Sunday, October 25, 2009


The "globe" is cooling. The sea level is not rising. The ice is advancing. What is left? The Ocean is heating

The last two IPCC Reports made a big thing of ocean heating. The methods used showed considerable variability, The average showed periodicity, with troughs in 1965 and 1986 and peaks in 1980 and 2005. but the temperature increase from the 1965 trough to the later peak of 2005 was confidently attributed to "global warming" caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

At least, that was the story in the first two drafts of the 2007 Report. Then the people measuring temperature provided the disturbing news that the 2005 figure actually showed a fall in temperature, and they had to put that into their final Report.

Then there was overwhelming pressure on the scientists to backtrack on such a disturbing observation, and, loyally, they discovered a "rogue" unreliable sensor which restored the IPCC "confidence" that the ocean temperature is rising.

So they increased their coverage with a new sophisticated system called ARGO which has 3,000 probes. The results are disastrous, and they have yet to admit it. They are given in the following paper:

K von Schuckmann, F Gaillard, and P Y Le Traon 2009 Geophysical Research Letters Vol 11124.09007. "Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008"

To start with, the average temperature is falling. But what is worse. the variability is so great that it could not possibly be heated from the atmosphere. So it must be heated from below, from all the underwater volcanoes and plate movements that have so far been neglected. I attach the record for the Pacific basin which includes the variability of salinity:

This all comes on top of the paper by Douglass and Knox:

Douglass, D.H. and R. Knox, 2009: Physics letters A. Volume 373, Issue 36, 31 August 2009, Pages 3296-3300 "Ocean heat content and Earth's radiation imbalance". (Extended summary here)

The abstract reads:
“Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960– mid 1970s (−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.”

The summary reads
“We determine Earth’s radiation imbalance by analyzing three recent independent observational ocean heat content determinations for the period 1950 to 2008 and compare the results with direct measurements by satellites. A large annual term is found in both the implied radiation imbalance and the direct measurements. Its magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred.

Longer-term averages of the observed imbalance are not only many-fold smaller than theoretically derived values, but also oscillate in sign. These facts are not found among the theoretical predictions.

Three distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative imbalance are found: 1960 to the mid 1970s, the mid 1970s to 2000 and 2001 to present. The respective mean values of radiation imbalance are −0.15, +0.15, and −0.2 to −0.3. These observations are consistent with the occurrence of climate shifts at 1960, the mid-1970s, and early 2001 identified by Swanson and Tsonis.

Knowledge of the complex atmospheric-ocean physical processes is not involved or required in making these findings. Global surface temperatures as a function of time are also not required to be known.”

The periodicity found coincides with the behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and as the heating is from below, this heating is related to the PDOmust also behave in a periodic fashion.

The finding that the earth's energy is not balanced shows that the fundamental assumption of all the computer climate models that it IS balanced is incorrect, and means that all the models are wrong. The global warmers and "climate change" enthusiasts have no excuses left.

From NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 225, OCTOBER 23RD 2009, received from the author, Dr. Vincent Gray. VINCENT GRAY is an old fashioned scientist, originally with a Ph.D degree in Chemistry from Cambridge University, and with a long research career in UK, France, Canada, China and New Zealand, with many publications

Carbon "footprints" of animals

In response to a Greenie attack on dogs, a reader writes:

Regarding the carbon footprint of a dog, a rough back of envelope calculation (assuming a linear relation between the size of an animal and its carbon footprint) yields... bison weighing in at a ton is roughly the equivalent of 20 dogs. There were at one time an estimated 60 million bison in the USA, which comes out to 1.2 billion dog/(SUV) equivalents, which is roughly 4 times the present human population of the USA. ...for whatever that might be worth.

One would think the Greenie obsession with death would alert us to their real agenda, killing things. They pretend that having only one child is benign, but such a practice will cause any group practicing it to die out. If I remember correctly, the destruction of a people is called "genocide," regardless of the means employed.

Let's hope the Greenies practice what they preach! --JR

What has happened to global warming since 1998?

By S. Fred Singer, President SEPP

The respected science journalist Richard Kerr discusses the anxieties of the ‘warmistas,’ who try to explain away the fact that the climate has not been warming since 1998. They now admit that the data are sound and that indeed there has been a slight cooling trend in the last few years. The only exception is the data compilation by Jim Hansen’s GISS which still shows warmer years after 1998 – contrary to the compilations of NOAA-NCDC, and of Hadley-CRU. But GISS is simply contrarian, as can be seen from the satellite data that show no warming either.

Now as we have pointed out repeatedly, this lack of a warming trend should not be taken as evidence against the existence of AGW; but it clearly indicates that the IPCC discussion is quite incomplete, since it omits any forcing that would counteract, or more than counteract, the warming effects of GH gases.

This time around, unlike during the cooling of 1940-75, the warmistas don’t blame the cooling on aerosols. Instead, they seem to be about evenly divided between those who attribute the lack of warming to a change in ocean circulation and those who blame the sun [Rind and Lean]. Except that in the latter case, Rind and Lean attempt to explain the data on a change in Total Solar Irradiance [TSI]; they seem to not have heard of the climate effects of cosmic rays, yet they refer to TSI as ‘solar activity.’

What I find interesting is that the modelers have now admitted that GH models can occasionally produce ten-year long periods of no warming; I’m willing to accept this. According to the modelers even 15-year periods can occur, but very rarely. So perhaps in five years we will be able to judge whether the current absence of warming is a stochastic event or due to real climate forcing, be it a change in ocean circulation or solar activity.

Wouldn’t it be prudent therefore to delay long-term commitments to mitigation until we understand more fully the cause of this puzzling absence of warming and its apparent contradiction to greenhouse models?

Ref: R. Kerr. Science 326. pp. 28-29, Oct 2, 2009

SEPP Science Editorial #33-2009 (10/24/09)

An object lesson on ‘renewable energy’

From the report of the RW Institute (Essen, Germany)

Proponents of renewable energies often regard the requirement for more workers to produce a given amount of energy as a benefit, failing to recognize that this lowers the output potential of the economy and is hence counterproductive to net job creation. Significant research shows that initial employment benefits from renewable policies soon turn negative as additional costs are incurred. Trade- and other assumptions in those studies claiming positive employment turn out to be unsupportable.

In the end, Germany’s PV [photovoltaic] promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 Euros (US $ 240,000).

Due to their backup energy requirements, it turns out that any increased energy security possibly afforded by installing large PV and wind capacity is undermined by reliance on fuel sources -- principally gas that must be imported to meet domestic demand. That much of this gas is imported from unreliable suppliers calls energy security claims further into question.

Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The Guardian 2007), we would instead regard [Germany’s] experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits.


I like the word used for wind-energy in a Dutch summary of the above: "subsidieslurpers" -- JR

The essence of the matter

President Obama is coming under renewed pressure internationally and in the United States to throw his weight behind [Senate] climate-change legislation [Boxer-Kerry], which advocates fear has suffered in light of the president's sweeping domestic agenda.

S. Fred Singer: comments to the WashPost (Oct 12):

"Just ask Boxer and Kerry: By how many degrees will their bill lower future temperatures? And how do they know this? [No hand-waving. Please cite some peer-reviewed papers]

And if they base their estimate on climate models, how do they explain the current, decade-long cooling when every IPCC model had predicted a strong warming?"

SOURCE (The comment now appears to have been deleted!)

Good and Bad in President Obama’s Global Warming Speech at MIT

President Obama traveled to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology today to deliver a speech on climate change. Part of the speech focused on innovation and the benefits of entrepreneurial risk taking while the other focused on government investments for renewable energy and the importance of climate change legislation. There was both good and bad parts of President Obama’s speech.

The good:
“Dr. Moniz is also the Director of MIT’s Energy Initiative, called MITEI. And he and President Hockfield just showed me some of the extraordinary energy research being conducted at this institute: windows that generate electricity by directing light to solar cells; light-weight, high-power batteries that aren’t built, but are grown — that was neat stuff; engineering viruses to create — to create batteries; more efficient lighting systems that rely on nanotechnology; innovative engineering that will make it possible for offshore wind power plants to deliver electricity even when the air is still.

And it’s a reminder that all of you are heirs to a legacy of innovation — not just here but across America — that has improved our health and our wellbeing and helped us achieve unparalleled prosperity. I was telling John and Deval on the ride over here, you just get excited being here and seeing these extraordinary young people and the extraordinary leadership of Professor Hockfield because it taps into something essential about America — it’s the legacy of daring men and women who put their talents and their efforts into the pursuit of discovery. And it’s the legacy of a nation that supported those intrepid few willing to take risks on an idea that might fail — but might also change the world.”

President Obama is right in that innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit is largely why the United States’ economy is what it is. These innovative technologies could eventually save Americans a lot of money on their energy bills. But it also goes to show how far away some of these technologies are from commercialization, which means they may not be able to hit the market yet without help from the taxpayer. When it comes to basic research and development, government funding may be prudent, but after that, it should be left for the market to determine whether or not these innovations will be successful. And even much of the research and development stage, including MITEI, is privately funded.

Let’s not forget, however, that wind, solar and biofuels aren’t new technologies and have been subsidized by the government for decades and still only provide an insignificant fraction of our energy supply. The reason they’ve been subsidized for such a long period of time is that they simply can’t compete but that shouldn’t stop American ingenuity. It should stop subsidies for failed projects. If private investors want to step up and continue to fund these projects, it’s their money. They can spend it how they please.

And this is where the President’s speech takes a wrong turn:
“That’s why the Recovery Act that we passed back in January makes the largest investment in clean energy in history, not just to help end this recession, but to lay a new foundation for lasting prosperity. The Recovery Act includes $80 billion to put tens of thousands of Americans to work developing new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles; modernizing the electric grid; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity. These are creating private-sector jobs weatherizing homes; manufacturing cars and trucks; upgrading to smart electric meters; installing solar panels; assembling wind turbines; building new facilities and factories and laboratories all across America.”

But the green stimulus, free lunch rhetoric neglects the costs, both real and opportunity costs, that come with a government stimulus. Heritage analyst Ben Lieberman writes that a green stimulus is actually a contradiction in terms: “Support for renewables would likely cost more jobs than are created. For example, subsidies for wind and solar energy would, at least from the narrow perspective of the wind and solar industries, create new jobs as more of these systems are manufactured and installed. But the tax dollars needed to help pay for them cost jobs elsewhere, as would the pricey electricity they produce.”

Our analysis of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill finds that there will be 1.9 million fewer jobs by 2012 after accounting for green jobs. Job losses would grow to 2.5 million by 2035. This makes us a cap and trade naysayer, who Obama attacks towards the end of his speech:
“The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized. But I think it’s important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we’ll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much needed action that we’re engaged in. There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy — when it’s the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those who cynically claim — make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.”

We’re naysayers because we believe the huge costs of this bill far outweigh the negligible environmental benefits. On top of the job losses we project that: Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035; Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent; And a typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs. We’re cynical for a reason.

If MIT students wanted to listen to a real expert on climate change, perhaps they should have gone with one of their own: Richard Lindzen.



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 is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here



Anonymous said...

How in all of creation do you do it?

I occasionally add a whole two handfuls of climate blogs to my daily reading, and yet after midnight in NYC your entries appear and they are so much better that a single day's entry, every day, gives me more food for thought than a week of all the others combined. I think it's because you do not need a slide rule in order to feel that you have something to say.

You are a very dangerous person. Nixon called Tim Leary the most dangerous man alive, since he was always upbeat and always plugging away from a source of well-trained authenticity. You have some of Tim in you, old man. You have cosmic laughter inside of you, just under the surface. You are not as serious as you let on, not as concerned, not as conservative. You are by all rights the embodiment of Jung's joker (trickster), though Jung gave him a negative spin that is unfair. One clue is how seriously you take the Bible as a work of real philosophy and as a source of social order. Another is your love of redheads and Asian women, and of women in general. Most of all, you have declined to become a public figure.

Tune In. Turn On. Drop Out.

That's you, sir!

An yet, though you share with Tim Leary, Bucky Fuller, Franklin Merrell-Wolff, William James, Aldous Huxley, Gordon Watson and Jung an academic vigor that you will never escape, yet unlike them, you lack either the drive to pursue or the drive to express your experience in delving into states of COMPLEX bliss which most call ecstasy.

You don't stand *for* anything.

You rarely comment on developments in nuclear power. Yet the crux of each and ever one of your active blogs would be solved or at least redefined in profoundly positive ways by application of nuclear power.

This makes me suspicious. Of what I do not yet know. Something quite vague.


JR said...