A paper published in The Holocene shows that 3,200 years ago there were “extraordinary droughts and floods were parts of the [entirely natural] climate variability” in the Northwest region of China. This was during the mid-Holocene Climactic Optimum. It proves that during “safe” Co2 levels, the earth’s climate was erratic; just as it is today.
Modern day meteorologists are increasingly denying supposed evidence of global warming by alarmists. Only 19% of professional meteorologists believe in man-made climate change.
Klaus-Ekart Puls, physicist and meteorologist is one of those doubtful professionals. At the end of 2011, Puls made a presentation on sea levels at the 4th Climate Conference in Munich.
He has come forward to say that the assertion by the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that by regulating CO2, we can “regulate” climate change is “sheer absurdity”.
Puls recalls that he used to just parrot whatever the IPCC told him, but when he investigated the facts behind their claims, he discovered there was no scientific data to support that CO2 or humans were the cause of climate change.
Puls said: “One day I started checking the facts and data, first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements.”
According to Puls, climate change is normal as the planet goes through phases of climate warming “many that even far exceeded the extent we see today. But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling”.
The IPCC claims that their projecting models indicate that there will be a 0.2 degrees Celsius warming trend per decade to culminate in 2 to 4 degrees Celsius rise by 2100.
Puls says that this assertion is based on “speculative model projections, so-called scenarios - and not prognoses. Because of climate’s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren’t possible”.
While the CO2 debate lacks real world data entered into the projection models, the IPCC assumes that global warming is based solely on “speculative amplification mechanisms” which do not take into account actual empirical data.
CO2 levels have risen, and yet, the earth is in a cooling phase.
Puls agrees that sea levels have risen, however “it’s important to remember that mean sea level is a calculated magnitude, and not a measured one. There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g. tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, volcanoes. Climate change is only one of ten factors”.
The IPCC says that the glaciers are melting because of climate change. Puls offers scientific observations that contradict their claims. “...the Antarctic ice cap has grown both in area and volume over the last 30 years, and temperature has declined. This 30-year trend is clear to see. The Amundsen Scott Station of the USA shows that temperature has been declining there since 1957. 90% of the Earth’s ice is stored in Antarctica, which is one and half times larger than Europe”.
Puls points out that when climate change alarmists cite the Wilkins-Shelf breaking off, they neglect to mention that this is a segregated area of a peninsula . The area totals less than 1% of the entirety of Antarctica. There are also massive westerly wind storms that plague this area. It is home to some of the most violent storms on the planet.
As the planet goes through cycles, ice sheets break off and reform naturally.
The Arctic ice has been measured to be melting and reforming for the past 30 years. Its lowest point was in 2007, and the sea levels were not severely affected, as climate change alarmists would have us believe.
Puls also notes that the deserts are not expanding, but actually the Sahara has been shrinking as an area the size of Germany has been lost in the Northern parts.
While there was devastating famine in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia, the cause was corporation’s usurpation of the land to grow crops for biofuel for Europe. Warring factions for control over land also played a significant role.
When governments and multi-national corporations destroy land, it is convenient to blame global warming on the destruction they cause.
When asked if there is anything we can do about climate change, Puls said: “There’s nothing we can do to stop it. Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. It’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other”.
* New record storm surge for Battery
* Governor of NJ: “Damage to the Jersey coast is unprecedented.”
* Devastation to Long Island and southern New York City boroughs is widespread with 41 dead in the City alone
* Death toll has risen to at least 90
* Damage estimated now at least $50 billion dollars.
* Severe flooding and rescues continue in the NE part of New Jersey where levees were overtopped by the storm surge inundating three towns.
* 8.1 million people are now without power and estimated restoration times range from 7 days to over 3 weeks. Cold weather is coming
* 80 homes have burned in Queens, New York due to a fire started by arcing power line and then spread from house to house by strong winds.
* Helicopter views of the New Jersey coast reveal incredible damage. Barrier islands have been cut in half in some places with structures heavy damaged and large 20-25 foot protective dunes completely gone.
* 90% of Hoboken, NJ has been flooded with sea water.
* NJ transit system will be closed until further notice due to damage. Damage to NYC transit system is extensive.
* Seaside Heights Boardwalk (Famous from MTV’s Jersey Shore) is gone
* The Jersey Coast and southern Long Island has been devastated
Lower East Side, Manhattan
Water entering Battery Park where record tide level set in the evening
Water cascades like a waterfall into the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel
Flooding on the Connecticut shore
Hoboken New Jersey 13 foot surge
Beach Haven, Long Beach Island, NJ
Sandy came ashore in southern New Jersey, bringing 80-90-mph winds and a roiling wall of seawater as it moved inland and north toward New York City. It sent 90-mph gusts through the Wall Street canyons and water surging to a record 13 feet in Lower Manhattan, flooding the subway system and prompting Consolidated Edison to cut power to part of the area to avoid storm damage. Manhattan's FDR Drive was under water south of 20th Street. Water from West Street Cascaded like a "waterfall" into the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. The Holland Tunnel was also said to be flooded. In a confirmation of the fears of Metropolitan Transportation Authority, subway tunnels and stations flooded Monday evening as water rushed through Battery Park and other areas.
The 13.88 foot storm surge at the Battery surpassed the old record of 11.2 feet in the great hurricsne of 1821. That 1821 hurricane's surge occurred at low tide. the surge in 2012 came at high tide and with a full moon. It has left behind flooded homes and businesses and 7 million without power. The New York City subway system “has never faced a disaster as devastating” as the damage that was caused by Superstorm Sandy, Metropolitan Transportation Authority chairman Joseph Lhota said Tuesday. Seven subway tunnels under the East River flooded Monday night as the MTA cut power to some subway stations Monday after water began pouring into the some of the stations and tracks.
Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on our entire transportation system, in every borough and county of the region,” Lhota said. Metro-North lost power from 59th Street to Croton-Harmon on the Hudson Line and to New Haven on the New Haven Line, Lhota said. The Long Island Rail Road had to evacuated its West Side Yards and suffered flooding in one East River tunnel. We’re seeing flooding pretty much throughout the entire area with most of the flooding we’re seeing in Lower Manhattan,” MTA spokesman Kevin Ortiz told CBS 2. The MTA has shut down power to the tunnels that run under the East River between Manhattan to Brooklyn. But flooding was still reported at several stations and tunnels. Ortiz said virtually all the stations and tunnels south of Chambers Street were flooded. In Queens, the Rockaway Park A station was also inundated, with water reaching the platform. Crews were working with portable pumps to get the water out as quickly as possible, but the flooding is not good news when it comes to reopening the subway system. It is really difficult to predict the amount of time to pump the water out from flooded tunnels and adjoining stations,” Ortiz said. MTA officials said previously that salt water could corrode the switches and signals in the system and could force the MTA to replace hundreds of pieces of equipment before service could be restored.
But even before the MTA gets to restoring the signals, it could be as few as 14 hours and as much as four days before all the water is even pumped out, Ortiz said. Gov. Andrew Cuomo and MTA officials have repeatedly emphasized that salt and the subway system don’t mix. We’re very concerned about the water surge in the Battery, where most of our lines go down and where the tunnels to Brooklyn go. That is one of our most low-lying areas, and we’ve boarded them up,” MTA Chairman Joe Lhota said before the floodwaters began rushing near Battery Park. “We’ve put up various different barriers to prevent the water from coming in. But that’s my biggest concern.
Officials said especially vulnerable subways lines are the A, F, 2, 3, 4, 5, N and R trains, which all run through tunnels connected to lower Manhattan. The switches are really important for controlling the flow of the subway system. They could corrode quite easily.
Storm surge and tide relative to mean low water reached a record 13.88 feet at the Battery. The previous record flood level was in the Hurricane of 1821. Flood levels are higher in Hoboken than the records also set in 1821. The full moon contributed about a foot or so to the tide records. The NY stock Exchange trading floor was reported by The Weather Channel to be under 3 feet of water. This report according the ABC TV in NYC was in error.
JFK reported a wind gust of 79mph this evening. Islip on Long Island had a gust to 90 mph earlier.
The 13.88 foot storm tide last evening just before 9 pm at the Battery was a new record, exceeding the level of 11.2 feet set in the Great Hurricane of 1821. The difference this time is that the surge came at high tide with a full moon while in 1821, amazingly the surge came at low tide.
The 1821 Hurricane was one of five known tropical cyclones that have made landfall in New York City Another, even more intense hurricane struck the region in pre-Columbian times (sometime between 1278 and 1438) and was detected by paleotempestological research.The third was the 1893 New York hurricane, the fourth was Hurricane Irene then Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Technically most of these storms touched land first elsewhere before battering the big apple.
Ironically the 1821 hurricane was the last of 5 such storms to target NYC from 1815 to 1821 during the Dalton solar minimum, a period not unlike the current period when Irene and Sandy hit in succesive years.
JB and I have warned that we were overdue for hurricane effects in the northeast since the AMO turned warm in 1995. A northeast hiot is more likely I had found when the PDO was also negative. This year both were the case. We are reliving the 1950s from the ocean standpoint buy the early 1800s or late 1800s and early 1900s from a solar. It is entirely possible given the AMO 70 year cycle that the early and late 1800s and early 1900 (1903) were +AMO and negative -PDO eras as well, making those decades even better analogs than the 1940s to early 1960s.
After two days of rain, a hurricane slammed into New York City on the afternoon of Monday, September 3, 1821. With the city completely unprepared for such a monstrous storm, the damage was enormous. The East and Hudson Rivers flooded over their banks, causing considerable flooding in lower Manhattan. And the hurricane force winds damaged structures throughout New York City, Brooklyn (which was still a separate city), Long Island, and New Jersey. The next day’s newspaper, the New York Evening Post of September 4, 1821, published a dramatic account of the storm, headlined “Tremendous Gale.”
The story described a storm lasting from 4:30 pm to 8:30 pm, striking with "all the violence and fury of a hurricane… throwing down chimneys, unroofing buildings, and prostrating trees in various directions."
When the gale was at its height it presented a most awful spectacle," the newspaper reported. "The falling of slate from the roofs of buildings, and broken glass from the windows, made it unsafe for any one to venture into the streets
The newspaper noted that the city had actually been fortunate, as the storm had arrived during low tide, it mentioned that the tide "rose to an unusual height, overflowing all the wharves and filling the cellars of all the stores on the margin of the East and North [Hudson] Rivers.
IT WAS THE STORM THAT CHANGED THE SCIENCE OF METEOROLOGY
A native of Connecticut, William C. Redfield grew up with a strong interest in science, and educated himself by borrowing books on scientific subjects. He was also known to be a prodigious walker, at times taking long treks from New England to visit relatives who had settled in Ohio. Following the great storm of 1821, Redfield walked through a large area of Connecticut which had been devastated by the high winds. He was intrigued to notice that in some areas the trees had been knocked down with their tops pointing to the northwest. In other areas, trees were arranged in the opposite direction, with their tops pointing to the southeast. The patterns of the battered trees convinced Redfield that hurricanes were complex circular storms, and he eventually published a paper on the topic in the American Journal of Science in 1832. Redfield's theory was that a hurricane was a great traveling whirlwind. Today we take that idea for granted, but at the time it was a new way of thinking about hurricanes. Prior to Redfield, the accepted belief was that the winds of hurricanes blew steadily from one direction.
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Details are still to be worked out, but a major block east of Labrador and a strong digging trough and Sandy will combine to produce hurricane force winds, heavy rains, and further west mountain snows.It is likely to hit during a full moon, when tides are near their highest, increasing the risk of coastal flooding. And because many trees still have their leaves, they are more likely to topple in the event of wind and snow, meaning there could be widespread power outages lasting to Election Day.
The daytime GFS model has a sub 950mb low south of Long Island in 5-6 days. The other models bring the storm back in from anywhere from the Mid Atlantic to New England. The GEM 12Z has it 952mb moving west to the coast south of Long Island. By 120 hours it is inland vertical under a deep upper low over nw New Jersey.
Snow will fall in the central Appalachians. This storm will cause significant coastal flooding and beach erosion coming near full moon and strong winds that will cause downed limbs, trees and power outages. The lack of heavy wet snow in the coastal areas and New England will men outages should be briefer.
Come to Weatherbell.com and see posts and videos and Ryan Maue’s marvelous model page. The Sandy threat was forecast weeks ago. See on the site why this pattern fits the winter pattern we have been projecting.
The European model is even further south on an Isabel like jaunt up close to Chesapeake Bay.
INSIDE EPA: Inhofe Says Post-Election EPA Rules Will Shutter Fossil Fuel Production: The report also cites promises allegedly made by former White House climate and energy czar Carol Browner to environmental supporters on a recent call telling them not to worry about the unfinished agenda because Obama is committed to the cause in a second term. “This report is a wake-up call on the economic pain that the ‘abusive’ Obama EPA plans to inflict next year,” Inhofe says. “It reveals a president who is more concerned about saving his own job than the millions of Americans who are looking for one today.” Inside EPA reported in July that EPA completed most of its controversial work early this year while killing or delaying other regulations until after the election. “ I think we all understand there are political windows that are better and others that are worse,” one environmentalist said...EPA did not respond to a request for comment. MORE A reason to cast your vote carefully.
A new report from Senate Republicans warns that the Obama administration and the EPA are delaying implementation of painful new regulations until after the election.
The report from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ Minority Staff, “A Look Ahead to EPA Regulations for 2013,” points to a “slew of job-killing EPA regulations that the Obama-EPA has put on hold until after the election but will be on the ‘to-do’ list for 2013.”
‘As the economy has continued to falter over the past year, team Obama has been delaying rule after rule that will eliminate American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more, impose construction bans on local communities, and essentially shut down American oil, natural gas, and coal production. They don’t want this economic pain to hit American families just before the election because it would cost President Obama votes.’
The report goes on to state: ‘It’s pretty clear that if President Obama secures a second term, the Obama-EPA will have a very busy next four years, moving full speed ahead to implement numerous major rules and regulations that he has delayed or punted due to the upcoming election.
‘The radical environmental left may not need to worry, but what about American families, who are working hard in tough economic times, trying to make ends meet?
‘As the nation struggles to recover from a lagging economy in the coming year, Americans could also be grappling with a regulatory onslaught from the Obama-EPA that will strangle economic growth, destroy millions of jobs, and dramatically raise the price of goods, the cost of electricity, and the price of gas at the pump.’
The “punted” regulations include:
Greenhouse gas rules that will “virtually eliminate coal as a fuel option for future electric power generation,” and inflict new permitting costs on more than 37,000 farms.
New ozone standards that would cost $90 billion a year.
Regulations on hydraulic fracturing that will have “serious impacts on domestic energy production.”
Expansion of federal control “over virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small.”
Storm water regulations that could include “mandates on cities to change existing buildings, storm water sewers, and streets.”
Reductions in the sulfur content in gasoline that could boost prices by 9 cents a gallon.
Clean Water Act rules that “could require expensive new construction at power plants to lower fish deaths.” Other regulations would affect coal ash, farm dust, oil and gasoline spill prevention, and more.
“This report is a wake-up call on the economic pain that the ‘abusive’ Obama-EPA plans to inflict next year,” said Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking member on the committee.
“It reveals a president who is more concerned about saving his own job than the millions of Americans who are looking for one today.”
By Joseph D’Aleo
Over 3000 record lows or record low highs have occurred in the last month and over early 100 snow records for the US. A major early cold outbreak looks to be in the cards for end of the month and early November.
Ice meanwhile which rapidly diminished when a major early August storm compacted the ice is rapidly recovering.
As NASA reported:
An unusually strong storm formed off the coast of Alaska on August 5 and tracked into the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it slowly dissipated over the next several days.
The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite captured this natural-color mosaic image on Aug. 6, 2012. The center of the storm at that date was located in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.
The storm had an unusually low central pressure area. Paul A. Newman, chief scientist for Atmospheric Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., estimates that there have only been about eight storms of similar strength during the month of August in the last 34 years of satellite records. “It’s an uncommon event, especially because it’s occurring in the summer. Polar lows are more usual in the winter,” Newman said.
Arctic storms such as this one can have a large impact on the sea ice, causing it to melt rapidly through many mechanisms, such as tearing off large swaths of ice and pushing them to warmer sites, churning the ice and making it slushier, or lifting warmer waters from the depths of the Arctic Ocean.
“It seems that this storm has detached a large chunk of ice from the main sea ice pack. This could lead to a more serious decay of the summertime ice cover than would have been the case otherwise, even perhaps leading to a new Arctic sea ice minimum,” said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA Goddard. “Decades ago, a storm of the same magnitude would have been less likely to have as large an impact on the sea ice, because at that time the ice cover was thicker and more expansive.”
Here is what the JAMSTEC climate model suggest for this winter
Over at Weatherbell.com, Joe Bastardi and I have been blogging and doing videos on the winter and the factors involved for the US and globe. You get two cups of “Joe” for half or less the cost of one cup of coffee a day. And you get the mastery of Dr Ryan Maue with a model model page that grows daily. It alone is worth the price of admission. Here is a GFS forecast with a monstrous menacing cold high at the end of the month and the 5 day mean showing the cold extending south..
UPDATE: Live Sceince fights back; “NBC NewsClaims global warming stopped 15 years ago are based on “cherry-picked” data and don’t account for natural fluctuations in climate, according to climate scientists responding to an article that appeared Saturday (Oct. 13) in the British newspaper, The Daily Mail...Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, called the latest story “just more dishonest cherry-picking and sleight of hand by Rose” and his go-to sources."This is just one in a continuing series of hit pieces by David Rose in The Daily Mail that completely misrepresents climate science and climate scientists. Global warming hasn’t stopped by any objective measure; it is proceeding right on schedule. In many respects (e.g. the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice this summer), it is well ahead of schedule,” Mann told LiveScience in an email.
BUT German scientists challenge Mann’s face saving stance.
Luning/Vahrenholt Comment On HadCRUT’s 16 Years Of No Warming: “Tough Times Ahead For Climate Science”
By P Gosselin on 16. Oktober 2012
Although the silence that has spread over the mainstream media and “climate community” has been deafening, skeptic blogs on the other hand have been stepping in earnestly to inform the public on what the climate is really doing. The blogosphere has been ablaze over the last few days.
In Germany the media has been dead silent on the news that warming has stopped. There’s a simple reason for that: In Europe, good news is bad news.
Sebastian Luning and Fritz Vahrenholt have published their take on the official HadCRUT confirmation that there’s been no warming since even before Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick fabrication was first released.
New HadCRUT data confirm: global temperature has not risen in 16 years
By Dr. Sebastian Luning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translation/editing: Pierre Gosselin)
In the IPCC climate models, there’s only one direction projected for the future development of global temperature, namely a steady and strong increase. Also Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) shared this conviction and declared just last year in November 2011 in the Neuen Osnabrucker Zeitung:
“Global warming is galloping ahead unhindered. The temperature is increasing at a rate of between 0.16 and 0.18 C per decade.”
However, the quality of projections have to be tested using the hard data of reality. One of the most important datasets comes from the Hadley Centre of the British Met Office in cooperation with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. While the Hadley Centre is responsible for the sea surface temperatures, the CRU takes care of the land temperatures. Together they form the so-called HadCRUT dataset.
Recently the newest HadCRUT numbers were released; they extended up to August 2012. It turns out that everything that had been suspected was confirmed: The global temperature hasn’t risen in 16 years (see Figure below). This is a completely unexpected development when one considers how all the boldly confident forecasts from the IPCC predicted more warming.
The release of the new HadCRUT figures occurred almost in absolute silence, without any media buzz whatsoever. With some hesitation the British Daily Mail took up the topic and reported on the extension of the unhoped for temperature plateau. The report also questioned Phil Jones, the current Director of the Climate Research Unit. He confirmed the plateau and even considered it possible that it will extend even more, but only if the an El Nino does not form in the Pacific over the coming months. An El Nino would cause global temperatures to spike upwards for a short time. On the deviation between the the IPCC models and measured temperatures, Jones says:
We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.”
In 2009. Phil Jones had informed a colleague by e-mail that he would be concerned about the quality of the IPCC climate models if the stop in warming continued beyond 15 years. That e-mail was made public by the Climategate scandal, when an unknown hacker had breached the servers of the Climate Research Unit. The 15-year period named in that e-mail has in the meantime been surpassed. One really has got to wonder that Jones has suddenly extended his personal threshold of pain to 20 years, and now claims that phases of no warming 15-16 years long had always been expected.
Climate scientist Judith Curry, Director of Earth and Climate Sciences at Georgia Tech University, takes a more sober view. In the same Daily Mail article she says:
The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming. [...] Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect. It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.”
Figure 1: HadCRUT temperature data 1997 until today (red curve). The trend line (green) shows no significant increase. This temperature plateau has now been going on over 16 years. Source: Real Science based on woodfortrees.
Also Stefan Rahmstorf now appears to be worried and is desperately hoping for a trend change. Finally for 2013 he sees a new temperature record in the making; one that will hopefully break the old 1998 record. In the magazine Spektrum der Wissenschaft (also see New Scientist) Rahmstorf wrote in September 2012:
In the meantime the solar cycle is again on the rebound, and it is only a question of time before the next El Nino episode kicks in. The US NOAA has even forecast that this will occur this fall. Both of these factors together with the continuing rising greenhouse gases make it indeed probable that already 2013 could be a record year. Maybe this will mute the unscientific voices who again and again falsely claim that global warming is over.”
However, clicking on Rahmstorf’s El Nino link brings his readers back to sobriety. The acute NOAA El Nino warning has since been withdrawn and now more or less “neutral conditions” are being forecast for the northern winter of 2012/2013 in the tropical Pacific.
It’s also interesting that Rahmstorf suddenly is now increasingly emphasizing the sun, though the sun matters more for the long-term over years to decades. Speaking of solar activity, things with the upcoming solar maximum in the Spring of 2013 don’t appear to be cooperating either. The value will be considerably below the past cycles, which will tend to have more of a cooling effect than one of warming. Moreover some experts are already warning that the solar maximum of the current cycle may already be behind us(see our blog article: “Have we already missed the maximum of the current solar cycle? Asymmetry of the sun signals an extended period of low activity"). It’s quite possible that hard times lie ahead for climate science…
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released....and here is the chart to prove it
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
By David Rose
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new ( non-satellite BB) data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ - factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.
Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.
Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.
At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ - a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.
Flawed science costs us dearly
Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release - unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.
The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.
They will cost the average household about 100 pounds this year. This is set to rise steadily higher - yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century - when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.
Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.
And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.
It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.
This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.
But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.
‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.
‘’Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.
‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event - the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather - ‘it could go on for a while’.
Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’
Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.
Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’
Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.
Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’
He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 - that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record - he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.
Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.
Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.
Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century - and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.
The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.
So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed a conclusion with enormous policy implications. More.
Read this article: Met Office reply to David Rose Sunday Mail article:
“As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16C/decade (or 0.15C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both.”
Ok, let’s look at a non-arbitrary endpoint (the last datapoint) and go back in 5 year increments.
HADCRUT4 Last 5 years colder than previous 5 years
Mean of the anomaly of the last 5 years = .45C
Mean of the anomaly of the previous 5 years = .49C
Mean of the anomaly of the previous previous 5 years = .41C
HADCRUT3 Last 5 years colder than previous AND colder than the previous previous 5.
Mean of the anomaly of the last 5 years = .39C
Mean of the anomaly of the previous 5 years = .45C
Mean of the anomaly of the previous previous 5 years = .41C
Warming stopped. HADCRUT3 trend is negative.
IPCC predicted .2C per decade. HADCRUT4 has been created to change the negative trend of HADCRUT3 to a positive one.
But even with the “adjustments”, the last 15 years trend in HADCRUT4 is 1/6th that predicted by the IPCC.
On August 24th, the UK Met Office issued their 3-month outlook, which forecast
SUMMARY: TEMPERATURE: The balance of probabilities suggests that September will be slightly warmer than average.
It will therefore have come as no surprise that September in the UK turned out much colder than normal, in fact 0.7C colder than the 1981-2010 baseline, and the coolest since 1994. Incidentally, the CET numbers suggest the YTD figure is running close to the 30 year average for the year as a whole.
Still, maybe they fared better with their rainfall forecast.
SUMMARY: PRECIPITATION: For UK averaged rainfall the predicted probabilities weakly favour below normal values during September.
Woops! Rainfall was 17% above normal!
With this level of competence, do they seriously expect us to believe their predictions for the end of the century?
By the way, while we are looking at September’s weather, I really cannot allow the Huff Post to get away with the drivel that they print. They claimed that
Britain has been hit with the most extreme September weather for decades, with hundreds evacuated from their homes and fire and rescue teams battling against the floods to help residents of some of the worst-hit areas.
According to Philip Eden, one of the UK’s best known meteorologists, the heaviest rainfall recorded was 131mm over three days at Ravensworth, N Yorks. He points out that exactly the same amount of rain fell in a storm in September last year, although this was in the Scottish Highlands, where less damage was caused.
We can find a similar event in England in September 2008. As the Met Office map below shows, three day rainfall was greater and more extensive, with areas of Northumberland exceeding 150mm ( see table here).
And if you really want an example of extreme September weather, you need to go back to 1968, which Philip Eden describes as “probably the most severe inland flood to hit the Home Counties in the last 100 years”. According to Eden, “a sizeable area covering much of Surrey, west Kent, southeast London and south Essex was deluged with more than 150mm of rain, and two rainfall-recording sites in Essex - Tilbury and Stifford - received slightly more than 200mm, which is more than they had had during the whole of the summer quarter.”
Still, when did the Huff let facts get in the way of a bit of propaganda?
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Weatherbell.com
The Huffington Post has yet another error filled story today featuring Michael Mann who is touring the world on a two year sabbatical to try and restore histarnished reputation after climategate and the hockey stick debacle. Let’s play the liberal media’s favorite game of fact checking.
Low-lying island nations threatened by rising sea levels this century could see the disastrous consequences of climate change far sooner than expected, according to one of the world’s leading climate scientists.
In the wake of last month’s discovery that the extent of Arctic sea ice coverage hit a record low this year, climate scientist Michael Mann told the Guardian that “Island nations that have considered the possibility of evacuation at some point, like Tuvalu, may have to be contending those sort of decisions within the matter of a decade or so.”
Mann, who is the director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center, said that current melting trends show sea ice is “declining faster than the models predict.”
FACT CHECK: The melting is to be expected and parallels the melting that took place the last time the Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation was in its warm mode. Also unlike what Mann says, NASA reported a long lasting, unusually strong arctic storm helped compact the ice. The last minimum in 2007 occurred when an unusual wind pattern forced ice to exit the arctic to the Atlantic.
“The models have typically predicted that will not happen for decades but the measurements that are coming in tell us it is already happening so once again we are decades ahead of schedule,” Mann told the Guardian.
This year’s record melting, which occurred under more “normal” conditions than the previous record set in 2007, left Arctic sea ice at a minimum “nearly 50 percent lower than the average ... for the years 1979-2000,” according to Climate Central.
Rapidly decreasing sea ice suggests that the melting of polar ice sheets may occur more rapidly than previously predicted. Mann explained to the Guardian that “we [will] really start to see sea level rises accelerate,” as the Greenland and the west Antarctic ice sheets disappear. Unlike with the melting of sea ice, these ice sheets would introduce vast quantities of water into the world’s oceans, making them “critical from the standpoint of sea level rise,” according to Mann.
FACT CHECK: Greenland had a warm spell in June coinciding with near record summer blocking. But the melt was minor surface melt and very brief and entirely overplayed in the media. The entire ice sheet did not melt as portrayed but a thin layer of slush developed as surface daytime temperatures reached the middle 30s in July. It is forecast to be -51F this week.
Richard Alley, no skeptic and a colleague of Mann at PSU has this Greenland analysis long term.
The ongoing rise in average global temperatures, which has accelerated Arctic ice melt, has been largely attributed to the burning of fossil fuels and the resultant increase in greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
FACT CHECK: No rise in temperatures the last 15 years even as CO2 has risen over 8% and human emissions from fossil fuels by almost 20%
For the most vulnerable island nations, like the Maldives, Kiribati, the Torres Strait Islands and many others, rising seas will bring significant coastal erosion and saltwater contamination of limited freshwater supplies. Environmental group Oceana recently noted that nations dependent upon the sea will face food security threats as greater temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide increase ocean acidity and put marine life at risk.
FACT CHECK: Sea level rises began leveling off the last half of the 19th century and have been flattening even more in recent years
And the promised changes at Tuvalu have been undetected for decades.
Despite the increasingly clear picture painted by scientific observations and climate modeling, “There’s a huge gap between what is understood by the scientific community and what is known by the public,” according to NASA scientist James Hansen. Recent polling suggests that as much as 35 percent of the U.S. population and 37 percent of the British public remain unconvinced of the scientific reality of climate change.
Well the public smells a con game that Hansen and Mann and the climate clowns at climate central are playing.
And of course, no mention of the new record high ice extent for the Southern Hemisphere.
The story as a whole gets a full 4 Pinocchio’s. But then again most political and environmental stories in the HUFFPO start with at least 3, right up there with the WAPO.
By: Alex Guillen Politico
October 1, 2012 04:29 AM EDT
Never fear, former White House climate adviser Carol Browner assured environmentalists Thursday night. President Barack Obama has a big to-do list when it comes to their issues in a second term. Another reason to vote Romney
What exactly is on that list? Browner didn’t say in her pitch to a constituency that has had a sometimes fraught relationship with Obama. But she said environmentalists face a clear choice in November.
“We know there’s more work to do to defend the progress we’ve made. We’ve achieved a remarkable amount in 50 years,” Browner said on a campaign conference call, referring to Thursday’s 50th anniversary of the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.” Oh sure, likethe banning of the harmless DDT than has led to the death of tens of millions of Africans due to Malaria that had been controlled and the return of the bedbug infestation in the US that had been eradicated.
“But the decisions we make in the next four will have a lasting impact on generations to come,” she added.
Browner had plenty to say about the administration’s achievements: investing in clean energy, securing new fuel economy standards, proposing rules limiting emissions from new power plants.
Browner, a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator who is now at the Center for American Progress, also assured environmentally minded supporters that the president will remain faithful to their issues.
“I can tell you, having spent two years in the White House with the president, that this is not a fad. The president believes deeply in these issues,” she said. “At every turn he has looked at what are the tools available to him to really help build a clean-energy future for this country and has been committed throughout his first four years in office, and there’s no doubt in my mind this will be a big part of his to-do list and he will remain committed in the next four years.”
Browner also addressed the contrast between Obama and Mitt Romney when it comes to climate change, an issue that was largely absent from the campaign until Obama dedicated part of his convention night acceptance speech to stress that “climate change is not a hoax” and is “a threat to our children’s future.”
“The president has laid out a set of aggressive goals and is committed to [continuing] to build on the progress that he has made to date,” Browner said. “President Obama knows that it is critical to address the global issue of climate change and has made historic progress in working to reduce carbon pollution.”
Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan, she added, are wishy-washy at best when it comes to climate change science and have “pledged to prevent EPA from reducing carbon pollution that causes global warming.”
Obama has racked up endorsements from a host of environmental groups but has also had to overcome green voters’ unhappiness about failures like the death of cap-and-trade legislation in Congress and a White House-ordered delay in proposing new ozone standards. And though it wasn’t mentioned on the call, a central issue with environmental voters is the Keystone XL pipeline.
Greens were temporarily buoyed when Obama put off making a final decision on the pipeline until after the election, but they weren’t as happy that he has since embraced Keystone’s Southern portion, which will carry crude oil from Oklahoma to refineries in Texas. That inflamed worries that he will ultimately approve the full Keystone pipeline from Canada, allowing it to carry tar sands crude oil that environmentalists have labeled a threat to the Earth’s climate.
“Everybody, even the environmentalists, knows he’s going to approve it right after the election,” former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader said last week in an interview with POLITICO.
Towards a Global Carbon Regulatory Trading Scheme
In December 2009, lawmakers and representatives from around the world, along with scientists, numerous journalists, and various celebrities flew to Copenhagen, Denmark. For the most part, their goal was to promote a regulatory scheme aimed at controlling human carbon emissions by declaring the element a tradable commodity and establishing laws and regulations to govern the trade.
The proposed regulations were premised on the flawed notion, articulated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations will change climate dramatically and thereby cause major ecological and economic damage.
While many scientists, including us, have observed some changes in climate, the hypothesized dangerous consequences of rising atmospheric CO2 are too speculative for responsible regulatory policy. In analyzing climate policy, decision makers should be cognizant of three key considerations regarding the impact of projected rises in atmospheric CO2: (1) policy choices likely will have no measurable effect on the occurrence of severe weather; (2) positive effects on ecosystems and biodiversity are likely and should be weighed against the negatives; and (3) carbon trading schemes (such as the one touted in Copenhagen) are unlikely to lead to a reduction in atmospheric CO2.
Given these considerations, policy makers must carefully consider their objectives and the potential impacts, both positive and negative, of carbon emission control. If climate change regulation proceeds unchecked, it will likely produce policy that is out of touch with both the real world and objective science and will likely impose large costs on society that benefit only a small cadre of “climate entrepreneurs” and provide no meaningful effect on the Earth’s climate.
Consideration #1: Policy Makers Must Judge Humanity’s Ability to Control Global and Regional Climate Change.
It is true that a plethora of researchers have studied changing patterns in local, regional, and global temperatures, as well as rainfall, animal and plant life, and sea levels, and that many have drawn the conclusion that rising greenhouse gases (GHGs) are, to some degree, to blame for observed and/or forecasted changes in the climate. Policy makers, however, should not jump to conclusions. They have a responsibility to carefully consider the limitations of these studies and the impacts of factors other than manmade CO2. It would be wrong to attribute all observed impacts to climate change - even more so to GHGs - and even further to levels which could be controlled by humans. Herein lies our first consideration for policy makers: that rising atmospheric CO2 will not produce adverse weather and changes to climate beyond what will occur due to natural variation.
Policy makers should consider that the IPCC’s assumptions regarding future harm from rising atmospheric CO2 are contradicted by evidence, especially recent data that suggests the “global warming” narrative of climate change is seriously flawed. For example, the latest global temperature and ocean heat-content data are both at odds with the claims of disastrous consequences. While researchers often select time periods to support their dangerous-warming hypothesis, it is now apparent that forecasts of continued surface and atmospheric warming and oceanic heat accumulation have been at odds with the observations for the last decade. Similarly, computer modelers are having difficulty explaining the significant discrepancies between the increases in ocean heat content predicted on the basis of the dangerous CO2 hypothesis, and the observed ocean heat content data.
Similar caution should be exercised when determining whether causes other than GHGs may be responsible for observed effects. Arctic temperature data from coastal stations in Greenland and averages over the Arctic Pacific, North Atlantic, Greenland-Iceland, and the entire circum-Arctic are noted to be at odds with this dangerous manmade warming hypothesis. Such data indicates abrupt warming and cooling every few decades that fit well with natural fluctuations in solar activity. By contrast, the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past century, including especially the last fifty years, does not explain the variability in surface temperatures in and around the Arctic, further suggesting that the effect may be caused by something other than GHGs. Similarly, evidence of warming in cities has indicated that warming and hydrological changes result directly from the “heat island effect” of urbanization and changing landscape cover, rather than from atmospheric CO2 concentration. Consequentially, policy makers would be wise to also consider alternative causes for the observed effects.
While some researchers, including us, argue that factors other than GHGs are responsible for observed climate changes, many do not. Policy makers need not accept either camp’s findings, but should be aware of these alternative views and give them due consideration when making their decisions.
Policy makers also need to reconcile scientists’ failure to find a CO2 greenhouse-warming signal despite extensive and objective scouring of climate records from around the globe over the last century. We and other scientists have reached a very simple conclusion: atmospheric CO2 is not an important driver of weather and climate. This hypothesis lies in very sharp contrast to the speculations from computer climate models, which are predicated on a strong relationship between atmospheric CO2 and air temperature. Such findings indicate that simulated computer modeling may be inherently limited in its ability to make accurate predictions regarding a system as complex as the global climate. This is not to suggest that computer research is a trivial pursuit; but rather, that it is not developed enough to generate reliable prognoses for policy making.
Policy makers owe it to their constituents to make informed decisions weighing all of the observed climate data rather than relying on outputs from the artificial worlds of computer climate models.
Consideration #2: Policy Makers Must Weigh Both Potential Benefits and Potential Costs of a Changing Climate.
Commentators and political activists often negatively characterize climate change as an unnatural process that is bound only to bring disaster. Unfortunately, some of these characterizations have become embodied in law through judicial decisions and legislative actions, which have caused a misunderstanding about the nature of climate change. To avoid these shortcomings in the next round of climate change action, reasonable policy makers should reject the notion that a changing climate is completely one-sided. Instead, they should use the best scientific data available to weigh the potential positive effects of climate change against the negative effects and costs of policy intervention to determine which course of action to take. Thus, in evaluating the chemical and biological influences of rising atmospheric CO2, special attention should be paid to our second consideration for policy makers: that the negative effects on ecosystems and biodiversity of increases in atmospheric CO2 must be properly weighed against the benefits.
Policy makers must be careful to avoid the mistakes of turning scientifically inaccurate definitions into laws and regulations. In 2007, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant," creating a legal definition that does not match the science. Rather than being an “air pollutant,” atmospheric CO2 is the basic building block for all photosynthetic organisms: green plants, fresh- and ocean-water algae and photosynthetic bacteria. It forms the basis of most food chains and is vital t o biological life. Legal definitions at odds with science make it difficult to enact sensible policy.
Imprecise language can also lead to exaggerations about the potential dangers of CO2 that could cause policy makers to misjudge the urgency of the situation. For example, today’s level of atmospheric CO2 - about 390 ppm (0.039 percent or the equivalent of about four cents in $100) - is not “dangerously high” from the perspective of photosynthetic organisms. In fact, 390 ppm is far below the nutrient saturation level for these organisms and below the optimal level for growth. This means more CO2 could enhance some critical ecosystems; yet few scientists, politicians, or “climate entrepreneurs” consider the positive benefits to these plants under elevated CO2 levels. Furthermore, some marine organisms may actually grow better and be more productive as a result of ocean acidification caused by dissolving CO2 in seawater. As a consequence, some of the fast biological responses - most likely involving the positive synergistic interactions among changes in temperature, solar radiation, and bicarbonate - are likely to stimulate marine life and food production in the world’s oceans. Biologist and oceanographer Dr. Debora Iglesias-Rodriguez, summarized her findings on this topic this way:
Increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing some microscopic ocean plants to produce greater amounts of calcium carbonate - with potentially wide-ranging implications for predicting the cycling of carbon in the oceans and global climate modeling… Our research has also revealed that, over the past 220 years, [single-celled algae and phytoplankton] have increased the mass of calcium carbonate they each produce by around 40 percent. These results are in agreement with previous observations that [single-celled algae and phytoplankton] are abundant throughout past periods of ocean acidification, such as that which occurred roughly 55 million years ago.
An examination of the procedures used in studies that come to contrary findings regarding the effects of CO2 on marine organisms reveals that they have inappropriately claimed to examine the ocean acidification issue by adding hydrochloric acid to seawater, rather than taking the trouble to bubble CO2 through the water to more faithfully simulate natural conditions. The former procedure of adding acids or bases directly to the water bypasses the key involvement of CO2 with the carbonate and bicarbonate geochemical cycling in the ocean, which is why it generates an opposite conclusion from studies that properly bubble CO2 through water. It is clear that there will be both losers and winners in relation to ocean acidification; as such, relying exclusively on negative effects would be a poor recipe for a well-informed policy making.
Recently, some ecologists and geologists have cautioned about the dangers of carbon myopia - of seeing and examining only the alleged dangers of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere while ignoring the potential harmful effects of managing for CO2. Moreover, Putz and Redford cautioned that carbon-based conservation can be bad for biodiversity and harmful to both plants and animals. They note that carbon-based discrimination will adversely affect non-arboreal plants, result in shorter tree species, and put non-forested ecosystems at risk and that “tree planting among carbon investors could create perverse incentives leading to major biodiversity losses."
Apart from a few species required for pollination and seed dispersal, “most vertebrates and invertebrates are superfluous, if not nuisances, in forests managed for carbon,” Putz and Redford conclude. That means incentives to sustain and preserve those species will be limited, if not actually prove detrimental, when policy makers focus exclusively on reducing atmospheric CO2.
Clearly, there will be winners and losers in a changing climate, but policy makers must weigh the costs of the negatives (with the costs of trying to maintain status quo) against the positives. Not all biological, chemical, and ecological responses to rising atmospheric CO2 portend doom and gloom. Policy makers should focus their discussions on balancing the pros and cons, rather than pursuing a one-sided strategy of CO2 reduction.
Consideration #3: Policy Makers Must Recognize the Possibility that Carbon Trading Schemes May Not Lead to a Reduction in Atmospheric CO2.
Recent failures of carbon emission trading, both in the Chicago Climate Exchange and in the E.U. Emission Trading Market, confirm the simple but harsh reality that carbon trading is an artificial and unworkable system that will likely cause more harm than good, since there are simply too many potential cheaters, too many opportunities to cheat and get away with it, and too many opportunities to make big profits by cheating. Professor Roger Pielke Jr. has critically remarked that “very complex policies full of accounting tricks, political pork and policy misdirection" are now being devised to create the false promise of an international climate-solution. Even Science magazine reluctantly agreed on October 23, 2009 that:
The accounting now used for assessing compliance with carbon limits in the Kyoto Protocol and in climate legislation contains a far reaching but fixable flaw that will severely undermine greenhouse reduction goals… For example, the clearing of long-established forests to burn wood or to grow energy crops is counted as 100 percent reduction in energy emissions, despite causing large releases of carbon.
This leads to our third consideration for policy makers: that carbon trading will not lead directly to a reduction in atmospheric CO2.
There is a dangerous paralysis creeping into our modern era as a consequence of unscientific carbon myopia. This paralysis is illustrated by the nightmare of carbon budget accounting, where the offset of carbon dioxide emissions can be achieved through additional storage and protection of carbon pools located in human settlements. Human settlements store carbon in natural pools such as vegetation and soil as well as in anthropogenic pools. Anthropogenic carbon pools encompass buildings, printed materials, landfills, clothing and living organisms.
Those who have not followed the trading price of carbon emissions at the Chicago Climate Exchange will be intrigued to learn that carbon began trading at the modest price of $1 per metric ton in January 2004.  Prices then fluctuated wildly, reaching a peak value of $7 per metric ton in May/June 2008. However, as public interest waned (most likely due, in part, to a lack of correlation between the extreme scenarios that have been posited and observations in the real world), the trading price of carbon emissions fluctuated around a low of $0.10 to 0.20 per metric ton between October and December of 2009.
An initial investor in carbon emission reductions back in January 2004 has now lost 90 percent of his or her original investment on what has amounted to a tax on a gaseous atmospheric component that is essential for all life and on the hydrocarbon energy that powers 85 percent of the U.S. economy. Speculators who entered the carbon market on May 30, 2008 have lost 98.6 percent of their investments.
In a similar fashion, trading at the E.U. Emission Trading Market has collapsed. Trading peaked around 30 Euro in April 2006, dropped to less than 1 Euro in February 2007, and eventually reached 0.03 in December 2007[31 ]a fall to 0.1 percent of its peak value. Ironically, at least part of the reason for the fall was that too many carbon emission credits were allocated relative to actual emissions. Moreover, E.U. emissions have actually increased over the same time period by 10 to 54 percent in some countries during this first phase of the E.U. carbon trading experiment. For example, emissions as of the end of 2007 for both Greece and Ireland were 25 percent above their 1990 levels; Portugal’s emissions were 38 percent above and Spain’s were 54 percent above. These, of course, are the very outcomes that carbon trading was supposed to prevent.
The second phase of E.U. trading also is not promising, as new hurdles and questions have arisen. This is exemplified by the September 2009 decision of the European Court ruling against the European Commission’s plan to cut emission quotas for Poland and Estonia. The court held that the two countries could not be compelled against their will to abide by lower emission quotas imposed by the European Commission subsequent to the acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol.
As further proof of the disconnect between the world imagined by the politicians and scientists who rushed to Copenhagen and the real world in which we live, the Australian government is proposing to trade carbon under its own emission trading scheme, at a set price of A$10 per ton per year, until July 2012, at which time the cost and price will be dictated by market forces. We are willing to bet that its value will be much less than A$10 by December 2012 if a free market is allowed to prevail.
Given the problems associated with carbon trading systems namely the potential and opportunity for cheating to occur and the precipitous drop in value that has been observed in carbon credit policymakers should carefully consider the negatives before enacting carbon trading systems.
Prudent policy makers should not get swept up by the shortsightedness of the alarmist media coverage of human-induced global warming. Rather, given the potential costs and impacts, they should be suspicious that advocates have subverted science to further their own causes. Understandably the extent of uncertainty regarding the role and impact of rising atmospheric CO2 may come as a shock to those swept up by the fanaticism. Given the uncertainty involved, policy makers should consider the scientific data carefully.
Decision makers should consider the following questions: Do we really want a future based on the grievous misunderstanding engendered by carbon myopia? Can humanity really afford to ignore the real harm that would be caused by adhering to these fallacies about carbon? We must have the courage to stand against climate alarmism and stand for rational stewardship and for reliable, affordable energy. We urge political leaders of the world to do the right thing and to reject any deal that would tax or restrict carbon emissions. Only in that way can they protect the jobs, health, welfare, economic opportunities, environmental quality, living standards, and civil rights that depend so critically on hydrocarbon energy.
SPPI BLOG from the Washington Times
The turmoil in the Middle East ...the Federal Reserve’s decision to further devalue the U.S. dollar through a third round of “quantitative easing” (QE3), and rising oil prices are combining to create a toxic economic brew that could send the global economy into recession.
That was the assessment of International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol. “I see the [oil] prices today, in this economic context, as unbearable for consumers,” said Birol on Friday. “High prices together with other factors could push the global economy back into recession.”
However, in some ways, Mr. Obama should be claiming credit. As Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu told the Wall Street Journal back in 2008, the goal all along has been to explode U.S. gas prices to the $6 to $8 a gallon prices found in Europe. “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Mr. Chu said.
Mr. Birol’s comments come as U.S. oil prices hit a four-month high on Friday:
Since late June, the price of crude oil has climbed about 25 percent, fueling a 16-cent increase in the average price of regular gasoline and adding to the economic headwinds facing President Obama in the final weeks of the election campaign.
Industry experts believe that President Barack Obama may use the Middle East uprisings and soaring fuel costs to justify tapping the nation’s 700 million barrel emergency Strategic Petroleum Reserve, similar to what Mr. Obama did last year to no lasting effect.
But it was the Federal Reserve’s decision to pump $40 billion so-called “stimulus” dollars a month into the U.S. economy in the form of buying mortgage-backed securities that ultimately may prove to be the match that lit the economic powder keg. As the value of the U.S. dollar goes down, oil prices go up. That means slower economic growth and higher consumer prices.
As Reuters explains, the confluence of all these economic factors is producing a chain reaction of higher consumer prices, plunging industrial production, and soaring gas prices:
Highlighting the risk to the economy from surging oil prices, a jump in gasoline costs pushed up U.S. consumer prices in August at the fastest pace in more than three years and squeezed spending on other items, threatening to slow economic growth.
Industrial production dropped 1.2 percent in August, the biggest decline since March 2009. The consumer price index increased 0.6 percent, the first rise in five months and the biggest since June 2009.
Gasoline prices, which also recorded their largest increase since June 2009, accounted for about 80 percent of the rise in consumer inflation last month, the Labor Department said.
Whether Mr. Obama can duct tape the looming economic collapse long enough to win reelection remains to be seen.
However, in some ways, Mr. Obama should be claiming credit. As Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu told theWall Street Journal back in 2008, the goal all along has been to explode U.S. gas prices to the $6 to $8 a gallon prices found in Europe. “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Mr. Chu said.
Through its mismanagement of the Middle East crisis and endless rounds of “quantitative easing” (and the concomitant currency devaluation such “stimulus” brings), the Obama Administration has almost reached its goal of European-style gas prices.
On Friday, a gallon of regular gas in the Bronx cost nearly $5 a gallon.
This is part of the Obama’s administration war on coal and fossil fuels. The ideologues from the colleges with no real world experience are convinced this will spark an explosion in wind and solar. Democrat Rep. Markey reacted to the passage of the bi-partisan “no to the ban on coal” bill in the house (which Reid widely regarded as the worst Senate Majority Leader in memory, refuses to take to a vote in the senate by claiming republicans were responsible for the lack of progress of renewables. He and his party have not done their homework as usual.
A large chunk of the $800 billion in stimulus dollars went to companies and ventures that has biggest supporters and bundlers Many of these ventures went bankrupt costing taxpayers billions. Although his crony capitalists walked off with millions in their pockets.
- Amonix Solar: FAIL! manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, subsidized by more than $20 million in federal tax credits and grants given by Obama Administration, has closed its 214,000 square foot facility a year after it opened.
- Solar Trust of America: FAIL! - Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012
- Bright Source: FAIL! - Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Lost Billions of dollars but Getting More Money To Keep Trying. Can you say, “This isn’t working?”
- Solyndra: FAIL! - Obama gave Solyndra $500,000,000 in taxpayer money and Solyndra shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 After Billions in Losses due to failure to make a solar product that works!
- LSP Energy: FAIL! - LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012
- Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL! - On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy
- Abound Solar: FAIL! - Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy
- SunPower: FAIL! - SunPower stopped producing solar cells last year at near bankruptcy restructured only with help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL who owns 60% stake. Irony! Still struggling…
- Beacon Power: FAIL! Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy Oct 2011 just a year after Obama approved $43 million loan Government loan guarantees
- Ecotality: FAIL! - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from Obama
- A123 Solar: FAIL! -A123 received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees and after Solyndra bankruptcy is getting another $500M from Obama and it has lost $400M
- UniSolar: FAIL! - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20 this year laid off hundreds got more Obama money still failing but still in business
- Azure Dynamics: FAIL! - Azure Dynamics files for bankruptcy in June wasting millions in Obama “Stimulus” and tax credits. Azure Dynamics LLC filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada and the US. Azure laid off 120 of its 160 employees in Oak Park; Boston; Vancouver, British Columbia; and the UK.
- Evergreen Solar: FAIL! - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama filed bankruptcy
- Ener1: FAIL! received more than $100 million in government funding from the Obama administration filed for bankruptcy January 2012
Obama’s ads claim Romney while with Bain transferred jobs overseas but most all of his funded corporations including GM, which has 2/3rds of their workers overseas. Most of the companies that benefited from stimulus bought materials manufactured overseas, improving employment in China and India. Obama touts GM as creating jobs at home and curses Boeing for outsourcing. This is explained by the “chosen one’s” definition of outsourcing. Boeing was guilty of outsourcing jobs to a ‘right to work’ state, and GM pays its bloated union wages by outsourcing to China, Mexico, etc. The administration has rebuked GM’s requests to allow them to manage their own company. GM sales are not doing well in the US. Temporary layoffs have been made for plants that produce the Chevy Volt, which has been dismal failure. Most of the sales have been forced sales to the military or government agencies or by companies like GE closely allied to the President.
Obama has been a failure in every business venture his administration has tried to mange and yet he wants to now is about to begin the takeover and management of 1/6 of the economy in the health care industry.
The administration in their campaign claims to be all about the middle class yet proposes to institute a carbon tax in a second term. This was described in a NYT editorial. This is would increase the gasoline price by $3 to at least the $7 target set by energy secretary Chu in his first term. Obama has promised his environmental supporters he will have more flexibility to institute his green agenda if he gets a second term, even though it has failed miserably in Europe with heavy investment in wind and solar. Of course as prices rise, the administration would blame big oil for price gouging and maybe attempt takeover of the energy sector like they did for the health and auto.
Wind has been around since the 80s 1880s and solar the 90s -1890s. Had they been cost effective they would be a bigger part of the energy mix as President Carter pushed for. Still less than 3% of our needs come from wind and solar. WHY?
They found out in Europe where they heavily subsidized both that both are undependable and extremely costly. The sun doesn’t always shine, the wind doesn’t always blow.
Energy costs skyrocketed, and companies shut down or relocated factories overseas. Spain lost 2.2 real jobs for every green job created and only 1 in 10 green jobs was permanent. Spain has an unemployment rate of 25.5% and they stopped the subsidies. Italy lost 3.4 jobs for every green job created.
Denmark, the top wind country has the highest energy costs of any country in Europe.
Britain found wind was undependable delivering only 0.5% of their electricity needs during December 2010, the second coldest December since 1659 in the Little Ice Age. Over 25 of the population is in energy poverty in Wales having to choose between and heating and eating. Europe is rushing back into fossil fuels to the environmentalists frustration.
Carbon taxes failed in Europe and Australia. They would drive gasoline prices up an additional $3 a gallon here in the US and increase home heating and cooling costs. It would be a very regressive tax, affecting the low and middle class the most.
All this nonsense to try and reduce a beneficial gas, CO2 that has greatly helped vegetation. Even in this droughty, hot summer, crop losses were small compared to 1988 when losses topped $80B (2009USD). The extremes of weather in the last two years are consistent with the second strongest La Nina and a very cold Pacific PDO.
BTW, increased energy and food costs have a domino effect on the prices of all goods and services, reduce disposable income, with most effect for low and middle classes. Already the median middle class household income is down over 4.8% in the last 3 years which is worse than the 2.6% decline in the recession that preceded it.
Americans, you have just over 40 days to awaken from your hypnotic haze.
Joe Bastardi has done on air combat with Bill Nye the Science guy who came to the gun battle with a knife and was clearly the loser. You would think ‘the science guy’ would know anything about climate but clearly he does not. You wonder how much he really knows about other science topics. Here is a post from our friends led by Calvin Beisner at the Cornwall Alliance:
What’s the message from Bill Nye “The Science Guy” to parents? Forget about God’s instructions in Deuteronomy 6 to teach your children about Him and His works. Leave your kids’ minds to us scientists!
Recently on CNN’s Newsroom the popular science teacher expressed frustration that the United States isn’t doing enough to fight global warming.
Nye insists that “tens of thousands of scientists...are very concerned” about catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), while “a few people...are...drawing attention to the idea that uncertainty is the same as doubt.”
“We in the science education community chip away at this problem all the time,” Nye said.
Nye and his fellow alarmists have a lot of chipping to do.
One hopes he’s just unaware, not dishonestly concealing the fact, that over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
Drawing what he calls a “disturbing” analogy between skepticism of CAGW and skepticism of evolution, Nye simply defines anyone who questions this view as benighted. “We have an enormous population of people in the United States who don’t believe in evolution, the fundamental idea in all of life science,” he said on Newsroom.
How defensible does Nye think that is? “It would be like saying I don’t believe in earthquakes or something.”
In a recent YouTube video that went viral, Nye equated belief in evolution with scientific literacy:
I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future.
“Because we need them”? Who are “we,” and what gives them the right to demand control of our children’s minds?
Ironically, in 2011 Nye received the “In Praise of Reason” award from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a program of the Center for Inquiry, which purports to be dedicated to “promoting and defending science, reason, and free inquiry in all aspects of human interest” (emphasis added).
If Nye has felt frustrated about convincing Americans of either CAGW or evolution, he should take heart. Help is on its way.
As we told you recently, the educational bureaucracies that dominate our public schools are in advanced stages of developing “Next Generation Science Standards” (NGSS) that will indoctrinate students with a secular, atheistic worldview and belief in both evolution and CAGW.
That’s why the Cornwall Alliance is gearing up to prepare environmental stewardship curriculum for grades K 12 curriculum that will be firmly rooted in Biblical worldview, theology, and ethics, coupled with excellent science and economics, first for Christian schools, then for public and secular private schools. Will you help us with your generous donation today?
The need has never been more urgent.
NGSS’s flagship product, A Framework for K12 Science Education, will expand and solidify the anti-Christian worldview already reigning in America’s public schools.
Let me give you just one example. The Bible clearly teaches that people are supposed to fill and rule the earth to enhance its fruitfulness, beauty, and safety which implies that they can and should have an impact for good on the natural world.
But the NGSS says, “Human activities now cause land erosion and soil movement ... [and] [a]ir and water pollution ...with damaging effects on other species and on human health.” Well, yes, sometimes. But the standards never mention that we can also improve on nature, as the long-term rise in human life expectancy that started with the Industrial Revolution and continues even now demonstrates.
The assumption is clear: what people do is bad. A draft of performance expectations says, Things that people do to live comfortably can affect the world around them. But they can make choices that reduce their impacts on the land, water, air, and other living things...” If their impacts were good, why would they want to reduce them?
As World magazine environment reporter Daniel James Devine reports, “High school students will be taught that fossil and DNA discoveries support common ancestry, and that one species can evolve into two. Not only will they learn that human activities have increased ‘the frequency and intensity’ of natural hazards like ‘floods, droughts, forest fires, [and] landslides,’ they’ll study the ‘feasibility of geoengineering’ projects to slow global climate change.”
Rather than letting our children’s minds be taken captive by the world, we want to help them learn to “take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
UPDATE: Note from Anthony. Joe Romm’s head exploded on Climate Progress (no surprise) and then Media Matters, exposed today as the Pravda like propaganda arm of the Obama administration and the group that provides the daily talking points for the liberal media followed suit. Here is what Anthony reports:
Media matters has gone ballistic on me.
Most of the complaints I’ve seen haven’t much to do with the content of what I said (though MM touches on it a bit) but mostly over the fact that I was allowed to speak at all. PBS and NYT, WAPO, HUFFPO are expected not to have any dissent to their messaging.
By Spencer Michels
It was about 105 degrees in Chico, Calif., about three hours north of Sacramento, when we arrived at the offices of one of the nation’s most read climate skeptics. Actually, Anthony Watts calls himself a pragmatic skeptic when it comes to global warming. Watts is a former television meteorologist, who has been studying climate change for years. He doesn’t claim to be a scientist; he attended Purdue. He’s the author of a blog, Watts Up with That?, which he calls the world’s most viewed site on global warming. For a story I was working on for the PBS NewsHour, Watts wasrecommended by the Heartland Institute, a conservative, Chicago-based non-profit that is one the leading groups that doubt that climate change—if it exists—is attributable to human activities.
Watts doesn’t come across as a true believer or a fanatic. For one thing, he has built a business that caters to television stations and individuals who want accurate weather information and need displays to show their viewers. He has developed an array of high tech devices to disseminate weather data and put it on screens. He has several TV stations around the country as clients.
But Watts’ reputation doesn’t come from his business - IntelliWeather -- but rather from his outspoken views on climate change. He says he’s been gathering data for years, and he’s analyzed it along with some academics. He used to think somewhat along the same lines as Richard Muller, the University
of California physicist who recently declared he was no longer a skeptic on climate change. Muller had analyzed two centuries worth of temperature data and decided his former skepticism was misplaced: yes, the earth has been warming, and the reason is that humans are producing carbon dioxide that is hastening the warming the planet.
Watts doesn’t buy Muller’s analysis, since, he believes, it is based on faulty data. The big problem, as Watts sees it, is that the stations where temperatures are gathered are too close to urban developments where heat is
soaked up and distorts the readings. So it looks like the earth is warming though it may not be, he says. Read a transcript below.
SPENCER MICHELS: So let’s start out with the basic idea that there’s this debate in this country over global warming. There’s some people who call it a complete hoax and there are some people who completely embrace it and so forth. Where do you stand in that spectrum?
ANTHONY WATTS: Well, I at one time was very much embracing the whole concept that we had a real problem, we had to do something about it. Back in 1988 James Hanson actually was the impetus for that for me in his presentation before Congress. But as I learned more and more about the issue, I discovered that maybe it’s not as bad as it’s made out to be. Some of it is hype, but there’s also some data that has not been explored and there’s been some investigations that need to be done that haven’t been done. And so now I’m in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but itmay not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors.
SPENCER MICHELS: What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?
ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society.
SPENCER MICHELS: What are you saying? That they’re biased essentially or motivated by something else? What?
ANTHONY WATTS: There’s a term that was used to describe this. It’s called noble cause corruption. And actually I was a victim of that at one time, where you’re so fervent you’re in your belief that you have to do something.
You’re saving the planet, you’re making a difference, you’re making things better that you’re so focused on this goal of fixing it or changing it that you kind of forget to look along the path to make sure that you haven’t
missed some things.
I started looking into the idea that weather stations have been slowly encroached upon by urbanization and sighting issues over the last century. Meaning that our urbanization affected the temperature. And this was
something that was very clear if you looked at the temperature records. But what wasn’t clear is how it affected the trend of temperatures. And so that’s been something that I’ve been investigating. Anyone who’s ever stood
next to a building in the summertime at night, a brick building that’s been out in the summer sun, you stand next to it at nigh,t you can feel the heat radiating off of it. That’s a heat sync effect. And over the last 100 years
our country, in fact the world, has changed. We’ve gone from having mostly a rural agrarian society to one that is more urban and city based and as a result the infrastructure has increased. We’ve got more freeways, you know more airports, we’ve got more buildings. Got more streets, all these things.
Those are all heat syncs. During the day, solar insulation hits these objects and these surfaces and it stores heat in these objects. At night it releases that heat. Now if you are measuring temperature in a city that went
from having uh maybe 10% of um, non-permeable surface to you know maybe 90% over 100 years, that’s a heat sync effect and that should show up in the record. The problem is, is that it’s been such a slow subtle change over the last 100 years. It’s not easy to detect and that’s been the challenge and that’s what I’ve been working on.
SPENCER MICHELS: Well in a way you’re saying that the records aren’t accurate, the data isn’t accurate.
ANTHONY WATTS: I’m saying that the data might be biased by these influences to a percentage. Yes, we have some global warming, it’s clear the temperature has gone up in the last 100 years. But what percentage of that
is from carbon dioxide? And what percentage of that is from changes in the local and measurement environment?
SPENCER MICHELS: I want to go back to what we were talking about a little bit earlier, the idea that there is, there are people who are sort of invested in promoting the fact that there is global warming. There’s money
involved and grants. Is that what you were saying? Maybe explain that.
ANTHONY WATTS: Well global warming had become essentially a business in its own right. There are NGOs, there are organizations, there are whole divisions of universities that have set up to study this, this factor, and
so there’s lots of money involved and then so I think that there’s a tendency to want to keep that going and not really look at what might be different.
SPENCER MICHELS: Now Dr. Muller at the University of California Berkeley had similar concerns. Went back and looked at the data, took much more data than anybody else had, and concluded, well maybe there was some problems, but basically the conclusions were right. There is global warming and it comes from carbon dioxide which is meant, made by man. Do you buy that?
ANTHONY WATTS: Unfortunately he has not succeeded in terms of how science views, you know, a successful inquiry. His papers have not passed peer review. They had some problems. Some of the problems I identified, others have identified problems as well, for example, he goes much further back, back to about 1750 in terms of temperature. Well from my own studies, I know that temperature really wasn’t validated and homogenized where everything’s measured the same way until the weather bureau came into being about in 1890. Prior to that thermometers were hung in and exposed to the atmosphere all kinds of different ways. Some were hung under the shade of trees, somewhere on the north side of houses, some were out in the open in the sun, and so the temperature fluctuations that we got from those readings prior to 1890 was quite broad and I don’t believe that provided representative signal because the exposure’s all wrong. And Dr. Muller did not take any of that into account.
SPENCER MICHELS: His conclusion though is that basically global warming exists and that the scientists, no matter what the problems were, were pretty much right on.
ANTHONY WATTS: I agree with him that global warming exists. However, the ability to attribute the percentage of global warming to CO2 versus other man-made influences is still an open question.
SPENCER MICHELS: I want to ask you a little bit about attitudes towards this among the public. We talked to a public opinion specialist at Stanford who says there’s been 80 percent belief in global warming and man-made global warming consistently over at least the last 15 years in this country. Do you buy his theory?
ANTHONY WATTS: Well I look at a number of opinion polls. You’ll find a lot of them on my blog and that we’ve covered. And depending on how you ask the question we’ll sometimes give you a different answer. My view is, is that the view of global warming peaked about at the time that Al Gore came out with his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. But ever since then other factors have kicked in. Climate Gate for example. And it has become less of an issue, in fact you hardly see politicians talking about it anymore, or pushing it as an issue. What’s been happening now it’s just become a regulation issue. It’s gotten away from the political arena and into the bureaucratic regulation arena. And so people I believe based on the polls I’ve seen, aren’t quite as believing as they used to be. And I think the trend is downward.
SPENCER MICHELS: What do you think is the upshot of your attitude toward this? Should the Congress, should the American public say, you know nothing’s been proven yet. We should wait. Or should we go ahead with trying to solve what many people consider a really scary problem?
ANTHONY WATTS: Hmm....You mentioned a really scary problem and I think that’s part of the issues. Some people don’t respond well to scare tactics and there have been some scare tactics used by some of the proponents on the other side of the issue. And that’’s where the overselling of it comes in. But this is a slow problem and it requires a slow solution I believe. For example, our infrastructure for electricity and so forth and highways didn’t happen in 5 years or 10 years. It happened over a century. We can’t just rip all that up or change it in the space off five, 10 or 15 years because it’ll be catastrophic to our economy. We need a slow change solution, one that is a solution that changes over time at about the same rate as climate change.
More efficient technologies, new technologies, the use of more nuclear for example. There’s a nuclear type of a reactor that’s more safe called a, a liquid thorium reactor that China is jumping on right now. And we should be looking into things like that.
SPENCER MICHELS: Has this issue, I know you think it’s been oversold and scare tactics have been used. Do you think it’s become too politicized?
ANTHONY WATTS: Oh, it’s definitely become too politicized. In fact, some of the scientists who are the leaders in the issue have become for lack of a better word, political tools on the issue.
SPENCER MICHELS: One final question, do you consider yourself a skeptic when it comes to global warming?
ANTHONY WATTS: I would call myself a pragmatic skeptic. Yes, we need to make some changes on our energy technology but more efficient technology’s a good thing. For example, I have solar power on my own, you know, I have done energy reductions in my office and in my home to make things more efficient. So I think those are good things. Those are good messages that we should be embracing. But at the same time I think that some of the issues have been oversold, may have been oversold, because they allow for more regulation to take place. And so the people that like more regulation use global warming as a tool, as a means to an end. And so as a result, we might be getting more regulation and more taxes that really aren’t rooted in science, but more in politics.
Death Valley, Calif. now holds the record for the hottest temperature ever recorded in the world with a maximum temperature of 134 degrees. This temperature was not recorded this past summer, but nearly 100 years ago on July 10, 1913. So, how can it be a new all-time record?
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released information on Thursday showing that the now previous all-time world record of 136 degrees on September 13, 1922 in El Azizia, Libya has been ruled invalid.
The investigation that discredited the previous record was conducted with the support of the Libyan National Meteorological Centre for the WMO Commission of Climatology World Archive of Weather and Climate Extremes.
Several factors were cited in ruling the previous record as invalid, including:
- Problematical instrumentation.
- An inexperienced weather observer.
- The observation site was over an asphalt-like material that was not representative of the native desert soil.
- Poor matching of the extreme temperature reading to other nearby locations that were cooler.
- Poor matching to subsequent temperatures recorded at the site.
Death Valley: The “Hot” Facts
The Badwater Ultramarathon is run in the brutal heat of Death Valley each year.
One hundred thirty-four degrees seems incomprehensible. This is 13 degrees hotter than the hottest temperatures measured in the Plains states during the “Dust Bowl” of the 1930s and 12 degrees hotter than the all-time record high at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.
In an average year Death Valley sees triple-digit heat from mid-May through early October. Highs in the 110s are common from mid-June through early September. Morning lows in the upper 80s or low 90s are frequent from mid-July through mid-August.
(FORECAST: Death Valley)
The summer of 1996 featured daytime highs over 120 degrees for forty days. Five years later, the valley sizzled in a stretch of 154 consecutive days of triple-digit heat, a roughly five-month stretch!
Those are just air temperatures. How hot can ground temperatures get? Try an incredible 201 degrees, measured at Furnace Creek on July 15, 1972. Yep...11 degrees from the boiling point of water! The maximum air temperature measured that day was 128 degrees.
Why is this Valley so Hot?
Elevation: Furnace Creek, home of the Death Valley Nat’l Park Visitor’s Center, is roughly 190 feet below sea-level. Since air warms as it moves down, that extra elevation plunge adds extra heat.
It’s a Desert: Only 2.26” of precipitation falls each year in the valley. The average evaporation rate: 150” a year. In some years (1953, 1929), no rain or snow fell. Most Pacific storm systems have the lion’s share of their moisture taken away by four mountain ranges to the west of Death Valley. Their wettest month, February, averages only 0.49” of precipitation. Amazingly, despite this desert environment, there have been destructive floods.
On August 15, 2004, torrential rain, by valley standards, sent walls of floodwater up to 8 to 10 feet deep through parts of Death Valley National Park in the late evening hours.
Miles of roads were washed out and closed for months. Cars were swept away and buried. Two people were killed near Zabriskie Point. The park was closed for nine days. Other destructive floods occurred in 1984 and 1976, among other years.
CLIMATE WIRE BUSINESS: Bad snow year may just be the start of the ski industry’s climate headaches
ASPEN, Colo.—The ski industry is one business that is facing the prospect of tough sledding in the years just ahead. According to a survey taken by the National Ski Areas Association, warm weather and low snowfall last winter dropped visitors to ski resorts by almost 16 percent, the sharpest decline in more than 30 years. The survey concluded that the experience may have just been “an abrupt reminder of the whims of the weather,” but it also noted there was the possibility that “long-term climate change” was a factor.
WINTER SEASON SNOW TREND in the Northern hemisphere trend has been up since 1967. 4 of the top 5 years have occurred in the last decade.
The ranks: #1 1977/78, #2 2009/10, #3 2010/11 #4 2007/08 and #5 2002/03. Last year ranked among the top 50% snowiest even with the drop in the US.
Despite the snow drought in much of the lower 48 last winter, record snows fell in Alaska, Anchorage had the snowiest winter on record
For the US, the number of major impact snowstorms is UP. We already have had 8 this decade - just 3 years in. The 60 year cycle is clear.
In 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists warned ski areas that snow would be a problem for them in the future. That very winter set all types of records for snow coast to coast, only to be exceeded by 2009/10 and 2010/11.
In 2008, RFK Jr, environmentalist bemoaned that children in places like DC would never again know the joys of sledding and winter sports. The very next year all-time snow records were set for the region.