As most of my readers know, I posted a critique of Gavin Schmidt’s book, Climate Change: Picturing the Science, not quite three months ago. Dr. Schmidt has responded in the last few days with the following statement:

“The point of a photo is always the context in which it’s seen. Lake Powell is a long way below it’s 1990’s peak, and that is due to a combination of reductions in rainfall upstream and additional demands on it’s water downstream. The last two years have seen a small rise in water level, and as you state correctly, it is important not to read too much into a short term record.

So yes, it’s a combination of things, as stated in the book (if you bother to read past the cover photo) and in the scientific literature.” - Gavin Schmidt

My Response to Dr. Schmidt:

I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and lived through a few droughts, including the very serious one of 1976 to 1978. Again and again, my family and I saw water levels in the local reservoirs (and others in the state) decline to worrisome levels before they were, thankfully, replenished. One perspective on the phenomenon of alternating drought and wet in the West is that it is terrifying, and should be brought to as many people’s consciousness as possible as a new menace, part of global warming, etc. Another, more like my own, would point out that the astonishing agricultural productivity and explosion of population throughout the Southwest are proofs of humanity’s ability to adapt to its natural surroundings in very effective ways.

You observe that Lake Powell’s water level was higher in the 1990s. What if you had taken a picture of the lake then and used that as the cover of your book? Would it have been less “scientific”? You also point out that the lake’s water level has increased in the last two years, leaving one to ask, “What year was the photograph of Lake Powell taken?” As your book was published in April of 2009, would you have wanted the most recent image possible of the lake to be on the cover, or would you instead have wanted the most concerning image, one that was already a couple of years old, to be put there? Along these lines, if your book is reprinted some number of months or years from now, and the lake water continues to rise until that time, do you intend to use an image representing the higher lake level? If not, why not?

Having spent a certain amount of time in the Sierras (and other Western mountain ranges), I have needed to shovel a fairly astonishing amount of snow at various times. Anyone who knows the mountains personally, and has witnessed Pacific storms train in during El Nino years (and some other wet years), knows that the Sierras and the Rockies are veritable snow factories. This changes on all temporal levels, but the simple fact remains that despite explosive population growth and heavy agricultural use of water, there has been enough, so far, to meet everyone’s needs (if not wants).

What I’m leading to here is that defending the use of an image of a reservoir in the desert to picture “science” is a rather large intellectual error. The sooner this is admitted, the better. If the book is reprinted, perhaps you will decide not to use an image of Lake Powell at all.

See larger image here.

You complain that I have critiqued your book’s cover but not the rest of the book. I pointed out in my first post about it that there were very good reasons for doing so. The image on the cover of a picture book demands to be critiqued for what it is. If it is a well-chosen image, if it does what the title of the book purports, then those would be things deserving of praise. Neither of them is true in this case. Nonetheless, I have purchased a copy of the book and will indeed read and review it here in the coming couple of weeks.

Read more here. See also Harold’s post on Real Climate here.

Before you guys push the final button to self-destruct your country over nothing more than a scientific hoax, try to stop, read and then think, think deeply, very deeply, about what I am sending you here. Print it out and distribute as widely as you can. Save yourselves and your country billions of dollars and millions of jobs.

CARBON DIOXIDE and CLIMATE CHANGE - SOME HOME TRUTHS

When King Canute of lore wanted to teach his citizens a lesson, he set his throne by the seashore and commanded the tides to roll out. Canute’s spirit was back in business this week at the G-8 summit in Italy, where the assembled leaders declared that the world’s temperature shall not rise: “We recognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees [Celsius],” or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, said the summit declaration.

So let it be written, so let it be done. As for how they will achieve this climate-defying feat, well, the leaders were somewhat less definitive: “we will work to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050.” Translation: Since the heads of the world’s leading economies couldn’t agree on an actual policy on climate change, they opted instead to command the clouds, the seas and all of the Earth to cool. Or maybe they were finally admitting that this whole climate business is getting too expensive, so let’s just throw out a goal that everyone knows is beyond the reach of kings, much less democratic leaders. WSJ

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a harmless and essential gas on which all life on earth depends.

Science Facts

In order to be a believer in man-made global warming or climate change one must accept and be
prepared to argue

...that a power of 390 watts per square meter can be generated from an input of 235 watts per
square meter

...that a cooler body (the atmosphere) can transfer heat to a warmer body (the earth’s surface).

...that less than 1 percent of the atmosphere’s components are able to emit more radiant energy to the earth than sunlight does

...that an overhead “layer of greenhouse gases” exists (like an overhead pane of glass), whereas in reality these gases are most densely concentrated at one’s feet

...that IR-radiation from this fictitious overhead layer is dramatically asymmetrical, such that 165 watts per square meter are emitted to space and 324 toward the earth’s surface

It is only 385 parts per 1,000,000 of the atmosphere and 97 percent of it is Nature’s own.  Any increase over the present content of atmospheric CO2 enables plants to take greater advantage of photosynthesis and grow quicker using less water. Who can imagine that Russia, Brazil, China and India are going to burden their economies and their people with the nonsense that Western governments are proposing?

Who would think that all of the Central and South American nations are going to burden themselves with climate change trading schemes or taxes?

Who would think that any country in all of Africa is going to burden their industries and people with the ridiculous proposals of Western governments?

Who would believe that carbon dioxide sequestration (CCS) is accepted as a viable solution, when with each and every ton of it, 727kg of oxygen is buried as well? 

It behoves policy planners, scientists and citizens alike to grasp the consequences of such policies, while they consider the shaky, disputed scientific grounds on which the calls for action are based.

The issue is not CO2. The issue is UN IPCC falsities, corruption of science and unfounded alarm.

Read much more here.

Temperatures have been cooling since 2002, even as carbon dioxide has continued to rise.

CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food. See more here.

Reconstruction of paleo-climatological CO2 concentrations demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is near its lowest level since the Cambrian Era some 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today without causing a “runaway greenhouse effect.”

Temperature changes lead, not lag, CO2 changes on all time scales. The oceans may play a key role, emitting carbon dioxide when they warm as carbonated beverages lose fizz as they warm and absorbing it as they cool.

Indeed, greenhouse models show the warming should be greatest at mid to high atmosphere levels in the tropics. But balloon and satellite observations show cooling there. The greenhouse signature or DNA does not match reality, and the greenhouse models thus must greatly overstate the warming - and in a court of law would have to be acquitted of any role in global warming

The sun has both direct and indirect effects on our climate. Solar activity changes on cycles of 11 years and longer. When the sun is more active it is brighter and a little hotter. More important though are the indirect effects. Ultraviolet radiation increases much more than the brightness and causes increased ozone production, which generates heat in the high atmosphere that works its way down, affecting the weather. Also, an active sun diffuses cosmic rays, which play an important role in nucleation of low clouds, resulting in fewer clouds. In all these ways the sun warms the planet more when it is active. An active sun in the 1930s and again near the end of the last century helped produce the observed warming periods. The current solar cycle is the longest in over 100 years, an unmistakable sign of a cooling sun that historical patterns suggest will stay so for decades.

The multidecadal cycles in the ocean correlate extremely well with the solar cycles and global temperatures. These are 60 to 70 year cycles that relate to natural variations in the large-scale circulations. Warm oceans correlate with warm global temperatures. The Pacific started cooling in the late 1990s and it
accelerated in the last year, and the Atlantic has cooled from its peak in 2004. This supports the observed global land temperature cooling, which is strongly correlated with ocean heat content. Newly deployed NOAA buoys confirm global ocean cooling.

Warmer ocean cycles are periods with diminished Arctic ice cover. When the oceans were warm in the 1930s to the 1950s, Arctic ice diminished and Greenland warmed. The recent ocean warming, especiallyin the 1980s to the early 2000s, is similar to what took place 70 years ago and the Arctic ice has reacted much the same way, with diminished summer ice extent.

Antarctic ice has been increasing and the extent in 2007 was the greatest in the satellite monitoring era. It has continued above the 3 year average

What will it take for the media to let go of their biases and begin doing their job, reporting the truth? 

See pdf here (first published in the Energy Tribune).

First cars, next power plants. Wasting natural resources to promote eco ideologies. It’s finally been euthanized (or so they say). But in the minds of politicians and rent-seekers, the cash-for-clunkers program was so successful that it deserved billions in taxpayer money. Pols got to strut their green credentials. Car makers got to sell cars, via yet another subsidy. Consumers got free cash from hapless taxpayers, for new cars many otherwise wouldn’t have bought.

It was all so socially responsible and win-win - except for those poor taxpayers, who got saddled with still more debt. The other big loser of course is the antiquated notion that public policies should be based on sound science and economics. An ice-cold bucket of reality is in order - before the next clunker idea comes along. Here are a few of the more obvious problems with pulling the plug on grandma cars.

The “high-polluting” cars that taxpayers are paying to get off the road already have 95% fewer emissions than 1970-era models. So the pollution reductions are almost nonexistent. The gas savings are modest at best, across the US automotive fleet - and will be more than offset by the latest round of oil and gas lock-ups that Congress and the White House are already engineering. So more oil imports are on the way, regardless.

Far worse, every “clunker” has to be rendered totally inoperable. Sodium silicate gets poured into engines to freeze their components, then they’re crushed into bundles of scrap. That means some 750,000 perfectly good cars never make it to used car lots. People who can’t afford the average $24,000 new car price have to buy a new car anyway. Used car dealers and buyers have dwindling numbers of cars to bargain for. Repair shops lose business.

Even worse, trashing all these cars is a monumental waste of precious resources - and all the energy and effort it took to extract metallic ores, hydrocarbons and other raw materials from the Earth, process and refine them, create alloys and plastics, and turn them into engines, chasses, windows, tires and interiors.  Every step in that process took enormous amounts of energy - and emitted vast quantities of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases and real pollutants. There is absolutely no way that these emissions and energy will ever be recouped by any savings the replacement cars might conceivably generate.

It’s like spending $720,000 for photovoltaic solar panels on the roof of the Denver Nature and Science Museum. The panels would certainly reduce conventional electricity bills. But it would take 110 years to save enough on those bills to pay for the panels - and the panels would only last 25 years.
Denver installed the panels for one reason, observes Independence Institute investigative journalist Todd Shepherd. Federal taxpayers provided a fat subsidy - enabling President Obama to have a great photo-op on the museum roof and shill for solar power, with the Rocky Mountains resplendent in the distance.

So much for that win-win scenario. The next clunker boondoggle is already on the launch pad, courtesy of T. Boone Pickens and Ted Turner. As they opined in the Wall Street Journal recently, they want to repeat the automotive “success” on a massive scale - replacing “clunker” electrical generating plants with government-mandated gas-fired versions. The existing plants burn coal, which America has in great abundance, and which keeps electricity reliable and affordable - so that people can heat and cool their homes, industries can manufacture and transport products, companies can employ workers, hospitals can treat patients, schools can train future innovators, and America can ensure continued opportunity and prosperity.

Modern coal-fired power plants already scrub out the vast majority of real pollutants that their aged predecessors emitted, notes air quality expert Joel Schwartz. What they don’t remove is carbon dioxide. Pickens, Turner, Gore, Hansen and Obama insist that CO2 is causing “potentially devastating climate changes.” Thousands of scientists disagree, and satellite data clearly demonstrate that global temperatures have been stable or even decreasing since 1998, even as carbon dioxide levels have risen steadily. Storms, droughts, floods and other events are in accord with historic variations, and show no statistically significant upswings, note climate experts William Gray, David Legates and Richard Keen.

But inconvenient facts and observations are irrelevant to climate alarmists. They apparently believe that assuming, asserting, decreeing and modeling climate disasters proves a crisis is nigh - and we must make painful energy, economic and lifestyle sacrifices to prevent it. In other words, force America to eliminate existing generators and switch to power plants running on natural gas that Boone Pickens, Chesapeake Energy and a few others own in abundance - and to wind and solar power that General Electric, Vesta and other “ethical” companies will happily provide, if taxpayers fork over billions more in subsidies.

Making money by selling natural gas, building turbines and panels, and trading carbon credits on new commodities, hedge fund and derivatives markets is an irrelevant coincidence, we’re supposed to believe. These “socially responsible” rent seekers and their friends in Congress and the White House are masters at increasing and mandating demand for natural gas - for transportation, homes, industries and power generation. Unfortunately, the friends aren’t so attentive to the supply side of the equation. They excel at locking up America’s onshore and offshore energy prospects, and imposing burdensome new regulations on lands that aren’t off limits - making it increasingly difficult to find and produce gas.

This increases demand, shrinks supplies, drives up prices, and increases profits for the lucky few who do own abundant gas supplies. Once again, consumers and taxpayers get taken for a ride.  Once again, it’s even worse from an economic, ecological and resource conservation perspective. We are being asked to destroy dozens or hundreds of perfectly good coal-fired power plants - or retrofit them under expensive carbon capture and storage mandates - simply because some special interests assume, assert, decree and model global warming disasters.

Tearing the plants down would be a monumental waste of the resources, energy, effort and emissions it took to build them. CCS technology would require billions of dollars, 25% of a power plant’s generating capacity, major increases in fuel consumption and electricity prices, thousands of miles of CO2 pipelines and massive underground storage chambers, to reduce global CO2 by an imperceptible amount. America today is increasingly governed by lawyers, ideologues, social engineers and rent seekers. Congress has nary a real engineer, and precious few members with any business background or ability to figure out basic cradle-to-grave energy, resource, economic and pollution equations. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi views natural gas as an “alternative to fossil fuels.” With these folks at the helm, it may be time for wise investors to look toward China and India, where reducing poverty and improving living standards guide public policy - not Hollywood movies about Climate Armageddon. Wise voters and taxpayers will join the Tea Party movement, and elect some honest brainpower, before Congress wreaks more havoc on energy, jobs and civil rights.

A Washington Post blogger who wrote about the Third International Conference on Climate Change, held June 2 in Washington, DC, has admitted to skewing the facts in a blog disparaging the conference. Nevertheless, blogger Steve Tracton refuses to correct his blog or issue an apology for misrepresenting the facts.

Claimed Alarmists Excluded

In a blog entry titled “The Sureness of Global Warming Skeptics,” Tracton claimed sponsors of the International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) invited only speakers who do not believe humans are causing a global warming crisis. According to Tracton, ICCC organizers exercised a “failure to entertain or discuss alternative points of view.” Moreover, Tracton asserted, the ICCC chief organizer “cherry picks the scientists and science that best supports this case.”

‘Flat-Out Dishonest’

Upon publication of Tracton’s blog, readers contacted The Heartland Institute’s James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, who was the primary recruiter of ICCC speakers. Was their memory correct, the readers asked, in recalling Taylor had noted at the conference podium that he had invited several prominent global warming alarmists, including Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Gavin Schmidt, to speak at the conference?

Taylor confirmed he had indeed invited them and other alarmists to speak at the conference and had mentioned this at the conference podium. One reader reported, “Just for the record, I happened to sit next to Mr. Tracton at breakfast as things were getting underway. He indeed complained directly to me that the event was completely ‘one-sided.’ I flat-out told him that Mr. Gore, Mr. Hansen, etc. had been continually invited to these events, but had refused to attend.

“So if he’s putting out another story, he’s either having severe memory problems or is being flat-out dishonest. He sure can’t say that he wasn’t told that at the event, because I told him,” the reader added. Confronted with the contradiction between what he had written and what had actually happened, Tracton admitted in an email he had been fully aware several prominent alarmists were invited to speak at the conference. Wrote Tracton, “Yes, Mr Taylor state [sic] he invited Al Gore, Jim Hansen, etc from the floor.”

Proven Wrong, Changed Complaint

Instead of apologizing for his false public assertions, in his email Tracton argued alarmists likely declined to speak at the conference because they suspected the audience wouldn’t agree with their point of view. Responded Taylor, “So then, Steve, your position is changing from Heartland ]cherry picks the scientists and science that best supports this case’ to ‘one shouldn’t expect alarmists to publicly defend their position in front of an audience that might be inclined to disagree with them’? That is a far cry from the assertion in your blog post that we didn’t invite alarmists to speak at the conference.

“Even your new position is suspect,” Taylor added, “as we invited enough Congressmen and congressional staffers who happen to disagree with our position to completely fill the room with alarmists.”

Responding to a subsequent email in which Tracton defended alarmists’ unwillingness to discuss the science before an audience not guaranteed to agree with them, Taylor asked, “Fragile psyches are more powerful and more worth preserving than sound science? Compare that to my willingness - and the willingness of many, many prominent skeptical scientists - to [discuss and/or] debate the topic any time, any place, and in front of any audience.”

Refused to Correct, Apologize

Taylor subsequently asked Tracton to issue a correction on his blog and apologize for his false assertions about the conference. Tracton has thus far refused to correct his blog or issue an apology. “Open and honest scientific discussions and disagreements serve the vital function of ensuring that truth ultimately prevails,” said Heartland Institute Science Director Jay Lehr. “While Tracton is entitled to advocate for one side or the other in this scientific debate, he crosses a sharp ethical line when he knowingly makes false assertions about who was invited to participate as speakers and audience members at the International Conference on Climate Change.

“The Washington Post should be ashamed of Tracton’s breach of ethics and his refusal to post a retraction or an apology,” Lehr added. Read more here.

Update: As a follow-up see ”Climate Change, the American Psychological Association, and Psychopathology” at a psychologist’s blog. It appears that people who know something about climate science think the AGW alarmists are crazy, while the psychologists who know nothing about climate think the AGW skeptics are crazy. (H/T George Walton)

Climate Craze Global Warming, a Mass Mania.

Throughout history episodic eruptions of mass manias have swept societies. These outbreaks embody the dissatisfactions, fears and hopes of their times while offering a shining path to a bright new future. They are characterised by a millenarian nature, wherein threat of punishment for past sins is accompanied by promise of salvation through a new faith.

The power of mass manias is reinforced by severe disapproval of any questioning of their certain truth.  Any doubt is seen not just as error needing correction but as conscious deliberate evil deserving expulsion or extermination. With adherents permitted only to support the established dogma, these movements tend to gather followers rapidly. But they also soon become afflicted with a growing disconnect from reality which they can neither acknowledge nor adjust for.

As no believer dares express anything other than certainty, social manias tend to persist for some time after their disconnect with reality has become obvious to all. In the face of such recalcitrant reality, leaders are forced to become ever more extreme in their proclamations. This then often leads to a zenith of zealotry and disconnect just before increasingly obvious reality finally forces them to make some small admission of error. The spell is then broken and the faith collapses.

Global Warming is the mania of our times. While there is good scientific evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing from the burning of fossil fuels, and that carbon dioxide does indeed absorb infa-red heat radiation of certain frequencies, it is purely speculation that this will cause a climate catastrophe.

As Mark Twain wrote over a century ago: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” In the current instance there is also abundant scientific evidence to indicate that: the amount of warming from increased carbon dioxide emissions has been greatly overestimated; most of the uncertain fraction of a degree of warming that has occurred over the past century is attributable to measurement bias and natural variability; predictions of catastrophic consequences are entirely speculative and unlikely; the net result of a projected doubling of atmospheric CO2 is most likely to be positive; fossil fuels will run out well before any drastic effects on climate are possible.

If man made global warming is indeed real, and it helps to prevent another ice age, this would be the most fortunate thing that has happened to our species since we barely escaped extinction from an especially cold period during the last ice age some 75,000 years ago. The ongoing political waffle over setting targets for differing percentages of emission reductions at various points decades in the future is about as useful as debating over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The biggest problem we face in the forseeable future is not some unquantifiable risk of climate change at some unknown future time. It is the real and immanent one of producing enough fossil fuel to maintain the healthy economy necessary for the long costly process of developing energy alternatives and implementing them on an adequate scale. At best this will take decades and will require abundant supplies of fossil fuels to achieve.

Read full post here.

Numerous environmental groups are searching for the next big crisis to scare the public into accepting uneccessary action to control carbon emissions. One of them is the threat on ocean acidification. The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has produced Acid Test, a documentary (shockumentary) exploring the startling phenomenon of ocean acidification. The film, featuring Sigourney Weaver, will air on Discovery Planet Green throughout “Blue August,” a month devoted to programming about the wonders and mysteries of the oceans. There are a number of very excellent papers that refute this silly nonsense.

CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future by CO2 Science.

Not Enough CO2 in Fossil Fuels to Make Oceans Acidic by Ian Plimer, Australian Geologist and author of Heaven and Earth on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog.

Ocean acidification fears are ‘wonderful work of fiction’ by CO2 Science

Oops. Coral reefs thriving in hot water...’Looks like the corals didn’t read the IPCC reports’ on the Resilient Earth.

Reports of ocean acidity discredited on Climate Change Fraud

Are oceans becoming more acidic and is this a threat to marine life? by Dr. J. Floor Anthoni (2007) on his web site.

(H/T Marc Morano and Fred Murrell)

"Benchmark glaciers’ shrinking at faster rate,” screamed the headline. “Glacier melt accelerating,” screamed the headline. “Long-term study details glaciers shrinking in Washington and Alaska,” screamed the headline.

7 Aug 09 - “Climate change is shrinking three of the nation’s most studied glaciers at an accelerated rate,” these articles gleefully shouted. “Government scientists say that finding bolsters global concerns about rising sea levels and the availability of fresh drinking water.”

“Known as ‘benchmark glaciers,’ the South Cascade Glacier in Washington state, the Wolverine Glacier on Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula and the Gulkana Glacier in interior Alaska all have shown a ‘rapid and sustained’ retreat, according to a report by the U.S. Geological Survey that was released Thursday. “They are living on the edge,” Ed Josberger, a USGS scientist based in Tacoma, Washington, said of the three glaciers. “We are getting warmer, and glaciers are shrinking.”

Has the USGS sold out? What about the fact that it has been getting colder since 1998? “With some exceptions caused by unique or unusual local conditions—the glaciers on California’s Mount Shasta, for example—more than 99 percent of the country’s thousands of glaciers are shrinking, said Bruce Molnia, another USGS scientist.

Notice how the article just kind of slides over the fact that the glaciers on Mount Shasta are growing. Winter snowpacks have tapered off, said Josberger. The reduced accumulations and increased melts have resulted in shrinking glaciers. That’s not true. Actual snow pack numbers show a 22% INCREASE in
snow pack over the past 33 years across the Washington and Oregon Cascade Mountains. (See Pacific Northwest Snow Pack - the True Story)

These three melting glaciers can supposedly be used to help understand thousands - THOUSANDS! - of other North American glaciers. But who gets to choose which glaciers are used as “benchmarks?” How about the fact that Crater Glacier in Mount St. Helens is growing? According to the US Forest Service, Crater Glacier is now larger than it was before the 1980 eruption. How about the fact that the Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing?

How about the fact that Emmons Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing? How about the fact that glaciers on Glacier Peak in northern Washington are growing?

Why shouldn’t they be used as benchmark glaciers? How about the fact that glaciers are growing in Alaska for the first time in 250 years? In May, Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier was advancing at the rate of seven feet per day - more than half-a-mile per year. How about the fact that in Icy Bay, Alaska, at least three glaciers have advanced a third of a mile in one year. Why shouldn’t they be used as benchmark glaciers?

How about the fact that glaciers are growing on the tallest mountain in France? How about the fact that glaciers are growing on the tallest mountain in Canada? How about the fact that all 50 glaciers in New Zealand are growing? How about the fact that the largest glacier in Argentina is growing? How about the fact that 250 glaciers in the Western Himalayas are growing?  The list goes on.

Why shouldn’t they be used as benchmark glaciers? Unfortunately, I’ve reached the point where I don’t believe what my government tells me. If it’s true that 99 percent of the thousands of glaciers in the United States are shrinking, let’s see the list. Show us the list!

Here are three of the breathless articles about the shrinking “benchmark” glaciers here, here and here. See story here.