Two significant pieces of recent research seems to have discredited two of the bedrock tenants of global warming and climate change. First a recent study by NASA contradicts the notion that carbon dioxide traps heat within the earth’s atmosphere. Satellite readings reveal that far more heat escapes into space from the earth than the bogus climate change models have, for years, been claiming.
Climate change forecasts have for years predicted that carbon dioxide would trap heat on Earth, and increases in the gas would lead to a planet-wide rise in temperatures, with devastating consequences for the environment. But NASA satellite observations discredit this notion dramatically.
“There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer -- basically a big thermometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” he said. The planet isn't heating up, in other words.
James Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at conservative think-tank The Heartland Institute, wrote at Forbes that the meaning of the new research is clear-- and it compromises what he called a "central premise of alarmist global warming theory. Real-world measurements … show far less heat is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict," Taylor wrote.
Many of us have been saying for years that computer models are worthless, if only because they are always, in every case, way, way off, they aren’t even close. This writer, and others, have charged for some time that models, due to their awful record, should not be used at all in the climate change debate.
Polar Bear Baloney
And not surprisingly, a leading climate scientist, whose report in 2006 of drowning polar bears in Arctic waters galvanized the global warming movement -- and was highlighted in Al Gore's Oscar-winning climate-change documentary -- has been suspended, over the accuracy of his observations.
Charles Monnett -- who manages as much as $50 million worth of climate research on Arctic wildlife and ecology -- was told on July 18 that he was being put on leave pending an investigation into "integrity issues," according to a letter posted online by the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which is questioning Monnett's suspension. In other words, just like the bogus hockey stick graph, his research is bogus, or at best it is significantly exaggerated.
In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming. According to investigator Eric May Gleason was asked his thoughts on Gore referencing the dead polar bears. Gleason said none of the polar bear papers he has written or co-authored has said anything about global warming.
Not surprisingly, the polar bear “research” turns out to be bogus as well. This phony “scientific research” relating to climate change is becoming all too familiar. It’s past time to shut off the spigot of taxpayer money being poured into phony research designed to prop up a flailing and increasingly unscientific climate change culture.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Temperature and Global Warming
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) claims to have evidence that paeloclimatic data shows higher levels of CO2 causes an increase in global temperatures. But D.H. Rothman conducted a comprehensive analysis of CO2 in rocks, volcanic and metamorphic degassing, etc over the past 500 million years. Rothman found that “the CO2 history exhibits no systematic correlation” between CO2 and increased temperature. In fact, he found the opposite, that the highest CO2 levels occurred when the earth was relatively cool.
And Rothman made other observations; 1) temperature did not respond at all to the change in CO2, 2) rather when CO2 rises, there is a steady decline in atmospheric temperature, 3) the geologic record “refutes” the CO2 induced global warming hypothesis, 4) the data “argue for a decoupling between global climate and CO2.” 5) The earth’s air temperature always rises well in advance of the increase in atmospheric CO2, 6) there is a 400 to 1000 year lag between rising air temperature and increased CO2 content.
Rothman and a wide assortment of other scientists confirm that “CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system.” Somehow the IPCC have fabricated not only the science, but the conclusions regarding the relationship between C02 and global temperature. Al Gore has been lying to us all. The “science” he references is completely false. What is alarming is the Al Gore and IPCC “science” is not just off a bit, but the data and research supports the complete opposite conclusions.
The “hockey stick” graph that Al Gore so famously used in his deceptive movie came from a young Ph.D by the name of Michael Mann, from the University of Massachusetts. And President Clinton jumped on this hockey stick graph as justification the government should intervene to cut carbon emissions. However, two Canadian scientists by the name of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick requested Mann’s data and research so they could check his work. Mann, knowing he had fabricated the science was reluctant and slow in making his “research” public. Ultimately, the two Canadians obtained the data and the methodology used by Mann. “They found the data did not produce the claimed results due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.” In other words, Mann is either a very bad scientist or intentionally manipulated the data to show what he wanted it to show. In short, the hockey stick graph is a myth. Sadly, trillions of dollars and years of work have been expended in defending false science.
The Canadians made several other damaging conclusions as well; 1) the warming of the 15th century exceeds any warming in the 20th century, 2) there is nothing unnatural about the planet’s current temperature, and that whatever warming occurred during the twentieth century was likely caused by the recurrence of whatever cyclical phenomena created the greater warmth of the 15th century.”
It is also now an accepted truth among the climate change lemmings that the warming over the latter part of the 20th century is unprecedented. But based upon the synthesis of real world data presented by Fred Singer Ph.D, and Craig Idso Ph.D., D. H. Rothman, and many others, that claim is completely false.
And Rothman made other observations; 1) temperature did not respond at all to the change in CO2, 2) rather when CO2 rises, there is a steady decline in atmospheric temperature, 3) the geologic record “refutes” the CO2 induced global warming hypothesis, 4) the data “argue for a decoupling between global climate and CO2.” 5) The earth’s air temperature always rises well in advance of the increase in atmospheric CO2, 6) there is a 400 to 1000 year lag between rising air temperature and increased CO2 content.
Rothman and a wide assortment of other scientists confirm that “CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system.” Somehow the IPCC have fabricated not only the science, but the conclusions regarding the relationship between C02 and global temperature. Al Gore has been lying to us all. The “science” he references is completely false. What is alarming is the Al Gore and IPCC “science” is not just off a bit, but the data and research supports the complete opposite conclusions.
The “hockey stick” graph that Al Gore so famously used in his deceptive movie came from a young Ph.D by the name of Michael Mann, from the University of Massachusetts. And President Clinton jumped on this hockey stick graph as justification the government should intervene to cut carbon emissions. However, two Canadian scientists by the name of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick requested Mann’s data and research so they could check his work. Mann, knowing he had fabricated the science was reluctant and slow in making his “research” public. Ultimately, the two Canadians obtained the data and the methodology used by Mann. “They found the data did not produce the claimed results due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.” In other words, Mann is either a very bad scientist or intentionally manipulated the data to show what he wanted it to show. In short, the hockey stick graph is a myth. Sadly, trillions of dollars and years of work have been expended in defending false science.
The Canadians made several other damaging conclusions as well; 1) the warming of the 15th century exceeds any warming in the 20th century, 2) there is nothing unnatural about the planet’s current temperature, and that whatever warming occurred during the twentieth century was likely caused by the recurrence of whatever cyclical phenomena created the greater warmth of the 15th century.”
It is also now an accepted truth among the climate change lemmings that the warming over the latter part of the 20th century is unprecedented. But based upon the synthesis of real world data presented by Fred Singer Ph.D, and Craig Idso Ph.D., D. H. Rothman, and many others, that claim is completely false.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Greenpeace Founder Exposes Global Warming Farce
Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore, but who has had enough of Greenpeace radicals, and left Greenpeace, has come clean about global warming. To put it bluntly, he knows global warming is a fraud.
"We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer world we can produce more food." Something I’ve been saying for years, and anyone who understand botany and life on this planet knows, warmer is better—for everyone, for all living things. Moore was asked who is promoting man-made climate fears, and what are their motives?
"A powerful convergent of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue." But, says Moore, dissent is growing: "There are many thousands of scientists' who reject man-made global warming fears...It's all based on computer models and predictions. We do not actually have a crystal ball, it is a mythical object." Indeed!
And I'll be you won't find stuff like this in the mainstream press. Reporting something like this would make them look pretty dumb since they have excitedly told the world a completely opposite story--with a straight face.
"We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer world we can produce more food." Something I’ve been saying for years, and anyone who understand botany and life on this planet knows, warmer is better—for everyone, for all living things. Moore was asked who is promoting man-made climate fears, and what are their motives?
"A powerful convergent of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue." But, says Moore, dissent is growing: "There are many thousands of scientists' who reject man-made global warming fears...It's all based on computer models and predictions. We do not actually have a crystal ball, it is a mythical object." Indeed!
And I'll be you won't find stuff like this in the mainstream press. Reporting something like this would make them look pretty dumb since they have excitedly told the world a completely opposite story--with a straight face.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
More "climate" baloney
Maybe you saw the U.N.'s weather announcement that 2010 was the warmest year on record, "The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization's top official. But anyone with even elementary understanding of weather and climate, knows this is nonsense. Here are five good reasons some scientists are skeptical of these claims.
1. Where does the data come from? They gather readings from land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, and satellites. 70% of the earth is covered by water, but there are very few buoy’s to provide temperature data. And because nearly all remote sensing stations have been eliminated and replaced by metropolitan locations. Anthony Watt on his SurfaceStations.org website states that 61% of the stations used to measure temperature are less than 10 meters from an artificial heating source—a big no no. Further, meterological “experts” manipulate and "normalize" the data. If this was a football game, they would normalize the score, and the real score of 28 to 14, would be normalized to be 22 to 19, or some such nonsense. You can’t “normalize” the data, it is what it is. It is the naïve public who are being manipulated
2. There's less ice in the oceans. Or more. Or something. The WMO report notes that Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record. In fact, the overall sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, "the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice." So where’s the love for Antarctic ice growth? Somebody has an agenda here.
3. El Niño has been playing havoc with temperatures. Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average (if you believe the “manipulated” and “normalized” data), the report points out, calling these measurements "the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records." The WMO notes that warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic.
Of course temperatures are up, it's El Niño, stupid.
"El Niños cause spikes up. La Niñas drop it down." "Why have we gone up overall in the past 30 years? Because we've been in a warm cycle in the Pacific," he said. "But the tropical Pacific has cooled dramatically, and it's like turning down your thermostat -- it takes a while, but the house will cool."
4. Besides, it's getting chilly. 2010 may have been a warm year, but 2011 has been off to a very cold start -- and may be among the coldest in decades.
"December 2010 was the second-coldest December in the entire history dating back to 1659," noted Steve McIntyre, a climate scientist and the editor of climate blog Climate Audit. He bases his claim on data from the longest continuous record in the world, kept by The Met Office, the U.K.'s official weather agency. No doubt, the December data was “normalized” to eliminate its “chilling” effect on the global warming data.
"If we look at the last 30 years, then the coming 30 years will cool back to where we were in the late 70s," he said. "Look at it this way. Suppose you didn't have a scale until 3 weeks ago. Every day for the last 3 weeks you weigh yourself and you are 175 or so. One morning you are 175.1 How much weight have you gained?" You're the heaviest you have ever been, right? "If you weren't weighing yourself before, or were using a different scale, can you really say this is the heaviest ever?" he asked.
5. Forecasts are often wrong. Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. In 2000, a scientist with the Met Office's Climatic Research Unit declared that within ten years, snowfall would be "a very rare and exciting event." Tell that to the people on the East Coast, or North Carolina, or Alabama, or…London, which was buried in snow and cold for weeks in December 2010, that nearly brought the country to a standstill.
And in 1970 at the first Earth Day event, one researcher predicted that the planet would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. Ok, so the whackos are in charge.
The following predictions were posted previously, but seemed to fit with the above really far out predictions.
1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers.
2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century…and the platte River is definitely not dry.
3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.
4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
If temperature data is not “normalized” it is difficult to find that global warming has occurred at all. Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:
5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
Air quality has actually improved since 1970. And the earth’s atmosphere has an amazing “cleansing” capacity.
6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.
Uh, no! And "Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich and his “tribe” of scientists all support each other, no doubt, but their predictions make them look rather foolish.
7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets." Prophets, yes; scientists? No.
8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970
How a nut case like Ehrlich can garner so much respect inside the scientific community, and out, is a question for another time, but he’s a “respected” scientist, and people believe him, just like people believe the so-called climate scientists currently running around telling us the sky is falling.
1. Where does the data come from? They gather readings from land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, and satellites. 70% of the earth is covered by water, but there are very few buoy’s to provide temperature data. And because nearly all remote sensing stations have been eliminated and replaced by metropolitan locations. Anthony Watt on his SurfaceStations.org website states that 61% of the stations used to measure temperature are less than 10 meters from an artificial heating source—a big no no. Further, meterological “experts” manipulate and "normalize" the data. If this was a football game, they would normalize the score, and the real score of 28 to 14, would be normalized to be 22 to 19, or some such nonsense. You can’t “normalize” the data, it is what it is. It is the naïve public who are being manipulated
2. There's less ice in the oceans. Or more. Or something. The WMO report notes that Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record. In fact, the overall sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, "the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice." So where’s the love for Antarctic ice growth? Somebody has an agenda here.
3. El Niño has been playing havoc with temperatures. Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average (if you believe the “manipulated” and “normalized” data), the report points out, calling these measurements "the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records." The WMO notes that warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic.
Of course temperatures are up, it's El Niño, stupid.
"El Niños cause spikes up. La Niñas drop it down." "Why have we gone up overall in the past 30 years? Because we've been in a warm cycle in the Pacific," he said. "But the tropical Pacific has cooled dramatically, and it's like turning down your thermostat -- it takes a while, but the house will cool."
4. Besides, it's getting chilly. 2010 may have been a warm year, but 2011 has been off to a very cold start -- and may be among the coldest in decades.
"December 2010 was the second-coldest December in the entire history dating back to 1659," noted Steve McIntyre, a climate scientist and the editor of climate blog Climate Audit. He bases his claim on data from the longest continuous record in the world, kept by The Met Office, the U.K.'s official weather agency. No doubt, the December data was “normalized” to eliminate its “chilling” effect on the global warming data.
"If we look at the last 30 years, then the coming 30 years will cool back to where we were in the late 70s," he said. "Look at it this way. Suppose you didn't have a scale until 3 weeks ago. Every day for the last 3 weeks you weigh yourself and you are 175 or so. One morning you are 175.1 How much weight have you gained?" You're the heaviest you have ever been, right? "If you weren't weighing yourself before, or were using a different scale, can you really say this is the heaviest ever?" he asked.
5. Forecasts are often wrong. Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. In 2000, a scientist with the Met Office's Climatic Research Unit declared that within ten years, snowfall would be "a very rare and exciting event." Tell that to the people on the East Coast, or North Carolina, or Alabama, or…London, which was buried in snow and cold for weeks in December 2010, that nearly brought the country to a standstill.
And in 1970 at the first Earth Day event, one researcher predicted that the planet would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. Ok, so the whackos are in charge.
The following predictions were posted previously, but seemed to fit with the above really far out predictions.
1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers.
2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century…and the platte River is definitely not dry.
3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.
4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
If temperature data is not “normalized” it is difficult to find that global warming has occurred at all. Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:
5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
Air quality has actually improved since 1970. And the earth’s atmosphere has an amazing “cleansing” capacity.
6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.
Uh, no! And "Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich and his “tribe” of scientists all support each other, no doubt, but their predictions make them look rather foolish.
7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets." Prophets, yes; scientists? No.
8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970
How a nut case like Ehrlich can garner so much respect inside the scientific community, and out, is a question for another time, but he’s a “respected” scientist, and people believe him, just like people believe the so-called climate scientists currently running around telling us the sky is falling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)