It is a bit early in the year to staking out a position in the race for boneheaded move of the year in the climate wars, but NASA GISS has done just that but doubling down on its prediction that 2009 or 2010 will be the warmest on record. One might think that the surprising 2008 global temperatures (i.e., surprising to folks making short-term predictions at least) would motivate some greater appreciation for uncertainty. Not so. Here is what NASA GISS says:
“. . . in response to popular demand, we comment on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record. Specifically, the question has been asked whether the relatively cool 2008 alters the expectation we expressed in last year’s summary that a new global record was likely within the next 2-3 years (now the next 1-2 years). . . Given our expectation of the next El Nino beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.”
Joe Romm takes the startling position that the fortunes of climate policy may well depend on how temperature evolves over that period: “for better or worse, what happens to temperatures in the next few years may well affect just how much climate action that we are going to take”
Joe might ask why it is that short-term behavior of the climate system has political meaning. I have some ideas. Offering predictions of the evolution of global temperatures on timescales of years is foolish, (especially so when you also control the dataset used to evaluate the predictions). Explicitly associating the evoloution of temperatures with political outcomes on such a short timescale is also foolish.
Here are some tips for NASA GISS and advocates for action on carbon dioxide emissions:
1) Maybe we can predict the climate over timescales of one to two years, and maybe we can’t. Such forecasts should be viewed as highly experiemental, and the track record of such forecasts is not so good.
2) Accelerating decarbonization of the global economy makes good sense, regardless of the evolution of global temperatures over the next 1, 2 or 10 years. As my father and I wrote in 2006:
There is no greater danger to support for action on important issues of human impacts on the environment than an overselling of what climate science can provide. If the climate behaves in ways that are unexpected or surprising it will be more than just credibility that is lost. Advocates for action should think carefully when gambling with the unknown predictive abilities of climate models. The human influence on the climate system is real, but the climate may not always cooperate. Read more here.
Icecap Note: Today Lubos Motl posted on evidence than GISS was manually adjusting data (cheating) while the signature was not there for the satellite data sources. Anthony Watts took more of a wait and see position here. Ironically, the same day, as Andy Revkin posted today here, Hansen won the AMS 2009 Carl Gustaf Rossby Research Medal “for outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena.” It seems that with Tom Karl as its last President and now Hansen as an award winner, AMS needs only to find an award to provide Phil Jones to cover all three individuals that are manipulating the data to keep the global warming hoax alive and the grant gravy train funding for the universities and AMS going. Its another sad day and embarrassment for a once great society that has lost its way.
’Lou Dobbs Tonight’ segment dismisses manmade global warming theory—‘effects of greenhouse gas have a small impact on climate change.’ If you’re fortunate enough to have it - don’t sell that oceanfront property for fear that the icecaps will melt, and rising seas swamping your property. A segment on CNN’s Jan. 13 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” explored the possibility that earth isn’t warming, but is, in fact, cooling.
Dobbs cited National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data dating back to 1880 which showed a spike in mean temperature over land and ocean. However, Joseph D’Aleo, the executive director of International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP) questioned that data by comparing it to more modern reliable satellite data, when ask if he “quibbled” with the NOAA data’s representation. “Yes, I do,” D’Aleo replied. “In fact, if you look at the satellite data, which is the most reliable data, the best coverage of the globe - 2008 was the 14th coldest in 30 years. That doesn’t jive with the tenth warmest in 159 years in the Hadley data set or 113 or 114 years in the NOAA set.”
D’Aleo’s organization, ICECAP, is one of 33 groups co-sponsoring The Heartland Institute’s 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10. D’Aleo also appeared on Dobbs’ program on Jan. 5 and said that a lot of the research promoting the theory of anthropogenic or manmade climate change is too short-sighted. According to D’Aleo, the spike in NOAA climate data is a result of location changes where the data is recorded. He contended that with the proportional increase of urban data used versus rural data, the overall effect was a warming trend. “Those global dat a sets are contaminated by the fact that two-third of the globe’s stations dropped out in 1990,” D’Aleo added. “Most of them rural and they performed no urban adjustment. And, Lou, you know, your people in your studio know that if they live in the suburbs of New York City, it’s a lot colder in rural areas than it is in the city. Now we have more urban effect in those numbers reflecting, that show up in that enhanced or exaggerated warming in the global data set.”
Another factor contributing to the global cooling period is the decline in sunspot activity according to Jay Lehr, a senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute. “[I] think more importantly it is to look at the sun’s output, and in recent years, we’ve seen very, very low sunspot activity, and we are definitely - in my mind - not only in a cooling period, we’re going to be staying in it for a couple of decades,” Lehr said.
Lehr said the cooling trend was a positive and hoped it would have and impact on legislators to resist the temptation to pass and sort of climate change regulation that could further hurt the U.S. economy. “And I see it as a major advantage, although I think we will be able to adapt to it, I’m hopeful that this change in the sun’s output will put some common sense into the legislature - not to pass any dramatic cap-and-trade or carbon tax legislation that will set us in a far deeper economic hole,” Lehr added. “I believe Mr. Obama and his economic team are well placed to dig us out of this recession in the next 18 months to two years. But, I think if we pass any dramatic legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, the recession is going to last quite a few more years and we’ll come out of it with a lower standard of living as a result on very tenuous scientific grounds.”
Lehr pointed out the “silliness” of not including the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate - a factor often neglected by many of the global climate change alarmist. He also cited CNN meteorologist Chad Myers, who said the theory of manmade global warming was “arrogant” on Dec. 18, 2008. “It just seems silly to not recognize that the earth’s climate is driven by the sun,” Lehr said. “Your Chad Myers about a month ago pointed out it’s really arrogant for mankind to think he controls the climate or the universe. Only 4 percent of our greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Ninety percent is water vapor which we have no impact over.” Lehr told Dobbs it would be a mistake to enact policy that was intended to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as Obama’s Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations committee on Jan. 13 in her confirmation hearing that the incoming Obama administration intended to do. “And, if we were to try to reduce greenhouse gases with China and India controlling way more than we do and they have boldly said they are not going to cripple their economy by following suit, our impact would have no change in temperature at all,” Lehr added. “In Europe they started carbon cap and trade in 2005. They’ve had no reduction in greenhouse gases, but a 5 percent to 10 percent increase in the [cost of] standard of living. We don’t want to go that route.” Read more here.
Last winter was extremely snowy for the Northern Hemisphere and indeed the fourth week in January had a record for that week in the record that extends back to 1967.
The snowcover extent in millions of square kilometers is shown for week 4 in 2008. Larger image here.
The snowcover for week 1, 2009 is now available from Rutgers Snow Lab. It is the highest level since the first year of the record 1967, a little ahead of 1985.
We are running 1.37 million square kilometers ahead of last year in the first week of January. In week 2, 1967, snowcover diminished and so, our cover may become a record next week.
Will we exceed the 2008 record? Possibly. Regardless, two years in a row with record or near record hemispheric snow tells you something is changing with our climate. This week’s arctic cold in the United States will have many taking notice.
By Craig Isherwood, Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Prime Minister Rudd’s emissions reduction target condemns Australia to economic suicide, on the basis of the lie of man-made global warming, Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood charged today. “I can tell you, most scientists know that a man-made climate disaster is absolute nonsense,” Mr Isherwood said. “Don’t believe the lying mainstream media or Hollywood’s ‘climate porn” - this climate dictatorship is run by the same City of London/Wall Street bankers who caused the current global financial crisis. “The fact is, global warming stopped a decade ago and this year has been much colder than most. Earlier this year, China had its coldest winter for a hundred years; Britain is now having its coldest start to winter since 1976. And here in Australia, Perth has just had its coldest November since 1971.
“The main players pushing this quack science are bankers, journalists and big business bosses - not scientists,” he said. “Take for example Al Gore, whose angle is turning emissions trading into profits for the multibillion-dollar hedge fund he runs with former Goldman Sachs boss David Blood; mining tycoon Ross Garnaut, whose previous public contribution was the tariff report in the 1980s that destroyed Australia’s manufacturing industries; climate change pin-up boy Warwick McKibbin, a board member of the Reserve Bank; and don’t forget Britain’s Lord Nicholas Stern, former chief economist and Senior Vice President of the World Bank. “Meanwhile, the thousands of scientists who are shouting from the rooftops opposing this global warming swindle are being largely blacked out of the news media. “Read what some of Australia’s leading scientists are saying, and get behind the CEC’s fight to stop this insanity,” Mr Isherwood challenged.
“When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.”
Dr. David Evans, consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
“AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a fiction and a very dangerous fiction.”
William Kininmonth, head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre (1986-1998), Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology (1982-1998).
“[There is] an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence. It is as if one is doing one’s colleagues a great disservice in dissenting and perhaps derailing the gravy train. The global warming monopoly is seriously bad for science”
David Packham, former CSIRO principle research scientist, senior research fellow in a climate group at Monash University, and an officer in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
“It is my strong belief that CSIRO has passed its use-by date. The organisation that bears the name of CSIRO has very little in common with the organisation that I joined in 1971, one that produced so much of value for Australia during its first seven decades. As an example, consider the Garnaut Report [on global warming], possibly the longest economic suicide note in Australia’s history. It is based on the dire predictions of CSIRO’s modelling programs.”
Dr. Art Raiche, former CSIRO Chief Research Scientist.
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion. I contend that those professional scientists and advisors that are knowingly complicit in climate science fraud and all that is derived from it, will continue to be exposed by the science itself.”
Dr. Guy LeBlanc Smith, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.”
Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.
“Many distinguished scientists refuse to participate in the IPCC process, and others have resigned from it, because in the end the advice that the panel provides to governments is political and not scientific.”
Dr. Bob Carter, Paleoclimate scientist, James Cook University and former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council.
“What terrifies me is the way the state governments in Australia with their emissions trading they are contemplating using the superannuation funds to invest in carbon trading - they’re going to lose their money!”
Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee, former dean of engineering and pro-vice chancellor at Monash University.
American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt - the last living man to walk on the moon - is the latest scientist to be added to the roster of more than 70 skeptics who will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10, 2009. The conference expects to draw 1,000 attendees including private-sector business people, state and federal legislators and officials, policy analysts, media, and students.
Schmitt, who earned a PhD from Harvard in geology, resigned in November from the Planetary Society, an international non-profit organization devoted to inspiring “the people of Earth to explore other worlds, understand our own, and seek life elsewhere.” He is the twelfth person to walk on the Moon; as of 2008, of the nine living moonwalkers, he and his crewmate Eugene Cernan were the last two to walk there. “As a geologist, I love Earth observations,” Schmitt wrote, “But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a ‘consensus’ that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. ‘Consensus,’ as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making...”
Schmitt will be joined by more than 70 other economists, public officials, legal experts, and climate specialists calling attention to new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the 20th Century primarily was man-made and has reached crisis proportions. Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, producer of the event along with more than 30 co-sponsors, explained, “At the first conference last March, we proved that the skeptics in the debate over global warming constitute the center or mainstream of the scientific community while alarmists are on the fringe.
“Now in the past nine months, the science has grown even more convincing that global warming is not a crisis. Also suggesting this ‘crisis’ is over are opinion polls in the U.S. and around the globe and political events, including the decisive defeat of ‘cap-and-trade’ legislation in the U.S. Senate last spring. The crisis has been cancelled by sound science and common-sense.”
In additon to Schmidt, speakers will include Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr. Roy Spencer. Dr. William Gray, John Coleman, Dr. Paul Reiter, Dr. Bod Carter, Benny Peiser, Christopher Monckton, Dr. Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre as well as Anthony Watts. Read full release here.
--------------------------------------
Photo courtesy of the Energy Tribune. Also courtesy of Responsible Energy this video on the The Obama Energy Plan, what can we expect? in miniature below:
