STOP PRESS: Global warming now REDUCES extreme weather
This is actually more in line with the data than the usual claims are
Global warming could halve the frequency of Arctic hurricanes – extreme storms that strike the north Atlantic during winter – by 2100, according to a new study, potentially encouraging exploitation of the region's oil reserves.
"Our results provide a rare example of climate change driving a decline in extreme weather, rather than an increase," says Matthias Zahn at the University of Reading. His study, published in the Nature journal, is the first to use a global climate model to assess how Arctic hurricanes may behave in a warmer world.
The results of his study may provide encouragement to oil and gas companies that currently consider drilling in the northern north Atlantic very risky, he says. "As the likelihood of hurricanes destroying oil rigs declines, drilling in the region may become a more attractive option."
Arctic hurricanes, also known as polar lows, are explosive storms that develop and die over a few days. They form when cold air from the Arctic flows south over warmer water: the air takes up heat, expands and rises, generating convection currents that sometimes snowball into storms.
Zahn and his colleague Hans von Storch, of the Meteorological Institute at Hamburg University, used a global climate model to project the impact of three scenarios on temperature, humidity and other variables in 2100. They then fed this data into a regional model to assess how polar lows may respond.
Assuming that greenhouse gas emissions rise rapidly in the future, the frequency of Arctic hurricanes could fall from an average of 36 per winter to about 17 by 2100, the model suggests. If emissions rise more slowly the number of hurricanes could fall to 23 per winter.
Polar lows are less likely to form in the future because climate change will warm up the air in the north Atlantic faster than it warms up the ocean, reducing the thermal difference and reducing the risk of convection currents forming.
The shifty Lord Oxburgh consulted the fox on how to guard the henhouse
Warmism just lives and breathes crookedness. Crookedness is essential to its continued existence
The Oxburgh Report stated: "The eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in detail are listed in Appendix B. The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and were selected on the advice of the Royal Society."
This statement has been questioned ever since the publication of the Oxburgh Report. That the Royal Society did not select the papers has been clear for some time.
In Oxburgh’s testimony to the Parliamentary Committee, Oxburgh stated:
Q – Right. Can you tell us how did you choose the 11 publications?
Ox- We didn’t choose the 11 publications. They were basically what… We needed something that would be provide a pretty good introduction to work of the unit as it had evolved over the years. The publications were suggested to us came via the university and by the royal society, I believe. We feel ..let me just emphasize..they were just a start… because all of us were novices in this area, we all felt that they were a very good introduction – we moved on. We looked at other publications… we asked for raw materials, things of that kind. The press made quite a meal out of the choice of publications. For anyone on the panel, this all seems over the top. It didn’t have that significance.
Q – there are two things that arise out of that. It was a small unit. Are you saying that Jones, the subject of the investigation, chose the papers that were to be investigated… and that it wasn’t the panel or royal Society?
Ox – No suggestion Jones chose them,
Q – Where did they come from?
Ox- I believe they came … I suspect that that the […] involved was Professor Liss who was acting head of the unit who’d been brought in from outside the unit…he’s been an chemical oceanographer who is broadly interested in area. he in consultation with people with royal society and maybe others outside the unit who had some familiarity.
Q -So the list did not come from the unit – you’re absolutely categorical ?
Ox – Well I cant
Q – So the list did not come from CRU?
Ox – I can’t prove a negative. There’s absolutely no indication that it did.
Q – Your publicity said that it came from Royal Society. The Panel given list before Royal Society asked.
Ox – I… Not as far as I know. You Might be right but I don’t believe so. No certainly I don’t think that can be true.
In a recent post, I observed that the list of eleven publications was sent out as early as March 4 – well before a perfunctory email from Trevor Davies to Martin Rees and Brian Hoskins of the Royal Society on March 12 saying that Oxburgh wanted to be able to say that the list had been chosen “in consultation with the Royal Society”, even though the list had already been sent out.
I recently noticed that Lisa Williams of the UEA Registrar’s Office was shown as the author of the list version sent to panelists – thereby offering a lead towards solving the authorship of the list, which was accompanied by the statement:
"These key publications have been selected because of their pertinence to the specific criticisms which have been levelled against CRU’s research findings as a result of the theft of emails."
Today – after almost six months – the riddle of who prepared the list is resolved. Lisa Williams wrote:
Dear Mr McIntyre
In response to your recent enquiry I can provide the following information.
I understand that the list of 11 papers for the Oxburgh review was collated by Prof Trevor Davies, in consultation with others. He was also the author of the statement at the bottom of the list.
Yours sincerely, Lisa Williams
So the list was not selected by the Royal Society after all, but by Trevor Davies, the pro-VC of the University and former director of CRU. In consultation with “others”. Dare one hypothesize that these mysterious “others” will turn out to be Jones and Briffa after all?
IPCC, EPA Go On Trial in a courtroom
Essentially putting global warming science on trial, Texas officials on Thursday expanded their arguments in a lawsuit meant to prevent the federal regulation of greenhouse gases.
In motions submitted Thursday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott accused the federal Environmental Protection Agency of relying on faulty science for its proposals to regulate greenhouse gases.
The briefs build on a federal suit filed in February by Texas and other states against the EPA, which in December issued an endangerment finding that carbon dioxide emissions threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
The endangerment finding, which opens the way to further regulations, spun out of a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
The EPA said its scientific conclusions were based on work by three groups: the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Research Council, which synthesize thousands of studies to convey a consensus on what scientific literature shows about climate, according to the agency.
In February, Abbott, who is seeking re-election this year, said that in relying on the U.N. panel's data, the EPA "outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy."
The American-Statesman's PolitiFact Texas team deemed "Barely True" Abbott's statement, which drew attention to claims that scientists for the U.N. panel from at least two universities had suppressed data that could undermine global warming work.
Since the February claim, independent reviews of work by climate scientists at East Anglia University in England and Penn State University found no evidence that they had actively suppressed or falsified data.
"By delegating its judgment on climate science to the (U.N. group) and others, EPA exposed its conclusions to the errors and biases of unaccountable volunteer scientists, and undermined the validity of the endangerment finding," reads a brief filed by the Texas attorney general's office.
The state is challenging proposals to limit emissions of greenhouse gases from light-duty-vehicle tailpipes and large industrial facilities.
Abbott and Gov. Rick Perry have said greenhouse gas rules could cripple the Texas economy.
EU gives up: Will No Longer Commit To Unilateral CO2 Targets
EU will no longer commit to unilateral obligations to reduce CO2 emissions. The EU climate change commissioner sees especially the United States under an obligation to commit to binding reduction targets. Only then Europe would do the same.
Setting a good example - this strategy will no longer apply for Europe at international climate negotiations. Climate change commissioner Connie Hedegaard said the EU will no longer unconditionally play the lead role in the haggling over CO2 reduction targets. "We will only accept new commitments if others accept commitments too," Hedegaard said on Tuesday in Brussels.
Thus, the EU will not necessarily sign a new international climate agreement. In particular, the U.S. should commit to binding targets for reducing carbon dioxide, the Danish commissioner demanded. "It is not possible to persuade China, India or Brazil if the largest industrialized country is not contributing enough."
Hedegaard - then as Danish Environment Minister - had organised the ultimately unsuccessful 2009 Copenhagen summit negotiations on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol that expires at the end of 2012. In Copenhagen, the EU countries had committed to CO2 reductions and pledged initial funding for climate protection projects in developing countries even before the negotiations started.
But at the Copenhagen summit the other key emitters - especially the U.S. and China – refused to follow the example of the EU and did not to commit to reduction targets to prevent global warming of more than two degrees Celsius. [transl. Philipp Mueller]
Full story (in German)
More false prophecies
Ozone "hole" recovering? Anybody looking at the record can see that it just fluctuates randomly, with some of the largest "holes" in recent years
THE protective ozone layer in the Earth's upper atmosphere has stopped thinning and should largely be restored by mid-century thanks to a ban on harmful chemicals, UN scientists say.
The Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010 report says a 1987 treaty that phased out chlorofluorocarbons - substances used in refrigerators, aerosol sprays and some packing foams - had been successful.
Ozone provides a natural protective filter against harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun, which can cause sunburn, cataracts and skin cancer as well as damage vegetation.
First observations of a seasonal ozone hole appearing over the Antarctic occurred in the 1970s and the alarm was raised in the 1980s after it was found to be worsening under the onslaught of CFCs, prompting 196 countries to join the Montreal Protocol.
"It has protected us from further ozone depleting over the past decades," Len Barrie, the World Meteorological Organisation head of research, said.
Scientists now expect the ozone layer will be restored to 1980 levels in 2045 to 2060.
Alarmist appointed to NOAA by Obama
Fishing endangered by a fanatic
The Obama Administration seems to seek out extremists to appoint to positions of power in the federal government. The latest outrage is Scott Doney, who has been nominated to the post of Chief Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A position which will have a profound a impact on the “science” of the global warming debate.
While the Chief Scientist position has been vacant for 14 years, stretching back to the middle of the Clinton Administration, apparently, the Obama Administration felt that it needs to be filled. And Doney, a long time alarmist about ocean acidification, is the man they have chosen for the Senate to consider.
Doney has made a living claiming that CO2 emissions are changing the pH levels in the ocean with disastrous effects looming. Doney clings to these claims in spite of his own 2008 admission while testifying before Congress that, “Major gaps exist in our current scientific understanding, limiting our ability to forecast the consequences of ocean acidification…”
Doney’s advocacy for a “precautionary approach to management, fishing pressure reduction and environmental stress minimization should therefore begin before acidification’s effects on marine resources become obvious,” admits that there is no current effect to marine resources, yet he still wants to significantly impact fishing, farming and energy industries in case he’s right.
NOAA, a heretofore little known agency outside of the always accurate weather bureau, is aggressively taking the lead in pushing global warming hysteria under the leadership of Obama appointee, Jane Lubchenco. While many find it ironic that an agency that cannot tell you for certain if it will rain this afternoon, is absolutely certain that climate change exists, and that it is a result of human activity.
Fishermen and those who live or work near coastal waterways should be particularly alarmed given Doney’s stated desire to limit fishing and coastal activities under the guise of “precautionary action.”
Americans for Limited Government’s Rebekah Rast has previously reported that NOAA is engaged in a massive effort to create ocean monuments and other designations that put vast areas off limits to commercial or even private use.
The Senate confirmation of Dr. Doney, should give the Senate an opportunity to fully examine the Administration’s far reaching ocean policy and whether someone who is the equivalent of the Chicken Little of the Seas, should be entrusted with controlling the “science” that NOAA uses.
Unfortunately, in Obama’s world, it appears that the only science that is valid is “political science,” and the Senate should reject Doney’s nomination. At a time when our economy is stumbling under the weight of uncertainty due to scheduled massive tax increases and voluminous regulations spewing from every portal of government, the last thing we need is a Chief Scientist at NOAA who is bent on attacking our fishing, farming and energy industries as a “precautionary measure.”
After all, NOAA survived just fine without a Chief Scientist since 1996, and they should be able to muddle along without one for a while more.
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