If we happen to see an unusually large number of winter storms this year, we suspect some reporter or some scientist will insist we are witnessing the effects of global warming, or at least declare we are witnessing climate change before our very eyes. Oppositely, if this year’s winter storms are infrequent, we will expect to learn from someone that we have seen the effects of climate change. In fact, in a recent paper in the International Journal of Climatology, the authors begin their piece noting “One area of growing concern in climate science is the impact that global warming could have through modulations of the nature and characteristics of naturally occurring extreme events, such as severe mid-latitude storms.” In the very next sentence, the research team from the United Kingdom and Australia state “However, both observational and modelling studies of historical and future storminess patterns and scenarios are divided on the role that global warming has played, or could play, in changing patterns of mid-latitude storms”. Once again, we find any straightforward link between global warming and winter storms is a bit more dicey than originally thought...there is always more to the story.
The authors of the latest piece are Rob Allan, Simon Tett, and Lisa Alexander of the UK Met Office, the University of Edinburgh, and Monash University in Australia; funding for the research was provided by various sources including the UK Ministry of Defense...go figure? Anyway, Allan et al. made use of a newly digitized 3-hourly station surface pressure data for the United Kingdom and Ireland to extend previous analyses that used data beginning in the 1950s; the new dataset allowed analyses to extend back to 1920. They used the 3-hourly surface pressure data to identify severe winter storms, and their analyses suggested that no major severe winter storm would go undetected by their network of stations.
Allan et al. divided their work into two sub-periods including October - December (OND) and a second period including January - March (JFM). The first figure (Figure1) of special interest to us is below, and it immediately shows the importance of having the additional 30 years of data. The authors note “pronounced inter-annual variations in OND severe storminess across the British Isles are evident” “with most prominent activity in the 1920s and 1990s. There is evidence in the literature to support the 1920s period of a high frequency of severe storms in OND.”
Figure 1. History of OND decadal average severe storm frequency over the British Isles from 1920 (from Allan et al., 2009).
The authors also conducted the analyses for the JFM period, and when the results for OND are combined with the JFM period, the pattern below is established (Figure2). Allan et al. conclude “The results from this study suggest that natural climate variability will play an important role in future changes in storminess, and thus could overwhelm any anthropogenic signal there might be.” We completely agree, and yet, the popular press continues to suggest that global warming is to blame for anything from few storms to big storms - it is all climate change!
Figure 2. History of October - March decadal average severe storm frequency over the British Isles from 1920 (from Allan et al., 2009).
A second article on storminess in Europe takes on a different perspective in terms of time period; Sorrel et al. were interested in reconstructing storm activity over the past 3,000 years. The research team is from impressive institutions in France, and effort was funded by the French state, the Haute Normandie Region and the other regions of the Paris Basin, the Agence de l’Eau Seine Normandie, and the industrial firms of the Haute-Normandie. Allan et al. collected sediment cores near the mouth of the Seine River in northwestern France and they used radiocarbon dating and paleomagnetic information to date the material in the core. The marine hydrodynamics are reflective of storm activity in the Seine River basin, and the sediment patterns within the core reveal periods of frequent large storms and periods with few or any storms.
Sorrel et al. found periods of intense storm activity around 2,700 BP and 1,250 BP, and they note both of these were unusually cool periods. They note that the Medieval Warm Period (around 900 AD to 1200 AD) was a time of few storms, while “In the subsequent 600 years after the MWP, corresponding to the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA), our proxy records mark the return towards more energetic conditions in the Seine estuary”. Basically, they showed over and over that storm activity increases in cold periods and diminishes in warm periods. Claiming that global warming will result in increased mid-latitude storm activity is simply not consistent with 1,000s of years of climate information collected in northwestern France.
Finally, President Obama returned home from Copenhagen recently only to find a massive snowfall covering much of the Northeast, including Washington DC. With climate change fresh on his mind, he might have wondered global warming impacted the massive winter storm. Fortunately, an article has just appeared in the Journal of Climate on trends in extreme snowfall seasons in the United States. To make a long story really short, Kunkel et al. conclude “The 1900-01 to 2006-07 trends in the annual percentage of high- and low-extreme snowfall years for the entire United States are not statistically significant.” Once again, there is no evidence of any trend upward or downward in extreme storm events in the winter season.
References:
Allan, R., S. Tett, and L. Alexander. 2009. Fluctuations in autumn–winter severe storms over the British Isles: 1920 to present. International Journal of Climatology, 29, 357-371.
Kunkel, K.E., M.A. Palecki, L. Ensor, D. Easterling, K.E. Hubbard, D. Robinson, and K. Redmond. 2009. Trends in twentieth-century U.S. extreme snowfall seasons. Journal of Climate, 22, 6204-6216.
Sorrel, P., B. Tessier, F. Demory, N. Delsinne, D. Mouaze. 2009. Evidence for millennial-scale climatic events in the sedimentary infilling of a macrotidal estuarine system, the Seine estuary (NW France). Quaternary Science Reviews, 28, 499-516.
As representatives of the nations of the world meet in Copenhagen to attempt to restrict the use of energy produced from coal, gas and oil in the guise of fighting global warming, many scientists and scholars are expressing grave concerns about what they are trying to do. Recognizing these concerns, we have posted a series of YouTube video vignettes in which such scientists and scholars present the reasons behind them.
We invite you to view the videos and do all you can to inform the public about their presence. Each of the videos can be accessed from the CO2 Science website, from the CO2Science YouTube channel , and other locations across the Internet, such as here. A categorized-list of the videos we have posted is presented on these sites. Wise decisions are made only when all pertinent aspects of an issue are examined. It is our sincere hope that the information presented in these videos will elucidate important truths that are presently ignored. See four posted videos with Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Soon, John Coleman and Joe D’Aleo on KUSI’s web site here.
See also audio interviews with many scientists on Its Rainmaking Time here.
-------------------------
Urban vs Rural in US
A comparison of data from urban and rural sites to see if there is an Urban Heat Effect. Data from NASA GISS. Graphs made with Microsoft Excel.
A Statement by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia.
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on the Australian Parliament to repudiate the Copenhagen giveaways promised by PM Rudd to the failed states of Africa and the welfare beggars of the islands.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the three Climate Crusaders, Obama, Brown and Rudd, had been comprehensively conned in Copenhagen by African mendicants and fakers from the islands.
They have agreed to hand over mega-bucks of our money (anywhere from $5 billion to $100 billion) as compensation for alleged damage caused by our production of carbon dioxide - the Africans citing climate damage and the islanders claiming rising sea levels. Even a cursory examination of the facts would prove that both of these claims are fraudulent.
There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has caused global warming, or causes damage to any aspect of life on earth. The vast majority of earth’s warming originates from the sun, and fluctuations there are the major cause of climate changes. In addition, careful recent surveys show no unusual rising of sea levels.
Moreover, all plant and animal life on earth benefit from industry’s production of carbon dioxide. Crops, grasses, forests and fruit trees are growing more profusely, the planet is becoming greener, and the oceans can produce more algae, more plankton and more life - all because of this free bounty of aerial plant food released whenever carbon fuels are burnt. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - it is a boon to all mankind. Africa and the islanders should pay us to release more valuable carbon dioxide, not the reverse.
This giveaway is just a back door extension of the foreign aid program which has done so much harm to both donors and recipients. The vast majority of mendicant African nations have sterilised vast agricultural and mineral resources by their failed political systems. The foreign aid has mainly assisted their dictatorial governments to stay in power, harm their people and amass ill-gotten wealth.
To increase the resources controlled by these dictators does nothing to improve the lot of their ordinary citizens. What they need is not welfare or climate compensation, but investment funds, low cost reliable energy, efficient infrastructure, sound currency, fair taxation and secure property rights.’
For the beneficial effects caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere go here.
To watch Christopher Monckton interview a Greenpeace spokesman in Copenhagen go here.
For a summary on some of the tactics used to manufacture a Climate Consensus go here.
For a look at how global warming is affecting the Canadian Prairies go here.
For a great story on how a coal powered steam train rescued passengers when the electric trains failed during the global warming snap in Britain go here.
Climategate in Detail By Vincent Gray, NZ Newsletter
I have just spent a whole day reading details of the Emails from the Hadley Centre that are contained in the vast package of material, known as Climategate. as portrayed on the website of Dr John P Costella here.
They are really astonishing. Many are yet to be revealed generally. They display a network of conspiracy to defraud, manipulate, distort and intimidate which even I, who have been in the middle of it from the beginning, have difficulty in believing. Dr Costello even identified excerpts which are likely to be used in the trials of some of the participants,
The one where Phil Jones states that he has got to “hide the decline” shown by recent tree ring temperatures because they did not show the required global warming has already been pilloried. I also liked the one where Tom Wigley advocated putting in the data “Whether they are correct or not”.
It was interesting to read how they organized the dismissal of Chris de Freitas as an Editor of “Climate Science” for publishing a paper they did not like.
It is far too long to summarize, so let me just copy some of the most recent specimens, from Kevin Trenberth
“Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The data published in the August [20]09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
“How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter[?] We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty! “
“Here are some of the issues as I see them: Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go?But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with C[louds and the] E[arth’s] R[adiant] E[nergy] S[ystem] data. Th[at] data are unfortunately w[a]nting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.”
From Mike Mann to Kevin Trenberth and others
“ that doesn’t mean we can explain exactly what’s going on”.
October 27, 2009: email 1256735067
“It is appropriate that the last word in Climategate go to Mike Mann, explaining what it’s all about. Mike Mann to Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt:
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations[.]
And again: it’s tough when even your allies are starting to turn:
[B]e a bit careful about what information you send to Andy [Revkin of the New York Times] and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like[.] “
Several of you have asked me during the past few weeks to comment on Climategate--the emails stolen from the University of East Anglia dealing with global warming issues. I will do so here, but I want to go beyond that situation to some of my own personal observations derived my own experiences doing climate-related research.
Let me start with my bottom line points:
Were some of the climategate emails inappropriate? Yes
Have some scientists exaggerated the implications of human caused global warming? Yes.
Are many global warming deniers unreasonable and expressing opinions that are not based in facts or rational thought? Yes.
Is the basic science of climate change now in question because of the climategate emails? No.
Has the whole business gotten too political? Surely.
Are scientists human and sometimes doing things out based on human emotion or group think? Yes.
Climategate emails: I read through more than a hundred of them...particularly the ones that have gotten big attention. These scientists were in circle the wagons mode. Clearly, they felt under pressure, if not threatened, by the global warming (GW) skeptics, and discussed ways of denying the critics information requested through Freedom of Information inquiries. They scientists talked about erasing emails, and not publishing in journals they felt were printing materials they disagreed with. Web sites like “Climate Audit” has become dirty words to some. (I personally love “Climate Audit”!). All of this was inappropriate.
In the famous “trick” email the east Anglia emails talk about replacing the proxy tree ring records with instrumental records for the past several decades (because the tree ring records disagreed with what the instrumental records were saying)--instead of just showing those records and noting the difficulty. Not quite open. Is there any major technical cover up evident in the emails?...not that I could see. Denier and skeptic types are claiming that these emails undermine the whole global warming business...and they are completely wrong about that. But there are some general issues we should talk about.
There is an almost tribal separation going on today between the scientific community and their “allies” (generally of a liberal persuasion) and the denier and critic crowd (many of them of a conservative bent). The denier folks have become angry, with conspiracy theories and accusations of far-left agendas. Whenever there is an article on climate change in newspapers, these people leaves large numbers of online comments. And few of them are well informed about the science. And there is a lot of misinformation on the “pro” global warming side as well. Scientists, unaccustomed to being on the firing line, have gotten defensive--and the emails from climategate really document this attitude.
This defensiveness has now gotten unhealthy for both the science and society. Scientists who attempt to publish material indicating that global warming due to manmade causes is not evident or weak, or who doubt the severity of the problem, are not treated well by some. I have had some first-hand experience with this. I am known as somewhat of a skeptic regarding global warming effects in the NW--although I do believe that greenhouse gases are a serious problem in the long-run. A group of us noted that the snowpack in the Cascades was NOT rapidly melting away, in contrast to some publications by some local climate scientists and publicized by Mayor Nickels. The reaction was intense. One of my colleagues, Mark Albright, who was the first to notice the lack of snowpack loss was fired as associate State Climatologist and the media went wild...we called it Snowpackgate...and it got national attention. I was told in the hallways to keep quiet about it...the denier types would take advantage of it!
We then wrote a paper on the subject (the main contributor being Mark Stoelinga) and submitted it to the Journal of Climate. I have published a lot of papers in my life (roughly 100) and I never had problems like we had with this paper. Very biased associate editor and some reviewers. Four review cycles and it was about to be turned down, until we appealed to the editor, who proved fair and reasonable. This paper has now been accepted for publication, but it really revealed to me the bias in the system. Here is the paper if you are interested.
Poor papers with significant technical problems, but reflecting the “official” line, get published easily, while papers indicating the global warming is weaker or delayed, go through hurdle after hurdle.
I have heard case after case of similar treatment...so this is no anomaly.
The media tends to publish all kind of threatening predictions about global warming without really researching them. A good example is that suggestion that heavier precipitation will fall in the NW under GW...or is already happening. There is no evidence for this, but it gets repeated over and over again. On the other hand the denier types point to every cold wave or the fact there has NOT been a lot of warming in the last 5-10 years (which doesn’t mean anything). And the glaciers! Some of the melting may well be due to man-forced warming...but the melting started early in the last century before CO2 effects were significant.
Another problem is that uncertainty of our climate predictions are often not clearly expressed in various publications--even semi-official ones put out by climate impacts groups of various types. It is sobering to note that the uncertainty in climate predictions has not declined over the past decades. Our models are much better now than thirty years ago, but key aspects of the modeling systems...like how they simulate clouds… are not as realistic as we would like...and this is very important for climate change work. I think people sense there is more uncertainty in the predictions than the official outlets tell them...and that may be part of the fuel of denier rage. The essential physics of warming is quite solid and well understood, but the details...like how clouds will react...are still under investigation.
So perhaps I have been confusing....but the bottom line is that this issue has been completely politicized and confused with both sides using problematic information at times....did this have to happen? If Gore hadn’t taken up the mantle of stopping global warming, would things have been better? Can Climategate lead to a better approach and attitude among all parties? See more here.
------------------------
The Sun-Earth Connection - the Cloud and Climate Mystery Solved? Series posted in 6 parts on youtube by ekstragrim
-------------------------
See Mann throw Colleagues Under the Bus on WAPO By Roger Pielke Jr.
In today’s Washington Post, Michael Mann of Penn State University and CRU email fame, gives us some good news about climate science and some bad news about his colleagues.
The good news is that climate science in his view is not at all impeached by the release of the CRU emails.
The scientific consensus regarding human-caused climate change is based on decades of work by thousands of scientists around the world.
The bad news is that some of his colleagues exhibited “poor judgment”:
I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested in the e-mails recently stolen from a climate research unit at a British university. . . Some statements in the stolen e-mails reflect poor judgment—for example, a colleague referring to deleting e-mails that might be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request—but there is no evidence that this happened. I doubt that Professor Mann will be getting many cheery Christmas cards from his CRU-email colleagues. See post and comments here.
------------------------
A Climategate Who’s Who
---------------------------
See Expert Videos Craig Idso, CO2 Science
As representatives of the nations of the world meet in Copenhagen to attempt to restrict the use of energy produced from coal, gas and oil in the guise of fighting global warming, many scientists and scholars are expressing grave concerns about what they are trying to do. Recognizing these concerns, we have posted a series of YouTube video vignettes in which such scientists and scholars present the reasons behind them.
We invite you to view the videos and do all you can to inform the public about their presence. Each of the videos can be accessed from the CO2 Science website, from the CO2Science YouTube channel , and other locations across the Internet, such as here. A categorized-list of the videos we have posted is presented on these sites. Wise decisions are made only when all pertinent aspects of an issue are examined. It is our sincere hope that the information presented in these videos will elucidate important truths that are presently ignored. See four posted videos with Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Soon, John Coleman and Joe D’Aleo on KUSI’s web site here.
See also audio interviews with many scientists on Its Rainmaking Time here.
-------------------------
Urban vs Rural in US
A comparison of data from urban and rural sites to see if there is an Urban Heat Effect. Data from NASA GISS. Graphs made with Microsoft Excel.
From the “weather is not climate” department, inconvenient travel:
Hundreds of passengers spent the night sleeping in Dallas Fort Worth Airport near Dallas, Friday, Dec. 25, 2009 after a winter storm forced the cancellation of many flights from Dallas. The Star-Telegram newspaper said Dallas-Fort Worth was experiencing its first White Christmas in more than 80 years. (AP Photo/J Pat Carter)
Here’s a sample of headlines related to difficult if not impossible holiday travel:
Christmas Eve storm in central states creates travel misery (WaPo). A slow-moving storm spread snow, sleet and rain across the nation’s midsection Thursday, making last-minute holiday travel treacherous but promising a white Christmas for some.
The National Weather Service issued blizzard warnings for parts of Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Texas. It cautioned that travel would be extremely dangerous in those areas through the weekend and that drivers should pack a winter survival kit.
Winter Storm Disrupts Holiday Travel (NYT)
“Snow will be falling at a rate that snow plows are not able to keep up with,” AccuWeather reported on its Web site, “while winds gusting past 40 miles per hour will cause severe blowing and drifting along with whiteout conditions.”
Heavy snowfall causes disruption across Europe (BBC)
Heavy snow and ice are causing disruption across a wide swathe of Europe. Flights have been delayed or cancelled at airports in Britain, Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Power providers in south-east France say they have had to cut supplies to around two million people to avoid a massive regional blackout. In Poland, nearly 60 people have died this December because of the weather.
Treetops glisten, but storm snarls Midwest holiday (Atlanta Journal Constitution)
The Star-Telegram said the Dallas-Fort Worth area was experiencing its first White Christmas in more than 80 years. While the area had a sprinkling of holiday snow in 2004 and 1997, the lasttime it experienced “a true, New England-style dose of snow on Christmas Day was Dec. 25, 1926,” the newspaper reported. Some churches canceled Christmas Eve services, while others saw sharply lower attendance. Oklahoma City had received 14 inches of snow by Thursday night, breaking a record set back in 1914 of 2.5 inches.
In the early 1970s the UN spearheaded the progressive notion of a new world economic order, one that would try to level the playing field between the First World and the Third. The neoliberal onslaughts gathering strength from the mid-1970s on destroyed that project. Eventually the UN, desperate to reassert some semblance of moral leadership, regrouped behind the supposed crisis of climate change as concocted by the AGW lobby, behind which lurk huge corporate interests such as the nuclear power companies. Radicals from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, putting forward proposals for upping the Third World’s income from its primary commodities, were displaced by climate shills in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC. The end consequence, as represented by Copenhagen’s money-grubbing power plays over “carbon mitigation” funding, has been a hideous travesty of that earlier vision of a global redistribution of resources.
Such is the downward swoop of our neoliberal era. In Oslo Obama went one better than Carter who, you may recall , proclaimed in 1977 that his crusade for energy conservation was “the moral equivalent of war.” Obama trumped this with his claim that war is the moral equivalent of peace. As he was proffering this absurdity, Copenhagen was hosting its global warming jamboree, surely the most outlandish foray into intellectual fantasizing since the fourth-century Christian bishops assembled for the Council of Nicaea in 325AD to debate whether God the father was supreme or had to share equal status in the pecking order of eternity with his Son and with the Holy Ghost.
Shortly before the Copenhagen summit the proponents of anthropogenic - human-caused - global warming (AGW) were embarrassed by a whistleblower who put on the web over a thousand emails either sent from or received at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia headed by Dr Phil Jones, who has since stepped down from his post - whether temporarily or permanently remains to be seen. The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. At that time the supposed menace to the planet and to mankind was global cooling, a source of interest to oil companies for obvious reasons.
Coolers transmuted into warmers in the early 80s and the CRU became one of the climate modeling grant mills supplying the tainted data from which the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC ) has concocted its reports which have been since their inception - particularly the executive summaries—carefully contrived political initiatives disguised as objective science. Soon persuaded of the potential of AGW theories for their bottom line, the energy giants effortlessly recalibrated their stance, and as of 2008 the CRU included among its financial supporters Shell and BP, also the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex Ltd, a company in the nuclear waste business.
After some initial dismay at what has been called, somewhat unoriginally, “Climategate” the reaction amid progressive circles - 99 per cent inhabited by True Believers in anthropogenic global warming - has been to take up defensive positions around the proposition that deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate and, although embarrassing, the CRU emails in no way compromise the core pretensions of their cause.
Scientific research is indeed saturated with exactly this sort of chicanery. But the CRU emails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers - always absurd to those who have studied the debate in any detail - that they commanded the moral high ground. It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as intellectual whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate modeling enterprises. There’s now a vast archipelago of research departments and “institutes of climate change” across academia, with a huge vested interest in defending the AGW model. It’s where the money is. Scepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker.
By the same token magazines and newspapers, reeling amidst the deadly challenge of the internet to their circulation and advertising base have seen proselytizing for the menace of man-made global warming, as a circulation enhancer - a vital ingredient in alluring a younger audience. Hence the abandoned advocacy of AGW by Scientific American, the New Scientist, Nature, Science, not to mention the New York Times (whose lead reporter on this topic has been Andrew Revkin, who has a personal literary investment in the AGW thesis, as a glance at his publications on Amazon will attest.)
Many of the landmines in the CRU emails tend to buttress long-standing charges by skeptics that statistical chicanery by Prof Michael Mann and others occluded the highly inconvenient Medieval Warm Period, running from 800 to 1300 AD, with temperatures in excess of the highest we saw in the twentieth century, a historical fact which made nonsense of the thesis that global warming could be attributed to the auto-industrial civilization of the twentieth century. Here’s Keith Briffa, of the CRU, letting his hair down in an email written on September 22, 1999: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”
Now, in the fall of 1999 the IPCC was squaring up to its all-important “Summary for Policy-Makers” - essentially a press release - one that eventually featured the notorious graph flatlining into non-existence the Medieval Warm Period and displaying a terrifying, supposedly unprecedented surge in twentieth century temperatures. Briffa’s reconstruction of temperature changes, one showing a mid- to late-twentieth-century decline, was regarded by Mann, in a September 22, 1999, e-mail to the CRU, as a “problem and a potential distraction/detraction.” So Mann, a lead author on this chapter of the IPCC report, simply deleted the embarrassing post-1960 portion of Briffa’s reconstruction. The CRU’s Jones happily applauded Mann’s deceptions in an e-mail in which he crowed over “Mike’s Nature trick.” Like politicians trying to recover from a racist outburst, AGW apologists say the “trick” was taken out of context. It wasn’t.
Other landmines include particularly telling emails from Kenneth Trenberth, a senior scientist and the head of the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. On October 14, 2009, he wrote to the CRU’s Tom: “How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
In other words, only a few weeks before the Copenhagen summit, here is a scientist in the inner AGW circle disclosing that “we are not close to knowing” whether the supposedly proven agw model of the earth’s climate actually works, and that therefore “geo-engineering” - global carbon-mitigation, for example—is “hopeless”.
This admission edges close to acknowledgement of a huge core problem - that “greenhouse” theory and the vaunted greenhouse models violate the second law of thermodynamics which says that a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body XX. Greenhouse gasses in the cold upper atmosphere, even when warmed a bit by absorbed infrared, cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space. Readers interested in the science can read mathematical physicist Gerhard Gerlich’s and Ralf Tscheuchner’s detailed paper published in The International Journal of Modern Physics, updated in January , 2009, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”.
“For the last eleven years,” as Paul Hudson, climate correspondent of the BBC said on October 9, “we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.” In fact recent data from many monitors including the CRU, available on climate4you.com show that the average temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans near the surface of the earth has decreased significantly for the last 8 years or so. CO2 is a benign gas essential to life, occurring in past eras, long before the advent of manmade emissions, at five times present levels. Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with those emissions of CO2, the latter being entirely trivial in the global balance of carbon.
As for the nightmare of vanishing ice caps and inundating seas, the average Arctic ice coverage has essentially remained unchanged for the last 20 years, and has actually increased slightly over the last 3 years. The rate of rise of sea level has declined significantly over the last 3 years, and its average rate of rise for the last 20 years is about the same as it has been for the last 15,000 years, that is, since the last glacial cooling ended and the earth, without help from mankind, entered the current interglacial warming period. The sea rise of that still on-going interglacial warm spell, among other things, flooded the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska to form the Bering Straits - without which we might be a province of Russia today. So much for the terrors of sea rise.
The battles in Nicaea in 325 were faith-based, with no relation to science or reason. seventeen centuries later, so were the premises of the Copenhagen summit, that the planet faces catastrophe warming caused by a man-made CO2 build-up and that human intervention - geo-engineering-- could avert the coming disaster. Properly speaking, the Copenhagen dogmata are a farce. In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, they are a terrible tragedy. See post here.
&bigDeclCap=Hundreds+of+passengers+spent+the+night+sleeping+in+Dallas+Fort+Worth+Airport+near+Dallas%2c+Friday%2c+Dec.+25%2c+2009+after+a+winter+storm+forced+the+cancellation+of+many+flights+from+Dallas.+The+Star-Telegram++newspaper+said+Dallas-Fort+Worth+was+experiencing+its+first+White+Christmas+in+more+than+80+years.++(AP+Photo%2fJ+Pat+Carter)&bigCred=&bigUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ajc.com%2fmultimedia%2fdynamic%2f00358%2fHoliday_Storm_JPEG_358638c.jpg&superSizeImage=y){kind=link}