According to this story the "Climate Institute" say the tax could be as small as $2.45 per week. If so, why all the resistance to this measly sum, If only it were true. A carbon tax on fuel alone will amount to between 5 and 8 cents per litre and we all know when you put a tax on fuel then you also raise the price of everything we use, eat, wear, watch, drive, sit on and live in, nothing will be spared and this is before we are bent over by the power companies. Compensation promises will not be sufficient and they will not last and the price per ton will not stay at the introductory level. This PM has shown she is not concerned about lying to the Australian people and we should remember this when details are finally revealed. Until the worlds major emitters commit to engage in this issue we are doing nothing more than engaging in national self flagellation with no hope of changing anything and they know it. Also what happens to the other 50% of the tax that Juliar says she is giving back in compensation, there never seems to be anything said about that Are they serious, do they honestly expect people to believe that Juliar can save the planet by taxing us all only $2.45 per week ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background information
The following pages of background information demonstrate how the above results were determined. For full references, caveats, and a thorough discussion, see –
Monckton of Brenchley, C.W., 2009, Is CO2 Mitigation Cost-Effective? Lecture to the Prague School of Economics, May, 12 pp: obtainable from vc@nd.edu.au.
Definitions
Radiative flux is a continuous flow of radiant energy at some surface, denominated in Watts per square metre (W m–2).
Radiative forcing is a change in the net radiative flux at the tropopause, the top of the climatically-active region of the atmosphere.
The mitigation cost-effectiveness of any policy intended to mitigate global warming by reducing CO2 concentration in the air is the cost of forestalling 1 C° of CO2-induced global warming, on the assumption that all measures to mitigate that warming up to a target year are as cost-effective (or cost-ineffective) as that policy.
On the same assumption, the global abatement cost of a policy is the cost (expressed as a percentage of global GDP taken as increasing yearly at 3% real, and discounted at some inter-temporal discount rate) of forestalling all warming from CO2 and other manmade climate influences up to the target year (in this case, 2020).
Base data (with sources)
3.4 C°: cent.est. of 21st-century manmade warming: (IPCC, 2007, p.13, table SPM.3).
8 W m–2: cent.est. of 21st-century radiative forcing (IPCC, 2007, p. 803, fig. 10.26).
5.35: CO2 radiative-forcing coefficient: (Myhre et al., 1998; IPCC, 2001 & 2007: A2).
280 ppmv: Estd. CO2 concentration in the air in 1750 (IPCC, 2001 & 2007: A2).
390 ppmv: Measured CO2 concentration in 2010 (NOAA; ESRL).
22 ppmv: Projected CO2 concentration growth, 2011-2020 (IPCC. 2007, A2 scenario).
836 ppmv: Projected CO2 concentration in 2100 (IPCC, 2007, A2 scenario).
5%: Proposed cut in Australian emissions by 2020. (Gillard announcement, 2011).
1.2%: Australian CO2 emissions as % world emissions (from Boden et al., 2010ab).
$10.1 bn/yr: carbon trading cost (23/26 x $11.5 bn given in Garnaut, 2011).
$0.9 bn/yr: renewable energy support ($9.2 bn over 10 years: Gillard, 2011).
$1.6 bn/yr: administration costs (Wong, 2010).
$0.3 bn/yr: costs of coal & steel support averaged over 10 years (Gillard, 2011).
$60 trillion: Global annual GDP (World Bank, 2011).
51%: CO2 forcing as a proportion of all 21st-century manmade forcings (IPCC, 2007).
0.1%: Pure rate-of-time-preference inter-generational discount rate (Stern, 2006).
1.35% & 2.65%: Pure rate-of-time-preference discount rates (Garnaut, 2008).
2.75% & 3.22%: Pure rate-of-time-preference discount rates (HM Treasury).
3.5%: Standard pure rate-of-time-preference discount rate (HM Tsy Green Book).
5.0%: Pure rate-of-time-preference discount rate (President Dr. Vaclav Klaus).
The true cost of putting a “price” on carbon dioxide
Using the base data and HM Treasury’s 3.5% discount rate, we determine –
First, the CO2 concentration in 2020 if Garnaut’s proposal is fully implemented:
412 ppmv minus 25% of 1.2% of 22 ppmv = 411.987 ppmv.
Secondly, the radiative forcing the policy forestalls over the 10-year period:
5.35 x the natural logarithm of (412/411.987) = 0.00017 W m–2.
Thirdly, how much warming Professor Garnaut’s proposal will forestall by 2020:
3.4 / 8 x 0.00017 = 0.00007 C°, or about 1/14,000 C°.
Fourthly, the cost of the carbon-trading policy in year 1:
($10.1bn + $1.6 bn + $0.9 bn + 0.3 bn) = $13 bn.
Fifthly, the total cost of carbon-trading policy from 2011-2020:
$13 bn increased by 3%/year & discounted at 3.5%/yr: total $127 bn/10yr.
Sixthly, the amount of CO2-driven warming over 10 years if we do nothing:
3.4 / 8 x 5.35 x the natural logarithm of (412/390) = 0.125 C°.
Seventhly, the mitigation cost-effectiveness of Australia’s carbon trading policy:
$127 bn / 5% of 1.2% of 0.125 C° = $1.7 quadrillion/C° forestalled.
Eighthly, total global GDP from 2011-2020:
$60 trillion/year in 2010, hiked by 3%/year: total $708 trillion/10yr.
Ninthly, the global abatement cost of the policy:
(100 x $127 bn) / 5% of 1.2% of 51% of $708 trillion = 58.4% of GDP.
Tenthly, the global abatement cost of the policy per capita of world population:
58.4% of $708 trillion divided by 7 bn world population = $59,000/head.
Table 1 summarizes the effect of various inter-temporal discount rates. The action/inaction ratio compares the action cost with the upper-bound inaction cost.
TABLE 1
Stern
Garnaut #1
Garnaut #2
Treasury
Klaus
ROTP discount rate
0.1%
1.35%
2.65%
3.5%
5.0%
Policy cost
$153 bn
$142 bn
$132 bn
$127 bn
$117 bn
Mitigation cost-effect.
$2.1 qd/C
$2.0 qd/C
$1.8 qd/C
$1.7 qd/C
$1.6 qd/C
Abatement cost/head
$71,500
$66,500
$62,000
$59,000
$55,000
Global abatemt. cost
$499 tr
$465 tr
$433 tr
$414 tr
$383 tr
Abatemt. as % GDP
70.4%
65.6%
61.1%
58.4%
54.0%
Global inaction cost
5-20%
2.2-8.6%
1.0-4.1%
0.7-2.7%
0.4-1.5%
Action / inaction
3.5x
7.6x
15x
22x
36x
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
\
If the Australian Government’s proposal to oblige 500 big “polluters” to engage in what the City of London calls “trading hot air” were to achieve its stated aim of cutting 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions by 2020, and assuming HM Treasury’s 3.5% pure-rate-of-time-preference commercial discount rate for inter-temporal investment appraisals –
By 2020, CO2 in the air would be 411.987 parts per million by volume, compared with 412 ppmv if no action were taken.
Global warming forestalled by 2020 would be 0.00007 C°: i.e. 1/14,000 C°.
0.00007 C° is 1/700 of the threshold below which modern instruments and methods cannot detect a global temperature change at all.
At this rate, total cost of the carbon tax/trade policy will be not less than $127 billion between now and 2020, not counting gasoline and power price hikes.
If all the world’s measures to cut greenhouse-gas emissions were as cost-ineffective as the Australian Government’s proposed policy, forestalling just 1 C° of global warming would cost the world $1.7 quadrillion.
Forestalling all of the 0.24 C° global warming predicted by 2020 would demand almost $60,000 from every man, woman and child on the planet.
That cost is equivalent to almost 60% of global GDP to 2020.
That is 22 times the maximum estimate of the welfare loss from doing nothing about the climate, which is just 2.7% of global 21st-century GDP.
It is 83 times the minimum welfare-loss estimate of just 0.7% of GDP.
Garnaut’s 1.35% and 2.65% inter-temporal discount rates are very low by usual economic standards, artificially making the cost of action seem less costly compared with the cost of inaction than it really is. However –
Even at Garnaut’s artificially low discount rates, the cost of the Gillard policy would be 7.6 to 15 times the cost of doing nothing about climate change.
At the 5% discount rate recommended by President Dr. Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic for climate-related appraisals, the cost of doing what Gillard proposes would be 36 times the maximum cost of doing nothing.
For most Australian households, the $10.10/week benefit from the Gillard scheme will exceed the $9.90/week cost, providing no disincentive to emit.
For 500 big “polluters” (CO2 is not a pollutant, but plant-food to green the planet), compensation plus higher prices provide no disincentive to emit.
Thus, all the above calculations overstate the scheme’s cost-effectiveness.
Bottom line: It is many times more costly to try to prevent global warming by Gillard’s methods than to adapt in a focused way to the predicted consequences of global warming.
Conclusion: Mitigation policies cheap enough to be affordable will be ineffective: policies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. It is unlikely that any policy to forestall global warming by regulating, reducing replacing, taxing or trading greenhouse-gas emissions will prove cost-effective solely on grounds of the welfare benefit foreseeable from global-warming mitigation. No such benefit is discernible.
High abatement costs, and the negligible returns in warming forestalled, imply that focused adaptation to the consequences of such future warming as may occur will prove more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation. The opportunity cost of diverting trillions of dollars to mitigation is heavy. Therefore, the question arises whether mitigation should be attempted at all.
Christopher Monckton, The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
COMMUSIST STATE DECLARED BY GILLARD
The Gillard government’s plan to use the ACCC to gag small businesses from informing consumers of price increases due to the carbon tax is a further attack on the struggling sector.
No Treasury modelling has been produced to back up Julia Gillard’s claim that any price rise of more than 1 per cent is a price gouge consumer rip off.
Instead of a proper and credible assessment of her carbon tax impact by sector, business type or specific product or service, Julia Gillard has issued a threat of a 1.1 million dollar fine for businesses that dare to contradict her political spin.
Small businesses will risk being fined if they are asked to explain prices rises to consumers.
The Government has failed to understand the clear and obvious complexity of calculating the carbon tax impact and has not bothered to properly assess the impact by sector, business or item. Just a further note; if I may. Gillards statement of fineing business for informing the public of what component of pricing is carbon tax; is a direct contravention of two federal laws. Firstly, the free trade act states that it is against federal law to hinder, restrict, curtail or otherwise impose an impediment to any business engaged in lawfull and legal trade. Punishable by fines and imprisonment. Secondly, it is in direct contravention to the constitution in that it effectivly tries to imppose a law that restricts freedom of information, also punishable by fines and imprisonment.... no intelligent accademic can be THAT stupid as not to point this out. Unless Gillard has found a way to change the constitution, I am supposed to believe that she is indeed a totally incompetant PM and her advisors are candidates for federal prison for suggesting such an option.
Julia Gillard’s use of the ACCC to prosecute small businesses who talk about the carbon tax is more about the Government protecting its own self serving political claims than protecting consumers from unjustified carbon tax related price increases.
So Much for the Carbon Tax Compensation
Posted: 14 Jul 2011 05:58 PM PDT
NSW commuters could be hit with public transport fare increases of up to $150 a year when the carbon tax kicks in, confidential state government figures show.
The federal government claimed the overall cost-of-living impact on prices from the tax would be only 0.7 per cent of CPI.
However the NSW Treasury estimated that the potential fare rises for all modes of public transport in NSW alone - due to increased electricity costs for trains and fuel costs for buses and ferries - could be expected at an average 3.4 per cent.
Commuters travelling longer distances to the city from places such as Blacktown, Penrith, Campbelltown, Gosford and Heathcote would be worst affected.
NSW Premier Mr O'Farrell said yesterday it was "crazy" that public transport would be hit by the tax when petrol for cars would be exempt: "This will create more pollution and defeat the whole purpose of a carbon tax."
"The federal government is crazy if it thinks this tax is going to reduce carbon emissions when it will lead to higher public transport fares and create an incentive for people to use their cars."
The Treasury document assumed that the full cost of the carbon tax would be borne by commuters rather than by taxpayers. This reminds me of 1960's thinking. The metropolitan Tramways board in Melbourne lost 2 million dollars and decided to raise the fares by 5%. Next year they lost 4 million dollars and they couldn't figure out why. a MORON OF THE FIRST DEGREE COULD HAVE TOLD THEM THE ANSWER. There was obviously more than 10% of the commuters who said " If the fare goes up one more time, I'm not using it". Some people are on the edge of decision to NOT use public transport; the straw that broke the camels back.
Canada learned this lession a long time ago and made their transport fares "fixed". The one fare for everyone travelling in the one direction in a 24 hour period. It worked. People gladley used the system. As a result, the company made money hand over fist; the electric bus drivers are the highest paid in the world. Some companies either don't learn or, like the government, are just totally incompetant.
Results of the Daily Telegraph poll thus far.
Would you stop using public transport if the carbon tax pushed fares up $150 a year?
Yes 79.09% (3562 votes)
No 20.91% (942 votes)
Mark Twain made famous the saying “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”.
Contrary to the line repeated constantly by Julia Gillard and Greg Combet, Australia doesn’t have the world’s highest per capita emissions of manmade CO2. Authoritative figures show that several countries, from large (USA) to small (Qatar, Kuwait), have higher per capita emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel than Australia.
But here’s the really interesting story: the IPCC’s own numbers suggest that Australia’s annual net absorption of CO2 over its land and territorial oceans by natural processes exceeds its annual manmade emissions by a factor of 2 – a better performance than any other nation or region. On a net basis, according to the IPCC’s own numbers, Australia doesn’t have any emissions of CO2 at all - either in absolute or per capita terms.
The IPCC notes that figures from its Fourth Assessment Report, Ch.7, Fig.7.3 (on which I rely for these calculations) carry large uncertainties. For argument’s sake, we’ll accept the IPCC line on global warming (although I don’t buy it) and we’ll use these data.
We begin by figuring1 annual net absorption of CO2 over land by natural processes, mainly vegetation and soil: net natural absorption on land is 3.2 billion tonnes/year C-equivalent (122.8 bn.t/yr of absorption minus 119.6 bn.t/ yr of emission). And for oceans, we find that net natural absorption at the sea’s surface is 1.6 bn.t/yr tonnes C-equivalent (92.2 bn.t/yr of absorption minus 90.6 bn.t/yr of emission).
Earth’s surface is 510.1 million square kilometres; the oceans cover 71%, or 362 mn.sq.km; and land covers 29%, or 148 mn.sq.km. The surface area of Australia is 7.7 mn.sq.km, so it covers 5.2% of Earth’s land area; and its maritime ‘exclusive economic zone’ is 8.2 mn.sq.km, which covers 2.3% of Earth’s oceans.
If the IPCC’s figures represent realistic averages over the Earth’s surface, we can apply them to the percentages we’ve derived. Accordingly, Australia’s land mass absorbs 5.2% of the 3.2 bn.t/yr of CO2 absorbed globally by land, or 0.166 bn.t/yr C-equivalent; and Australia’s oceans absorbs 2.3% of the 1.6 bn.t/yr of CO2 absorbed globally by oceans, or 0.036 bn.t/yr C-equivalent.
Adding these results, we find that Australia absorbs naturally 0.2 bn.t/yr C-equivalent – twice its man-made emissions from fossil fuel, which totalled 0.1 bn.t/yr C-equivalent in 2010, or 1.1% of global fossil fuel emissions (according to BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2011). We know that Australia is largely semi-arid and is typically less vegetated than other regions; but even if you halve Australia’s rate of land absorption of CO2 from the IPCC global average, the total still exceeds its man-made emissions from fossil fuel.
Doing the same exercise for all other major nations or regions, we find that the truly serious offender in 2010 was China, at 2.3 bn.t/yr C-equivalent. China emitted over 10 times more CO2 from fossil fuel than it absorbed naturally – worse than any other major nation or region. In 2010, China’s emissions from fossil fuel were 10% greater than in 2009. It produced 23 times more CO2 from fossil fuel than Australia did! In the space of a single year, China’s fossil fuel emissions grew by an amount more than twice the amount of Australia’s emissions from fossil sources.
By Alex Stuart - posted Friday, 15 July 2011
We Are Just a Pimple on the Arse of an Ant
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 05:03 PM PDT
A single Indian state is to build a new fleet of coal-power stations that could make it one of the world's top 20 emitters of carbon emissions – on a par with countries such as Spain or Poland.
In an echo of the Chinese economy in the 1990s which depended on the exploitation of vast reserves of coal, India last year approved plans for 173 coal-fired power stations expected to provide an extra 80-100 gigawatts (GW) of electricity capacity within a few years. Many are expected to be fuelled by cheap coal imported from Australia, Indonesia and southern Africa, but applications to mine more than 600m tonnes of coal in India have been lodged.
The epicentre is Andhra Pradesh which, with a population is 84.7 million people, is now expanding its power production by 800%. Seven major and more than 30 smaller coal-powered power stations are planned, together intended to have a capacity of 56GW.
In comparison, the UK's installed electricity capacity is 75GW, but is expected to rise to 100GW in the next two decades. The largest plant, expected to be opened in two years, will be the $4bn Krishnapatnam power station, India's first "ultra-mega" class of coal-fired power station. With 4GW, capacity it will be one of the world's 25 biggest electricity sources, capable of powering 7m middle-class homes.
Australia’s installed electricity capacity is just 37 gigawatts (GW). We are just a pimple on the arse of an Ant.
Our government wants to phase out cheap plentiful reliable coal fired power stations here with high cost unreliable renewables such as wind turbines that are manufactured in the very factories in Asia and India that are powered with our exported coal.The mind boggles.
Climate cops blame ozone for illness
The climate kooks have launched another bizarre bid for attention — this time claiming that global warming will cause millions of illnesses and cost billions of dollars. [ You can bet it won't be natural when - not if - it happens; despite anything anyone does because the world is just full-up]
And it’s going to happen in less than a decade. [ This may be a hint as to what's really being planned, mass culling of world population ]
The Union of Concerned Scientists says its Earth-friendly crystal ball shows 2.8 million ozone-related respiratory illnesses in 2020 — including a combined 944,000 missed school days.
Better start working on those absence notes now.
The group also claims there will be 5,100 hospitalizations of infants and seniors due to climate-related breathing problems, and that the total cost of all these illnesses and missed school days will be $5.4 billion.
The organization says the warmer weather expected over the next 8+ years will cause ozone levels to grow faster than Al Gore’s ego, leading to an increase in conditions such as asthma.
And if this is what passes for science at the Union, I really am concerned — because here’s what you won’t find in their report: U.S. ozone levels are DOWN over the past two decades, according to the Environmental Protection Agency… but asthma diagnoses are UP like never before.
Clearly, something is causing asthma levels to shoot up — and just as clearly, it’s not ozone levels.
Don’t blame carbon emissions from your refrigerator, either — despite what you’ve heard, our CO2 levels are on the downswing as well.
There’s a much simpler explanation for rising asthma rates, and it’s got nothing to do with what our refrigerators are spitting out and everything to do with what we put inside them.
The more crap we eat, the fatter we get — and the fatter we get, the more cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses we’ll suffer.
So I’ll agree with them on one thing: This is a manmade crisis, all right — but the only environment you can blame is the one in the supermarket.
Children terrified by climate change lessons [ Parents should sue the education dept]
Kids "feel incredibly despondent and helpless"
Pensioners: Promised cash for carbon tax [ Because they will die before the real shit hits the fan]
PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.
On the eve of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax package announcement, psychologists and scientists said the lessons were alarmist, created unneeded anxiety among school children and endangered their
mental health. [another reason for class action law suit]
Climate change as a "Doomsday scenario" is being taught in classrooms across Australia.
Resource material produced by the Gillard government for primary school teachers and students states climate change will cause "devastating disasters".
Australian National University's Centre for the Public Awareness of Science director Dr Sue Stocklmayer said climate change had been portrayed as "Doomsday scenarios with no way out".
Dr Stocklmayer said she was not a climate-change sceptic but worried that "too much time was spent presenting scary scenarios, especially to young people".
The IPCC continues to propagate global warming lies, only now it is called “climate change.” Any pubic figure that uses the term “climate change” is lying if for no other reason than the climate of the Earth has been and is always in a state of change.
As courts in the U.S. and England continue to require the global warming charlatans and their universities to make known their alleged “scientific research” and email exchanges to further the hoax, a larger question looms. Should not such activity be deemed a deliberate fraud and should not injured parties, including the whole populations of America and England have a standing in court to see that they are punished?
Unanswered is the role that the mass media played in spreading and defending the global warming hoax. On Memorial Day, when we celebrate the sacrifice of fallen heroes to preserve liberty, the Washington Post published a bizarre editorial criticizing “climate skeptics” for using the FOIA to find out why Mann and the University of Virginia received funding while participating in a massive deception. Unmentioned were comparable Greenpeace FOIA efforts against climate skeptics.
It’s worth noting that the global warming/climate change fraud is still being perpetrated in American schools from coast to coast.
Already, a number of Republican candidates for the presidency have refuted global warming or an earlier role in advocating it. For too long, politicians have not just been wrong, but often deliberately ignorant of the truth.
Justice may be slow, but it will be served and that is a lesson the entire scientific community should take note. As more revelations occur, even the mainstream media will be unable to protect the global warming/climate change perpetrators or to be their co-conspirators.
© Alan Caruba, 2011
The truth about the “Lord” claim
I care not about the UK peerage, but for the record, when people mockingly claim Christopher Monckton is not a Lord it shows just how desperate they are to attack the man and distract people from hearing his arguments.
The correct answer when people say: “He’s not a Lord” is one line.
The Letters Patent grants him a peerage, and his passport lists him as a Viscount. You really are scared of talking about scientific evidence aren’t you?
Attacks on his title are ad hominem remarks — designed to suggest he can’t be trusted to speak about anything else. The truth is a complex legal debate borne from that the centuries old messy ancient liaison between the British monarchy and UK Parliament. Do you want to talk historic legal technicalities or science?
There is no deception on the part of Christopher Monckton. He has never claimed he was a voting member of the House of Lords in the UK. He inherited the title the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from his father and grandfather before that. It is indeed inscribed on his passport as such, I can confirm.
For we uninformed Australians, the title Viscount is ranked above the more common Baron, but beneath that of Dukes, Marquess, and Earls. All of the above can use the term “Lord”.
Monckton explains the complex legal situation:
“The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.”
Do I think that this an unwelcome distraction and he should stop using the title? I used to. Now though I am convinced that were Monckton to appear completely untouchably reasonable, like say Anthony Watts or Dr David Evans, the media would ignore him too. It’s part of his clown disguise, and it reels the small minds in. It’s rather pathetic that the level of discourse is so damningly poor that this sort of theatrical flag has any place in the public debate about whether we should spend billions on trying to change the weather. It’s as if the kindy kids escaped into the Editorial Department of major mastheads.
Green Party Leader admits Global Warming is Really all about World Government
Number Six
Activist Post
The Australian Green Party has now assumed the balance of power in the Australian Senate, allowing them great potential power in policy making. The Greens, founded in 1992, are traced back to the 1970’s Club of Rome era United Tasmanian Group, the world’s first “green” party. Their moniker is self-explanatory, the basis of their charter being ecology and the environmental movement.
Green Party principles state that global warming, er, climate change is the greatest threat to humanity with only ten to fifteen years remaining to provide a solution. “Australia is ideally placed to lead the world in this challenge and the Greens are committed to Australia taking that lead.”[1] They also want to limit CO2 and eliminate coal use, despite the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant. Furthermore, they want to establish a “low-carbon economy” and force nations to sign binding environmental treaties restructuring the whole of society, economy and politics. They state “climate change will result in the displacement of people, creating environmental refugees and intensifying the threat of regional and global conflict.”[2].
In actuality, climate change policy will result in great displacement, mass impoverishment and genocide. Much has been said by real scientists on these issues such as the Sky Dragon Slayers, Piers Corbyn, Anthony Watts and thousands of others. The policy documents from the Club of Rome and the United Nations to Ecoscience detail their true agenda, in their own words. Historian and economist Webster Tarpley recently gave a lecture dissecting this documentation revealing their agenda of deindustrialization, mass involuntary sterilization, global depopulation and the establishment of what they call a “planetary regime” or what Senator Brown calls a “world parliament.”[3] India is already giving away cars in exchange for male and female sterilization.[4]
Senator Brown: World Government is Real, No Conspiracy Theory
Australian Green leader, Senator Bob Brown, recently unveiled his hope for a “world parliament.” [5] Corporate commentators and spineless journalists proclaim the idea of a world parliament is something now to be treated seriously, not laughed at.[6] Authors and researchers discussing long laid out plans for world parliament and critical of the movement, consistently having been right on the money, have been laughed at for so long and called derogatory terms. Now we are to stop laughing and take it serious, for the time of world government is nigh.
Senator Brown believes we are inevitably moving toward a world community or “global, uh, parliamentary…governance” while deriding conspiracy talk. One will notice how all politicians who make public mention of this agenda always stutter before they proclaim “global, uh, governance.” On a personal note, I was given similar treatment. In university, one of my professors (a psychologist) had summoned my classmate and me for coffee. Strange, but we realized he had been secretly evaluating our sanity due to the matters we were discussing in class. Upon complaining to the university head, we were given a final lecture by the latter. He derided conspiracy talk and such. However, he then went on to state that there was nothing wrong with or believing in a “world state”, that it would be here in five, ten or fifteen years. Hence, the tactic is to label any critic as crazy. The fact that there can be no debate as to the viability of world government de facto demonstrates its undemocratic nature. It does not matter that the majority do not want it, they will get it.
Ad
Though Senator Brown’s party voted against invading Iraq and Afghanistan, he goes on to state that “if we can invade Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of democracy, surely we can peacefully get behind moves to have a global governance.”[7] He adds a cherry on top by furthering that the Tobin Tax would end poverty. He is right, there is a pattern. The Iraq war was an outright lie, where the Bush Administration fabricated evidence and put into force war plans long drawn up. Afghanistan saw them go after a non-existing boogeyman, even on their own payroll, to fulfill Sir Halford Mackinder’s and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s plan to dominate the Heartland and cull the world’s heroin profits. In similar vein, global warming, I mean, climate change is based on fabricated intelligence and ulterior motives.
Walter Russell Mead writes in a recent essay, that a Global Green Carbon Treaty (GGCT) “is less a treaty than a constitution for global government. The green plan is a plan for a global constitution because the treaty will regulate economic production in every country on earth.”[8]
Australia could be providing model climate framework just as the European Union laid the foundational model for regional integration, with its “extensive experience at the regional level” that is being drawn upon to integrate Africa, the Americas, the Middle East and Asia via “the Pan-African Parliament, the Mercosur Parliament and there is also the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe that includes 56 states and stretches from Vancouver to Vladivostok.”[9] Australia is attempting to spearhead the establishment of the carbon tax and other climate policy even as the EU Carbon Climate Exchange collapses, just as it did in Chicago.[10]
If anyone still doubts the genocidal nature of climate change policy, consider their idea to massacre one million camels.[11] What will happen to the millions of Central Asian herders whose animals are their lifeblood when the world parliament comes for their camels?
JULIA Gillard has upheld the renewable energy sector in economically-devastated Spain as an example of the potential transformation of Australia's energy mix under her carbon tax.
Opening a wind farm at Gunning near Canberra, the Prime Minister today shifted her carbon tax sales pitch to renewable energy profit opportunities for investors and farmers.
Spanish company Acciona developed the project, consisting of 31 turbines with a total power capacity of 46.5 megawatts.
Ms Gillard hailed Spain's commitment to renewable energy.
“Today (Acciona chief executive Jose Manuel) described to us how, in Spain, 35 per cent of its energy is coming from renewable sources,” Ms Gillard said.
“And, as he remarked, we are a nation perfectly positioned to seize this clean energy future - a nation with a lot of land, a nation with a lot of wind, a lot of solar with the power of the waves and with geothermal.”
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage
Climate: 'Weathervane' Abbott targeted
PM's political future blowing in the wind The Daily Telegraph, 14 hours ago
Policy puts wind in renewable sails The Australian, 10 days ago
$13 billion for clean energy expansion The Daily Telegraph, 10 Jul 2011
$3.2b renewable energy fund launched Perth Now, 8 Jul 2011
Lack of incentives shorts solar Courier Mail, 29 Jun 2011
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
However, the Spanish solar industry is heavily subsidised through a feed-in tariff of about 64c a kilowatt hour - well above anything offered for solar systems in Australia.
As Spain struggles to overcome its deepest economic slump in 60 years, the Spanish government is trying to crack down on assistance for many renewable energy projects in a bid to lower electricity costs for businesses and household.
It is currently auditing more than 9000 solar energy systems to ensure they are eligible for the top subsidy rate, which was capped in September 2008.
Ms Gillard said today the government would help secure funding for clean energy projects through the establishment of a new fund to leverage private sector investment and an agency to promote research and development for new renewable innovations.
The initiatives will cost the public purse more than $13 billion.
The Prime Minister said new renewable technologies like wind turbines could open a “new income source” for a rural Australians.
“It's showing the way for Australian farmers,” she said.
COMMENTS BELOW
Margaret Garling of concord.sydney Posted at 2:00 PM July 20, 2011
Just shows how much she knows!!! More lies, this woman is a disgrace and has to go before she destroys this country forever!!!
Comment 1 of 53
Tony - Gold Coast of Gold Coast Posted at 2:02 PM July 20, 2011
So are we going to become a basket case economy like Spain, why not reduce the retirement age to 55 and like Greece and pay 90% of the last years earnings as a pension like many of the bankrupt states of America. Great plan!!!
Comment 2 of 53
David of maitland Posted at 2:05 PM July 20, 2011
Spain as an example! What a joke. The country is broke, pays too much for "renewable" power and has too much intermittent as a percentage for a stable electricity grid. Perhaps this is the Gillard-Brown vision for Australia. No thanks Julia.
Comment 3 of 53
Zeus of Wollongong Posted at 2:05 PM July 20, 2011
She does realise that Spain's economy is in tatters and is following a similar path to Greece.
Comment 4 of 53
Piano of Brisbane Posted at 2:11 PM July 20, 2011
Cattle one day, wind farming the next. Good on you PM, in touch as always.
Comment 5 of 53
Sickadacrap Posted at 2:12 PM July 20, 2011
How does the loss of more than 500 jobs by Acciona gel with "there will be no jobs lost" as Stated by both Gillard and Swan?
Comment 6 of 53
Piano of Brisbane Posted at 2:17 PM July 20, 2011
Sheep and wheat one day, wind farming the next - priceless.
wilma Posted at 2:19 PM July 20, 2011
I see people are speachless.
Comment 8 of 53
Fed up of Adelaide Posted at 2:26 PM July 20, 2011
More of our money going off shore
Comment 9 of 53
Frank Posted at 2:26 PM July 20, 2011
Yep we too can be as broke as Spain!
Comment 10 of 53
Honesty Posted at 2:32 PM July 20, 2011
The Labour back bench must shudder at yet another stupid statement from a PM with no idea what she is doing or saying. She will never recover Labours position because every time she opens her mouth she puts her foot in it.
Comment 11 of 53
Get off the grass. Posted at 2:39 PM July 20, 2011
Oh my god - Gillard using Spain as an example. What runs round in this women's head? Australia and Spain should never be used in the same sentence.
Comment 12 of 53
Penny Posted at 2:39 PM July 20, 2011
Yeah, Spain's economy is a great example. Thanks for pointing that out. Makes me feel so much better about following in their footsteps..
Comment 13 of 53
Rod W of Brisbane Posted at 2:40 PM July 20, 2011
Holding any European country up as an example for Australia to follow (economically speaking) is laughable - ley alone one of the PIIGS nations. Speak to the hand, PM!
Comment 14 of 53
Ripper of the bush Posted at 2:41 PM July 20, 2011
So we can follow Spain's example and lose 2.2 jobs for every green job created? At least some of Spain's solar panels work at night with all those diesel powered searchlights aimed at them.
Comment 15 of 53
Gerry Atrick of Qld. Posted at 2:42 PM July 20, 2011
Well, fancy that. Spain currently has an unemployment level of 21%, soaring crime figures attributed to lowered standards of living and mutterings of civil unrest to replicate Greece. Lets have the whole story, and then see if we want to adopt the same polcies that have resulted in this sorry state of affairs.
Comment 16 of 53
dpor9985 of Canberra Posted at 2:46 PM July 20, 2011
Oh Dear God! Let's model our economy on Spain or Greece or Ireland. Gillard is delusional (and desperate) if she thinks Spain is a great economy to follow.
Comment 17 of 53
Colin of Sutherland Shire of Sydney Posted at 2:47 PM July 20, 2011
Yea thanks Julia, are we headed towards the same financial situation? Good grief the stupidity of this government knows no bounds!
Comment 18 of 53
Terry M Posted at 3:02 PM July 20, 2011
Maybe there could be a Julia Gilard Tax in which unemployed coal miners could bury her neck deep in geothermal rocks and farmers could be paid to watch all the hot air come out of her mouth.
Comment 19 of 53
Not fit to lead of melbourne Posted at 3:03 PM July 20, 2011
Fantastic - use Spain as an example of where Australia could be, if only Australia would follow it. Where oh where are their collective brains???
Comment 20 of 53
Sheepish Posted at 3:04 PM July 20, 2011
Yeah, hail 20% unemployement!!! who is she kidding?
Comment 21 of 53
Ron of Adelaide Posted at 3:07 PM July 20, 2011
yeah good one Julia the way you are running the country we will end up like a basket case like spain
Comment 22 of 53
mikem of brisbane Posted at 3:07 PM July 20, 2011
One day its coal , the next day its renewable's. I guess it's whatever happens to be convienient at the time and bugger the facts.
Comment 23 of 53
Nick of Melbourne Posted at 3:08 PM July 20, 2011
Lets hope we don't end up like Spain, or do we simply ignore that part of the argument. What a great example hey Julia! Spain has a fantastic renewable energy sector but the country is totally stuffed! I can see the sense in that argument!!!
Comment 24 of 53
Richard Posted at 3:10 PM July 20, 2011
This prime Minister is out of control, will somebody please tap her on the shoulder and tell her to wake up.
Comment 25 of 53
Tim Maloney of Auckland Posted at 3:16 PM July 20, 2011
Are you kidding? Spain? Spain is an economic basket case with unemployment over 20%, and the PM wants to use Spain as a role model? God help Australia.
Comment 26 of 53
Worried Posted at 3:21 PM July 20, 2011
My God, she cant even pick a successful country. She picks a country with huge debt, high unemployment and which lost three jobs for every green job created. I suggest you leave it to Combet. He can lie better than you!
Comment 27 of 53
George of Gold Coast Posted at 3:34 PM July 20, 2011
Julia needs a tap on the shoulder to go! Fancy using Spain as a great example. What a joke Julia has become!!
Comment 28 of 53
Matt12 of Bris Posted at 3:35 PM July 20, 2011
Spain has lots of wind turbines and lots of out of work people, is there a link, where are all the highly touted green jobs.
Comment 29 of 53
Keith of Brisbane Posted at 3:36 PM July 20, 2011
Why does she always look at what other countries do, wake up Julia this is Aus, so do it the Aussie way, not some other way,or is it that we can't.
Comment 30 of 53
Bill Koutalianos of Sydney Posted at 3:38 PM July 20, 2011
The renewables reign in Spain, is sending their economy down the drain. As Spain struggles with its deepest economic slump, the electricity costs to business and households are on the up and up.
Comment 31 of 53
Drewe Bantick of Melbourne Posted at 3:39 PM July 20, 2011
Our Prime Minister is off with the fairies on her renewable fantasy that has the potential to ruin Australia economically. Australia should be prospering on the back of it's mining sector but here we have a 'leader' who appears to be doing everything in her power to bring our great country down.
Comment 32 of 53
Keith of Brisbane Posted at 3:41 PM July 20, 2011
She forgot to mention all the hot air coming out of Canberra,that in itself should power half of Brisbane.
Comment 33 of 53
Matt12 of Bris Posted at 3:46 PM July 20, 2011
1 in 5 unemployed but look, we got windmills, where's Don Quixote when you need him. Is this Gillards vision for Australia, sure looks like it.
Comment 34 of 53
Anne from Perth Posted at 3:49 PM July 20, 2011
If it wasn't all so sad and tragic, it would be funny. Each day brings new Gillard Glimmers of Garbage. Seriously if by some reason this government does last to the next election, what a shocking mess will be left to be cleaned up.
Comment 35 of 53
Tasiturn of Tasmania Posted at 3:49 PM July 20, 2011
To campaign on Spain, just shows she's off her brain.
Comment 36 of 53
country girl Posted at 3:52 PM July 20, 2011
Julia Gillard is going from bad to worse. Why compare us with other places when we used to be the lucky country before this phony government came to wreck us all as soon as they can.
Comment 37 of 53
Ann of NSW Posted at 3:55 PM July 20, 2011
I just can't stop laughing. Please how could anybody be stupid enough to use Spain as an example.
Comment 38 of 53
Average Joe of Sydney Posted at 3:59 PM July 20, 2011
Compared to what Julia will do to us , Spain will be a haven .
Comment 39 of 53
Alan of Sandringham of Sandringham Posted at 4:10 PM July 20, 2011
Renewable energy subsidies have bankrupted Spain ,at last her vision for Australia is clear.
Comment 40 of 53
The Inconvenient Truth Posted at 4:12 PM July 20, 2011
I think I too might be "economically viable" if Julia Gillard would only throw $13 billion of tax payers money my way.
Comment 41 of 53
joe doughlas of sydney Posted at 4:15 PM July 20, 2011
rightio, let's make australia unemployment to be same as spain at 20%. that'll do to lower the carbon footprint, just like spain
Comment 42 of 53
Portia Jenkins Posted at 4:15 PM July 20, 2011
Spain has no abundance of coal and gas like Australia where we have plenty of them plus uranium deposits. Why the PM not tell about the housing boom in Spain few years ago and the consequences of it?
Comment 43 of 53
Darcone Posted at 4:16 PM July 20, 2011
Perfect exsample of why no one is listening anymore. Labour/Greens are selling a product that dosn't deliver and cost a countries sovereign debt to install.
Comment 44 of 53
Mark of Mark Posted at 4:17 PM July 20, 2011
Gillard can't help it. She probably does not know where Spain is.
Comment 45 of 53
Keryn Posted at 4:19 PM July 20, 2011
Unfortunately, unlike the wind farm itself, JG is the one full of hot air...
Comment 46 of 53
Ian of Townsville of Australia Posted at 4:19 PM July 20, 2011
I thought the clean energy revolution was supposed to create jobs here in Australia for Australians. How come this project was developed and managed by a Spanish company?
Comment 47 of 53
Charles of Adelaide Posted at 4:24 PM July 20, 2011
I object with as much force as this medium allows, to the unfettered desecration of Australia's rural landscape by the growing number of wind turbines. This constitutes government sanctioned vandalism on an immense scale.
Comment 48 of 53
Mark Burnside of Melbourne Posted at 4:25 PM July 20, 2011
Everybody calm down...Spain's economic problems are regarded to be the result of a property bubble that burst in 2008, not renewable energy.
Comment 49 of 53
Great Joke! of Sydney Posted at 4:28 PM July 20, 2011
So now we have a comedienne for PM!
Comment 50 of 53
John of Qld Posted at 4:35 PM July 20, 2011
Unbelievable!! Is she really this stupid? Wants News Ltd investigated and now thinks we should model ourselves on Spain? For goodness sakes someone have a word with this pathetic excuse for a PM. Crean looks like a genius by comparison.
Comment 51 of 53
R U JOKING? of Melbourne Posted at 4:38 PM July 20, 2011
I assume the journo wasnt able to get a response from Tony Abbott as upon hearing the Spain example he just couldnt stop laughing. Seriously Spain! Prime Minister, that country is an example of what not to do. Whoever gave you that advice should be sent to run with bulls!!
Comment 52 of 53
Mike S. Posted at 4:43 PM July 20, 2011
why is she so intent on ruining the economy - i cant understand this - but its good she there I guess - because come election time she gonna get ( in the words of another failed leader) a huge shallaking.
Comment 53 of 53
A Blight on the Australian Landscape
Here is a further example of the nonsensical economic implications of installing wind turbines over conventional coal/gas-fired power stations.
Wales - UK
To build 800 two-megawatt turbines would cost at least £1.6 billion, plus, it is estimated, another £400 million for the pylons and sub-stations. With the output of Welsh turbines last year averaging less than 20 per cent of their capacity, thanks to the intermittency of the wind, the power produced by this £2 billion project will average out at little more than 300MW.
Yet contrast this with the 882MW produced by Centrica's new Langage gas-fired power station near Plymouth, costing just £400 million. This single plant, built for a fifth of the money, covering a few acres, will produce nearly three times as much electricity, without disfiguring one of the most beautiful landscapes in Britain. Those Welsh turbines, costing us all £120 million a year in subsidy, will produce power that could have been generated without subsidy at a 15th of the cost.
You see, rather than get the cost of renewables down, Julia Gillard’s Carbon Dioxide Tax is designed to make the price of cheap and plentiful Coal and Gas as high as Wind Power. But has anyone done an audit to find out just how much Carbon Dioxide is emitted in the construction of these visual monstrosities?
A 1.5 MW wind turbine of a type frequently seen in Australia has a tower 80 meters high. The rotor assembly (blades and hub) weighs 22,000 kg. The nacelle, which contains the generator component, weighs 52,000 kg. The concrete base for the tower is constructed using 26,000 kg of reinforcing steel and contains 190 cubic meters of concrete. Don’t forget the rare earth’s found inside the nacelle.
Every wind turbine has a magnet made of a metal called neodymium. There are 2.5 tonnes of it in each of the behemoths that have just gone up around Australia. The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty (involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product), that only one country does it: China. This year it flexed its trade muscles and briefly stopped exporting neodymium from its inner Mongolian mines. Forget Middle East oil, how’s that for dangerous reliance on a volatile foreign supply.
Besides, wind does nothing to reduce carbon emissions. As Robert Bryce shows in his book Power Hungry, even Denmark, which can switch off imported Norwegian hydro power when the wind spins its many turbines, has failed to save any significant net carbon emissions through wind. The intermittent nature of the wind means that fossil-fuel power stations have to be kept going, or inefficiently powered up and down. Besides, the total power produced from even the biggest wind farms is so small that, as a strategy for reducing carbon emissions significantly, wind power is a failure.
Yes, gas has carbon in it, but half as much as coal for each unit of energy. So a dash for gas to replace coal would dramatically and rapidly reduce carbon emissions. Given Ms Gillard’s nuclear allergy, it is probably by far the most effective and low-cost way to do so. Solar is expensive (and strangely inefficient at night); tidal destroys ecosystems; wave is an engineering nightmare; there is no room for more hydro; and biofuels use just as much fossil fuel in their production as they produce in “green” fuel.
Within a few years, thanks to Julia Gillard and Bob Brown, our once-beautiful countryside will have been ravaged by towering wind turbines which are risibly insufficient for our energy needs and which inflate our energy bills to levels only a mad person could consider right or just.
Unfortunately, it is just such mad people who are in charge of our environmental and energy policy. Sooner or later, something’s got to give.
Andy Semple
Speak without fear and Question with Boldness
Here we go again: more proof that this country is slipping into a Big Government, high taxing, big spending socialist nightmare [Ed: only slipping into?]
The Carbon tax is coming and it is probably the most unpopular policy any Australian Government has ever forced on it's people. Not even Whitlam was as bad as this mob and this PM, now that is saying something.
As dangerous as this Government is to the economy, there is one aligned organisation that wishes it had that much power. Yes, the Karl Marx wannabes over at GET UP are threatening hundreds of major employers around Australia with a business destroying boycott of their goods and services by their half a million faithful activist members, if these companies support or join an anti carbon tax campaign! Well golly gosh, I am shaking in my boots and I am sure that the CEO's and Managers of these great Aussie employers are just falling about in fear!
Seriously, who is GetUp! anyway. A fringe group of Socialists and Marxists and tree huggers that get far too much media exposure and are really known only for their support of everything anti WEST, along with their usual media stunts, like this one.
I will tell you this about GETUP, they are a bunch of toothless tigers who believe in free speech ONLY for those who agree with their leftist ideology and world view. Great, I am glad such group exists because that means that our democracy and liberty is working and that these extremists do not need to resort to terrorism just to make a point....... what a shame they don't feel the same way because clearly Mafia style tactics and blackmail is what they use to try and get their agenda sorted.
To want to destroy a business because it doesn't want a government policy imposed upon it that will force it out of business, competition and or sack employees, speaks clearly as to just what GETUP means and it means ANTI AUSTRALIA!!!
Zeg.
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. - John F. Kennedy
Lord Monckton probably meant to call Ross Gar-NUT! a "fascist", which Ross Garnuat well and truly desrves the title of (see http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=2011_06_29_garnaut2.html). Furthermore, the hypocrisy of Getup! is badly exposed given that Nazi collaborator and drug pusher, George Soros, was behind the establishment of GetUp! and its sister organisation in the USA, MoveOn.org (see http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=2011_06_01_Soros_Carbon_Cate.html)
C3
About C3 Charts/Images Videos Climate Blogs Quotes 'C3' Email/Twitter
RSS Archives/Categories Bad Sh^t Happens
x
xx xx x
......"C3, The Skeptic"...................."IPCC Skeptic"..................."Hide The Decline".........
*To watch a larger version of video, right-click on video; click on images for link."
January 06, 2009 at 04:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Vostok, Antarctica Current Temperatures Still Significantly Below Roman & Medieval Peaks
As the empirical evidence keeps mounting, the climate alarmist claim of a catastrophic Antarctica ice sheet melt event from "global" warming is entirely without merit.
One, as global warming alarmist scientists are finally admitting in the scientific literature, there has been no warming since 1998. Two, the average surface temperature at Vostok, Antarctica over the last two decades is a minus 55.1C degrees - that's 55 degrees below melting temperature. (click on image to enlarge)
The Vostok ice core temperature chart reveals the following essential points about this frozen region of the world:
The 2010 annual temperature was below both the long-term and short-term averages
The temperature average since 1990 is significantly below the peaks of the Medieval and Roman eras, and even below those prior to the Roman peak
For the 5,000+ year period, the linear trend (aqua line) indicates overall cooling
The green polynomial fitted curve to the data shows temperatures heading in a warming direction over the past 1,300 years, prior to modern era consumer/industrial CO2 emissions.
It should be noted that although the two polar regions both have a lot of ice, snow and cold, they are entirely different climates. These polar extremes experience warning and cooling periods at different times and at different rates/levels of change. As a result, the historical temperature regimes, commonly referred to as the 'Roman' and the 'Medieval', happened differently at the geographical opposites.
Additional historical temperature charts.
July 20, 2011 at 07:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Global Warming Gone Missing: 33% of World's Oceans Show No Warming Since 1981
The "world-ending" anthropogenic global warming caused by human CO2 emissions is supposed to be "global" except apparently it isn't; and often, it's not warming at all.
For example:
1. per the NOAA/NCDC data, the continental U.S. has actually been cooling over the last 15-years;
2. climate change alarmists are now finally admitting in the science literature that the world has not warmed since 1998;
3. the latest NASA satellite technology shows no ocean warming since 2002;
4. ocean heat content has basically been flat since 2003;
5. and finally, all measurements taken to identify the atmospheric "hot" spot required by the AGW hypothesis have not found it.
That's pretty damning evidence - not a single key climate measurement reveals the holy grail trifecta of "unprecedented," "unequivocal" and "accelerating," global warming. But wait....it gets even worse.
Adding to the alarmists' misery of a failed hypothesis is a critical area of the globe that is so important it's the basis of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) proxy - the area of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies. The chart on the left, the NINO3.4 anomalies since 1900 show no warming; the chart on the right, the NINO3.4 anomalies from 1981 through June 2011, show no warming.
Essentially, a major proxy for global ocean temperatures has a flat trend for the past century plus.
To expand on the area that the NINO3.4 covers, there is a large Pacific ocean expanse (33% of world's ocean surface) that engulfs the NINO3.4 and closely mimics its temperature changes. This ocean area is known as the East Pacific. It stretches from pole to pole and is depicted on the map below (left).
As the chart on the right reveals, since 1981 this vast ocean region has not warmed, despite the massive amounts of human CO2 greenhouse gases and the "consensus" AGW hypothesis.
Soooo, how can a global warming hypothesis that has conspicuously failed every global warming empirical measure and validation test still be considered a viable scientific hypothesis? How can such abject, empirical failure by a hypothesis still allow it to resonate with the liberal/left/progressive elites? Well, just like their love affair with eugenics, awful and idiotic science can find a permanent home in the belly of the left because of the dangerous power and control it artificially bestows to the ruling classes, relative to the average citizen.
July 18, 2011 at 06:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Scientists Determine Corals Are Highly Adaptive To Extreme Climate Changes, Global Warming Not A Problem
Read here. Without doing any empirical research, radical green groups (Greenpeace, etc.) claim that coral reefs will die off due to increased warming of ocean coastal waters. Actual scientists say that is wrong.
Bauman et al. published a peer-reviewed study regarding corals in the southern Persian Gulf area, which found corals to be hardy and resilient to extreme temperature fluctuations. Their research confirms what other coral studies have found:
"...three researchers report that the reproductive biology of the six coral species in the southern Persian Gulf "appears to be well adapted to extreme annual environmental fluctuations" and is "remarkably similar to conspecifics elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific (Baird et al., 2009a,b),"...say their work "confirms that corals are capable of reproductive activities under extreme environmental conditions," as has also been found to be the case by Coles and Fadlallah (1991) and Coles and Brown (2003). Hence, they state that "coral populations can survive and proliferate in extreme conditions that are projected to occur in many other regions of the world by the end of this century," buttressing their claim with the statement that "the recovery of these coral assemblages following mortality induced by a number of recent temperature-related bleaching events (1996, 1998 and 2002) suggests these assemblages are also resilient to extreme fluctuations in water temperature,"" [A. G. Bauman, A. H. Baird, G. H. Cavalcante 2011: Coral Reefs]
Additional coral-reef and peer-reviewed postings.
July 18, 2011 at 05:51 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
NOAA Reports That 96% of Deadliest U.S. Tornadoes Occurred Before 1960, Prior To The "Global Warming" Hysteria
Read here. Data source here.(click on image to enlarge)
Alarmists claim that severe weather incidents are becoming more frequent and more deadly.
Concerning U.S. tornadoes, that is an outright prevarication (a fancy word for a 'lie').
Additional severe-weather postings, list, and charts.
July 17, 2011 at 09:31 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Laurens Bouwer, IPCC Lead Author Admits There Has Been No Significant Impact From Climate Change
Read here (scroll down to bottom of linked article) and here. The money quote from the IPCC lead author:
“Lacking significant impact from anthropogenic warming so far, the best way to assess the potential influence of climate change on disaster losses may be to analyze future projections rather than historical data.”
In a nutshell, Laurens Bouwer, speaking for the IPCC, concurs that the climate change empirical evidence (ie, severe weather events, species extinction, etc.) of CO2-induced global warming is not convincing, nor material, nor relevant. Since there is no evidence of the IPCC C-AGW hypothesis and predictions being valid, he suggests instead using the failed predictions as basis for future prognostications about climate impact.
Simply amazing idiocy from the IPCC's scientific elite, eh? But wait......
So who is the lead author who dismisses facts and evidence to be replaced by the magical, dysfunctional IPCC prediction machine? Well...er...he's not a credentialed scientist nor a known climate expert. Instead, he appears to be another career apparatchik picked for his adherence to the non-scientific agenda - indeed, another IPCC controlled marionette.
"Laurens Bouwer is employed by VU University Amsterdam. According to that institution’s website, he too remains PhD-free. Yet a bio dated last month tells us he was a lead author for the the 2001 assessment report, as well as a contributor to the IPCC’s “Special Report on Extremes.”...the only way Bouwer could have served as a lead author for the 2001 report is if he had been nominated for that position some time in the late 1990s. But he didn’t even have a Master’s degree then...Let us repeat this: at the time Bouwer joined the ranks of the IPCC’s best and brightest he had yet to complete his Masters."
Examples of failed predictions of IPCC and warming alarmists. List of extreme weather events prior to IPCC's predicted modern era of "climate change" extremes.
July 16, 2011 at 05:32 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis Obama Makes Clear In Press Conference That Hockey-Stick's Michael Mann Will Remain As Key Economic Advisor
The spending hockey-stick was unveiled as new evidence that unprecedented global warming has caused accelerating spending, unequivocal debt and severe economic climate change (ie, high unemployment and slow growth).
Relying on the consensus precautionary principle, Mann has advised President Obama to spend much greater amounts in all areas to mitigate and adapt as quickly as possible to the economic hell that's in the pipeline from the massive CO2-induced global warming that took place over the last decade. (image source here)
/sarc
July 15, 2011 at 02:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Latest Expert Study Finds Rocky Mountains Unaffected By Climate Change Over Last 50+ Years
Read here. Big green lobbyists and government paid alarmists are at the forefront of terrifying the public about supposed CO2-induced climate change, especially in mountainous areas. A sentence from a government web site serves as an example:
"Climate change is widely acknowledged to be having a profound effect on the biosphere with many and diverse impacts on global resources. Mountain ecosystems in the western U.S. and the Northern Rockies in particular are highly sensitive to climate change."
Fortunately, there are actual scientists who still practice empirical research, and several decided to examine a major indicator of climate change in the northern Rocky Mountains. They conducted an analysis of stream flow for this area using data going back almost 60 years.
The Arrigoni et al. conclusion? The Rocky Mountains have not been affected by climate change due to greenhouse gases - not so sensitive after all, one could surmise. This conclusion runs totally counter to the prediction of "experts'."
"Climate alarmists claim that CO2-induced global warming will adversely impact the planet's freshwater resources by inducing large changes in global streamflow characteristics...studied discharge data they obtained from 34 stream gauges located in natural and anthropogenically-modified river basins of the Northern Rocky Mountains (USA) over the 59-year interval of 1950-2008, which period, in their words, "covers the majority of reported global climate change due to anthropogenic influences as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report..."changes in climate to date have not been great enough to significantly detect changes in the timing of flows in most natural sub-basins in the Northern Rocky Mountains beyond the natural variability," corroborating the findings of Moore et al. (2007). And as a result, they conclude that "direct anthropogenic modifications of river basins over the past 59 years have been more detrimental to overall river processes and ecosystem health than reported climate change effects in the Northern Rocky Mountains." [Alicia S. Arrigoni, Mark C. Greenwood, Johnnie N. Moore 2010: Water Resources Research]
Additional flood-drought and peer-reviewed postings.
July 14, 2011 at 03:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Asian Temperatures During Medieval Period Were Unprecedented New Research Determines
Read here. (click on image to enlarge)
L. Tan et al. authored a new peer-reviewed study that found higher temperatures existed between 1,000 and 1,200 years ago in the Asian region of north central China. The study also reconstructed precipitation levels for that area over the 1,800 years.
This study's temperature reconstruction shows higher temperatures in the past that can can clearly be labeled as unprecedented. Late 20th century temperatures were well under the Medieval era temperatures.
"A paper published examines the climate of central China over the past 1800 years using two different types of proxies. The paper finds higher temperatures and precipitation were present during the Medieval Warming Period (960-1100 AD) than at the end of the 20th century. This paper adds to the published work of 986 scientists who have documented that the Medieval Warming Period was as hot or hotter than the present and was a global phenomenon. This study also shows both the rate and magnitude of the rise in temperature from the year ~ 700- 880 AD were much greater than over a comparable period including the 20th century." [L.Tan, Y.Cai, Z.An, L.Yi, H.Zhang, Qin 2011: Climate of The Past]
Additional climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Other historical temperature charts.
July 14, 2011 at 05:08 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Expert Peer-Reviewed Study Validates NOAA's Analysis of 2010 Russian Heat Wave: No Climate Change Connection
Read here. After years of making hysterical claims about the phantom of global warming, most AGW alarmists (Gore and his "97% consensus") have moved onto claiming that severe weather events are a result of "climate change." The major sleazeball, green PR flaks have gone out of their way to promote this propaganda strategy after their global warming hysteria debacle failed so miserably.
Despite multiple weather/climate expert analysis of the 2010 Russian heat wave, including NOAA's CSI team, that determined the heat wave was a natural phenomenon of weather, anti-science lefties/liberals/progressives/Democrats keep lying to the public about climate change being the cause.
Now comes a peer-reviewed study that refutes the climate change "truthers" lie once and for all.
Dole et al. found, like the NOAA the experts, that there is absolutely no evidence that climate change was the mysterious force behind the heat wave. They indeed validated the original conclusion of previous experts: it's the weather, get over it.
"The authors write that "the 2010 summer heat wave in western Russia was extraordinary, with the region experiencing the warmest July since at least 1880 and numerous locations setting all-time maximum temperature records."...nine U.S. researchers determined that "analysis of forced model simulations indicates that neither human influences nor other slowly evolving ocean boundary conditions contributed substantially to the magnitude of the heat wave." In fact, they say that the model simulations provided "evidence that such an intense event could be produced through natural variability alone." Similarly, on the observation front, they state that "July surface temperatures for the region impacted by the 2010 Russian heat wave show no significant warming trend over the prior 130-year period from 1880-2009," noting, in fact, that "a linear trend calculation yields a total temperature change over the 130 years of -0.1°C."..."Thus, they say their analysis "points to a primarily natural cause for the Russian heat wave," noting that the event "appears to be mainly due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes that produced and maintained an intense and long-lived blocking event," adding that there are no indications that "blocking would increase in response to increasing greenhouse gases." [Randall Dole, Martin Hoerling, Judith Perlwitz, Jon Eischeid, Philip Pegion, Tao Zhang, Xiao‐Wei Quan, Taiyi Xu, Donald Murray 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Additonal severe-weather and peer-reviewed postings. Past extreme weather events. Severe weather charts.
July 13, 2011 at 12:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Sea Levels Higher During Medieval Warming Period - Research Shows Current Sea Level Rise Began By 1750 AD
Read here and here. There is an excellent and fascinating post over at Judith Curry's site regarding historical sea levels. It's part 1 of a series by Tony Brown. From one of his linked documents comes the chart on the left, and the chart on the right from a previous C3 post on sea levels. (click on images to enlarge)
Tony does an analyisis of sea levels prior to the pre-Medieval Period, pulling information from a wide assortment of historical resources. Per the documentation he reviewed, there is strong evidence that both the Roman/Byzantine and prior periods had sea levels that exceeded the current level.
"“The North Sea had a nasty little jump between 350 and 550AD, flooding the coasts of northern Europe with an extra 2 feet of water and sending its inhabitants — folk known as Angles and Saxons — fleeing (although “conquering” might be the better word) into ill-prepared Roman territories. At the start of this rise, the areas we know as the Fens were a well-settled part of Roman Britain ruled from the town of Duroliponte (Cambridge) by its native people, the Christianized Romano-Celtic Iceni. Then the sea level rose, and history’s curtain went down for two centuries.”.....At the old shore the Etang of Vendres, near the mouth of the Aude, are the ruins of a Roman Therme of the 1st or 2nd century A.D. (locally called the temple of Venus). There the walls have been washed out by waves so that they now have a deep double notch about 1.80 m above present sea level..."
"So notwithstanding the statements of the IPCC AR4 who assert a sea level status quo from ancient until modern times, there are many studies that point to a picture of relatively static sea levels after the initial Holocene rise. These then show that some 3000 years ago there was a further inundation (think Lyonesse in Cornwall) and in early Roman times levels were somewhere around current levels. Levels then rose significantly through the Roman period peaking around the 700 AD Byzantine period at levels higher than today..."
At the end of part 1 on Curry's site, Tony makes reference to how Science Daily edited out key information from a study they reported on thus leaving their readers with an impression that previous sea levels were not higher. Interesting. Confirms why today's science journalists are no longer easily trusted.
Additional sea level postings. Sea level charts here.
July 12, 2011 at 07:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
New Study Linking Global Cooling With Coal Sulfur Emissions Found To Be Clown Science: Without Merit & Silly
Read here, here, here, here and here. A clown-like PNAS peer-reviewed study by a group of green professors, none of whom are climate or atmospheric scientists (Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stock) purports to explain how the IPCC's climate scientists and their climate models got it sooo wrong in regards to the well documented lack of global warming since 1998.
Their theory, widely reported by both an uncritical mainstream media and compliant, gullible bloggers & pundits, is that China's growing coal use emitted the needed sulfur emissions to stop global warming during the past 10 years. Unfortunately, it's a clownish theory based on, at best, flimsy, pretend climate science and minimal actual empirical evidence.
1. Unlike annual compiled CO2 emissions and CO2 monthly atmospheric levels, recent sulfur emissions and SO2 atmospheric aerosol levels are guesstimates. This study is based on guesstimates, which are based on tenuous assumptions, which are likely not a reflection empirical reality.
2. It is estimated by these authors that coal sulfates increased around 2004, well after the global non-warming phase had already started.
3. Unlike climate-impacting volcano sulfate aerosol ejections that travel multiple kilometers into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere), sulfate emissions (aerosol particles) from coal remain in the lower atmosphere and are resident only for a short time as they are quickly washed out of the air by precipitation ("acid rain").
4. Coal sulfate emissions are not well mixed in the atmosphere, which means they are not well distributed around the globe meaning their global impact on temperatures is severely limited.
5. A previous NASA satellite measurement analysis published by atmospheric experts found no increase in global aerosol optical depth over the years 2000 through 2006.
6. Despite China's large increase in coal burning, aggregate global sulfate emissions have dramatically decreased because worldwide coal plants are burning coal with less sulfur and newer smokestack (flue) scrubber technology.
7. The empirically measured impact of coals' SO2 on temperatures is not settled, with science research suggesting that sulfur aerosols in the lower atmosphere are actually a cause of warming, not cooling.
8. Natural ocean and atmospheric oscillations are significantly better explanations of the non-global warming over the 1998-2008 period than the lame, meritless, speculative sulfur emissions hypothesis.
9. In another NASA study, it was found that aerosol particulates in the atmosphere have declined since the 1990's.
(click on any image to enlarge)
Estimated human SO2 emissions, generally declining with estimated slight increase around 2005-2005 (source for left, right):
Aggregate coal SO2 emissions adjusted for use of cleaner coal and use of improved scrubber tecnhology, declining overall, everywhere (source):
Aerosol (including SO2 particulates) optical depth comparisons from satellite measurements for years 2001, 2004, and 2008. Little change over several years of Kaufmann et al. study, and satellite data reveals aerosols to be of a local/regional concern, not a global issue (source):
Study's authors own graphical representation of their estimate of SO2 warming/cooling impact (purple curve) on global temperatures (blue curve). Even their own assessment would indicate little, if any, impact from human sulfur emissions during span of 1998 to 2008 (source).
The above graph has all curves removed except for global temperatures and sulfur forcing. Below, the SOI (index of the Southern Oscillation) curve (green) is added back to the study's original graph.
Focusing on the blue box representing the period analyzed by the study, one quickly sees that both the SOI and global temps are highly variable. Looking closer, there is a relationship evident between the SOI and temperatures - when the SOI heads in one direction, the global temps head in the opposite direction a few months later.
Apparently, the authors of this study chose to ignore Gaia's Southern Oscillation (and/or other major ocean/atmosphere oscillations) despite its obvious influence on cooling global temps from 1998 to 2008. Instead they focus on the purple curve (sulfur emissions forcing) that just as obvious had a fraction of Gaia's impact on temperatures.
As Judith Curry (a renowned climate scientist) states:
"I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance...the authors have put forward one possible explanation for the lack of warming, but an explanation associated with natural internal variability associated with the ocean oscillations is at least as plausible as the explanation put forward by the authors."
July 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Radical Green Groups & Activists Plot To Increase Spread of Climate Change Misinformation - "Making People Afraid Is Alright"
Read here. As the actual, empirical climate evidence has monstrously failed to support even the most minor of global warming predictions, let alone the ludicrous, catastrophic-cult hysteria pushed by fringe green elements, the AGW activists now plan to unequivocally fabricate their climate misinformation in order to frighten the public and policymakers.
Despite the avalanche of continuous global warming lies and anti-CO2 propaganda that green radicals got published by their "science" reporter puppets in the mainstream press, the public has roundly rejected the crisis and catastrophic scenarios. It is clear that this strategy of fear has not worked, yet the green PR flaks have decided to double-down by utilizing a 100% climate-lie campaign to scare the gullible and weak-minded (hmmm...that would be your typical liberal/progressive/Democrat watching CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, BBC and etc.).
The new PR plan by the crazy greens is to blame every single weather event on climate change. It does not matter any longer if it is a pure 100% lie; what matters is that it scares people by constant repetition.
"Named the ‘Stonehouse Standing Circle Summit’, it was a gathering of “some of North America’s leading communications professionals and academics”, the report put it. Edward Maibach and Anthony Leiserowitz were listed, as were chiefs from a host of public relations and lobbying firms and activist organizations...What one can gather from the document is quite interesting. Initially it starts with the blasé interpretation of environmentalism which is in vogue currently: ‘environmentalism is a failure’. How and why has environmentalism ‘failed’?""
"The main solution proposed by the delegates, we learn, is the exploitation of crises to ratchet up public mindfulness of climate change...The only solution, the report concludes is to have a “SWAT team” of public relations personnel who will “ready to go into action immediately” as a disaster occurs, and immediately link the disaster to ‘climate change’ across a wide variety of media platforms."
"The methods advocated are clear—emulate advertisers and marketers in ‘taking advantage of current events’, don’t be caught by surprise by disaster but instead meet and plan ahead, develop a ‘coordinated crisis response strategy internally’, and ‘get out of the gate quickly to set the tone of the coverage’. Making people afraid is alright..."
Unfortunately for the greens, who are now submerging themselves into the ash heap of history by embracing and advocating Orwellian propaganda techniques, the public will still desire credible sources of information about weather and climate science sans the hysteria and faux-crisis window dressing. For example, putting current weather incidents into the context of the past will still be widely demanded by the public, as will the documentation of the massive number of failed AGW predictions over the recent past, that the usual big green PR types are paid to cover up.
The market for accurate climate science and weather facts is huge, which an ever growing number of alternative sources provide, thus making the lives of the Orwellian PR-based climate liars a constant career of failure and misery.
July 11, 2011 at 06:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Last Week Had The Global Warming Alarmists Admit To Zero Warming Since 1998, Now An Admission That Models Don't Work
Read here. The admission by a new paper published in the PNAS journal that there has been no global warming since 1998 is stunning in its implications. First, it unabashedly means that UN and national government climate scientists and bureaucrats have simply been lying about the "accelerating," "unequivocal," and "unprecedented" warming that supposedly took place over the last decade plus.
Second, it means the multi-billion dollar climate models that have long predicted global warming (due to the continuous growth of human CO2 emissions) are essentially worthless. Since 1998, the models have been an admitted disastrous failure - they don't work as promised or as advertised by the IPCC.
To further emphasize this latter point, a new peer reviewed study by Fu et al. determines that the climate models have consistently exaggerated the predicted warming of the tropical upper atmosphere. The failure of this prediction is a body blow to the "consensus" science.
If the atmosphere does not actually warm as predicted, the feared IPCC global warming tipping point can't happen.
Realistically and objectively, the evidence grows that the climate model predictions are based on the robustly dysfunctional, teetering CO2-based AGW hypothesis.
"“IPCC AR4 (Fourth Assessment Report) GCMs (General Circulation Models) predict a tropical tropospheric warming that increases with height...“One of the striking features in GCM-predicted climate change due to the increase of greenhouse gases is the much enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Here we examine this feature by using satellite MSU/AMSU...“IPCC AR4 GCMs overestimate the warming in the tropics for 1979-2010...While strong observational evidence indicates that tropical deep-layer troposphere warms faster than surface, this study suggests that the AR4 GCMs may exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere in the last three decades. In view of the importance of the enhanced tropical upper tropospheric warming to the climate sensitivity and to the change of atmospheric circulations, it is critically important to understand the causes responsible for the discrepancy between the models and observations.”" [Q. Fu, Syukuro Manabe, and C M Johanson 2011: Geophysical Research Letters-(in press)]
Additional failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.
July 10, 2011 at 08:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
AWOL Global Warming: Current Satellite Measurements Confirm Ocean Cooling Continues Since 2002
Read here. Ocean temperatures are critical force in the world's climate. The best satellite technology confirms that the oceans remain in a cooling trend. (click on image to enlarge)
Additional modern temperature charts.
July 10, 2011 at 07:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
New European Temperature Data: Since 1998, Winters In Europe Are Significantly Cooling
Read here. From the EU environmental agency, new temperature records confirm that recent winters exhibit a cooling trend. (click on image to enlarge)
Additional modern temperature charts.
July 10, 2011 at 05:09 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Latest Expert Research Completely Discredits IPCC Prediction That Global Warming Causes More Hurricanes
Read here. The IPCC has been a literal cornucopia of bad climate predictions, which seem to be never ending as new climate research is accomplished and published. Another recent example of this phenomenon is a study, by Gabriel Vecchi and Thomas Knutson, that conclusively finds that the predicted huricane increase due to global warming has not happened.
"Prior to the satellite era (i.e., before 1966), most of the information about tropical cyclones in the Atlantic ocean came from either ship tracks (most of which tried to avoid the storms) or when the storms passed close enough to be detected from land. This tended to leave a lot of the Atlantic Ocean basin unmonitored. And in these observation-free areas, hurricanes may have come and gone without being detected..."After adjusting for the estimate of missed hurricanes in the basin, the long-term (1878–2008) trend in hurricane counts changes from significantly positive to no significant change (with a nominally negative trend). The adjusted hurricane count record is more strongly connected to the difference between main development region (MDR) sea surface temperature (SST) and tropical-mean SST than with MDR SST. These results do not support the hypothesis that the warming of the tropical North Atlantic due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has caused Atlantic hurricane frequency to increase."" [Gabriel Vecchi, Thomas Knutson 2011: Journal of Climate]
Additional failed-prediction, hurricane-tornado and peer-reveiwed postings.
July 09, 2011 at 05:16 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Speaking of No Global Warming, U.S. Remains In Cooling Trend Per The New June NOAA Data: -3.5°F/Century
Much to the galactic chagrin of global warming alarmists and their collaborators at the NY Times and Washington Post, a major peer reviewed study by an avowed alarmist found no global warming since 1998. This finding confirms what the skeptics have been stating over the last 5 years.
When looking at the temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S. as the graph on the left depicts.
This chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting July 1, 1997 and ending June 30, 2011. Per the latest NOAA/NCDC U.S. temperature data records, the 12-month period ending April was the 4th coldest June-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, June 2011 was 1.6 degrees below the hottest June ever (June 1933). Source of chart here.
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.5°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending June 2011 (July 1, 2001 thru June 30, 2011), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 13.0°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Additional modern, historical and fabricating-fake temperature charts.
July 08, 2011 at 03:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
More Confirmation That Unprecedented Global Warming Happened In Past - Say, The 1930s
Now that scientists have confirmed that global warming has been entirely missing since 1998, possibly the the lamestream press will finally gain the courage to finally report actual weather and climate facts, such as reporting the global cooling trend since 2002. This would be a huge improvement versus their modern method of doing climate science by press release.
Initially, they might start addressing the unprecedented warming that took place during the 1930s well before the large human CO2 emissions. The fact that the 1930s had a much larger impact on U.S. temperatures than either 1990s or the 2000s should be of interest; also very germane to the modern "unprecedented" warming deception foisted on them by climate scientists more interested in fame and fortune. (click on image to enlarge)
1930s: 24 states
1950s: 5 states
1990s: 5 states
2000s: 1 state
Updated: Both map and list above updated with more current information from here.
Additional modern temperature charts.
July 07, 2011 at 08:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Experts Find Deep Arctic Water Temps Fall By 1 Deg. - Bizzarro Theory That "Global Warming Hides" In Deeper Waters Not So Hot
Read here. Global warming scientists and alarmists are always trying to rationalize why the catastrophic AGW hypothesis is in continuous fail mode, and why the globe is cooling and not warming as they predicted. Besides the infamously lame "aerosols overwhelm CO2" excuse that is trotted out every few years by elite losers, the other favorite excuse is that global warming actually goes and hides in the deep ocean basins, where no one can ever seem to find it.
The "warming is hiding" hypothesis is also fairly lame as the latest evidence reveals, which is not a surprise since only greens/lefties/liberals believe it.
"Data from Catlin Arctic Survey 2011, collected during an eight-week expedition from March to May, indicates the temperature of Arctic seawater below 200 metres depth has decreased by a ‘surprising’ one degree Celsius in comparison with previous observations...“What was most surprising was the degree of change; even the most incremental differences in ocean temperatures matter. To put this temperature change in context, global sea temperatures rose by only 0.25 of a degree Celsius in the last 30 to 40 years but this was enough for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report to state the oceans are warming.”"
July 07, 2011 at 12:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
May, 1926: Explorers Find Open Water At North Pole --- July, 2011: North Pole Solid Ice
Read here. Explorers floating over the North Pole during May 1926 "saw much open water at the North Pole" from the dirigible Norge.
In contrast, the July 6, 2011 view from a satellite that reveals no open water at North Pole. Open water does exist close to the shorelines of land masses, which is normal during summer months.
Image source here.
Additional strange and severe weather/climate headlines.
July 07, 2011 at 04:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
More IPCC Fabrication? Climate Sensitivity To CO2 Robustly Enhanced To Produce Larger Warming Predictions
Read here and here. The IPCC's global climate models are essentially driven by the climate's sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels. To produce predictions of dangerous and accelerating global warming, all that needs to be done is to increase the CO2 sensitivity condition that the models are based on. Apparently, that is what the IPCC has done, which makes it easy-peasy to convince policymakers that global warming is a threat.
"As most people know, I am a lukewarmer -- somebody who accepts carbon dioxide's full greenhouse potential, but does not accept the much more dubious evidence for net positive feedbacks on top, and who therefore thinks that a temperature rise of more than 2C in this century is unlikely...This view just got a strong boost. Nic Lewis, the indefatigable mathematical sleuth who helped expose the mistakes in a paper about Antarctic temperature trends has been looking at how the IPCC estimates climate sensitivity -- that is, the warming expected for a doubling of CO2. He finds that the one study that estimated sensitivity entirely from experimental data -- Forster and Gregory 2006 -- was distorted by the IPCC when it came to present their results."
July 06, 2011 at 04:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
New Peer-Reviewed Study: Al Gore & 97% of Climate Scientists Wrong About CO2-Warming Caused Droughts
Read here. It has been well established by the left/liberal lamestream media that 97% of "climate scientists" (that's all of 75 people) take their science lessons from Al Gore, the AGW Nobel prize winner. During 2007 Congressional testimony, Al Gore claimed that "droughts are becoming longer and more intense." As a result, a team of scientists decided to do a fact-check on Mr. Gore's (and his renowned 75 disciples) AGW-science claims. (Okay, okay.....probably Stambaugh et al. didn't give a hoot about Al Gore and the 97%-team.)
This new research determined that the 20th and 21st century droughts have been of little significance when compared to both the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age droughts that were incredibly severe.
"The six scientists report that "20th century droughts, including the Dust Bowl, were relatively unremarkable when compared to drought durations prior to the instrumental record." They note, for example, that the 19th century was the driest of the past millennium, with major drought periods occurring from about 1816 to 1844 and 1849 to 1880, during what they describe as the transition out of the Little Ice Age...write that "the approximately 61-year drought in the late 12th century (ca. AD 1148-1208) appears to be the most significant drought of the entire reconstruction," noting that it "corresponds to the single greatest megadrought in North America during the last 2000 years (Cook et al., 2007), as well as "unmatched persistent low flows in western U.S. river basins (Meko et al., 2007)." And this drought, as they describe it, occurred during the middle of the Medieval Warm Period..." [Michael C. Stambaugh, Richard P. Guyette, Erin R. McMurry, Edward R. Cook, David M. Meko, Anthony R. Lupo 2011: Agricultural and Forest Meteorology]
Additional drought-flood, severe-weather, climate-history and peer-reviewed postings.
July 06, 2011 at 06:14 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Faux Global Warming Is Caused By Concrete: Idaho Provides Vivid Example of Urban Heat Island Heat Impact
Read here. Most official thermometers recording daily temperatures are nowadays located in urban settings (airports are popular settings) where concrete, asphalt and metal raise the surrounding area temperature. As a result, global warming anomalies reported by the official climate agencies are biased warmer, which are never correctly adjusted to remove the urban heat island impact (bias).
This chart from 'The Inconvenient Skeptic' is a current example of the 'urban heat island' effect on temperatures.
July 05, 2011 at 06:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Global Warming Alarmists Again Try The Lame 'Aerosol Masking' Excuse To Explain Cooling - U.S. Data Refutes
Read here and here (scroll down to "A most interesting new paper").
Scientists who are proponents of catastrophic global warming now admit there has been no warming since 1998. They blame increased aerosol pollutants from China as being the reason why temperatures are cooling versus warming. Unfortunately, actual air quality measurements reveal the galactic bogosity of that claim. (click on charts to enlarge)
For example, U.S. air quality since 1990 has improved tremendously with vast reductions in air aerosols and particulates as the chart on left reveals. While aerosols/particulates over the U.S. were dramatically decreasing, the U.S. surface temperatures were falling as shown in the chart on the right.
The lack of warming due to increased aerosols is regurgitated lameness that "climate scientists" always attempt to fall back on when actual empirical evidence invalidates the AGW hypothesis. It's more bogus science from the 'Twilight Zone' of the climate science establishment.
Additional modern and historical temperature charts.
July 05, 2011 at 09:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Latest Global Temperature Data Confirms That Unequivocal Global Cooling Is Accelerating
Note: Just prior to this posting, it became public that a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) study confirms that global warming has been missing since 1998. This new study refutes James Hansen, Al Gore and all the IPCC Climategate scientists claims of "unequivocal," "unprecedented," and "accelerating" global warming they have made over recent years. Global warming skeptics have proven to be correct, which the below material also supports.
In a previous post, we reviewed the last 15 years of HadCRUT temperature records, which show that global warming has become insignificant. In fact, one could accurately state that a global cooling trend is now replacing a global warming trend in an "unequivocal" and "accelerating" manner, using the greens' own favored warming alarmist terms. (click on each image to enlarge)
When examining the past 15 years of monthly global temperature anomalies, the per century change from a warming trend to a cooling trend becomes clear. Calculating 10-year linear trends from the monthly anomalies, the above chart plots end of year per century trends (plus the May 2011 10-year trend).
As can be seen, since 2001 the per century trends have conclusively switched from a global warming direction to a global cooling direction. In addition, the early 2011 temperature anomalies confirm what has actually been taking place since 2001. If the May 2011 10-year trend continues, the global temperature by 2100 will have decreased by -0.67°C.
This warming to cooling reversal has happened in the face of "business as usual" increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. And this global temperature phenomenon reversal has occurred despite the "consensus" claims of IPCC "climate scientists" and predictions of the bureaucrats' climate models. (The lower left chart clearly depicts how badly the climate models have failed.)
The lower right chart depicts a similar global cooling trend outcome over the last 15 years. Using the same monthly anomaly data, this chart's per century trends are based on 5-year linear calculation.
Regardless of how the temperature anomaly records are examined, the last 15-year span has seen the global warming trend fade as the world seemingly moves into a global cooling mode (the continental U.S. 15-year record of temperatures confirms this cooling trend). How long this will persist and how deep the cooling trend may become is pure speculation. And indeed, there is no concrete, empirically proven, scientific reason to assume the cooling will continue - the climate is complex and chaotic, which makes accurate predictions impossible.
These are the take home facts:
1. Global warming is neither unequivocal, accelerating, or even unprecedented.
2. Global cooling is becoming a trend but it's not clear whether that trend is accelerating and unequivocal - circumstantial at this point.
3. Rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused the requisite acceleration of global temperature increases.
4. CO2 levels appear to have little impact on global temperatures.
5. Global temperatures are in a deceleration mode, totally contrary to IPCC's climate models.
6. Recent severe weather events (2010 and 2011) are not a result of increasing global temperatures; based on the actual temperature evidence since 2001, recent severe weather would more likely be a result of accelerating cooling.
7. Climate models have been stupendously wrong about global warming and associated climate change, time after time.
Additional modern temperature charts. Unequivocal fake warming, temperature fabrication charts.
July 04, 2011 at 03:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Expert Analysis of Empirical Evidence Confirms Hail Size Not Tied To Global Warming
Read here. Climate alarmists have made careers of claiming that severe weather is more frequent and of increasing intensity as a result of global warming. Many scientists, including those in China, don't necessarily believe the climate science emanating from green/left/liberal sources so they end up doing their own research to determine facts. In the case of hail size, Chinese scientists examined climate records to determine if hail was growing larger because of global warming.
Xie et al. examined records from four regions of China covering the 25 year span of 1980-2005. They found no significant relationship overall with global warming and the size of hail.
"...produced by a trio of scientists from Peking University and the University of Hawaii who must not have received the memo on global warming and extreme precipitation events as they state “The question remains as to whether hail size has been changing in response to the warming climate” (go look up “Global Warming and Hail” and enjoy 50,000 sites on the subject). Xie et al. collected hail size information from stations throughout China and at the end of their analyses, they state “Here, we found no significant long-term trend in hail size based on the proportion of severe hail indirectly in the four regions in China, suggesting that hail size, as an important aspect of hail climatology, may not be sensitive to the intrinsic natural variability or climate change in the last 2–3 decades.” Oops, another failure to link extreme precipitation to global warming." [Baoguo Xie, Qinghong Zhang, Yuqing Wang 2010: Journal of Climate]
Additional severe-weather and peer-reviewed postings.
July 01, 2011 at 06:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Chinese Research Discovers There Was Historical "Unprecedented Warming" Before There Was Modern "Unprecedented Warming"
Read here. Depending on the information source, modern "unprecedented" warming is an increase of +0.5 to 0.7 degrees Celsius. Despite the hysteria expressed about this increase by the media and alarmists, in both the historical and ancient past there have been warmings that exceeded the modern warming.
Recently, a prominent climate scientist came across a long forgotten study published back in 1973 that documents the large warmings and coolings that took place in China thousands of years ago. As an example, the long ago Shang Dynasty, which had its capital approximately at the red spot on the map, experienced extended warming that was found to be 2 degrees higher than modern temperatures. The Shang dynasty existed at this location from 1400 BC to 1050 BC. (map source here)
Other warming/cooling phases affecting the Chinese civilization were documented to range from 2 to 3 degrees over multiple periods.
“The world climate during the historical times fluctuated. The numerous Chinese historical writings provide us excellent references in studying the ancient climate of China. The present author testifies, by the materials got from the histories and excavations, that during Yin-Hsu at Anyang, the annual temperature was about 2℃ higher than that of the, present in most of the time. After that came a series of up and down swings of 2—3℃ with minimum temperatures occurring at approximately 100 B. C. (about the end of the Yin Dynasty and the beginning of the Chou Dynasty), 400 A. D. (the Six Dynasties), 1200 A. D. (the South Snug Dynasty), and 1700 A. D. (about the end of the Ming Dynasty and the beginning of the Ching Dynasty). In the Han and the Tang Dynasties (200 B. C.—220 A. D. and 600—900 A. D.) the climate was rather warm." [Chu Ko-Chen 1973: China National Knowledge Infrastructure]
Additional climate-history postings.
July 01, 2011 at 07:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Phil Jones? "Warming Over Last 15 Years Is Insignificant, Immaterial, Irrelevant, and Inconsistent With Climate Models"
Read here and here. Well..okay...the quote in this post's title is what Phil Jones should have really said (he didn't). Instead, he recently proclaimed that global warming finally has become "statistically significant" since 1995.
Jones was speaking of the 15 years starting in 1996 and ending in 2010. Although the warming has become "statistically significant" in his opinion (not others), the actual level of warming is literally immaterial when put into the context of catastrophic warming (from 5 to 10 degrees Celsius by 2100) pushed by government payroll scientists enthralled (enriched?) with alarmism.
To better understand the level of immaterial warming that has happened, look at the chart above (adjacent). The red curve is a plot of monthly HadCRUT anomalies for the 15 years (180 months) ending May 2011. The light blue curve is a 2nd order curve fit of the anomalies. The black dots represent monthly atmospheric CO2 levels and gray curve the 2nd order fitting to those CO2 levels. (charts and stats done in Excel)
First, note how the blue curve turns south, indicating a direction of cooling for the HadCRUT global temps that many scientists believe will continue. The straight linear trend associated with the latest 15 years implies a warming of a tiny +0.53 degrees by January 1, 2100. In contrast, the 15-year period ending May,1996 had a linear trend that translates into an increase of +1.02 degrees by end of century, if that trend still existed - it doesn't. Did we say cooling yet?
Second, does that red curve look in the least like the accelerating, unequivocal and unprecedented global warming being claimed as happening by the UN's IPCC "elite" scientists? Nope, me neither.
Next, note the behavior of Phil Jones' (and the IPCC climate models') favorite climate forcing over the last 15 years. It is more than obvious that CO2 levels continue their long, relentless march upward, as they have done ever since WWII. And obviously, the chart clearly shows the two trends (CO2 and HadCRUT temps) diverging.
Visually, there appears to be no relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures depicted in the chart. And in fact, the R2 statistic for the two comes in at an incredibly low +0.04 - in essence, it appears there is no valid relationship between CO2 and global temps. Of course, Phil Jones and the IPCC deny this, but the actual on-the-ground facts are undeniable: human CO2 emissions appear to have a marginal impact on global temperatures, well below the speculative predictions of the IPCC and its climate models.
One final note about global warming and the recent 2011 severe weather incidents. As the HadCRUT chart depicts, global temperatures started a major decline after March 2010. As temperatures categorically crashed, the world suffered from more cold, more snow, more tornadoes, more rain, more flooding and etc. And what do the lamestream media, Hollywood celebrities, left/liberal politicians and alarmist scientists blame? Why, of course, global warming and human CO2 emissions. Go figure.
Sooo, going back to the title of this post, Phil Jones would have been more accurate and truthful if he had said: "Although statistically significant, global warming over the last 15 Years has been rather insignificant, definitely immaterial, likely irrelevant, and basically inconsistent with the climate models." That sounds like it emanated from an honest, objective scientist, no?
BTW, below are charts for other major temperature datasets for the last 15 years ending May 2011. Regardless of the dataset, global temperatures are in a slight cooling phase presently and they could continue to go down, and then again, they may not. That's what natural climate change is about. (click on all images to enlarge)
Additional modern temperature charts.
June 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Australia's Great Barrier Reef Healthy & Unaffected By Climate Change, Peer-Reviewed Study Determines
Read here. A new study by coral reef experts was just published regarding the health of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR). The concern worldwide, and especially in Australia, is that human activities are destroying the GBR. Global warming alarmists have claimed, hysterically, that global warming was causing the GBR coral to die and the reef to shrink.
As Osborne et al. determined in their study, the GBR is alive and well in contrast to the non-scientific, alarmist hysteria.
"The authors write that "coral decline is frequently described as ongoing with the integrity and persistence of the reef system threatened by a number of different stressors,"...that "climate change is widely regarded as the single greatest threat to coral reef ecosystems."...they decided to quantify the trend in live coral cover of the GBR over the critical temporal interval of 1995-2009, which climate alarmists contend was the warmest decade and a half experienced by the planet to that point in time over the past millennium...four researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science report that "coral cover increased in six sub-regions and decreased in seven sub-regions," with some of the changes "being very dynamic and others changing little." But with respect to the entire reef system, they report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."" [Kate Osborne, Andrew M. Dolman, Scott C. Burgess, Kerryn A. Johns 2011: PLoS ONE]
Additional coral reef and peer-reviewed postings.
June 29, 2011 at 05:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
The IPCC's "Missing CO2" Remains A Major Embarrassment of Its "Consensus" Science
Read here. Back in 2009, NASA launched a new satellite that was supposed to locate the 'missing CO2' that the IPCC has found so elusive, to the point of embarrassment. Being unable to account for the still AWOL CO2, which of course is the main ingredient in the IPCC's AGW hypothesis, is well...er...an embarrassment. Unfortunately, the satellite launch failed. A failure likely due to Obama's NASA of HOPE, since they now think there is a higher calling than actual science and launch successes, which is a whole nother story.
With that snark accomplished, the major problem of the missing CO2 remains and there is now a new study (more on that later) that proffers a new hypothesis to the missing CO2 riddle.
Currently, what is absolutely known about the missing CO2 is that it implies the IPCC's AGW "settled" climate science is not really settled, by a long shot. Essentially here are the facts regarding the "missing CO2."
1. Scientists estimate that only 50% of each years new CO2 emissions can be accounted for - yes, that means the other 50% is missing.
2. Since pre-industrial times, some 499 billion tons of CO2 has been emitted by humans.
3. Since pre-industrial times some 266 billion tons have been stored in the atmosphere; some 118 billion tons has been stored in the oceans; and, these two figures combined represent 334 billion tons stored.
4. Since pre-industrial times, some 165 billion tons of human CO2 emissions have gone missing. (The 165 figure is the difference between 499 and 334 billion tons.)
5. The IPCC "scientists" claim that emitted human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years.
6. The vast majority (see above chart) of peer-reviewed studies have determined that CO2 only remains in the atmosphere some 5 to 15 years. (click on chart to enlarge)
Based on all the above, how could any climate scientist, let a lone the IPCC, claim that the science is "settled"? Not only are vast amounts of CO2 emissions not accounted for on a yearly basis, there is also the known IPCC claim that human CO2 emissions are stored in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousand of years yet 50% goes "missing" each year - in other words, in reality, it ain't stored in the atmosphere.
Thus, not surprisingly, the IPCC and its quack climate scientists resort to a lot of hand-waving and mumbo-jumbo speculation to get around these known, major embarrassing CO2 issues with the AGW hypothesis.
Now comes a new study based on...ahem...a computer model that suggests the missing CO2 actually is being absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere. Esser et al. propose that a requisite combination of CO2 and nitrogen aerial fertilization explains how the "missing CO2" has actually been absorbed by vegetation, which means it's definitely not remaining in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years.
As one can see, the science is far from settled and there is no current consensus as to where the 'missing CO2' goes - that's why scientists like Esser et al. keep performing new research.
"In pursuing this course of action, Esser et al. found that nitrogen fertilization of the biosphere in the absence of an increase in the air's CO2 concentration "would result in only minor additional carbon accumulation in plant biomass," while rising CO2 alone, without consideration of the nitrogen cycle, would bind roughly half of the carbon in the postulated carbon sink. And in the most realistic situation of all, they determined that "a complete ensemble of rising atmospheric CO2 and N2 fixation, denitrification, and leaching is necessary to achieve the 160 Pg [billion tons] C bound in the terrestrial biosphere between 1860 and 2002 as required by the missing sink concept." [GERD ESSER, JENS KATTGE, ABDULLA SAKALLI1 2011: Global Change Biology ]
Additional greenhouse gas and peer-reviewed postings. Greenhouse gas charts.
June 28, 2011 at 04:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
An Intellectual's Summary: Al Gore & The IPCC Are Irrelevant; CO2 Global Regulation Is Exercise In Futility
Read here. Another excellent synopsis by Walter Russell Mead of Al Gore and his anti-CO2 movement, which has failed miserably, unless wasting billions of dollars and untold human-hours is the ultimate sign of success.
Not sure if Mead is properly designated as an intellectual, but his analysis is exquisite, clearly stating how the whole house of CO2-cards was stillborn from conception. He puts it into a contextual comparison to another infamous failure, the 1920's Kellog-Briand pact that was to outlaw war - forever. That treaty was an absolute flop just like the moronic Kyoto CO2 treaty.
Anyways, a great read and it explains why Gore is now only found in the pages of the Rolling Stone publication instead of on the UN's podium. Thank goodness for small miracles.
Mead's part 1 analysis can be found here.
h/t: Instapundit
June 28, 2011 at 08:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Liberal/Left Stupidity Knows No Bounds When It Comes To Climate Change, As Al Gore Proves Once Again
Read here. Without a doubt, Democrats/liberals/leftists/progressives are committed to proving to the public that they might be dumbest "elites" ever conceived.
The global warming and climate change debate continues to provide the pertinent evidence that leftist-types are either stupendously stupid or hysterically anti-science.
Why would any person possessed with a modicum of common sense, with both feet firmly planted on terra firma, suggest that Mt. Rainier is currently short on snow and snow pack? My god, these people are sooo stupid, no? Again, thanks Al for helping the skeptic cause.
Additional left-liberal stupidity postings.
June 27, 2011 at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Did Blogger Tom Nelson Defeat The "Climate Crisis"?
Read here. Tom Nelson presents a very interesting Google Trends chart showing the comparison of Watts Up With That site traffic versus the terminology of "climate crisis." One could easily surmise from the data that Anthony Watts has slayed the dragon.
But Tom is way too humble and too little recognized by his peers. He's been at the climate blogging scene about the longest of anyone (since 2005) scouring the web for global warming and climate articles. His blog is a must read and source for many skeptic bloggers (including 'C3') and none of us shower the accolades on him for his dedication and persistence. Tom's blog has had a major impact on the climate debate, and he doesn't do it for the money or the publicity.
So, for both Tom and Anthony, congrats and thanks for your efforts - keep it coming!
June 27, 2011 at 05:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
NOAA Temperature Data Rebuts IPCC's Climate Model Predictions of Global Warming
The UN's political and propaganda climate agency, commonly known as the IPCC, has made an ongoing, multi-decadal effort to convince both policymakers and the public that global warming was relentless, unprecedented and accelerating. The well publicized IPCC climate predictions even went as far as to claim winters would be wamer with an associated disappearance of snowfall throughout the Northern Hemisphere.
Unfortunately for the IPCC though, and its climate model predictions, and its "consensus" science, natural climate forces made a mockery of the exhibited arrogance and hubris embodied within the United Nations climate propaganda agency.
As fate would have it, large expanses of global geography have experienced colder and snowier conditions during many of the last ten years, totally contradicting the "settled" science of politicians and bureaucrats. Case in point is the vast area of the U.S. and its various regional areas. (click on image to enlarge)
The U.S. has been cooling overall for the past 15 years, and as the chart above depicts, its winters, as reported by the NOAA climate services, have contributed to that trend. This happened despite the IPCC claim that increased CO2 emissions results in global warming, not hemispheric cooling. And let there be no doubt, annual CO2 emissions continue to be large and growing.
h/t: Steve Goddard
Additional failed-prediction postings. Modern temperature charts.
June 26, 2011 at 08:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Since 1990, IPCC's Climate Predictions Have Been Wrong - Billions Wasted On Worthless Fortunetelling
Read here, here and here. As these three articles indicate, the IPCC has failed miserably at making climate predictions, despite IPCC claims that their "consensus science" allows them to predict future climate scenarios out some 100 years or more.
Definition of a fortuneteller: "One who professes to predict future events"
The IPCC is a political agency of the UN, which is tasked with proving that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. The IPCC conducts absolutely zero scientific research. Instead, the IPCC seeks out agreeable 3rd party research and propaganda of green groups that they then reposition as confirmed, "robust," scientific evidence of CO2's harm.
According to Pachauri [IPCC's lead "climate scientist"] a “rapid transformation of the economic system” is required"....."Affluent countries, he says, “have to start changing direction. They can’t continue to consume at this level.” "We have been so drunk with this desire to produce and consume more and more whatever the cost to the environment that we’re on a totally unsustainable path. I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it."
As can be seen, and is also freely admitted by most "elites," politics and global governance and economic transformation are the driving force of the IPCC's activities.
Its Climategate scientists focus the majority of their efforts on the political agenda objective, and as a result, the actual climate science is forsaken to the trace amounts of atmospheric gas - the CO2 god. Thus, this UN sponsored politicization of climate science turns accepted scientific forecasting techniques into little more than bizarre and alarmist fortunetelling...ergo, the IPCC can't predict squat about the climate.
Additional failed-prediction postings.
June 26, 2011 at 07:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Giving Thanks For Small Miracles: Why Al Gore Is A Green's Worst Nightmare & Always Will Be
A must read here. Just flat out excellent and well written analysis of Al Gore and his demonstrable failure at winning the hearts and mind of the public and body politic.
Why did ManBearPig fail? As they say, read the whole thing but 'carbon pig' is the essential characteristic that guaranteed 'fail'. Thank you, Al, for being the AGW watermelons' worst enemy.
"Once out of office, he assumed the leadership of the global green movement, steering that movement into a tsunami of defeat that, when the debris is finally cleared away, will loom as one of the greatest failures of civil society in all time."
"Gore has the Midas touch in reverse; objects of great value (Nobel prizes, Oscars) turn dull and leaden at his touch. Few celebrity cause leaders have had more or better publicity than Gore has had for his climate advocacy. Hailed by the world press, lionized by the entertainment community and the Global Assemblage of the Great and the Good as incarnated in the Nobel Peace Prize committee, he has nevertheless seen the movement he led flounder from one inglorious defeat to the next."
"A television preacher can eat too many french fries, watch too much cheesy TV and neglect his kids in the quest for global fame. But he cannot indulge in drug fueled trysts with male prostitutes while preaching conservative Christian doctrine. The head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving cannot be convicted of driving while under the influence. The head of the IRS cannot be a tax cheat. The most visible leader of the world’s green movement cannot live a life of conspicuous consumption, spewing far more carbon into the atmosphere than almost all of those he castigates for their wasteful ways. Mr. Top Green can’t also be a carbon pig."
June 25, 2011 at 02:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
GOP's Romney & Huntsman Condone A UN Affiliated Green-Fascist's Threats Directed At Skeptics
Read here. Timothy Wirth, a UN sponsor of climate-lies and political partisan extraordinaire, is a big government, global governance type who is upset that a majority of the IPCC's "consensus science" has been found to be bogus or suffering from extreme exaggerations. This has led Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, to level threats towards AGW skeptics, those inconvenient messengers of the failed IPCC science.
“Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it."
So what do Romney and Huntsman have to do with a UN, big government, climate-lies raconteur, green-fascist like Wirth? Well...these two spineless GOP hopefuls won't stand up and demand a stop to this level of rhetoric and implied threats. Don't hold your breath because you're not likely to hear them diss the UN's IPCC and an apparatchik like Wirth.
Why? Is it because, Romney and Huntsman are big government, liberal Republicans who both favor a stronger bureaucracy, more spending, increased taxes, and greater micro-management over the economy? Or is it due to their complete lack of spines and courage to face down the liberal establishment, like a Reagan or even a Palin could effectively do?
These two GOP hopefuls are no Reagan or Palin, for sure. More likely, the simple facts are that Romney and Huntsman agree with Wirth and other green-fascists and global governance types; plus, they don't want to upset their potential presidential campaign contributors, such as Soros and Gore.
And by the way, does anyone remember Romney and Huntsman speaking out and condemning this type of green-fascist threats that was widely circulated via YouTube and strongly criticized by conservatives, libertarians and independents at the time? Nope, didn't think so. With no backbone, these two GOP contenders always go AWOL when faced with left/liberal/progressive totalitarian instincts.
June 25, 2011 at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
A Spectacular Failure: Latest HadCrut & NASA Temperatures Significantly Below IPCC Climate Model Predictions
Read here. Not only are U.S. temperatures below climate model predicted values, but global temperatures are also not behaving in the mode of the 2007 IPCC "consensus" climate models that represent the supposed 97% of scientists who say climate science is "settled." (click to enlarge charts)
The actual temperatures (bright green curve for UAH-NASA satellite and bright blue curve for HadCRUT) shown in this chart are compared to the various IPCC scenarios of CO2 emissions. The orange curve ('commitment') was the IPCC climate model temperature scenario that assumed CO2 emissions would "stabalise" at levels for year 2000. The darker blue, green and red curves represent different growth scenarios of "business as usual" CO2 emissions.
As is clear in the chart, global temperatures are significantly below even the the IPCC scenario of stabilized (orange curve) CO2 emissions. This is a spectacular failure, confirming that increasing CO2 emissions are not driving temperatures up, despite the "consensus" science. It also confirms how worthless climate models are for policymakers to rely on as predictive tools.
As this next chart indicates, global CO2 emissions (tons) continue to grow with 2010 levels substantially above the 2000 CO2 emission levels. Clearly, the CO2 growth continues at the pace of the IPCC's "business as usual" terminolgy.
Additional failed-prediction postings. Other modern temperature, climate model and CO2-greenhouse gas charts/graphs.
June 25, 2011 at 05:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Green Fascist In Australia Proposes A Holocaust Solution For AGW Skeptics
Read here and here.
We've long contended that leftists/liberals/greens are some of the dumbest, most anti-science, hysterical persons populating the planet. They also consistently exhibit a love for fascist and totalitarian styles of violence.
The latest example of greens' stupidity, hate and violence? Jill Singer of Australia. What a charming individual and country. We've added her infamous 'final solution' quote to the historical record of greenie craziness: their desires and objectives.
Update: And...let's not forget the Australian green-fascist who wants this done to skeptics.
Additional left-liberal-green postings about their anti-science/hysteria/stupidity/hate.
June 22, 2011 at 08:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Two New Studies: Experts Confirm Global Warming Does Not Cause Increases of Malaria & Heart Failure
Read here and here. Politicians, such as Al Gore and Mitt Romney, and the lamestream press go out of their way to implicate global warming as the cause of anything that is not desired, including diseases. They make these claims despite a substantial body of peer-reveiwed science saying otherwise.
Two new studies, Haque et al. and Toro et al., analyze the actual empirical evidence and find no connection between global warming and the incidence of malaria and incidents of heart failure.
"The authors write that "malaria is the most important tropical and parasitic disease in the world," noting that in 2008 there were an estimated 243 million cases that accounted for an estimated 863,000 deaths...Haque et al. looked for potential relationships between malaria incidence and various climatic parameters (rainfall, temperature, humidity, sea surface temperature and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation), as well as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), which is a satellite-derived measure of surface vegetation greenness...And in Bangladesh, where malaria is endemic, they report that in that same year, malaria morbidity and mortality totals were 84,690 and 154, respectively...The six scientists report that "after adjusting for potential mutual confounding between climatic factors there was no evidence for any association between the number of malaria cases and temperature, rainfall and humidity," and they say that "there was no evidence of an association between malaria cases and sea surface temperatures in the Bay of Bengal and NINO3." [Ubydul Haque, Masahiro Hashizume, Gregory E. Glass, Ashraf M. Dewan, Hans J. Overgaard, Taro Yamamoto 2010: PLoS ONE]
"Working with data pertaining to 7450 cardiovascular-related deaths that occurred within Budapest, Hungary, between 1995 and 2004 -- where the deceased were "medico-legally autopsied" -- Toro et al. looked for potential relationships between daily maximum, minimum and mean temperature, air humidity, air pressure, wind speed, global radiation and daily numbers of the heart-related deaths...scientists report and restate their primary finding numerous times throughout their paper, writing that (1) "both the maximum and the minimum daily temperatures tend to be lower when more death cases occur in a day," (2) "on the days with four or more death cases, the daily maximum and minimum temperatures tend to be lower than on days without any cardiovascular death events," (3) "the largest frequency of cardiovascular death cases was detected in cold and cooling weather conditions," (4) "we found a significant negative relationship between temperature and cardiovascular mortality," (5) "the analysis of 6-hour change of air pressure suggests that more acute or chronic vascular death cases occur during increasing air pressure conditions (implying cold weather fronts)," (6) "we found a high frequency of cardiovascular death in cold weather," (7) "a significant negative relationship was detected between daily maximum [and] minimum temperature[s] and the number of sudden cardiovascular death cases," and (8) "a significant negative correlation was detected between daily mean temperature and cardiovascular mortality." [Klára Törő, Judit Bartholy, Rita Pongrácz, Zsófia Kis, Éva Keller, György Dunay 2010: Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine]
Additional infection-disease and peer-reviewed postings.
June 22, 2011 at 05:02 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Hansen's Global Climate Model In Total Fail: Predicted Ocean Heat Goes Missing
Read here. We've written before about how worthless climate models are as prediction tools, and that their output should never be used by policymakers as a basis for major decisions. Every month it seems there is a new revelation of just how terrible these models are. (click on image to enlarge)
This month, it's the total failure of James Hansen's climate models used at NASA. As the adjacent chart shows, Hansen's model predicted ocean heat to significantly accumulate because humans are emitting ever greater amounts of CO2. Well, we keep emitting CO2 but the oceans stopped gaining heat in the amounts predicted several years ago.
Again, the empirical evidence from actual observations does not support the exaggerated output predictions of AGW-driven climate models. Policymakers need to recognize the robust, consistent model failures and mitigate their influence.
Additional climate-model postings. Climate model and modern temperature charts.
June 19, 2011 at 12:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Canadian Lake's Past Water Levels Refutes Both Mann's 'Hockey-Stick' Climate & IPCC's "Unprecedented" Modern Warming
Read here. The IPCC claims that modern "unprecedented" global warming has caused glaciers and snowpack to shrink, and mountainous areas to become more arid, thus diminishing/eliminating essential alpine river discharges. Whether it's the Himalayas or other mountainous regions though, the empirical evidence does not support the claims of modern warming being "unprecedented," nor the convenient disappearing of the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age climates of Mann's 'hockey-stick.'
A new peer-reviewed study by Wolfe et al. found that a Canadian lake's modern water level, which is fed from Rocky Mountain water runoff, is significantly higher than during the Medieval Warming Period and higher than lake levels prior to the extended Medieval span. This is an unequivocal indicator that modern warming is not "unprecedented." (click on image to enlarge)
"A peer-reviewed paper published online today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters shows that drought of Western North America was considerably worse during the Medieval Warming Period than at the end of the 20th century. The paper also shows much more variation and extremes in the drought record over the past 5200 years than since the advent of industrialization and rising CO2 levels in the latter 20th century. The proxy records clearly show no correlation of drought with the claimed steady CO2 levels...""a new 5200-year record of Lake Athabasca water-level variations, which serves as a sensitive gauge of past changes in alpine-sourced river discharge, reveals that western Canadian society has developed during a rare period of unusually abundant water ‘subsidized’ by prior glacier expansion."" [Brent B. Wolfe, Thomas W. D. Edwards, Roland I. Hall, John W. Johnston 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Additonal climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical temperature charts.
June 19, 2011 at 06:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Analysis of Sediment Cores From Arctic Circle Region Determines Medieval Era Warmer Than Modern Period
Read here. Image source here. (click image to enlarge)
The discredited, bogus 'hockey stick' temperature reconstruction has motivated hundreds to conduct new research on the paleo-climate, utilizing valid scientific and statistical methods. The vast majority of these new studies confirm the anecdotal historical evidence that the Medieval Period was the warmest extended time span over the last 2,000 years.
Velle et al. recently published a peer-reviewed analysis of sediment cores from the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic. The analysis revealed the Medieval Warming in a polar Arctic area to be approximately 0.3°C higher than modern temperatures.
"Working with two short gravity cores and two long piston cores of sediments obtained from the deepest part of Lake Skardtjorna, Velle et al. reconstructed histories of chironomid types and concentrations over the past 2000 years, which they translated into mean July air temperatures based on a modern mean July air temperature calibration data set...in the words of the two researchers, a "warming that occurred at 1000 to 830 BP," where BP = 2003, that "may correspond to what is known as the 'Medieval Warm Period'." And based on their graphical representation of that record, we estimate that the peak warmth of the MWP (~ AD 1000-1170) was about 0.3°C greater than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period. [Gaute Velle, Katrine Kongshavn, H. John B. Birks 2011: The Holocene]
Additonal climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical temperature charts.
June 18, 2011 at 04:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Peer-Research Establishes That Temperatures In China Were Warmer In 1920-40s Versus Modern Temperatures
Read here. (click on image to enlarge)
Global warming alarmists, such as Al Gore and Mitt Romney, who advocate for more government spending, regulations and taxes to make a gallon of gas even more expensive, claim that current global temperatures are "unprecedented." Nothing could be more scientific-nonsense when, clearly, peer-reviewed study after study shows that current modern warming is lukewarm versus previous periods.
The Gore-Romney-Obama nonsense about "unprecedented" warming can't even hold its own during the 20th century, as a new study by Yi et al. establishes without a reasonable doubt. Early 20th century temperatures prior to large human CO2 emissions were hotter than temperatures in the 1990s and early 21st century.
And to emphasize the anti-science hysteria from Democrat/Republican big government liberals/leftists/progressives, this study shows how absurd their claim is that climate change is only due to recent human CO2 emissions.
"In the ongoing global warming debate there is often a significant difference between the perception of what is going on with the Earth’s climate when compared to what is actually going on. There is no greater example of this than the summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere...A recent study is probably the highest resolution reconstruction using temperature and precipitation records from the region and then correlating to tree-ring data to create a high resolution reconstruction of the summer temperatures for North-Central China...it is clear that the peak of the modern warming cycle for the summer months took place 70-80 years ago. It should be noted that the United States set the all time temperature record for 50% of the states back in the 1930′s."
"We concluded that (1) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1484 AD, 1585–1587 AD, 1689–1691 AD, 1784–1786 AD and 1876–1878 AD, were the results of rainless and torrid combination; (2) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1560–1561 AD, 1599–1601 AD, 1609 AD, 1615–1617 AD, 1638–1641 AD and 1899–1901 AD, were first caused by rainless summer, and then controlled by low precipitation and/or high temperature; (3) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1527–1529 AD, 1720–1722 AD, 1813–1814 AD, 1856–1857 AD and 1926–1930 AD, were first caused by torrid summer, and then controlled by both low precipitation and high temperature; (4) the dominant climate pattern within the study area consisted of warm–dry and cold–wet alternations, and the recessive pattern consisted of cold–dry and warm–wet alternations. We also showed that the drought/flood index is a valuable climate proxy in quantitative reconstructions, especially in places where tree-ring data is not available." [Liang Yi, Hongjun Yu, Junyi Ge, Zhongping Lai, Xingyong Xu, Li Qin and Shuzhen Peng 2011: Climatic Change]
Additional "unprecedented"-warming and peer-reviewed postings. Modern temperature charts.
June 18, 2011 at 05:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Algae Research Confirms That North Atlantic During The 1990s Was Cooler Than 1920s-1930s
Read here. There is an abundance of both empirical and anecdotal evidence that the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions were warmer during the early 20th century than the more recent recorded temperatures. (For an indication of the anecdotal evidence about the 1920s and 1930s go here and scroll down to those decades.)
Scientists and Arctic experts now believe that the early 20th century saw exceptional polar and Northern Hemisphere warming that is yet to be adequately explained since atmospheric CO2 levels were so low at the time.
Now a new study by Halfar et al. adds to growing empirical evidence that indeed the North Atlantic area may have been warmer during the 1920s and 1930s.
"The authors write that "mid- and high-latitude crustose coralline algae are an emerging extra-tropical marine climate archive," as was demonstrated during a field calibration study (Halfar et al., 2008), since "they are amongst the longest-lived shallow marine organisms," and since "they show constant growth over their lifespan...Using a regional network of specimens of the coralline alga Clathromorphum compactum spanning portions of the Labrador Current inshore branch from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to both latitudinal extremes of the eastern Newfoundland shelf,...The new temperature reconstruction revealed "the well-documented regime shift and warming in the northwestern Atlantic during the 1990s." But in addition, the eight researchers report that "large positive changes in algal growth anomalies were also present in the 1920s and 1930s, indicating that the impact of a concurrent large-scale regime shift throughout the North Atlantic was more strongly felt in the subarctic Northwestern Atlantic than previously thought." And they specifically state that this regime shift "may have even exceeded the 1990s event with respect to the magnitude of the warming," as "has recently been suggested for the central and eastern North Atlantic," citing the study of Drinkwater (2006)." [Halfar, J., Hetzinger, S., Adey, W., Zack, T., Gamboa, G., Kunz, B., Williams, B. and Jacob, D.E. 2011: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology]
Additional modern-temperature and peer-reviewed postings.
June 17, 2011 at 09:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Obama & Romney Despair Over Loss of Favorite Corporate Welfare: Ethanol Subsidy Ended By Senate
Read here and here. The U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly voted to end the lucrative ethanol corporate welfare scheme. The two largest supporters of this billions-of-dollars per year welfare scam are President Obama and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and both remained loyal to the bitter end. Their support was primarily due to pandering for Iowa votes and for immense contributions from the ethanol industry.
Originally, politicians embraced ethanol subsidies as a supposed means to reduce global warming and to provide energy independence, plus Obama's team claimed the subsidy would increase the nation's employment. As this corporate welfare program continued to suck money out of taxpayer wallets, it became obvious that ethanol production/use had no discernible impact on global warming or energy independence or overall employment.
Other than Obama and Romney, the majority of politicians from both parties decided it was time for this brain-dead corporate welfare subsidy to end. When true leadership was required to stare down the pigs at the government trough, neither party's major candidate had the spine to do so.
"Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called Thursday’s Senate vote in favor of quickly killing a major ethanol industry tax break “ill advised,” alleging it will cost jobs...“The Administration supports efforts currently underway in the Senate to reform and modernize tax incentives and other programs that support biofuels. However, today’s amendments are not reforms and are ill advised. They will lead to job loss as our nation begins its economic recovery and pull the rug out from under industry, which will lead to less choice for consumers and greater dependence on foreign oil.”"
Additional ethanol and presidential-politics postings.
Obama and Obama-white are the candidates of big government, big spending, big taxation and economic micro-management. Neither belongs in the Oval office.
June 17, 2011 at 03:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
'Big Green' Destroys IPCC's Credibility - New Revelations Confirm The Lefts/Liberals Anti-Science Bias
Read here and here. Mitt Romney, leading GOP presidential hopeful, believes in the catastrophic global warming boogieman that the left/liberal/green machine has conjured up. Unfortunately for gullible Mitt and other big government 'tax & spend' supporters, the AGW boogieman and associated issues are primarily fabrications of the green progressives' anti-science - indeed, the liberals/progressives have a definite political agenda and real science is not going to stop them.
As scientists around the world have now come to realize, the extremist Greenpeace organization is the principal leftist entity behind the anti-science approach that is now devouring one of its own, the UN's IPCC, from the inside out.
The latest in a long line of embarrassing IPCC anti-science proclamations is the recent "research" claim that 80% of the world's energy needs in year 2050 could be supplied by renewable energy sources. Based on the known science of technology, engineering, economics, demographics, and combined with an improving standard of living for the world's masses, the 80% renewable solution is an impossibility.
Who authored this new bogus IPCC study? Well, the radical fanatics of Greenpeace, of course!
"It turns out the information the IPCC chose to highlight in its press release comes from a Greenpeace report – and that the person who wrote the Greenpeace report was also a lead author of the IPCC document...It could not be clearer that the IPCC still doesn’t understand some basic concepts. It is improper for the IPCC to base its conclusions on Greenpeace research. I mean, how hard is this? If the IPCC is a scientific organization, if it says it is conducting a scientific assessment it cannot rely on work that was in any way undertaken or funded by activist groups...It is also improper for Greenpeace employees to be IPCC lead authors. Period...At least one prominent individual on the other side of the climate debate – Mark Lynas – has publicly recognized how bad this looks...Nor does the IPCC understand that its credibility will continue to be non-existent so long as it continues to allow its own lead authors to pass judgment on research they themselves have authored."
"The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario...Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch."
June 16, 2011 at 04:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
In Another Blow To The Theory That Climate Change Harms Marine Life, New Study Finds That Salmon Love Global Warming
Read here. It is often predicted by global warming alarmists that warming sea temperatures will endanger marine life. Most scientists disagree with these unsubstantiated catastrophic claims, especially as the peer-reviewed evidence does not support them.
And the growing peer-reviewed evidence just keeps mocking the anti-science alarmists: a new research study by Seo et al. determines that Pacific salmon actually prosper and survive longer in waters that are warmer.
"The authors write that "Pacific salmon play an important role as both keystone species in North Pacific ecosystems and as an ecosystem service that provides human food resources for countries of the North Pacific rim,...used multiple regression and path analysis to examine the effects of regional and larger spatial scales of climatic/oceanic conditions on the growth, survival and population dynamics of the species...determined that growth of one-year-old chum salmon in the Okhotsk Sea "was less during the period from the 1940s to the mid-1970s compared to the period from the mid-1980s to the present," which result "was directly affected by warmer sea surface temperatures associated with global warming." And they add that "the increased growth at age one led directly to higher survival rates and indirectly to larger population sizes." [Hyunju Seo, Hideaki Kudo, Masahide Kaeriyama, 2011: Environmental Biology of Fishes]
Additional species-endangerment and peer-reviewed postings.
June 16, 2011 at 01:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
EU Scientists: The Alps Big Glacier, Despite Modern "Unprecedented" Global Warming, Was Smaller In The Past
Read here. The IPCC and climate alarmists have become well known for their hysterical and failed glacier catastrophe prognostications. To add to the IPCC's growing embarrassment, new research indicates that the Rhône Glacier is currently larger than in previous times, which doesn't lend much credence to their claims of the supposed "unprecedented" warming of the 20th/21st centuries.
Interestingly, due to the glacier's melting, it has actually revealed how warm it really was in the not too distant past - under the glacier were remains of human settlements and forests that are now seeing the light of day, again. Obviously, much to the chagrin of the IPCC's Climategate scientists, the human past has experienced a much warmer climate.
Using novel techniques involving measurement of isotopes Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10, Goehring et al. were able to analyze past glacier growth and shrinkage over the past 11,500 years.
"Until now, scientists have had no accurate way of knowing the long-term history of the glacier. Local records of the ice date back to 1602, and it is clear that the Rhone, like other glaciers in the Alps, has retreated dramatically in the past 150 years. This melting has exposed intriguing clues – remnants of trees from once-forested land, and artifacts of human settlements dating back thousands of years, to times when even more of the land was uncovered and green...the researchers said that their more robust history of the Holocene glacier fluctuations reflects how sensitive glaciers are to small changes in climate...said he was surprised by the evidence of exposure revealed by the isotopes. The amount of Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 they found "told us that not only were the surfaces exposed for significant periods of time, meaning the Rhone Glacier was smaller than today..." [Brent M. Goehring, Joerg M. Schaefer, Christian Schluechter, Nathaniel A. Lifton, Robert C. Finkel, A.J. Timothy Jull, Naki Akçar, Richard B. Alley 2011: Geology]
Additional glacier-ice sheet and peer-reviewed postings.
June 15, 2011 at 02:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
The Left/Liberal Anti-Science Agenda: Despite Actual Evidence, NYT's Reporter Blames Global Warming For Food Production Woes
Read here. Both the New York Times and Washington Post have seen their daily reporting essentially become shrill propaganda pieces, pushing the latest left/liberal/Democrat partisan agenda, no matter how unprofessional and idiotic. Unfortunately for the public, this same mindset, plus a dose of significant anti-science attitudes, has invaded their science reporting also. Latest example is Justin Gillis' ("I-hate-real-data") article on global warming and food production.
Either because of extreme stupidity, or the typical left/liberal anti-science approach, Justin contends that food production has slowed and can't keep up with demand, which "scientists believe" is a result of global warming. Like most "journalists" of the left, real facts and data are irrelevant for Justin:
"Today's New York Times has an article by Justin Gillis on global food production that strains itself to the breaking point to make a story fit a narrative. The narrative, of course, is that climate change "is helping to destabilize the food system." The problem with the article is that the data that it presents don't support this narrative...But this claim of slowing output is shown to be completely false...Far from slowing, farm output has increased dramatically over the past half-century and on a per capita basis in 2009 was higher than at any point since the early 1980s...Completely unmentioned are the many (most?) scientists who believe that evidence is lacking to connect recent floods and heat waves to "human-induced global warming." In fact, the balance of evidence with respect to floods is decidedly contrary to the assertion in the article, and recent heat wave attribution is at best contested. More importantly, even in the face of periodic weather extremes, food prices -- which link supply and demand -- exhibit a long-term downward trend, despite recent spikes...Even the experts that Gillis cites don't really support the central thesis of the article."
In conclusion, this NYT's article is another example of fraudulent science reporting by the Times, which is entirely indicative of their partisan, left/liberal propaganda approach to modern "journalism" (honestly, is it a surprise to anyone that their readership has cratered over the past 10 years?). In addition, most scientists now believe that Justin Gillis is incapable of accurate science reporting and is too dumb to be connecting the dots of the "evil global warming" scare-mongering.
Update: Another NYT's anti-science column re: global warming.
June 15, 2011 at 09:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Older »
Lijit Search
Google Search
WWW
c3headlines.typepad.com
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Archives
July 17, 2011 - July 23, 2011
July 10, 2011 - July 16, 2011
July 3, 2011 - July 9, 2011
June 26, 2011 - July 2, 2011
June 19, 2011 - June 25, 2011
June 12, 2011 - June 18, 2011
June 5, 2011 - June 11, 2011
May 29, 2011 - June 4, 2011
May 22, 2011 - May 28, 2011
May 15, 2011 - May 21, 2011
More...
Categories
1 - Twitter
1 Peer-Reviewed Studies
? Are Coral Reefs Dying/Endangered
? Are Corporations Global Warming Hypocrites/Liars/Crooks
? Are Current Temperatures Unequivocal
? Are Global Temperatures Accelerating
? Are Ice Sheets Going To Disappear
? Are Leftists/Elites/Liberals Stupid, Deceitful, Hypocritical, Corrupt, Violent
? Are Modern Temperatures Unprecedented
? Are Oceans Becoming Acidic
? Are Oceans Rising
? Are Oceans Warming
? Are Polar Bears At Risk
? Are Severe Weather Events Due To Global Warming
? Are Wealthy Investors Global Warming Hypocrites/Liars/Crooks
? Can CO2-Based Energy Be Easily Replaced
? Can Global Temperatures Be Reduced or Controlled
? Can Scientists Predict Climate Results
? Is China A Green Paradise
? Is The Left Destroying Science, Reason, Civility
Al Gore/Env Fanaticism/Alarmism/Religion/Hysteria
Big-Govt Propaganda/Deceit/Stupidity
Bureaucrats/Enviro-Nazis/Thugs
Cancun/Copenhagen Global Warming Fiascoes
Cap & Trade/Carbon Offsets/Carbon Taxes
Climate History
Climate Lie of The Day
Climate Models
Climategate, climate liars, climate fraud
Developing Nations/Impoverished Peoples/Poverty
Electric/Hybrid Autos/Other Trnspt.
Failed Predictions: Model/Human
Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends
Global Warming: Atmos./Ocean Oscillations/Currents
Global Warming: Black Carbon/Soot/Aerosols
Global Warming: Charts/Images/PDFs/EmbedVids
Global Warming: Education/Schools
Global Warming: Evidence-Facts Against CO2
Global Warming: Geoengineering
Global Warming: Jobs/Profits/Taxes/Reparations
Global Warming: Kyoto/Regulations/Sustainability
Global Warming: Negative/Positive Feedback
Global Warming: Non-CO2 Climate Change Causes
Global Warming: Politics/Correctness/Hypocrisy/Corruption
Global Warming: Science Corruption/Censorship/Deceit
Global Warming: Science Fact/Evidence
Global Warming: Science Non-Factual/Speculation/Fiction
Global Warming: Sun/Solar/Cosmic/Orbital/Oscillations/Cycles
Global Warming: Urban Heat Island Bias
Greehouse Gases: CO2/Methane/Water Vapor
Harm To Science Credibility/Reputation
Hysteria: Climate Tipping Points, Alarmist Predictions
Hysteria: Diseases/Starvation/Death/Health Impact
Hysteria: Drought/Flood/Crop Failures/Forest Fires
Hysteria: Earthquakes/Tsunamis/Volcanoes
Hysteria: Greenland/Polar/Glaciers/Sea Ice
Hysteria: Heat Wave/Cold Wave
Hysteria: Hurricanes/Cyclones/Typhoons/Tornados
Hysteria: Rain Forests/Boreal/Permafrost
Hysteria: Rain Forests/Boreal/Tundra
Hysteria: Rain/Snow/Hail/Fog/Other Weather
Hysteria: Sand/Dust Storms
Hysteria: Seas Rising/Acidic Oceans/Ocean Circ
Hysteria: Species Endangerment/Extinction
Hysteria: War/Conflicts/Terrorism
Mainsteam Media Bias/Distortion/Deceit/Stupidity
Non Climate Issue: Immigration
Non-Climate Issue: Public Employees/Unions
Nuclear Energy
Politics: Presidential Candidates
Renewables: Algae/Wood/Cellulosic
Renewables: Bio-Diesel/Ethanol
Renewables: Energy Fraud/Scam/Failure
Renewables: Energy Independence/Green Jobs
Renewables: Solar/Wind
Republicans: Memo To
Technology Solutions: CO2 Reduction
Temp Readings: Balloons/Buoys/Satellite/Surface/Urban/Rural
Temp Readings: Ice Core/Other Proxy Data
UN-IPCC/World Govt
Videos/Podcasts
