Archive for Global Warming Hysteria
India Snubs Own Nobel Prize Winner
Posted by: | CommentsIndia has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it cannot rely on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri.
Dr. Roy Spencer writes (yesterday):
Any way you look at it, the evidence for internally-forced climate change is pretty clear. Based upon this satellite evidence alone, I do not see how the IPCC can continue to ignore internally-forced variations in the climate system. The evidence for its existence is there for all to see, and in my opinion, the IPCCs lack of diagnostic skill in this matter verges on scientific malpractice.
Full article here (plainly written, another smack-down of the AGW crowd)
Motl Hits Another Homer.. (required reading)
Posted by: | Comments
Lubos is a bright fellow, very bright indeed. And this newer posting he has is really quite excellent. Click on the Moberg/Loehle temperature graphs to jump to The Reference Frame..
Or here.. http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-does-15-c-above-pre-industrial.html
Hoaxenhagen – Monckton Innoculates
Posted by: | CommentsThere is no scientific basis whatsoever for saying there is a 90% probability (IPCC’s position) that most of the warming over the last 50 years was caused by human-kind. None whatsoever.
Monckton speaks with stunning common sense.. Play this for your family, your friends and your neighbors – especially your greener family members, friends, and neighbors..
In this interview, Lord Monckton does his best to inoculate the common man from the elitist thug. Moreover, he is going to speak to the remaining democracies of the world in attendance at the Hoaxenhagen Climate Summate:
I am going to be talking to the delegations of the democracies. I am going to be saying to them, one by one, first of all here is the science; it no longer adds up. And everybody knows it no longer adds up, and your voters now know that it no longer adds up. We’re moving away from that now, and moving towards a world in which once again skepticism, which is the proper approach of the scientist, is becoming instinct in the ordinary voters mind.
From The National, A Postscript?
Posted by: | Comments
A Fortnight of Silence (and the beat goes on)
Posted by: | Comments
ClimateGate Held Hostage: Day 14
On a lighter note, James Inhofe calls Obama “dishonest.”
MORE @ Phil Jones “temporarily” fired: ClimateGate lags behind Velvet Revolution by 4 days
Of Glaciers and Transposed Numbers …
Posted by: | CommentsGuest contributor to Roger Pielke Sr’s blog, Madhav L Khandekar writes:
December 1, 2009…7:00 am
The debate over global warming & rapid melting of world-wide glaciers and in particular the Himalayan glaciers is once again heating up. There were a flurry of reports, a few weeks ago, in the media and in particular on the BBC (UK) world-wide news service about the Himalayan glaciers melting rapidly in the face of global warming. As this debate was raging, a comprehensive report by Dr V K Raina (Himalayan glaciers: A state-of-the art review of glacial studies, glacial retreat and climate change) was released by the Indian Minister of Environment & Forestry in New Delhi , India.
Vijay Kumar Raina, a senior glaciologist and an avid mountaineer himself, has carefully analyzed some 20 glaciers to document retreat as well as advance of some of the glaciers and has cautiously concluded that it is premature to make a statement that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating abnormally because of global warming. The Indian Minister of Environment Mr Jairam Ramesh hailed the report as an excellent latest study on glaciers and tacitly agreed with the conclusion.
Predictably, the IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri reacted angrily citing the IPCC 2007 climate change reports which asserted that the (Himalayan) glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate ( of melting) continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps even sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate. Several other Indian scientists and glaciologists have got into the debate now with some of them criticizing the Indian Government with an ostrich-like attitude in the face of impending disaster.
What is the reality? Let us take a closer look:
First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?
According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!
The IPCC really appears as not only the gang who couldn’t shoot straight, but it appears their curved barreled guns are loaded with more blanks than an IRS tax form…
Complete discussion link here
Must Read!
Posted by: | CommentsJohn Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel:
You must know this about the leaked files. While the emails were damming, the real meat was in sections of computer code leaked. Skeptical climate scientists have already studied it and find it an amazing manipulation that takes real temperature data and turns into a warming fairytale. Since this data forms the baseline for the research used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this is huge. Those who counter this argument, by saying there three other data bases and the two that use surface temperatures agree with this data, need to rethink what they are saying. Think about it. This indicates that since the Angelica University data is scientifically meaningless, and the scientists at the other centers are in constant contact with the scientists there, there is a strong likelihood their data is similarly without scientific merit.
The article is essentially taking the same cautious path as Henry Patrick out here OTBL.
Let The Unraveling Accelerate..
Posted by: | CommentsClick pic to Monkton’s full analysis..
Various and meaningful….
“The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this. “ …ICECAP
“If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.” … Professor Ian Plimer
Telegraph’s Delingpole article..
“Along comes Steve McIntyre, a Canadian analyst, who spends two years of his own personal time reverse-engineering Dr. Mann’s PCA program. McIntyre subjects Mann’s PCA program to a “Monte Carlo” analysis – which inserts random data sets into the function – and discovered that no matter what data he fed it, the result was always the same. The arm of the “hockey stick” ( paleo-record ) always came out straight. In Dr. Mann’s case, the rising temperature of the Medieval Warm Period and the expected trough of the Little Ice Age had been completely erased. The hockey stick was broken. Fini. Kaput. We may never know whether Mann’s work was deliberately contrived to fit some personal environmental agenda, or just a colossal mathematical blunder.” … James A. Peden
ps Google may be politically correctly tinkering, or perhaps Al Gore influencing Google?? At 2:59 MST I typed c l i m a t e g a t e into the google search tool and at no point did climategate show as a “suggestion.” This is simply bad form by Google… shame on you!
pps …
HACKED!
Posted by: | CommentsIPCC “scientists” engaged in fraudulent data manipulations.
Get the dope from Lubos.. or Roy Spencer
Lubos’ post ought to go down in history…on this matter.
Here’s a taste…
From: Phil Jones (p.jones@uxxxxx.uk)
To: “Michael E. Mann” (mann@vxxxxxx.edu)
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004[...] I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers, Phil
This ought to be the biggest story of 2009 – easily.
I like the idea of November 20th as the new, real, earth day!
WSJ OPINES
The Republican’s view of global warm’in
Posted by: | CommentsAnd if you listen carefully you can hear Sarah Palin in the background…
33 Years of Zero Emmissions = 1 degree F
Posted by: | Comments
I have written (not to mention others out here OTBL) on several occasions about ACGW, including The Air We Breathe. The point there was to illustrate the small percentage of the atmosphere that CO2 actually composes (4 pennies out of a $100 bill). Moreover, our (human-kind) contribution is even more trivial. Altering our fundamental economic life to effect a profoundly trivial change is irrational.
Lord Monckton has taken this matter to a different level.. His initial point is that there is no point in doing anything to curb our carbon emissions because the IPCC’s calculations were grossly exaggerated. But his next step is bolder – even if we assume the UN is correct about CO2’s effects on temperature, it still is folly to attempt to affect any meaningful change; it is a matter of degrees of magnitude.
Here’s the thread of Monckton’s thesis:
According to the UN, Global CO2 emissions at present are 30 billion tons/year (EIA). That level represents approximately a rise in atmospheric concentrations of roughly 2 ppmv/year (NOAA).
Therefore, 15 billion tons emitted will increase atmospheric concentration by 1 ppmv/year (30/2). The UN (IPCC, 2007; see also BERN climate model) believes CO2 concentrations in 2100 will be 836 ppmv with no changes in emission trends. Since concentrations at the beginning of the century were roughly 368 ppmv (currently around 385), the implication is an addition from 2000 of 468 ppmv.
If you multiply 468 ppmv by the 15 billion tons/ppmv, the UN is implicitly projecting the world will emit approximately 7.0 trillion tons of CO2 by 2100. Moreover, such an increase in CO2 is also projected (IPCC, 2007) to raise global temperature by about 7 F.
Therefore, using their numbers from the turn of the century, 1 trillion tons of CO2 emission results in a 1 F warming.
If you divide 1 trillion by the 30 billion we are currently emitting (annually), you will arrive at the number of years needed, with ZERO emissions, to lower the temperature by 1 degree F. The result is 33 years of zero emissions; therefore, no cars, no factories, no CO2 emitting economic activity for all intents and purposes for 33 years to lower the temperature 1 degree F.
Well, actually, 200 years…
You see, according to Lindzen’s paper in 2009, the UN has exaggerated the warming effect of CO2 sixfold, which would mean it would take 200 years, not 33.
Therefore, there is simply no rational reason to engage in strangling the economies of the world, or creating a climate treaty, because the costs associated with such nonsense are astronomically disproportionate to any supposed benefit.
h/t to Lord Monckton..
(Also see Lindzen (2007) )