Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Warmists' flat earth theory
They REALLY are flat earthers. Their models assume it -- and make them just as wrong as the original flat-earthers
All of the computer models of the climate have adopted the flat earth theory of the earth's energy, as portrayed in Kiehl J. T. and K. E. Trenberth 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78 197-208.
The attached graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities.
It assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat, that the sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity, and that the temperature of the earth's surface is constant.
All the quantities on the graph are given as correct to the nearer Watt per square meter, but the figures in the paper are shown to possess very high inaccuracy which can never be measured, but always has to be "qualitatively estimated".On this occasion it was possible to stretch these inaccuracies to the level needed to provide a "balanced" energy budget. The total energy entering is made equal to the energy leaving. In this way it is now possible to calculate the effect of additional greenhouse gases. If it was not "balanced" and the "balance" varied it would be impossible to calculate.what are the effects of additional greenhouse gases.
There has now been a change of heart, in the following paper
Trenberth, K E, J T Fassulo, and J T Kiehl. 2009 Earth's Global Energy Budget. Bull Am. Met. Soc. 90 311-323.
This paper does a complete reassessment of the figures in the first paper. Its amended version as a mean between March 2000 and May 2004 is attached.
The earth is now thoroiughly flattened, as if it had been run over by a cosmic steamroller. Most of the figures have changed. Those for input and output of radiation are now apparently correct to one place of decimals. The rest of them are in trouble. The paper is full of discussions on how they could increase the "qualitative estimates" of uncertainty that might be attached to them, but this time they have found it impossible to extend their estimating ability sufficiently. So this time it is "unbalanced" to the extent of a warming of 0.9 Watts per square meter a year for the period 2000 to 2004.
Unfortunately there is no doubt that the earth's temperature cooled over this period. This paper is therefore firm proof that the original concepts behind the models are wrong.
It ought to be obvious. The earth does actually rotate. The sun does not shine at night. The temperature is not constant. Every part of the earth has a different energy input from its output.
There is a correct mathematical treatment. It would involve the division of the earth's surface into a large number of tiny increments, and the energy input and output calculated for each one, using the changes in all the factors involved. There would then have to be a gigantic integration of all these results to give a complete energy budget for the earth. Only when this is done and repeated over a long period will it be possible to find the influence of increases in greenhouse gases.
The data do not exist for such an exercise and probably never will.
Until then we will have to settle for the methods that have been developed by meteorologists over the past two centuries and hope that these can be extended over time to provide us with a means for assessing the effects of additional greenhouse gases on the climate.
The currently promoted greenhouse theory is dead and its consequences have to be removed at once.
The DoD should assess the security risks of climate change policies
The Pentagon is perhaps the most influential lobby on Capitol Hill and has the respect of many on the center-right who hold the likes of Greenpeace, Al Gore, and the United Nations in low regard. What’s more, if “even the generals are worried” and climate change is officially deemed a national security threat, then proponents of cap-and-trade get to wave the flag and depict their opponents as venal, partisan, or unpatriotic. So it’s not surprising that global warming activists for years have sought to institutionalize climate change concerns in Department of Defense (DOD) intelligence assessments, program planning, and budgeting.
They have made some headway, though the Department is still far from a hotbed of climate alarm. DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review Report (QDR) calls climate change a “key issue” that will play a “significant role in shaping the future security environment.” On the other hand, at a recent briefing on the QDR at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a top-ranking DOD official pointedly declined to define climate change as a “national security threat,” calling it instead an “instability accelerant”—a factor that could exacerbate conditions conducive to conflict within and among nations. Angst, hyperbole, and cheerleading for cap-and-trade were conspicuously absent. Nonetheless, the Wilson Center briefing lacked balance. Panelists discussed the security risks associated with climate change while seeming completely oblivious to the potential of various climate change policies to damage U.S. security interests. Similarly, the QDR says nothing about the security risks of climate policies.
This paper aims to inject some badly needed balance into discussions of climate change and national security. First, it takes a skeptical look at the claim that climate is an important “threat multiplier” or, as the QDR puts it, an “accelerant of instability and conflict.” Second, it outlines several ways in which climate policies can adversely affect U.S. national security.
Spain to stiff solar investors
They're basically broke and their Green/Left policies are a large part of the reason
Spain’s government, after using subsidies to spur more than 18 billion euros ($24 billion) in solar-power projects since 2008, may reduce the premium power rates that attracted clean-energy investors.
The state has the authority to cut prices paid to operating renewable-power plants under a 2007 law, according to an industry ministry spokesman who declined to be identified. All options are being assessed for a new strategic plan this year, he said. Spanish solar and wind developer shares fell as much as 4.1 percent.
“This is nothing less than a catastrophe” for investors, said Stephane Aderca, an energy analyst at Liberum Capital Ltd. in London. “We had believed that a promise is a promise. Going back on a promise brings the whole thing into question.”
Developers built 2.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity in Spain in 2008, more than the whole world added in 2007, after the government set rates at about 10 times higher than earned by plants burning fossil fuels. Investment slumped in 2009 after Spain slashed its consumer-subsidized tariff for new plants by about 25 percent.
Industry groups have been negotiating with the government for months over tariff cuts for plants that have yet to begin production.
“Should the government incorporate a back-dated tariff revision that goes against the spirit of the law it would lead to a flood of lawsuits and would affect the credibility of Spain,” said Tomas Diaz, a spokesman for the Spanish Photovoltaic Industry Association.
The government is also considering further tariff cuts for new renewable-power plants, the ministry spokesman said in a telephone interview today.
Spanish companies that own or develop clean-energy plants declined in Madrid trading.
Abengoa SA fell 4.1 percent to 20.23 euros. Acciona SA dropped 3.7 percent, while Iberdrola Renovables SA and its parent, Iberdrola SA, respectively fell 3 percent and 1.7 percent. Those companies are at risk, according to a note Credit Agricole Cheuvreux sent today to clients.
The 88-member WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation Index lost 1.1 percent.
“The tariff scheme is set out in a Spanish statute so it seems unlikely they would go back and retroactively apply a new tariff,” Olivia Peters, an analyst at MF Global U.K. Ltd. in London said. “The government would be opening a can of worms.”
An Iberdrola spokeswoman in Madrid declined to comment. Officials at Abengoa and Acciona weren´t immediately available to comment. Solaria didn’t respond to a phone call and e-mail seeking comment about whether the government would act against existing plants.
“This will totally alter the perspective of project developers” if it goes forward, Aderca said.
Climate sceptics smell victory in Dutch parliament
The parliamentary committee meeting called to discuss errors in the UN climate report has left climate change sceptics feeling vindicated, writes the Financieele Dagblad on Tuesday.
‘The panel on climate change is irrelevant’. ‘This organisation has put us on the wrong track.’ Scientists Arthur Rörsch (formerly at TNO) and Bas van Geel (University of Amsterdam) could not help but look slightly smug on hearing these words.
Experts on either side of the climate change debate answered the committee’s questions yesterday about their experiences with the UN climate panel (IPCC) and its modus operandus.
The meeting was prompted by the controversy which erupted last year when it became clear that some of the findings in the panel’s 1997 report had been exaggerated. One example was the prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
In November last year a batch of leaked e mails suggested that British climate scientists had deliberately suppressed data that would prejudice their research.
The climate debate controversy became polarised to such an extent that former environment minister Jacqueline Cramer decided to take action. In March this year she asked national environment watchdog Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL) to investigate.
The climate sceptics’ harsh words made for an uneasy atmosphere yesterday. Nrc’s science journalist Karel Knip who also appeared before the committee said the climate sceptics and their weblogs have completely destroyed the debate. ‘Personal attacks are the norm and it has ruined the whole discussion. The atmosphere has been so bad that even I have been tempted to have a go at someone’, said unlikely hooligan Knip.
Some committee members were also visibly annoyed. Labour MP Diederik Samson ejected a heated ‘You do not convince me one bit!’when TU Delft’s professor Salomon Kroonenberg again cited the sun and cosmic rays as the main culprits for warming up the planet.
The climate scientists who think climate change is a man made problem were much less vehement. PBL which is expected to present its findings at the end of May even apologised for one of the IPCC’s inaccuracies concerning the consequences of sea level rise in the Netherlands. ‘Those data came from us’, they admitted.
Yesterday’s meeting didn’t provide any answers let alone a solution to the climate problem. Opinion is too divided, especially on the role of the sun’s rays. Just how closely scientists and policy makers should work together is another moot point- not as closely as they currently are at the IPCC say some. It could lead to scientists feeling pressured and likely to exaggerate results. The only thing both camps agreed upon was the fact that evaporation leads to the acceleration of the earth’s temperatures.
The Naked Communism of Earth Day
By Alan Caruba
It is no accident that April 22, Earth Day, is also the birth date of Vladimir Lenin, an acolyte of Karl Marx, the lunatic who invented communism as an alternative to capitalism.
Earth Day is naked communism. To begin, it substitutes a worship of the Earth, Gaia, for the worship of God, creator of the universe and the instructor of moral behavior for mankind.
The Earth does not demand a moral code of personal behavior. Indeed, the lesson it teaches is “the survival of the fittest “and an indifference to suffering. The “natural events” mankind fears most all involve the potential for significant loss of life and for injury.
The Earth is a beautiful place, but it is utterly merciless. Man has learned to adapt to it and, by adapt, I mean to use its resources to build shelter and protection from it, to plant and harvest crops from it, and to domesticate some of its species while hunting and fishing for others for food.
Earth Day postulates that man is the cause of harm to Earth by virtue of his cities, his highways, his use of its sources of energy, and even the garbage that results from the normal course of maintaining life. For centuries mankind routinely burned and buried garbage. Now we are told we must separate and recycle it. We are told that everything plastic is bad even though it is one of the great inventions of modern times.
Communism reached its zenith in the last century. Its imposition in the former Soviet Union, in China, and elsewhere is a litany of murder and oppression. In the 20th century, a minimum 110 million people died as a result. It enslaves mankind wherever it can.
Environmentalism has been built on the foundation laid by communism because both exist to control everyone’s life. They are opposite sides of the same coin, both are opposed to the ownership of private property and both regard man as state property to be drained of his earnings through taxation.
Environmentalism’s preferred method is coercion and the mechanism for this is government.
While America was established to ensure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, environmentalism exists to exert more and more control over our lives by limiting our choices, our liberty. Environmentalism redefines happiness as doing without the advances of science and commerce that protects and prolongs our lives.
There is nothing voluntary about environmentalism. There is nothing voluntary about having to recycle. There is nothing voluntary about having to fill your tank with a mixture of gasoline and ethanol. There is nothing voluntary about the imposition of mileage standards for cars. There is nothing voluntary about losing access to beneficial chemicals that control countless insect and rodent pests that spread disease and destroy property.
While the vast majority of Americans clamor for the government to permit access to our nation’s vast natural resources of coal, oil, and natural gas it stands in the way, claiming always that drilling and mining pose a threat to the environment. At the same time it acquires more and more of the nation’s landmass to deter access and economic growth.
In the name of the environment, the U.S. government is set to impose a Cap-and-Trade law on Americans that has no basis whatever in science and is, in fact, based on the greatest hoax of the modern era, “global warming.”
Cap-and-Trade will tax energy use and directly control how much energy individual Americans can use to heat or cool their homes through “smart grid” technology controlled by the utilities, not the consumer.
Environmentalism is the reason the U.S. has not had a single new refinery or nuclear plant built since the 1970s. Think about that every time you drive your car or turn on the lights.
The spread of endless environmental propaganda has been taken up by the nation’s mainstream media and has infiltrated the nation’s schools through its textbooks and other means of instruction. Earth Day will be the occasion for an orgy of media coverage.
Just as communism failed the former Soviet Union and just as Red China abandoned communism as the model for its economy, environmentalism continues its relentless quest to deter economic growth and security in America. It is the infrastructure of a New World Order. Do not celebrate Earth Day. Denounce it.
Australia: "Green" NSW Labor party ripping heart out of commercial fishing
THE days of being able to buy fresh, local prawns are under threat from Federal and State Labor following the release of plans to prohibit prawn trawling in the Solitary Islands Marine Park, Federal MP Luke Hartsuyker said.
The NSW Government yesterday announced a proposed new plan of management to expand the sanctuary zone from 12 to 20 per cent and to totally prohibit prawn trawling in the park within two years.
“The extreme actions of the NSW Government follow the Rudd Government’s announcement to further assess an area up to 80 kilometres off shore in order to establish a new Commonwealth Marine Reserve," mr Hartsuyker said.
“The local commercial fishing industry understandably feels very threatened by both Federal and State Labor. “The NSW Government has now made it very clear that they want the commercial fishers gone. There is nothing balanced about this approach.
"Both Federal and State Labor want to rip the heart and soul out of the local commercial fishing industry. “If Labor gets its ways we will no longer be able to catch local prawns and consumers will have no choice but to purchase imported seafood."
Mr Hartsuyker said it would not only cost jobs, but would also be a boon for the seafood black market.
“Today’s announcement also highlights why the local fishing and tourism industries are so concerned about the process to establish commonwealth marine reserves," he said. “There are serious concerns that Federal Minister Peter Garrett will be guided by the extreme ideology in his department. "Those concerns are now well based given what the NSW Government has now announced. “The flow on effect to commonwealth waters is scary.
"Sustainable fishing is vital, but I believe it is wrong to blanket ban prawn trawling over the complete area.”
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 are mirrors of this site here and here
Posted by JR at 4:04 PM