By Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

Some critics of the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) urge that its reliance on a consensus of scientists is false, while others simply point out that regardless, science is never decided by consensus. Some critics rely on fresh analyses of radiosonde and satellite data to conclude that water vapor feedback is negative, contrary to its representation in Global Climate Models (GCMs). Some argue that the AGW model must be false because the climate has cooled over the last decade while atmospheric CO2 continued its rise. Researchers discovered an error in the reduction of data, the widely publicized Hockey Stick Effect, that led to a false conclusion that the Little Ice Age was not global. Some argue that polar ice is not disappearing, that polar bears are thriving, and that sea level is not rising any significant amount.

To the public, these arguments cast a pall over AGW claims. But in a last analysis, they merely weigh indirectly against published positions, weigh against the art of data reduction, or rely on short-term data trends in a long-term forecast. Such charges cannot prevail against the weight of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its network of associated specialists in the field, principally climatologists, should they ever choose to respond categorically. Moreover, these proponents can support their positions with hundreds running into thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers, plus the official IPCC publications, to weigh against tissue-paper-thin arguments, many published online with at best informal and on-going peer review.

On the other hand, what can carry the day are the errors and omissions included in the AGW model with respect to real and demonstrable processes that affect Earth’s climate. Here is a list of eight major modeling faults for which IPCC should be held to account.

1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural background. Because IPCC models are admittedly nonlinear (Third Assessment Report, 1.3.2), the response of the models to the sum of manmade and background forces is not equal to the sum of the background response and the response to manmade forces.

A computer run, for example, that assumes the natural forces are in equilibrium, and then calculates the effects of a slug of manmade CO2 that dissolves over the years is not valid. The run needs to be made with the natural outgassing process and anthropogenic emissions entering the atmosphere simultaneously to be circulated and absorbed through the process of the solubility of CO2 in water.

2. IPCC errs to discard on-going natural processes at initialization. IPCC initializes its GCMs to year 1750 in an assumed state of equilibrium. At this time, Earth is warming and CO2, while lagging the warming, is increasing, both at near maximum rates. This initialization causes the models to attribute natural increases in temperature and CO2 to man. The error occurs not because the models fail to reproduce the on-going natural effects. It occurs because subsequent measurements of temperature and CO2 concentration, to which IPCC fits its modeled AGW response, necessarily include both natural and manmade effects.

Earth is currently about 2C to 4C below the historic peak in temperature seen in the Vostok record covering the four previous warm epochs. IPCC models turn off the natural warming, then calculate a rise attributed to man over the next century of 3.5C.
....
8. IPCC errs to model climate as regulated by greenhouse gases instead of by albedo. IPCC rejects the published cosmic ray model for cloud cover, preferring to model cloud cover as constant. It does so in spite of the strong correlation of cloud cover to cosmic ray intensity, and the correlation of cosmic ray intensity to global surface temperature. Consequently, IPCC does not model the dominant regulator of Earth’s climate, the negative feedback of cloud albedo, powerful because it shutters the Sun.

By omitting dynamic cloud albedo, IPCC overestimates the greenhouse effect by about an order of magnitude (computation pending publication), and fails to understand that Earth’s climate today is regulated by cloud albedo and not the greenhouse effect, much less by CO2. Read all 8 fatal flaws here.

Physicist and engineer Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman, a former Division Chief Scientist for Hughes Aircraft Company, is an expert modeler of microwave and millimeter wave propagation in the atmosphere solar radiation, thermal energy in avionics.

By Lorrie Goldstein

Few things are as frightening as governments that don’t want to be confused by the facts because their minds are made up. So it is with U.S. President Barack Obama and most Democrats, who, determined to create a domestic carbon cap-and-trade market, which Canada will inevitably be forced to join, are rushing into this useless and discredited “tool” for addressing man-made climate change, like lemmings going over a cliff. It’s not as if we don’t know what’s going to happen.

Based on the experience of the world’s largest carbon trading market—Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), created in January, 2005—we know exactly. First, electricity prices paid by already hard-hit North American consumers are going to rise even higher and faster than they are now. Second, giant energy utilities, hedge fund managers and speculators are going to make a fortune on the backs of ordinary taxpayers, from the moment the government puts a price on emitting carbon dioxide.

Third, emissions by major industries—which cap-and-trade is supposed to reduce—will continue to rise under normal economic conditions, as they did in the ETS from 2005 to 2007. (Preliminary data from the European Union released yesterday shows 2008 emissions dropped, but that was mainly due to the global recession, since the less demand there is for goods and services, the less energy it takes to produce them.)

Power up

Moody’s Investors Service predicts U.S. electricity rates will rise up to 30% due to cap-and-trade alone, and “the vast majority” of that will be paid by ordinary citizens. By contrast, large industrial emitters will pass along cost hikes to consumers, plus win favourable concessions from government bureaucrats, desperate to do the bidding of their political masters by getting the system up and running quickly, no matter how flawed.  That’s what happened in Europe. It’s why the ETS is a fiasco.

The myth about cap-and-trade is that it pits environmentalists and “green” politicians against big business, using market forces to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is nonsense. In fact, all three become allies in assaulting the wallets of ordinary citizens. As Democratic Rep. John Dingell, of Michigan told CNN last month: “I attended a recent meeting of an organization interested in (climate change legislation) and guess who it was? It was a bunch of good-hearted Wall Streeters getting ready to cut a fat hog.” Added Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington: “Starting with Enron and now the current financial meltdown, energy markets have been a target-rich environment for (undeserved profits).  We don’t need to solve our carbon problems by creating another fiscal crisis because we have a trading platform that has lots of holes and ends up being exploited.”

Supporters

Not only was Enron an early supporter of cap-and-trade, so are many firms involved in the ongoing global financial meltdown, including AIG, which has received $173 billion in federal bailouts so far; Morgan Stanley ($25 billion); JP Morgan Chase & Co. ($25 billion); Merrill Lynch ($10 billion) and Goldman Sachs, which got a chunk of the AIG bailout because of its financial relationship with it.  As Republican Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon observed: “This is a disaster in the making. If you like the bubbles of the technology market and the housing market, I predict you’ll love the bubble that will come from the cap-and-trade market.” Indeed. See post here.

And note how not only will tax-and-trade savage our pocketbooks and feed another speculative bubble, but this study suggests for every green job created, the U.S. can expect to lose 2.2 other real jobs.

By Andrew Ward and Sarah O’Connor in Washington, Financial Times

President Barack Obama’s plan to push through climate change legislation as part of his $3,600bn federal budget appeared all but dead on Thursday after the Senate ruled out fast-track action on the issue.

A Republican-sponsored amendment passed on Wednesday night ruled that Congress should not try to set up a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as part of the budget “reconciliation” process.

While not binding, the amendment, which drew support from more than 20 Democratic senators, showed the Obama administration has little chance of forcing through climate change mea-sures as part of the budget.

It also underscored the difficulty that Mr Obama will face winning support for his proposed cap-and-trade system even outside of the budget process, raising the possibility of the US arriving empty-handed at the next round of United Nations talks on climate change in Copenhagen in December.

Mr Obama had wanted legislation either passed or making progress before the Copenhagen meeting to signal US commitment to reducing carbon emissions and to encourage other nations to take action.

But opposition is mounting on Capitol Hill as Republicans and some Democrats raise fears that cap-and-trade would undermine economic recovery by increasing energy costs.

“Families and small businesses are struggling to get by, but the Democrats’ budget would raise taxes on every American who drives a car, flips on a light switch or buys a product manufactured in the United States,” said John Boehner, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

Republicans claim the average family would face up to $3,100 (£2,160) a year in additional energy costs under a cap-and-trade system.

Both the House and Senate were on Thursday expected to approve preliminary budget plans passed by their budget committees last week, signalling broad Democratic support for most of Mr Obama’s proposals. But the congressional blueprints contain only vague commitments to the healthcare reform and climate change laws that Mr Obama put at the heart of his budget.

A congressional lobbyist for an environmental group said he was not surprised by the backlash against climate change measures. “I never ever thought it would go through budget reconciliation,” said the lobbyist, who asked not to be named. “I think it was a smart threat for Obama and people to have on the table, but never thought there was a prayer they could use it.” Read more here.