence pressure differences? How could gravity be relevant? Most people will be aware that gases heat when compressed (ie, bicycle pump against your hand) and gases cool when expanded (ie aerosols are cold). Earths atmosphere has a pressure gradient from earths surface (1 atmosphere) to space (zero). Within earths atmosphere, due to pressure reduction with gained altitude alone the temperature of the air would decrease. Conversely, as air descends through earths atmosphere to the surface, as pressure increases, then the air temperature increases. How big an effect is this known and proven effect? Hans Jelbring in the late 1980s suggested that this effect, due to gravity and hence pressure alone, from the altitude where the air is on average -18°C to earths surface is 33°C. Unless someone intends to repeal the ideal gas law in the near future this means that, the question is not "Why are we warmer than we would otherwise be?" The question should be "Why is earth's near surface air temperature so often different to what it should be due to gravity alone (ie 15°C)?" 

Several other commentators have also followed this line of enquiry. Harry Dale Huffman for example studied the temperatures found on Venus, in his blog post titled, Venus: No Greenhouse Effect.
" Surprisingly to most, there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself.
From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66oC = 339K.
This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15oC = 288K. HOWEVER
Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average. "
" Another way to look at the Venus/Earth data is this:
Venus is 67.25 million miles from the Sun, the Earth, 93 million.
The radiating temperature of Venus should be 1.176 times that of the Earth.

Without ANY greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC, at any given pressure within the range of the Earth atmosphere, the temperature of the Venus atmosphere should be 1.176 times that of the corresponding Earth atmosphere.
The facts:
at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)
The actual ratio overall is 1.165 +/- 0.015 = 0.991 x 1.176. It does not vary from the no-greenhouse theoretical value at any point by more than about 2%. "
And finally, Harry Dale Huffman writes:
" There is no sign whatever of a greenhouse effect on either planet. The fact that the temperature ratios are so close to that predicted solely by their relative distances from the Sun. "
Stephen Wilde, is another commentator of note in regards to the ideal gas law and how it should have been applied in the present climatology GH and AGW dominated paradigm. In particular in an article titled, Atmospheric Composition, Planetary Surface Temperatures and How AGW Theory Fails To Observe The Laws of Physics..


" Removing that non-existent cooling effect from the AGW equation and replacing it with the actual warming effect will bring the numbers into balance with no need to propose any downward energy from GHGs in the air.
AGW theory relies on a gross misunderstanding of the effect of an atmosphere and of the non radiative processes as defined and quantified by the Ideal Gas Law.
The Ideal Gas Law Calculation.
The Ideal Gas Law can be found here:

in particular the equation: PV = nRT

The terms used in that equation are described in the article referred to in the link above.

Note that there is no term for the presence or absence of GHGs or their radiative characteristics.

Yet the Ideal Gas Law works without such a term. If the temperature of a planet’s surface were affected by the radiative characteristics of GHGs then the Ideal Gas Law would not work, it would have been falsified long ago. 

The failure to appreciate that it is the Ideal Gas Law that governs the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere has led to the misapplication of the S-B Law

It appears that Harry Dale Huffman has shown that distance from the sun governs the temperature that a planet observed from space will appear to be, in accordance with S/B Law. Stephen Wilde argues, and seemingly undeniably that pressure determines the temperature for a given altitude in accordance with the ideal gas law, or rather the pressure gradient due to the amount of atmosphere contained within the planets gravity field. 

Will Pratt, appears to correctly combine the two views into one overall approach with the below excerpt from Posted by Will Pratt (Twitter) on Feb 29th 2012, 2:27 PM EST at the Climate Realists website.

Will Pratt wrote,
Overall it appears that, gravity, and the amount of atmosphere, ie pressure, supplies a base amount of energy to the system (a planets atmosphere), this produces a lapse rate due to reducing pressure with altitude. ie, the ideal gas law states, for every altitude what the temperature should be (with no solar insolation). Any difference to this is what should interest us. HOWEVER, the difference IS the sum of ALL warming and cooling processes. 

Furthermore, it appears that all planets obey the S/B Law as objects observed in space.
So, how each planets atmosphere works overall to obey the ideal gas law at it's surface, AND S/B Law as an object observed from space is the real question. How, with the planets atmosphere and it's composition, does the physics of the situation achieve this, as all planets appear to do? Each atmospheric composition, each differing distance from the sun and each differing gravity field will no doubt have differing answers. Applying the GH "theory" or principle to all planets (or any) is plainly just ridiculous. 

We therefore need a new approach, a new paradigm, to help better understand the truth of what we observe. 

Many will most probably dislike this approach as it puts all their sums out because they start from the wrong basis, ie S/B Law, which assumes when applied as it has been, a starting point of absolute zero, at every point within earths atmosphere. In short, earths near surface air temperature is not just a result of surface temperature, it is also a result of pressure, that, and the air temperature at every altitude, does not seem to be included by any explanation of how our climate system may work to date. 

Is it possible to convert all air temperatures as pressure decreases with increasing altitude to one pressure? If this conversion is not done, (as appears to be the case at present), are we comparing apples with oranges, tangerines, pineapples, etc, etc, including sour grapes? Is it any wonder "we" (the consensus climate science, and most main stream climate sceptics) are reaching the wrong, and unphysical conclusions?
Part 2

The Greenhouse effect "theory" as presently taught. 

In the future the GH "theory" will be looked back upon in scorn, not just of the "theory" itself but also of all those that believed in it, in much the same way as "we" look back now on those that used to believe the earth was flat. A strong clue to this should be given by the answer to this question. Who originally came up with the greenhouse effect "theory"? Many suggest it was the brilliant Swedish scientist Svente Arrhenius in 1896, ie, 

Arrhenius, Svente (1896). "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76.

but Arrhenius produced a second and rarely quoted paper in 1906 reducing all his figures to such an extent that he in effect refuted his own earlier paper so many now erroneously "quote". ie, 

Svante Arrhenius, 1906, Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen, Meddelanden från K. Vetenskapsakademien s Nobelinstitut, Vol 1 No 2, pages 110

Extracts online in - Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009), Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner[] (pdf pages 54 to 57) 4 Mar 2009 

That said, Arrhenius suggested nothing like the present, as taught GH "theory". Is there a more modern person attributed with conceiving the GH "theory"? People such as Spencer Weart are "contenders", but he only recounts from a biased view point, it must be said, what has happened. Spencer Weart does not claim to have been the father of GH "theory". No, in short, no single person claims GH "theory" as theirs, unless one thinks it was Al Gore with his "Inconvenient truth". As early as 1909 Professor Woods had devised, run, and published an experiment that proved there was no such effect, whether it is named correctly or incorrectly. Only recently has Nasif Nahle re-run Professor Woods experiment, to much unfounded criticism, yet he got exactly the same results and conclusions that Professor Woods did, way back in 1909. This is a most peculiar situation, a "theory" so widely accepted, yet already disproven. In science the greenhouse effect "theory" is only a hypothesis, and in point of fact, it is a hypothesis that was disproven many, many years ago. The GH "theory" is a failed hypothesis, nothing more. That is why the word theory in this respect should always be put in speech marks. Undoubtedly at present we live in a world of greenhouse gas justified politics, all based upon a disproven "theory" that is actually a failed hypothesis with no "father". It would seem prudent then to look into what is the actual GH effect "theory". Alan Siddons did exactly this in 2010, he compiled the various versions of the GH effect "theory" as then being taught at,
Yale, Harvard, University of Washington, University of Massachusetts, University of Texas, he also included what is taught by, Gavin Schmidt of NASA, and prominent climate science sceptic, Richard Lindzen.
From all these sources Alan Siddons produced the following compilation of what is presently taught as greenhouse effect "theory".

Using Alan Siddons above compilation of the greenhouse effect "theory" as presently taught, it is possible to "go through" what the "theory" actually is. 

The earth at the top of its atmosphere constantly receives sunlight at a power of 1368W/m2. In reality this is an average, it rises and falls as the earth's distance varies due to earth's orbital eccentricity around the sun, and solar activity varies. That said, this variation is quite small in power (W/m2) of sunlight received terms. The variation is usually quoted as less than 1%, ie less than plus or minus 136.8W/2 from 1368W/m2. It is worth noting as such, but effectively we can ignore it. 

GH "theory" starts by dividing the average power of sunlight received at the top of the atmosphere (1368W/m2) by 4. This is described by the "theory" as being because a globe has 4 times the surface area of the same diameter disc, which is mathematically speaking correct of course. Hence 1368W/m2 in reality is 342W/m2 at the start of GH effect "theory". In total energy received over 24 hours terms this is correct....But,

as the how to cook a chicken analogy shows in thermodynamic terms it is completely incorrect, AND a misapplication.

One of the best descriptions in this respect of the gross error of P/4 was coined by John O'Sullivan. John in effect said,

" When a recipe says roast a 3lb chicken for 1 hour at 200°C,
a climatologist assumes that 4 hours at 50°C will produce the same result. "
as per,
The above how to cook a chicken analogy clearly shows how the greenhouse effect "theory" divorces itself from the thermodynamics of reality. We all know 200°C for one hour has a totally different effect thermodynamically speaking to 50°C for four hours, even if it is the same amount of energy as such. 

In scientific terms the above analogy is somewhat incorrect. This is because the Celsius scale is used to describe cooking the chicken, when the Kelvin scale is used in Stefan Boltzman Law to describe the effect of IR. The analogy should be including Kelvin, as follows. 200°C equals an IR beam with a power of 2841.7 W/m2. So, the chicken would need an IR beam with a power of 2841.7 W/m2 for one hour to cook. If we divide this power of IR by four then what a climatologist is actually saying is that a chicken cooking for four hours in an IR beam of a power of 710.425 W/m2 is the same "thing", or effect. A beam of 710.425 W/m2 would "cook" the chicken at an induced temperature of 61.42°C for four hours. Such a "cooked" chicken would most probably give one food poisoning, because bacteria are not killed off at 61.42°C. The effect is not the same, it is not describing the same "thing" at all. The actual thermodynamics of the cooking have been removed from the situation because the power, and therefore induced temperature have been unrealistically reduced by P/4. Obviously this is an incorrect use of maths, it is maths determining the physics, when maths should only describe the physics when applied correctly to a given situation. P/4 then is an obviously incorrect application of the maths to the situation it is used to describe.
P/4 is ok for total energy received over one full rotation of a globe in space,
but not much else. That however is a meaningless "system" average as such, that does not apply in a useful way to any part of the system in earth
s case. In the same way that 61.42°C, or 50°C will not tell you anything about how to cook a chicken.
P/4 also establishes the principle that according to GH effect "theory" increased surface area reduces the power of IR received and therefore (because of S/B Law and black body) the power that can also be emitted by the receiving object.

GH effect "theory" starts with P/4 being applied to 1368W/m2, and so it states that 340W/m2 is received constantly, at the top of earth's atmosphere, over the whole, not in parts. This starting point for the "theory" states that earth does not receive sunlight over a lit hemisphere, the "theory" states as it's starting point that earth receives sunlight over it's whole of the top of the atmosphere, constantly at 1/4 of the actual power of sunlight!!! OK, so once you have swallowed this patently unphysical starting point for the "theory" what happens next??? 

The 340W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere is reduced by both reflection straight back into space, known as albedo, and by scattering and absorption within the atmosphere. These losses mean that 240W/m2 of sunlight is received, constantly, all over earth's surface, according to GH "theory".
According to the Stefan Boltzman Law a (perfect) black body receiving an IR input of 240W/m2 would warm up to a temperature of MINUS 18°C. The black body would also radiate IR at a power of 240W/m2. GH "theory" uses the S/B Law to state that earth's surface (GH "theory" treats earth as a perfect black body, as it does with ALL the parts of the climate system) receiving 240W/m2 warms to MINUS 18°C, because of sunlight. Some call GH "theory" the cold sun hypothesis for this very reason, the sun, supposedly only "warms" earth's surface to MINUS 18°C!!! 

Earth's surface having been warmed to MINUS 18°C by direct sunlight, then radiates IR at a power of 240W/m2, in agreement with S/B Law for a black body. This emitted IR then warms the earth's atmosphere, as a whole, to MINUS 18°C. Then according to GH effect "theory" the atmosphere radiates both up and down 240W/m2. This is in contradiction to the principle established by P/4, the power should be halved, but it is not. The same power is, according to the "theory", radiated both up and down. This in effect has doubled the power and amount of the flow of IR. It is an accepted "principle" of GH effect "theory" and much of the accompanying radiative physics that power (W/m2) of IR emission EQUALS amount (Watts) of IR emitted. Either way, at this point the "theory" doubles the flow, in both power and amount terms. Energy is literally created from nothing. 

GH "theory" uses a two parallel plane (2PP) type of model. This is easily demonstrated, as follows.

A Two parallel plane "model" to re[resent stars...
Which is simply a model of two parallel planes ONLY.

In astronomy the use of a 2PP model to represent stars seems reasonable, stars are basically the same all over, but to try to represent earth, with the same type of model, is surely a simplification too far. 

Never the less GH "theory" uses a 2PP model and the IR emitted upwards by the atmosphere gives the object earth the appearance of MINUS 18°C when viewed from space. This is in agreement with S/B Law. BUT, what happened to the absorbed and reflected initial sunlight?
Some would have to be added to the atmosphere emitted outgoing 240W/m2, so the earth should appear hotter than it is, or should be. Some of this absorbed, scattered, or reflected IR would have to have raised the temperature of the atmosphere (if it is a perfect black body...) so the atmosphere should also be emitting more than 240W/m2. 

According to the "theory" the initial reflected and absorbed energy simply disappears....GH effect "theory" creates energy, it also destroys energy, when it needs to.

According to GH effect "theory" earth's surface, is constantly receiving, over all of it's surface 240W/m2 from direct sunlight, AND 240W/m2 from the atmospheric downwards emitted IR (usually referred to as "back radiation"). This means that in accordance with S/B Law earth's surface is receiving 480W/m2, constantly, all over, and is therefore as a black body, constantly, all over 30°C. What is actually taught is a 48°C "effect", in that the earth's surface is not merely 33°C warmer because of the greenhouse effect, but that it is 48 degrees warmer, as this is the difference between MINUS 18°C and 30°C. 

All this is based upon the initial lowering of the temperature of earth's surface due to unphysically reduced sunlight received, by the use of P/4 to MINUS 18°C. 

Why does the earth's surface NOT radiate at 480W/m2 according to GH "theory"??? According to S/B Law an object radiates at a power commensurate with it's temperature, therefore earth's surface MUST radiate at a power of 480W/m2. However if GH "theory" admitted this then it would have to admit that emitted IR would warm the atmosphere to 480W/m2, or rather 30°C. If this was the case the atmosphere would then also HAVE TO radiate at 480W/m2, so the surface would be receiving 240+240+480 = 960W/m2. The surface of earth would then have to radiate 960W/m2, heating the atmosphere to 960W/m2, which would.....etc, etc, etc.. You get the idea, it would be a run away effect. 

WHY then does GH "theory" never explain this "slight problem" with the logic of the "theory"???
Jim Peden illustrated this issue with the "theory" beautifully some time back with his free energy (AGW) oven.

IF GH effect "theory" used it's own logic all the way through, then it would actually look like this. (although the "theory" would still have to explain WHY the earth's surface does not emit at a power of 358W/m2, warming the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc..)

The above is WHY the consensus, AND main stream sceptics, avoid like the plague, questioning of the principles (especially P/4), of the greenhouse effect so called "theory", that is in reality a failed hypothesis, that should never have got past first base. 

Contradictions within GH "theory" -

i) P/4 decreases power with increasing surface area BUT the atmosphere radiates at same power with twice the surface area? 

ii) Atmosphere reflects, absorbs and scatters 100W/m2 BUT back radiation is 100% received at earth's surface? 

iii) Earth's surface radiates at 240 W/m2 BUT earths surface does not radiate at 480 W/m2? 

iv) "Initial" 340W/m2 input reduced to 240W/m2 at surface - missing 100W/m2 goes nowhere, energy is simply destroyed. BUT, 240W/m2 from surface becomes 240W/m2 to space, AND 240W/m2 to surface. Energy, if we accept power of emission = amount of emission, is simply created from nothing.

Part 3

How the GH "theory" has been "applied" to reality -
aka AGW "theory".

To be added later, what follows is a very rough plan. 

AGW "theory" is the application of GH "theory" to reality, BUT it is a black body "reality" with no gravity or life on the planet represented. Not much like earth at all... 

Will include Carl Brehmers CO2 bottle experiment showing CO2 radiative warming effect is a scam, and,
water vapour is a negative feedback experiment and proof. 

In AGW “theory” reality is a completely black body "reality", a planet with no gravity, or life.
As black body figures have been measured (supposedly) in actual gray body reality then this disproves the AGW "theory" of itself
- black body figures can not be measured from gray bodies... 

No gravity was easily accomplished by the use of a 2 parallel plane model structure - the atmosphere in such a model, because it is merely represented as a line, has no depth, therefore no pressure gradient...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that "they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.

" First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandhi

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels


'Climate Consensus' Data Need a More Careful Look


In his Aug. 6 op-ed, "A New Climate-Change Consensus," Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp speaks of "the trend—a decades-long march toward hotter and wilder weather." We have seen quite a few such claims this summer season, and Mr. Krupp insists that we accept them as "true." Only with Lewis Carroll's famous definition of truth, "What I tell you three times is true," is this the case.

But repetition of a fib does not make it true. As one of many pieces of evidence that our climate is doing what it always does, consider the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's year-by-year data for wet and dry years in the continental U.S.

From 1900 to the present, there are only irregular, chaotic variations from year to year, but no change in the trend or in the frequency of dry years or wet years. Sometimes there are clusters of dry years, the most significant being the dry Dust Bowl years of the 1930s. These tend to be followed by clusters of wet years.

Despite shrill claims of new record highs, when we look at record highs for temperature measurement stations that have existed long enough to have a meaningful history, there is no trend in the number of extreme high temperatures, neither regionally nor continentally. We do see the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s setting the largest number of record highs, at a time when it is acknowledged that humans had negligible effect on climate.

What about strong tornadoes? Again there is no trend. Last year was an unusually active season, and unfortunately some of those storms ravaged population centers. We were told that these disasters were the result of human CO2 emissions. Yet 2011 was only the sixth worst for strong tornadoes since 1950 and far from a record. And have any of us heard about this tornado year? Why not? Because 2012 has been unusually quiet. Most of the tornado season is behind us, and so far the tornado count is mired in the lowest quintile of historical activity. As for hurricanes, again there is no discernible trend. Regarding wildfires, past western fires burned far more acreage than today. Any climate effect on wildfires is complicated by the controversial fire suppression practices of the past hundred years.
Lurid media reporting and advocates' claims aside, even the last comprehensive Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report noted that "archived data sets are not yet sufficient for determining long-term trends in [weather] extremes." Yet this has not stopped global warming advocates from using hot summer weather as a tool to dramatize a supposedly impending climate Armageddon.

In a telling 2007 PBS interview, former Sen. Tim Wirth gloated about how he had rigged the 1988 Senate testimony chamber to dramatize the impact of NASA scientist James Hansen's histrionic testimony on imminent danger from global warming: "We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer . . . So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington or close to it."
Not content to gamble on the vagaries of weather statistics, Mr. Wirth also boasted, "What we did is that we went in the night beforehand and opened all the windows . . . so the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room . . . when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot." Tricks like those described by Sen. Wirth have been refined to an art to promote the cause of economically costly action to prevent supposedly catastrophic consequences of increasing CO2. Contrast these manipulations with the measured and informative Senatetestimony of climatologist John Christy earlier this month.

In an effort to move the science debate completely into the political arena, Mr. Krupp implies that with the exception of a few enlightened Republican governors and captains of industry, most "conservatives" are climate skeptics—and vice versa. But some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include the politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; famously independent physicist and author, Freeman Dyson; environmentalist futurist, and father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock; left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement, and many others who would bristle at being lumped into the conservative camp.
Whether increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is bad or good is a question of science. And in science, truth and facts are not the playthings of causes, nor a touchstone of political correctness, nor true religion, nor "what I tell you three times is true."

Humanity has always dealt with changing climate. In addition to the years of drought and excessive moisture described above, the geological record makes it clear that there have been longer-term periods of drought, lasting for many years as during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s to many decades or centuries. None of these past climate changes, which had a profound effect on humanity, had anything to do with CO2, and there are good reasons for skepticism that doubling CO2 will make much difference compared to natural climate changes.
It is increasingly clear that doubling CO2 is unlikely to increase global temperature more than about one degree Celsius, not the much larger values touted by the global warming establishment. In fact, CO2 levels are below the optimum levels for most plants, and there are persuasive arguments that the mild warming and increased agricultural yields from doubling CO2 will be an overall benefit for humanity. Let us debate and deal with serious, real problems facing our society, not elaborately orchestrated, phony ones, like the trumped-up need to drastically curtail CO2 emissions.

Roger W. Cohen
Fellow, American Physical Society
La Jolla, Calif.

William Happer
Princeton University
Princeton, N.J.

Richard S. Lindzen
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Mass.

A version of this article appeared August 14, 2012, on page A14 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: 'Climate Consensus' Data Need a More Careful Look.

h/t RC and GWR

MWP Warmer than today - ANOTHER new paper

Patella Vulgata
CO2 Science reports on a new peer reviewed paper (Link) published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (Link) that examined the shells of the common European limpet from an archaeological site on the Isle of Mull in the Hebrides. They learned that the Sea Surface temperatures were equal to, or greater than the mean summer SST of the period AD 1961-1990.

See CO2 Science

What was learned
Based on graphical representations of their reconstructed SSTs pertaining to five intervals of the Roman Warm Period (RWP) - which the three researchers identify as occurring between 2500 and 1600 years Before Present - it is evident that fully one-third of the peak summer SSTs were either equal to, or greater than, the mean summer SST of the period AD 1961-1990, leading them to conclude that the mean summer temperature of that portion of the RWP "was similar to the late 20th century."

What it means
Once again - see Roman Warm Period in our Subject Index - we have another manifestation of the fact that in numerous places around the world, it was just as warm - or warmer - some two millennia ago than it has been recently, when there was 30% less CO2 in the air than there is today. And this observation strongly suggests that the warmth of today is likely due to something other than mankind's CO2 emissions.
Wang, T., Surge, D. and Mithen, S. 2012. Seasonal temperature variability of the Neoglacial (3300-2500 BP) and Roman Warm Period (2500-1600 BP) reconstructed from oxygen isotope ratios of limpet shells (Patella vulgata), Northwest Scotland. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 317-318: 104-113.