By Nils-Axel Morner

Icecap Note:

Last week another alarmist story appeared in the Guardian quoting Richard Alley, professor at the once great Penn State University in which it reported on the natural calving of a large chink of the Petermann glacier in Greenland. They noted “Greenland shed its largest chunk of ice in nearly half a century last week, and faces an even grimmer future, according to Richard Alley, a geosciences professor at Pennsylvania State University.

“Sometime in the next decade we may pass that tipping point which would put us warmer than temperatures that Greenland can survive,” Alley told a briefing in Congress, adding that a rise in the range of 2-7 C would mean the obliteration of Greenland’s ice sheet.”

We asked a real expert on sea level, Nils-Axel Morner to comment. Here is what he had to say:
No “huge rise in sea level” to foresee: Observation rules out modelling

Recently, “a panel of leading geoscientists told the US Congress” that sea level is likely to rise by 7 metres within this century. What nonsense, we must say. Not only, is this against observational facts, it is also against physics.

At the Last Ice, the huge ice caps over Europe and North America had their southern margins way down at mid latitudes (at Hamburg in Europe and at New York in North America). When climate changed, the ice melted at a very rapid rate. At Stockholm, for example, the ice margin was displaced northwards at a rate of about 300 m per year. Indeed, an enormous speed. Still, global sea level did not rise more than about 10 mm per year or 1 metre in a century. This rate sets the absolutely ultimate physically frame of any possible sea level rise today. Any claim exceeding this value must be classified as shear nonsense. It is as simple as that.

The Greenland Ice Cap did not melt during the postglacial hypsithermal (some 5000 to 8000 years ago), when temperature was about 2.5 C higher than today. Nor did it melt during the Last Interglacial when temperature was about 4C higher than today. As to time, it would take more than a millennium (with full thermal forcing) to melt the ice masses stored there.

The panel also talk about a possible “tipping point”. Well, the only event of that type we can be fairly sure about, seems to be the approaching turn from a Solar Maximum (just passed) to a Solar Minimum (calculated at around 2040).

The view presented by the panel is another sad expression of IPCC propaganda. What they say is not founded in geoscientific knowledge and physical laws. The World is far too full of real problems that call for immediate consideration to waste time on wild exaggerations.

Nils-Axel Morner
(Sea level specialist from Sweden)
Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics
morner@pog.nu

ICECAP NOTE: In actual fact, Alley’s own chart should tell you we do not have a problem in Greenland. In fact, if anything, the data may be suggesting a movement towards a new ice age.

Enlarged here.

Also as Ken Haapala of SEPP notes in TWTW this week The referenced article also points out that according to ice core borings, in the past 10,000 years Greenland has been as much as 2.5C warmer than today. Also perplexing is that the ice cores show the current temperature is almost minus 31C. A warming of 7C would bring it to minus 24C, hardly the melting point of ice.

See PDF.

UPDATE: A new paper published yesterday in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans, confirms other studies of tide gauge records which show that there has been no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years, in contrast to statements of the IPCC and Al Gore. Sea levels have been rising naturally since the end of the last major ice age 20,000 years ago, and the rate of rise began to decelerate about 8,000 years ago:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, C08013, 15 PP., 2010: Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks. Authors: Manfred Wenzel, Jens Schroter

The 20th century regional and global sea level variations are estimated based on long-term tide gauge records. For this the neural network technique is utilized that connects the coastal sea level with the regional and global mean via a nonlinear empirical relationship. Two major difficulties are overcome this way: the vertical movement of tide gauges over time and the problem of what weighting function to choose for each individual tide gauge record. Neural networks are also used to fill data gaps in the tide gauge records, which is a prerequisite for our analysis technique. A suite of different gap-filling strategies is tested which provides information about stability and variance of the results. The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 +/- 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. The regional mean sea level of the single ocean basins show mixed long-term behavior.

While most of the basins show a sea level rise of varying strength there is an indication for a mean sea level fall in the southern Indian Ocean. Also for the the tropical Indian and the South Atlantic no significant trend can be detected. Nevertheless, the South Atlantic as well as the tropical Atlantic are the only basins that show significant acceleration. On shorter timescales, but longer than the annual cycle, the basins sea level are dominated by oscillations with periods of about 50-75 years and of about 25 years. Consequently, we find high (lagged) correlations between the single basins.

Note: The 1.56 mm/yr non-accelerating rate of sea level rise would result in sea levels 6 inches higher than the present in 100 years. The oscillations noted in this study correspond to the typical full and half-cycle lengths of the natural Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the natural 60-year climate cycle. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation warm phase has been shown to produce a marked temporary rise in global mean sea levels. H/T Benny Peiser CCNet

-----------------
See Marc Morano’s long fact filled letter to another PSU professor (and ethics professor named Brown) here.

Note from Climate Depot’s Executive Editor Marc Morano to Penn State Ethics Prof. Donald A. Brown. (Dab57@psu.edu)

Dear Professor Brown:

You have recently been making the news with some very unique and serious claims regarding man-made global warming.

You have made the laughable claim that Senate’s failure to pass cap-and-trade the “worst ethical scandal...and a moral lapse of epic proportions.”

Sadly, this claim alone proves that your understanding of science and economics is what is truly the “worst ethical scandal” here.

How would passing a climate bill that was ‘scientifically meaningless’ improve ethics or morality or the climate? See: Even Obama’s EPA admits cap-and-trade bill ‘will not impact world CO2 levels’

You spend most of your “science” argument trying to convince the public of dangerous man-made global warming by noting that the Earth has been warming.

Wow. So in your simplistic scientific mind Warming = Human caused. Sorry Professor that is not a very deep and well thought out argument.

ICECAP Note: Marc goes on to quote paper after paper, report after report, fact after fact that makes Brown’s position laughable and yet another embarassment Penn State University. Soon the only one left with any credibility will be Joe Paterno.

--------------

Joe Bastardi Unloads On Penn State Corruption - Feels Betrayed
By P Gosselin

Anyone who reads this blog knows that meteorologist Joe Bastardi is one of my favorites. Yesterday he wrote a scathing piece at his European blog about his alma mater Penn State for the way it whitewashed the Michael Mann affair, and other things.

Joe Bastardi is a graduate of Penn State, receiving a degree in Meteorology and is a leading Accuweather meteorologist. His seasonal forecasts almost always far outperform those of “climate scientists”. It’s because Joe knows what he’s talking about, the “climate scientists” don’t. A Penn State investigation of Michael Mann, author of the infamous hockey stick graph, led to his exoneration, much to the protest of the scientific community. Many called the investigation a whitewash. Bastardi agrees. At his blog he writes:

“Though I have a degree from the once proud and great meteorology department, it was EARNED during its glory day, when we graduated 2/3rds of the worlds meteorologists, and were the envy of other schools. That was yesterday, and yesterdays gone.” and says:

Penn State has lost its way.

“I will no longer refer to myself as a Penn State grad, nor promote the university in my appearances.”

That’s pretty heavy. And if you still don’t think Joe is ashamed of Penn State, read on:

“One cannot imagine the betrayal I feel at the hands of this university. AND THAT SAYS IT ALL.”

“The fact is the university I busted my tail for, and defended all these years, is complicit in not only advancing an agenda driven matter in the name of “science” but also trying to suppress freedom of independent, rational thinking. Its that simple.”,/i>

”And believe me, there are many.. legion, that graduated PSU through the 90s that feel the same way I do.”

Joe will no longer remaim silent, and that’s good. We need more figures like Joe to speak out and express a dissent that is more necessary now than ever.

I also feel a little bit that way about my own alma mater, the University of Arizona, where one of Mann’s colleagues is a professor - but thankfully not at the College of Engineering and Mines, where I studied and got my Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering. I can imagine that this has got to be really tough for Joe to do. Write to Joe to express your support: bastardi@accuweather.com. I think he’ll appreciate it.

By James Kirkup, Harry Wallop and Louise Gray, the UK Telegraph

Companies that fail to register their energy use by next month will be hit with fines that could reach 45,000 pounds under the little-known rules.

Those that do participate in the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) initiative by declaring their energy use will face charges for every ton of greenhouse gas they produce.

These payments are expected to average 38,000 pounds a year for medium-sized firms, and could reach 100,000 for larger organisations.

Surveys have shown that thousands of businesses are unaware they are supposed to be taking part, or even that the scheme exists at all.

The imposition of new charges and fines will put pressure on firms at a time when economists are warning of a “double dip” recession as companies, consumers and the public sector all cut their spending.

Business leaders criticised the CRC - which was created by Labour but implemented by the Coalition - as “complex and bureaucratic”. One accused ministers of swinging “a big hammer” at companies and questioned whether it would have any environmental benefits.

Under the scheme, any company or public sector organisation that consumes more than 6,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of energy a year - meaning a power bill of about 500,000 - must register its energy use by the end of next month. From April, firms will need to buy permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. For those using 6,000MWh, that could mean 38,000.

The scheme is intended to create a financial incentive to cut energy use, and those organisations that record the biggest reductions will get bonuses, funded by penalties imposed on those with the worst record.

Of about 4,000 organisations estimated to qualify for the scheme, only 1,229 have registered to date, leaving thousands at risk of fines.

Missing the Sept 30 deadline will mean an immediate 5,000 fine, and 500 for each day after that, up to a maximum of 45,000.

Another 15,000 smaller organisations are also required to register and could be expected to buy permits in the future. If they miss the September deadline, they face fines of 500.

WSP Environment and Energy, a consultancy firm, estimated that a total of 7,500 businesses would miss the deadline.

Greg Barker, the energy and climate change minister, who is overseeing the scheme said yesterday: “I understand the original complexity of the scheme may have deterred some organisations and I want to hear suggestions as to how we can make the scheme simpler in the future.”

Executives and business groups said that the scheme had been poorly communicated and publicised, leaving many companies in the dark.

One recent survey suggested that 53 per cent of executives had not even heard of the CRC and did not know whether their firm was affected.

The Environment Agency, which will run the scheme for the Government, has refused even to publish a list of the companies that are required to register.

The Coalition is pressing ahead with the CRC despite Conservative pledges to cut red-tape on businesses.

Business groups said the paperwork and costs involved in complying with the CRC scheme could put a significant new burden on companies already struggling in an uncertain economic climate. The Bank of England is expected to underline fears about the economy today with forecasts for faltering economic growth and persistent inflation.

Yesterday, the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply reported a slowdown in British manufacturing exports to Europe.

Bob Jarrett, of the BHF-BSSA Group, a trade body that represents thousands of independent shops, said ministers had not done enough to explain or justify the CRC. “We’ve only come across this in the last few weeks, and yet the deadline is at the end of next month. The Department for Energy has not given this nearly enough publicity,” he said.  Read more here.

By Ed Lasky

George Soros is continuing his assault on America’s shale gas industry. His latest step is to mobilize MoveOn.Org, a so-called 527 group that he liberally funds, to join forces with the very left-wing Working Families Party of New York in an effort to stop the process of hydrofracking: a crucial , and safe, technology used to tap our nation’s abundant natural gas reserves:

The New York Observer reports:

The 4.2 million member strong online community MoveOn.org is sending out an email urging its supporters to sign a Working Families Party petition that would place a one-year moratorium on hydrofracking.

It is rare for MoveOn to engage in local issues, and it is believed to be the first time that the group has collaborated with the New York City-based WFP.

The WFP delivered 22,000 signatures to the Senate last night. If the Senate passes the moratorium, the Assembly is expected to follow suit.

In the spring, Congress asked the Environmental Protection Agency to study the risks of hydrofracking, and the WFP and their allies are urging an end to all natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale until that study is complete.

Rare indeed. MoveOn usually takes on national Republican politicians or issues, such as the Iraq War that it used to help bash George Bush; it also played a big role in electing Barack Obama.

Why would the group focus on stopping the development of shale gas? Because MoveOn is following the agenda of George Soros. He wants shale gas—a vast, easily tapped resource located on-shore throughout large swaths of America—to be plugged up. This helps his big financial interest in the Brazilian petroleum company Petrobras, the Australian-based InterOil corporation, and the billion dollars he is pouring into “renewable” energy schemes.

I covered Soros and his schemes regarding shale gas (Cheap Natural Gas and its Democratic Enemies ; Cheap Natural Gas and Its Enemies; Harry Reid Pulls a Fast One to Sabotage Shale Gas Development). Soros also has pulled in his billionaire pals, Herbert and Marion Sandler (profiteers from the savings and loan disaster) who have founded and funded their own media outfit, Pro Publica, that is purportedly a non-partisan investigative group. Pro Publica has for some odd reason focused much of its efforts on disparaging the shale gas industry.

There seems to be a concerted effort among George Soros and the Sandlers (who have cooperated also in founding and funding the Center for American Progress—a big promoter of cap and tax and clean energy schemes) and their pet groups, MoveOn.Org and Pro Publica, to derail America’s most promising domestic energy resource: shale gas.

See more here.