"World cooling is here to stay and the new round of climate alarmism just announced by UK Government ministers and the Met Office of more extreme weather and warming in coming decades driven by mankind has no merit and is defied by the facts and front-line science”, said Piers as his forecast from three weeks ahead was confirmed for the formation of the first East Pacific typhoon of the season off Mexico.

“Ministers have been saying a lot about accountability recently so now let’s apply that to climate change policy and scrutinize what they are up to in the light of the facts and the application of sound science. “Will Minister Benn - and his opposite numbers in other parties - place before Parliament the evidence on which they base their climate change policies? Or are we to be led into more climate alarm taxes and charges’ and a new war against nothing based on bogus compter models? “

“Climate alarmism is not based on sound science but on a political agenda which has become a new religion to justify any policy or scheme which politicians and self-serving green ideologues, deluded researchers, businesses, oil magnates and the nuclear industry want to adopt. All their long-range models have failed so far so why should anyone believe them? On the other hand our solar based long range weather and climate forecasts have proven power, so why don’t politicians listen?” “We need an independent public inquiry now into climate alarmism and conflicts of interest involving funding bodies which must be based on testable science; or” - he asked - “Will we have to wait for an enquiry when its too late where we in 5 years time will belatedly ask politicians:

- Why did so many children starve to death from food and fuel price rises caused by biofuels and costly energy projects?

- Why was the development of Africa held back in the name of green ideology?

- Why did they repeatedly fail to act on extreme weather event warnings which killed thousands but were ignored because the science used in those forecasts didn’t accord with the new green religion?

- Why did the UK Government continue to rely on failed forecasting systems which cost the UK economy 3billion pounds in the winter of 2008/9 when road salt ran out because the Met Office had forecasted a mild winter.

“Unless the climate circus is stopped we will see another round of hand-wringing in 5 years time against ‘irresponsible risk taking’ in the promotion of the green bubble of false value which has already burst in Spain in 2008” warned Piers. “The facts are:

1. Contrary to the projections of the UN and Governments the world has been cooling since 2002/3 while CO2 has been rising rapidly. (More here and here).

2. Global warming is over and it never was anything to do with mankind. There is no evidence that CO2 fluctuations in the last 200, 2,000 or 20,000 years have caused warming or climate change, in fact the evidence is the other way around. (See Challenge here )

3. There is no evidence of more extreme weather events or increases in the rate of sea level rise or changes in glaciers corresponding to CO2 increases since the industrial revolution. (See Effects of CO2 Nicholson & Soon)

4. All changes in the Arctic and Antarctic follow natural and highly variable patterns which are not new or special and have been recorded for over a thousand years and have been very well known to the British navy for a long time and available in the Met Office library The Antarctic has been cooling for decades and the Arctic has started to cool in the last year or two.  Break-up of ice is a natural process - like the falling down of old trees - and has been happening for millions of years before news media noticed it.

5. All the UN & Govt forecasts of ongoing warming this century have failed and the UN has still refused to produce evidence of their claims despite reasonable requests by an international group of science experts. (See Letter to UN Sec General 14 July 2008 )

6. Extreme weather and climate change events can be predicted months or years ahead using solar activity whereas standard meteorology and CO2 dogma cannot do this. (PowerPoint & Audio of Piers Corbyn’s & Other Presentations at International Climate Change Conference New York 8-10 March 2009 - section V track 1 see slide 28 for world Temperature forecast to 2030. Scroll for speeches by Prof Bob Carter, Prof Richard Lindzen, Lord Monckton and others). A Layman’s Explanation of Why Global Warming Predictions by Climate Models are Wrong by Dr Roy Spencer here.

7. The Met office long range forecasts for summer 2007, summer 2008 and winter 2008/09 were the opposite of what occurred while solar-based (Solar Weather Technique) forecasts correctly foresaw the floods, more floods and heavy snow in each of those seasons. (Met Office barbecue summer forecast seriously misleading.)

“Met office season ahead forecasts have consistently failed as they are failing again this summer. For how long will the public have to wait before this circus is called to account. Will the BBC do its duty and expose failed science or will they continue their cover-up?” asked Piers. See World cooling has set-in warns astrophysicist - BBC & ‘Global Warming apologists’ challenged to end ‘cover-up’

Our friend at the METSUL, Alexandre Aguiar reports that for the first time ever in Brazil icewine has been produced in this unusually cold June in Southern Brazil. This is a release on the Vinicolo Vineyard website. The following is a rough web based translation from Portuguese to English. The original Portuguese story is here.

With pleasure we inform that the Perico team yesterday registered in its vineyards, located in the farm Boy God, District of the Perico in Joaquin - Santa Catarina, a phenomenon of the nature, the most waited of this time: the ice wine. The temperatures had fallen well below-freezing and the thermometers had marked - 7.5 C. A dream if became reality: the harvest of the grapes congealed for this so wonderful act of the nature.

With this, the Vinicola Perico, will be first ever vineyard in Brazil to produce ICEWINE (Wine of the Ice), a natural licoroso wine, with raised amount of residual sugar of the proper grape.

The process of production of the Icewine, consists of mature grapes and extreme cold at-6 C, in this condition, the water that if find in the interior of the berries of the grapes congeal and the ice separates the rich juice in sugar. When the grapes are just right, they’re carefully picked by hand. Grapes in this condition have a very low yield - often an entire vine only makes a single bottle. That’s why ice wine can be so expensive and is often sold in half-bottles only ... but it’s worth it! After this long harvest process, the grapes go through weeks of fermentation, followed by a few months of barrel aging in new barrels of French oak, Allier forest. The wine ends up a golden color, or a deep, rich amber. It has a very sweet (of course) taste. After vinificado we will have the pleasure to present this great BRAZILIAN only ICEWINE, which happens in Austria, Germany, north of Italy and Canada. See photos of our vineyard to the dawn, before and after the sun rose. More photos on home page.. 

We have posted stories on how this cold spring has caused agricultural problems in many locations worldwide. See this post . See David Archibald’s post originally on Icecap in which he forecasted these agricultural issues reposted with comments on Watts Up With That here. See Bloomberg post on spring wheat concerns in Canada due to a very cold May. See more on Spring in Canada here and here.

Despite all these anecdotal evidences of global cooling, NOAA announced May 2009 was the 4th warmest in 130 years of record keeping (and manipulation) with an anomaly of +0.53C just a week after the University of Alabama using the NASA MSU satellite data assessed the global anomaly at just +0.043C, making it the 15th coldest in 31 years. Anthony and I will surely have more to say on this unlikely divergence soon.

The EPA on April 17, 2009 released this finding in ”Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act”.

I just sent my comments in, and have included excerpts from them below for structure and ideas. If you have not done it yet, get your comments in. I did mine via email. Some excerpts from my commentary are listed below. You can send public comments here:  ghg-endangerment-docket@epa.gov

To submit a comment, identify them with Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 and submit them online, by email, by facsimile, by mail or by hand delivery.

The docket # is Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 Be sure to include that number in email. They must be received by EPA by June 23.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, by one of the following methods:

- Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

- E-mail: ghg-endangerment-docket@epa.gov

- Fax: (202) 566-1741.

- Postal Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

- Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Air Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online here.  including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

This Climate Audit post can also be useful for ideas. As a guide for doing this, WUWT reader Roger Sowell has some useful guidelines that I find helpful. See Anthony’s full post here.

Icecap Note: Anthony follows in this post with his powerful comments on siting isues he has found with the surfacestations.org volunteer network effort. Icecap will be submitting a dozen comments later this week. We will post links to all of the comments after the deadline. Please send us your comments and we will provide links to them as well. This can be a handy reference for those who will be challenging the EPA on any proposed rules or regulations.

Here is a pictorial showing a cross section of the ITCZ with a cumulonimbus cloud in the center.I thought this post on clouds and climate modeling below from Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit was interesting, because it highlights the dreaded “negative feedbacks” that many climate modelers say don’t exist. Dr. Richard Lindzen highlighted the importance of negative feedback in a recent WUWT post.

One of the comments to the CA article shows the simplicity and obviousness of the existence of negative feedback in one of our most common weather events. Willis Eschenbach writes: Cloud positive feedback is one of the most foolish and anti-common sense claims of the models.

This is particularly true of cumulus and cumulonimbus, which increase with the temperature during the day, move huge amounts of energy from the surface aloft, reflect huge amounts of energy to space, and fade away and disappear at night. Spot on Willis, I couldn’t agree more. This is especially well demonstrated in the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) The ITCZ has been in the news recently because early analysis of the flight path of Air France 447 suggests flying through an intense thunderstorm cell in the ITCZ may have been the fatal mistake. There is a huge amount of energy being transported into the upper atmosphere by these storms.

Here are some diagrams and photographs to help visualize the ITCZ heat transport process. First, here is what the ITCZ looks like from space. Note the bright band of cumulonimbus clouds from left to right.

Here is showing a cross section of the ITCZ with a cumulonimbus cloud in the center.

And finally, a 3D pictorial showing ITCZ circulation and heat transport. Note the cloud tops produce a bright albedo, reflecting solar radiation.

And here is the post on Climate Audit “Cloud Super-Parameterization and Low Climate Sensitivity” by Steve McIntyre on June 11th, 2009.

Usually when we think of global warming, we are led to believe that it is caused primarily by increasing greenhouse gases. After all, that is what all the fuss is about in Washington DC these days. But is that entirely true?

After all there are lots of other things going on all the while. For instance, to what degree has the global temperature record in recent decades been influenced by the variability in aerosol emissions? This question has been the subject of a series of articles in recent years by Martin Wild and colleagues which look at the impacts of (primarily sulfate) aerosols on the earth’s climate. They typically conclude that sulfate aerosols play a larger role in multi-decadal climate fluctuations than the climate models generally give them credit for. And that models’ inability to properly handle the climate aspects of aerosols “may hamper the predictive skills of these models to project near future climate evolution.”

In their latest paper, just-appearing in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Wild and colleagues makes some interesting observations about aerosol influences on the global temperature history in recent decades and what it means for greenhouse gas-induced warming: The compensating [warming/cooling] tendencies [from aerosols] in various regions of the globe may tentatively indicate that the overall surface solar radiation signal inferred from the ground-based observations did not undergo dramatic changes since the year 2000. This fits to the general picture provided by the satellite community, which suggest that the planetary albedo as well as the background aerosol burden of the atmosphere may not have undergone substantial changes between 2000 and 2005, at least globally [Loeb et al., 2007a, 2007b; M. Mishchenko, personal communication, 2007]. This is also in line with recent Earthshine observations, which indicate a fairly stable planetary albedo after 2000 [Palle et al., 2009]. Further, air pollution control measures seem to have saturated lately in some of the industrialized regions, which may prevent further brightening in these areas [e.g., Ruckstuhl et al., 2008; D. G. Streets et al., submitted paper, 2009]. One may also speculate that the recent lack of a significant overall brightening may favor a more moderate temperature increase in the early 2000 compared to the 1990s, when brightening has more substantially added to the greenhouse-induced warming [Wild et al., 2007, 2008].

Overall global warming since the turn of the millennium may therefore be more readily attributable to the enhanced greenhouse effect, and no longer suppressed by surface solar dimming as in the period from the 1950s to 1980s or enhanced by surface solar brightening as from the 1980s to 2000. However, further investigations based on both modeling and observational approaches will be required to get more insight into the origins and impacts of the changes documented in this study. [emphasis added]

So what Wild and colleagues are saying is that 1) the observed global warming rate during the 1980s and 1990s was elevated as a result of a decreasing atmospheric aerosol burden (which led to more solar radiation reaching the surface, aka “solar brightening") - so all the talk about how fast the planet was warming up because of greenhouse gas concentration increase is a bit overblown, and 2) that since the turn of the century, the climate influence from aerosols has been relatively stable (in net) and so the true impact from increasing greenhouse gases should now be more evident. And, as readers of this blog are quite aware - there is no significant trend in global temperatures this century!

Now, we are not suggesting that this will continue indefinitely, but we are suggesting that the rate of temperature increase produced by greenhouse gas increases appears to be much less than climate models are indicating (or at least given credit for) - for the past several decades, and likely into the future.
It is high time that people start getting their heads out of their models and start looking at the observations. The picture grows clearer every day - carbon dioxide emissions have much less climate impact than advertised by those folks clamoring for their regulation. Read full post and references here.