Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate, is a remarkably flexible ideology. Calling it “global warming” for many years, advocates then renamed the crisis “climate change” after the unexpected cooling of global surface temperatures from 2002-2009. Last month, John Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, urged everyone to start using the term “global climate disruption.” What’s next—“catastrophic climate calamity”?

Cape Dwarf Chameleon—Photo by Sharp

Decreasing snowfall was once claimed as an indication of man-made climate change. After years of declining snowfall in England, Dr. David Viner, senior scientist at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia, predicted that winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event.” Others predicted that snow cover in the United Kingdom would disappear by 2020. But last winter, at the same time that much of the eastern U.S. received record snowfalls, the U.K. was entirely blanketed by snow, as shown in the following NASA satellite photograph—a rare occurrence.

The heavy snow in England was very embarrassing for the U.K. Meteorological Office, which had predicted a mild winter. So what have the alarmists done? Attend almost any lecture today by an advocate of man-made global warming and you’ll find that “heavy snowfall” is now included on the list of impacts from climate change. Now both heavy snow and lack of snow are evidence of man-made warming.

To anyone who studies geologic history, the 1.3F rise in global surface temperatures over the last century is unremarkable. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations calls this rise “unprecedented” and labels it evidence of man-made climate change. This recent temperature rise is well within the +/-2.5F range of Earth’s average surface temperature over the last ten thousand years. It’s a remarkably small change, given the titanic forces exerted on our world by the sun, the planets, and Earth’s own terrestrial forces of weather and ocean cycles. Even though the average surface temperature of Earth has stayed in a narrow range, local temperatures vary widely. In Chicago, for example, the average annual range is from about -5F to +95F. Such wide local variation means that a “hundred-year weather event” is occurring somewhere on our planet at any given time.

Climatism uses these local weather variations, and increasingly the term “climate volatility,” to raise alarm. A recent example is the August report from the World Bank warning that “climate volatility” is expected to “worsen poverty vulnerability in developing countries.” This year, we’ve had drought in Russia and record floods in Pakistan. Both occurrences were seized upon by climate alarmists as evidence of increasing man-made climate volatility. Record cold temperatures in July in Bolivia, which killed millions of fish in South American rivers, were ignored. Natural local weather events, selectively amplified, provide an endless source of fodder for promoting the coercive governmental policies of Climatism.

Yet, scientific evidence shows that weather would be less extreme in a warmer world. Peer-reviewed studies on droughts, floods, hurricanes and storms show that 20th Century occurrences have been of equal or lesser severity than similar events in past centuries, when Earth’s climate was in the cooler period of the Little Ice Age. The bulk of science shows that today’s climate is not more volatile as alarmists claim.

The latest initiative from the climate change chameleon is to frame global warming as detrimental to the health of U.S. citizens. On September 28, a joint letter from 120 of America’s health organizations was delivered to President Obama, supporting efforts by the Environmental Regulatory Agency to regulate greenhouse gases. The letter claims that man-made global warming is now a U.S. public health issue especially for “older adults.” Yet senior citizens continue to retire to Florida, Texas, and Arizona rather than North Dakota and Minnesota. Don’t they know that warmer temperatures are a serious health risk? See post here.

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.

Esteemed physicist Harold Lewis is calling global warming the ‘most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen.’ His resignation letter could mark the unraveling of one of the great scientific mistakes in history and the beginning of a needed reformation of the scientific community.

In this 1872 painting by Ferdinand Pauwels, Martin Luther nails his “95 Theses” to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, Germany on Oct. 31, 1517

Five centuries ago, a German priest challenged the reigning theological “consensus” about the clerical sale of indulgences, unraveling one of the great religious scams in history and inspiring the Protestant Reformation.

This month, a senior American physicist challenged the reigning scientific “consensus” about global warming. His action may prove to be the unraveling one of the great scientific mistakes in history and the beginning of a greatly needed reformation of the scientific community.

Revulsion over fraud

Just as Martin Luther paid the price for his dissent, Dr. Harold Lewis is experiencing a sharp backlash in the wake of his Oct. 6 resignation letter from the prestigious American Physical Society (APS). After 67 years as a member, Dr. Lewis - emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara - parted ways because of his “revulsion” over the climate change “fraud” perpetrated by what he felt was science distorted by money.

Other esteemed scientists have in recent years put forward compelling critiques of the technical and scientific case for anthropogenic climate change. Dr. Lewis’s resignation letter is not such a critique. Rather, it is a condemnation of the way ideology, politics, and money have suppressed dissenting viewpoint and distorted the very nature of scientific inquiry. Like the so-called Climategate controversy, in which hacked emails from a group of climate scientists revealed political and personal factors influencing scientific work, Lewis’ letter lays bare the less-than-noble motivations that seem to be driving discussion of climate-change research today.

The APS position: ‘incontrovertible’

To understand Lewis’s letter, you first have to understand the APS position on climate change. The APS, like several other major scientific organizations, supports the theory of man-caused global warming. Its official statement from 2007 read, in part: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.... The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”

This statement troubled Lewis deeply. These key excerpts from Lewis’s resignation letter explain why:

“[T]he money flood has become the raison d’etre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

Hal

This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg church door.

Lewis is no lightweight

Most people don’t know who Lewis is. He’s a quiet man, and he hasn’t sought publicity in his career. He was a student of Robert Oppenheimer, “father” of the atomic bomb, and was active in the field of safety of nuclear power plants, where being wrong had grave consequences. He worked with (the late) noted climatologist Stephen Schneider when he chaired a 1985 task force on nuclear winter.

In short, he’s no lightweight, and he’s well respected in the field of physics.

Lewis and 260 other members of APS signed a petition, and battled within the organization, following the APS constitutional rules, in an attempt to get the APS position statement on global warming considered for revision. The effort was ignored, stonewalled, and rebuked. After years of trying, he finally had enough.

Lewis must have been wrestling with his conscience for a considerable time before concluding that resignation was his only option.

And like Luther, with all other options extinguished, he figuratively nailed his letter to the door of the organization that had become so entrenched in its own consensus that it couldn’t even address the concerns of its own members.

Luther’s brave act started the Reformation of the Catholic church. Lewis’s act could very well begin the reformation of climate science.

See story here.

Anthony Watts is a former television meteorologist and editor of the blog “Watts Up With That?”

Blowing in the wind: there isn’t the faintest chance that any of the Government’s renewable energy targets will be met

Is there any subject on which more nonsense is talked and written than the mindblowing proposals being bandied about by the Government for meeting our EU target of generating, within 10 years, 30 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources? (That is roughly six times the current total, meaning that we have by far the most challenging target of any country in Europe.)

For instance, the industry regulator, Ofgem, recently announced that by 2020 we will need to have spent 40 billion pounds on connecting up our new renewable energy sources to the national grid - 4 billion pounds a year. Alistair Buchanan, the head of Ofgem, blithely claimed, on the BBC Today programme and elsewhere, that this would only add 6 pounds a year to the average electricity bill of Britain’s 25 million households. Yet ten seconds with a calculator shows that the cost per household of that 4 billion pounds a year works out to 160 pounds.

On top of this, the Government wants us to have, by 2020, offshore wind farms with a capacity of 33 gigawatts (1 gigawatt = 1,000 megawatts). At the current capital cost of 3 million per megawatt of capacity, this would cost another 100 billion (10 billion a year, or 400 a year for each household), to be paid for through our electricity bills. However, even if they could all be built, they would produce on average only around a quarter of that amount of electricity.

Add in 8 billion a year (or 320 per household) which, the Government forecasts, we will be paying by then through its ludicrously generous feed-in tariff for solar power and, for these measures alone, our total annual bill for the dream of meeting our EU renewables target would be at least 22 billion. That’s considerably more than the entire wholesale cost of Britain’s electricity generated from all sources last year, at 18.6 billion.

In other words, these measures alone would much more than double our electricity bills, for producing on average - and very unreliably - barely as much energy as we get from a handful of conventional power stations.

In reality, there isn’t the faintest chance that any of the Government’s targets will be met. But the massive diversion of resources that it is doing its best to encourage will not help when it comes to filling the looming 40 per cent gap in our electricity supplies, as 17 of the older nuclear and coal-fired power stations are forced to close. There is virtually nothing, then, in these plans to ensure that we can keep Britain’s lights on.

Read more here.

CAUAYAN, Philippines (Oct. 18)—The strongest cyclone in years to buffet the Philippines knocked out communications and power as residents took shelter Monday, while flooding in Vietnam swept away a bus and 20 of its passengers, including a girl pulled from her mother’s grasp by the raging waters.

Enlarged here.

Super Typhoon Megi, crossing the northern Philippines, was expected to add to the already heavy rains that have fallen on much of Asia. In China, authorities evacuated 140,000 people from a coastal province ahead of the typhoon.

Surface map 00GMT Monday, October 18, 2010, ECMWF

Megi could later hit Vietnam, where flooding has caused 30 deaths in recent days, in addition to those missing and feared dead after a bus was snatched off a road by surging currents Monday.

Megi packed sustained winds of 140 miles (225 kilometers) per hour and gusts of 162 mph (260 kph) as it made landfall midday Monday at Palanan Bay in Isabela province, felling trees and utility poles and cutting off power, phone and Internet services in many areas. It appeared to be weakening while crossing the mountains of the Philippines’ main northern island of Luzon.

With more than 3,600 Filipinos riding out the typhoon in sturdy school buildings, town halls, churches and relatives’ homes, roads in and out of coastal Isabela province, about 320 kilometers (200 miles) northeast of Manila, were deserted and blocked by collapsed trees and power lines.

One man who had just rescued his water buffalo slipped and fell into a river and probably drowned, said Bonifacio Cuarteros, an official with the Cagayan provincial disaster agency.

As it crashed ashore, the typhoon whipped up huge waves. There was zero visibility and radio reports said the wind was so powerful that people could not take more than a step at a time. Ships and fishing vessels were told to stay in ports, and several domestic and international flights were canceled.

Thousands of military reserve officers and volunteers were on standby, along with helicopters, including six Chinooks that were committed by U.S. troops holding war exercises with Filipino soldiers near Manila, said Benito Ramos, a top disaster-response official.

“This is like preparing for war,” Ramos, a retired army general, told The Associated Press. “We know the past lessons, and we’re aiming for zero casualties.”

In July, an angry President Benigno Aquino III fired the head of the weather bureau for failing to predict that a typhoon would hit Manila. That storm killed more than 100 people in Manila and outlying provinces.

This time, authorities sounded the alarm early and ordered evacuations and the positioning of emergency relief and food supplies days before the typhoon hit. The capital was expected to avoid any direct hit, though schools were closed.

Megi was the most powerful typhoon to hit the Philippines in four years, government forecasters say. A 2006 howler with 155-mph (250-kph) winds set off mudslides that buried entire villages, killing about 1,000 people.

In central Vietnam, officials said 20 people on a bus were swept away Monday by strong currents from a river flooded by recent rains unrelated to Megi, while another 17 survived by swimming or clinging to trees or power poles.

One survivor treaded water for 3 and one half hours as the current pushed her downstream and she was forced to let go of her daughter due to exhaustion. The girl is among the missing.

Officials said 30 other people died in central Vietnam from flooding over the weekend, and five remain missing.

Megi could add to the misery.

“People are exhausted,” Vietnamese disaster official Nguyen Ngoc Giai said by telephone from Quang Binh province. “Many people have not even returned to their flooded homes from previous flooding, while many others who returned home several days ago were forced to be evacuated again.”

China’s National Meteorological Center said Megi was expected to enter the South China Sea on Tuesday, threatening southeasterern coastal provinces. The center issued its second-highest alert for potential “wild winds and huge waves,” warning vessels to take shelter and urging authorities to brace for emergencies.

Floods triggered by heavy rains forced nearly 140,000 people to evacuate from homes in the southern island province of Hainan, where heavy rains left thousands homeless over the weekend, the official Xinhua News Agency reported Monday.

Thailand also reported flooding that submerged thousands of homes and vehilce and halting train service. No casualties were reported, but nearly 100 elephants were evacuated from a popular tourist attraction north of the capital. Read more here.

Reference:
Christy, J.R., Herman, B., Pielke Sr., R., Klotzbach, P., McNider, R.T., Hnilo, J.J., Spencer, R.W., Chase, T., and Douglass, D. 2010. What do observational datasets say about modeled troposphere temperature trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2: 2148-2169. Testing of climate model results is an important but difficult problem. One of the key model results is the presence of a tropical troposphere “hotspot” in which the troposphere warms faster than the surface under conditions of enhanced greenhouse gas forcing. Previous studies have produced disagreement over whether data were consistent with models on this question. In this study, the authors made several advances by doing the following: 1) enhancing the data for surface trends, 2) extending the data to a 31-year length, 3) evaluating the wind-based temperature estimates, and 4) clarifying the meaning of “best estimate” multi-data warming trends from data and models.

Two prior studies had derived tropospheric temperature trends from the Thermal Wind Equation (TWE)—which uses radiosonde measurements of wind speed to calculate temperature—on the theoretical basis that warmer air should move faster than cooler air. They found that there were biases in the data for this type of calculation. For example, particularly for older radiosonde observations, on days when the upper wind was stronger, the balloons would tend to blow out of receiver range. This created a bias by causing missing data for high winds for older observations, leading to a spurious warm trend over time. Overall, the TWE-based trends were three times greater than trends derived from all other types of data. In addition, they did not agree with other wind data, and were also based on much sparser data. This type of data was therefore not used in the authors’ analysis, which also identified a small warm bias in the RSS satellite data that was explained by Christy and his colleagues.

The next innovation was to use the Scaling Ratio (SR), which is the ratio of atmospheric temperature trend to surface temperature trend. The SR attempts to factor out the effect of the lack of actual (historic) El Niño’s or other oscillations in climate model runs, and different such simulated events in different computer runs.

The nine researchers found that the SR for real-world data was 0.8 plus or minus 0.3, whereas the model simulations had a SR of 1.38 plus or minus 0.08 (a significant difference). That is, the data show a lower rate of warming for the lower troposphere than for the surface (though not statisically different), whereas the models show amplification, as theorized. In fact, the SR value for the middle troposphere data was 0.4, which is even more different from the model predictions. Only the SR for RSS data, which has the documented warming bias noted above, overlaps with any model SR results.

This study thus suggests that current state-of-the-art climate models have something fundamentally wrong with how they represent earth’s atmosphere.

See post here.