If Warmists can pick and choose the period from which they generalize, why cannot others? The generalization below is at least drawn from much more recent data than Warmists use
The analysis of 53 sea level stations, distributed all over the world, suggests a decline of sea level by almost two feet, by 2100, if it continues the downward trend observed over the last three years. Even considering the average value for the last 9 years, this would lead to a rise of only one inch during the XXI century.
The analysis started by a search of data for the sea level stations referenced in Douglas (1997)1). The data used2) was obtained from the University of Hawaii, which has the most updated data available on the Internet. For the study, all stations without data in 2009 were excluded, as all that did not have relevant data from 07/01/2000.
Since it was not possible to collect even half of the stations in Douglas (1997), this study was extended to include a reasonable amount of GLOSS stations 3) worldwide. With the exception of some regions of the world, which had no data on the University of Hawaii's site, a distribution covering almost all continents / oceans was obtained. This distribution of stations is clear in Figure 1, with each station being used marked by a cross.
Data Analysis, done through mean values, referenced in the last line of the table, leads to a conclusion that sea level will rise only one inch during the XXI century, if the trend during the last 9 years (07/01/2000 - 06/30/2009) is maintained. But if we look at the trend of the last six years, the sea level decline would be almost 9 inches this century, enough to offset the increase observed in the last century. But using the trend of the last three years, there would be a drop by almost two feet by the year 2100!
Why is the official data from the IPCC, and others, so different? Simply because it does not take into account updated and recent data. According to the Wikipedia page about sea level rise, the most recent data used in international studies is related to 2003! The data used in this study is updated up to May this year (with the notable exception of Marseille, which is included because it is referenced in Douglas (1997)), and many already have data after June 30 (not included in the study).
Geographical analysis of the data shows that the Pacific coast of North, Central and South America, has the largest decline trend. The station with the biggest downward trend, Easter Island, in Chile, is shown in Figure 2. Sea-level rise is clear between 2000 and mid-2006, but afterwards a clear decline is observed, with minimum values decreasing by 8 inches in a period of only one year.
More HERE (See the original for links, graphics etc.)
'Desperation Time': NYT Promotes 'National Security' Climate Fears
But claims are merely 'a redux of 1970's laughable scares about famines and resource scarcity'
Desperation time has arrived for the promoters of man-made global warming fears. As the science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse, new tactics are being contrived to try to drum up waning public support.
A series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears continues unabated, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth's failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion and even activists at green festivals are now expressing doubts over man-made climate fears. (See "Related Links" at bottom of this article for more inconvenient scientific developments.)
The heart of the claims made in the August 8, 2009 New York Times article by John M. Broder are stated as follows: “Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.”
The heart of the “national security” argument is merely a redux of the 1970's laughable scares about famines and resource scarcity. Those same baseless claims and fear mongering arguments are simply being shamelessly updated with a military uniform. It is sad to see members of our armed forces wearing their uniforms promoting such unsubstantiated and embarrassing drivel. (See: 'Just When You Thought Global Warming Couldn't Get More Stupid, In Walks John Kerry': 'Of all the ridiculous arguments in support of climate legislation, national security has to be the most idiotic')
Climate Depot's Inconvenient Rebuttal to “National Security” Climate Argument By New York Times:
1) The "national security" angle is based on unproven computer models which even the United Nations IPCC admits are not “predictions.” UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth refers to climate models as “story lines.” “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers 'what if' projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature's blog on June 4, 2007. So the mighty New York Times is reporting that some members of the military, led by Sen. Kerry, are essentially playing no more than “what if” “war games!” Memo to New York Times and Senator Kerry: Climate Models “predictions” are not evidence.
In addition, Ivy league forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, found that the climate models used by UN IPCC to make these scary “predictions” or “what if projections” of the future, violate the basic principles of forecasting. “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the UN IPCC violated 72,” Armstrong's research revealed on January 28, 2009. (Also See: Climate Models Likened to Sony 'PlayStation' Video Games & 'Tinker Toys' )
2) Aside from the fact that the "national security" angle rests on speculative doomsday scenarios, perhaps the biggest whopper of the new movement is the implication that we must pass the Congressional climate bill to "address" or "remedy" the problem and thus “avoid” future wars and loss of life. Left unanswered in this argument is how a climate bill that will have no detectable impact on global temperatures will help "solve" the alleged looming national security threat. Most shockingly, the Congressional climate bill would not even impact atmospheric CO2 levels according to the EPA!
3) The New York Time also makes the following remarkable assertion: “But a growing number of policy makers say that the world's rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.”
NYT Claim: “Word's Rising temperatures?”: Huh? Is NYT must not be privy to latest temperature data showing a lack of warming for a decade and global cooling in recent years and peer-reviewed analysis showing the 20th century was not unusually warm?
4). NYT Claim: “Surging Seas.” Why did NYT reporter Broder fail to do a moment's worth of research on the alleged “surging seas?” If only Broder had taken a moment to look at the latest data. See: 'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise' says Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute – December 12, 2008; Report: Sea Level rise 'has stumbled since 2005' – Meteorologist Anthony Watts – December 5, 2008; Renowned Sea Level expert predicts sea level 'will rise in the 21st century by about 8 inches' - April 23, 2009 & Global warming may not affect sea levels, study finds - January 11, 2008; Plus see June 2009 comprehensive sea level report,)
NYT Claim: “Melting Glaciers”: Contary to the NYT's assertions, many glaciers are advancing. See: Alaskan glaciers at Icy Bay advance one-third of a mile in less than a year ; Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier advancing ; Hubbard Glacier in Alaska Advances ; Western Canadian glaciers advance ; Research Reveals global warming not cause of Kilimanjaro glacier reduction – September 24, 2008
5) The New York Times notes Sen. Kerry and others are “now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the [Congressional] legislation.”
The ridiculous assumption that mankind could realistically reduce emissions to alter future weather patterns has been exposed as "climate astrology." It is truly an insult to our men and woman in uniform to have Sen. Kerry and a small contingent of military brass attempting to sell these spurious climate claims. If we suspended basic science and reality and assumed Sen. Kerry was correct and the "undecided" Senators may be swayed to support a climate bill based on these alleged "national security" fears, how would a bill that did not impact CO2 levels or temperature be the "solution"? Sadly, the New York Times (and the ususally dependable Broder) did a completely one-sided article on this issue based.
NYT reporter Broder could have noted that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill is “scientifically meaningless” in terms of reducing temperatures. Broder could have noted that even Obama's EPA has conceded that the Congressional climate bill would not even detectably reduce atmospheric CO2 levels!! (See: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson: “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”) So the question looms, why would “undecided” Senators be swayed to vote for a climate bill for “national security” reasons when the bill is purely symbolic?! Broder irresponsibly failed to inform NYT readers of these basic truths. (Also see: No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' & Climate policy reduced to 'magical solutions' -- 'all about symbolism...with little or no impact on real-world outcomes')
6) NYT's shameless quote of the day: “We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives.”
Gen. Zinni needs to do his homework on global warming claims. Had the General done more research, he would quickly realize that the estimated 1.6 billion people in the world without electricity who are leading a nasty, brutish and short life, will be the ones who “will pay” for global warming solutions that prevent them from obtaining cheap and abundant carbon based energy. (See:1) It is a moral issue! – 'People cannot cook'...Chad's Global Warming Inspired Ban on Charcoal leads to 'Desperate' Families! - January 16, 2009 2) Black clergymen protest Robert Redford 'link his environmentalism to racism' 3) Poor Kenyans rebel as UK grocery store's “carbon friendly” policies may stop food exports – 4) African Activist: 'African life span is lower than it was in U.S. and Europe 100 years ago. But Africans told we shouldn't develop' because wealthy Western nations are 'worried about global warming': 'Telling Africans they can't have electricity and economic development – is immoral...Gore uses more electricity in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year' 5) India: 'It is morally wrong for us to reduce emissions when 40% of Indians do not have access to electricity' ; 6) Obama Advisor Warren Buffett 'repeats criticism of cap and trade, saying it would be a huge, regressive tax')
Sadly, Sen. Kerry and Gen. Zinni's unfounded “national security” climate claims will be the object of public humiliation for them in the not too distant future.
It is a testament to the growing strength of the skeptical scientific case against man-made climate fears that Sen. Kerry and retired VA Sen. John Warner (who sadly embarrassed himself in his final year in the Senate promulgating such "national security" climate drivel) have to resort to such transparent and yes...laughable claims.
Science and history will issue a harsh judgment against Sen. Kerry and others for this silly "national security" argument. The reality is, global warming does pose a serious national security threat to the United States -- global warming "solutions"-- that is. The Senate is deliberating on a global warming cap-and-trade bill that will increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy, close refineries and cost American jobs. (See Bloomberg News: report from June 26, 2009: U.S. oil companies may cope with the climate legislation by "closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports." Bloomberg also reported that "one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020" and this could "add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline." )
Former Vice President Al Gore has touted the Congressional climate bill as a first step toward "global governance." "National security" will be a threat to the U.S. if it contemplates an international treaty which will inevitably lead to a loss of sovereignty for the U.S. as well as the imposition of some form carbon taxes. Americans should welcome a full debate about the merits of “national security” threat from man-made global warming. The more light that is shown on this line of reasoning, the more skeptical the public will grow. Dare we say: Bring it on!
[Update: Meterologist Joe D'Aleo of IceCap.Us, notes that the new "national security" climate claims have a familiar ring to them. D'Aleo writes: "Take for example these excerpts from a 1977 book ”The Weather Conspiracy, the Coming of the New Ice Age” written for the CIA on the consensus of the climatologists of the time that an ice age threatened to cause major migrations and mass starvations."]
More HERE (See the original for links)
The Greenhouse Conspiracy
Believe it or not, the following excellent video was produced in Britain in 1990. Nothing has changed
(Via An Honest Climate Debate)
Doubts In The Midst Of Greens
Below is a post from a Warmist true-believer
I’m attending New York Green Fest this weekend. The Green Fest promises to “celebrate sustainable living and Green politics”, but I’ve that even within this group of people who ought to be among the most environmentally aware, there are patches of of soot grey obscuring the green color.
One attendee from close by, who uses electricity obtained through the burning of coal that very likely is obtained through mountaintop removal mining, mentions her interest in organizing against the construction of wind turbine. She doesn’t want it in her backyard, she says.
Another attendee, a college professor, confided to me in private conversation that, “I’m not sure climate change is real.” She said that, though she’s not a scientist herself, she gathers that there is a great deal of controversy and disagreement among scientists about whether climate change is actually happening. She also speculated that the measurements of rising global temperature might be due to the “urban heat island effect”, with temperatures measured only in cities with increasing amounts of hot pavement. (Actually, where temperatures are measured as warming the most is in the polar regions, where there are no cities at all.)
It’s a testament to the effectiveness of corporate-funded misinformation campaigns that these ideas are coming up even amongst a gathering of Green Party activists. It seems that environmental education efforts need to take place as much within eco-oriented groups as without.
He/she omits that temperature changes vary greatly in different parts of the Arctic, indicating that local influences are at work rather than global ones
A good global warming primer from Sweden
By Hans Jelbring, Ph.D Climatology, Stockholm University, M.Sc, Royal Institute of Technology
What has politics, a needed instrument to run a nation, to do with a scientific concept that tells the difference between the surface temperature of earth and the temperature of earth's atmosphere as seen from space? This temperature difference of 33 oC has unfortunately and inadequately been named "The Greenhouse Effect" (GE) despite the absence of any relationship between this effect and the warm climate in a real greenhouse.
The intention of this paper is to cover the title subject in a few pages in a way that is understandable to a high school student and, hence, to Swedish parliamentary members. Basic scientific principles demonstrate that the overall GE phenomenon is not a result of human emissions of "greenhouse gases".
Politics can be claimed to be the art of appearing credible, at least in a democracy. If successful, the power is yours -- which is the goal of politicians. But politicians are the servants of the voters who have the power to dismiss you if you fail to be credible. The temptation is to resort to gaining credibility without a base in ethics, truthfulness, honesty, observational evidence and scientific facts. This can be great for politicians who, at least sometimes, believe that the ends justify the means.
Likewise, the temptation can be great for the servants of our nations that are responsible for the quality of information that the elected, unspecialized politicians need to be able to make rational decisions. To disregard the methods of science to gain unjustified influence, economical gain and fame might be more common than we would like to know. The risks involved in too strong a relationship between politicians and the servants of a nation were well expressed by a US president in Eisenhower's Farewell Adress to the Nation, January 17, 1961. Few Swedes would deny the validity of his words. "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system - ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. "
It is now up to the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt to realize that his most recognized servants in the specialized topics of climatology and meteorology in Sweden have failed to accomplish their duty to present facts and results that, according to Swedish law, has to be based on scientific methods and acknowledged experience. Instead they have to a large extent relied on, and continue to rely on, what a political UN organization, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is stating without complying with scientific methods according to its Swedish definition.
It should be observed that the IPCC statements have no validity, as information with scientific quality, according to the Swedish law. The IPCC is biased from the start by its mandate. It only covers the impact on climate caused by man (anthropogenic or AGW) which is reductionism that does not conform to scientific methods. Furthermore, the IPCC has chosen not to investigate those types of local, regional and national global anthropogenic impacts which actually do exist.
The IPCC has emphasized the importance of an unverified, simplistic model that predicts a particular surface temperature of earth as being caused by "greenhouse gases". These are specifically identified as carbon dioxide and methane. Water vapour, the most abundant greenhouse gas, is wrongly assumed to be "a quantifiable feedback" to carbon dioxide, which is 50 times less abundant than water vapour in the atmosphere. Such a model is far too inexact and speculative to describe the complex climate system. This type of logic does not conform to accepted scientific methodology.
The major IPCC claim is that greenhouse gases are the sole reason why the average surface temperature of earth is 33 oC warmer than the temperature at an average altitude of around 4000 m, where the infrared photons prefer to leave our planet. (Seen from Mars the temperature of earth is -18 §C).
The pertinent question is: do greenhouse gases raise the global temperature 0.1, 10 or 100% of the observed 33oC? There are many indications that the first alternative is the most probable. Let us mention a few ways the IPCC "greenhouse gas" claim can be debunked.
I. The high school approach. The average sea level pressure is around 1013 mbar. If you live at a higher altitude the pressure will be less. Your barometer at 100 m above sea level will read about 12 mbar less. Pressure is a direct measurement of how much atmospheric mass there is above your head per square meter. The ideal gas law can be written PV = RT where P is the pressure (Pascal), V is the volume (m3), R is the gas constant (Joule/K) and T is the average temperature (over some days). Let us now calculate the temperature in a 1 m3 volume at any height. Hence T = P/R, T is proportional to P and P is known from observation to decrease with increasing altitude.
It follows that the average T has to decrease with altitude. This decrease from the surface to the average infrared emission altitude around 4000 m is 33 oC. It will be about the same even if we increase greenhouse gases by 100%. This is a consequence of the ideal gas law, a natural law which politicians cannot change, but unscrupulous scientists can twist.
II. Observational evidence On any sunny day the solar irradiation hitting the surface of earth will warm the air just above it which will then start to lift. A black ground surface, such as a parking place or a newly ploughed field, will absorb more solar energy and subsequently heat the air more than surfaces of lighter colours. Hawks and vultures know about this phenomenon, allowing them to be able to hover above such surfaces without moving their wings.
The temperature decrease with elevation in such a situation is very close to the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate which can be derived theoretically. It is -9.8 oC/km. Everyday observational evidence and theoretical derivations show that the temperature lapse rate in such situations can be determined without consideration of any influence at all from greenhouse gases, whether they are of anthropogenic origin or not. Hence, GE has to be a function of other processes than "greenhouse gases". The question remains if CO2 has a measurable influence, at all.
III. Advanced theoretical considerations The theoretical temperature lapse rate that can be expected to be found in the earth's atmosphere depends on a number of physical processes that are possible to identify. The GE is basically determined by the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The energy per mass unit of an atmosphere will tend to equalize and become constant from the surface upwards. This will lead to an average vertical cooling rate defined by -g/Cp, (g is gravity and Cp heat capacity of air) which also is named the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate.
This lapse rate is modulated by condensation processes in the atmospheres (clouds) and other less important physical processes. The influence of greenhouse gases is small. These additional processes lead to an average observed global temperature lapse rate around -6.5 oC/km (ref 1). This temperature decrease can be directly verified by any airplane passenger. A strict proof showing that there is no theoretical reason to assume that greenhouse gases cause the bulk of the 33 §C GE can be found in the peer reviewed article in ref (2). There are several other relevant articles in scientific journals.
WINDFARM BRITAIN MEANS (VERY) EXPENSIVE ELECTRICITY
A recent industry study into the UK energy sector of 2030 - which according to government plans will use a hugely increased amount of wind power - suggests that massive electricity price rises will be required, and some form of additional government action in order to avoid power cuts. This could have a negative impact on plans for electrification of transport and domestic energy use.
The study is called Impact of Intermittency, and was carried out by consulting group Pöyry for various industry players such as the National Grid and Centrica at a cost of more than £1m. Pöyry modelled the likely effects on the UK electricity market of a large windpower base of the sort needed to meet government carbon targets - assuming no major change in the amount of nuclear power available.
There's a summary of the report for the public available here in PDF
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.