Sunday, January 09, 2011

Natural variability, not CO2, accounts for late 20th century warming

Discussing: DelSole, T., Tippett, M.K., Shukla, J. 2010. "A significant component of unforced multidecadal variability in the recent acceleration of global warming". Journal of Climate, 2010.

A critical but difficult question is how much of the warming of the past 100 years is due to human activity. When multiple forcings are varying and poorly characterized, and there is also internal variation, this question becomes even more difficult to answer. In this paper, the authors use a spatial fingerprinting technique in an attempt to accomplish this.

Specifically, a set of climate models run in "control" or unforced mode were used to develop a 300 year dataset of spatial ocean temperature data. It was found that an internal pattern, detectable using a spatial fingerprinting technique, could be identified in the simulated data.

This spatial pattern of ocean temperature anomalies was labeled the Internal Multidecadal Pattern (IMP). It was found that this pattern is highly coherent with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) historical patterns and predicted the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), suggesting that the models were able to match the internal dynamics of the real Earth system.

Next, the authors extracted, also with discriminant fingerprinting, the forced component of the spatial patterns produced in the absence of the IMP as an orthogonal function, which they demonstrated has only a minor effect (less than 1/7 amplitude) on the IMP. They then used historical sea surface temperature data to evaluate the relative importance of the forced vs. IMP components of change from 1850.

In considering the latter portion of the record (1946-2008), results indicated that the internal variability component of climate change (the IMP) operated in a cooling mode between 1946 and 1977, but switched to a warming mode thereafter (between 1977 and 2008), suggesting that the IMP is strong enough to overwhelm any anthropogenic signal.

Of this the authors state: "Specifically, the trend due to only the forced component is statistically the same in the two 32-year periods and in the 63-year period. That is, the forced part is not accelerating. Taken together, these results imply that the observed trend differs between the periods 1946-1977 and 1977-2008 not because the forced response accelerated, but because internal variability lead to relative cooling in the earlier period and relative warming in the later period"

With respect to the entire record, the authors state that the 150 year-long trend of temperature is not explained by the IMP. In their Figure 4, it is seen that the forced component spatial fingerprint began to deviate from no trend sometime after 1920.

But, this type of analysis does not distinguish between types of forcing (e.g., solar vs. anthropogenic). Nevertheless, the results in this paper suggest that simple extrapolations of rates of warming from 1980 onward overestimate the forced component of warming. Using this period without factoring out internal variability will likely lead to unrealistic values of climate sensitivity.


The latest shriek: The Ecologist magazine compares using fossil fuels to owning slaves.

These guys are the original eco-nutters, and have inspired generations of imbeciles like Keith Farnish (whose book calling for the end of industrial civilization Hansen endorsed). They defended the Khmer Rouge and said "they deserve our best wishes . . . we could learn from them". There are also clear and documented connections of the magazine to post-war British Fascism. With articles like these, the global warming movement is moving rapidly to the most extreme fringes

`The Ecologist', widely considered to be the most influential environmental magazine, has published an article which asserts that using machines that require "fossil fuels" (for example, petrol in your car, or gas for your stove) is "morally comparable" with owning slaves.

The article, entitled "Climate Change: We Are Like Slave Owners" bases its case on two separate but linked arguments:

First, slaves and fossil-fuelled machines play(ed) similar economic and social roles: `energy slaves' (machines powered by fossil fuels) now do the work in our homes, fields and factories, which used to be carried out by slaves and servants in the past . . .

Second, in differing ways, suffering resulting (directly) from slavery and (indirectly, through Climate Change) from the excessive burning of fossil fuels are now morally comparable. When we burn oil or gas at a rate that exceeds what the ecosystem can absorb, we contribute to global warming, which in turn contributes to droughts, floods or hurricanes. These climatic events cause suffering to other human beings, today and in the future. They contribute to crop failures and put some people at risk of falling into debt bondage, a condition similar to traditional slavery.

This condemnation of machinery, on what are extremely tenuous grounds is a favourite topic for The Ecologist magazine, which has been arguing for the abolition of labour-saving devices since it was first published.

An article in 1977 by its founding editor, Edward Goldsmith (brother of the noted corporate raider and industrialist, Sir James Goldsmith, who financed the magazine) discussed phasing out machines and how it could be done. Goldsmith argued that "The consumer goods we wish to phase out must simply be removed from the market". The new ecologically-oriented society Goldsmith envisioned would not need such things:

"To suggest that dish-washing machines and other domestic appliances should be phased out would meet with instant opposition. These [machines] are undoubtedly needed in a family of but two or three people and in which both husband and wife must go out to work. They would become quite unnecessary, however, once the family had become re-established and eight to ten people once more inhabited the same house"

Goldsmith fantasized that environmental disasters and general alienation would lead to a general disenchantment with modern society and that would provide the opportunity to put these plans into action:

"At this point panic will set in and people will grope about frantically for an alternative social philosophy with an alternative set of solutions. The most attractive is likely to be the most radical - the one which provides the best vehicle for expressing the reaction to the value of industrialism."

This phasing out of machinery was seen by The Ecologist as part of a "rural revolution" for society, and they were particular excited by the example of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

In an 1975 article Robert Allen (later Head of Publications and a Senior Policy Advisor for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the IUCN) defended the Khmer Rouge against the "distortions" that had been appearing about them in the media, arguing that the Khmer Rouge had to force the sick out of the hospitals and into the fields otherwise there would be too many "exceptions" to their program of agrarian communism. The Ecologist saw in the `Year Zero' program of the Khmer Rouge an exciting possibility that could be copied in the West as well. Of course, people in Western society had been so brainwashed by consumerism that they would have to be `forced to be free':

"If Cambodia succeeds in forging a rural economy, it will force us to appraise the prison of industrialism. Most men and women today are slaves who if offered their freedom would reject it, refusing to spend the time that freedom requires."

The article ended with The Ecologist congratulating the Khmer Rouge and the people of Cambodia on their approach: "They deserve our best wishes, our sympathy, and our attention. We might learn something."

The Ecologist magazine was founded in the late 1960s by Edward Goldsmith and funded by his brother, Sir James Goldsmith the noted corporate raider, industrialist and financier. The editorial staff came from the Soil Association's Mother Earth magazine following the death of its editor in 1963, the well known fascist Jorian Jenks, formerly Oswald Moseley's Secretary of Agriculture for the British Union of Fascists (1).

1) Graham Macklin, Very Deeply Dyed in Black: Sir Oswald Moseley and the Resurrection of British Fascism After 1945 . (I.B. Taurus & Co: London, 2007) P. 65.

SOURCE (See the original for links)

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming

S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”

Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming (AGW), is an atmospheric physicist, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization that began challenging the published findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1990s. SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, a statement of dissent from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by over one hundred scientists and meteorologists.

Asked what he would like to see happen in regard to public opinion and policy on climate change, Singer replied,

I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems.

NIPCC is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, another group established by Singer. In 2009 NIPCC published Climate Change Reconsidered,an 880-page report on scientific research that contradicts the models of man-made global warming. Singer believes that global warming exists but that human contributions to it are minimal..In the interview Singer said he believed his efforts in the last twenty years had been successful in disproving the notion that “the science is settled.”

Singer continues his work in the sciences, focusing lately on geophysical research and the Earth’s atmosphere. He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962).

The National Association of Scholars does not take a position on global warming but advocates for a full discussion of all sides of the controversy.


How can climate scientists spend so much money?

US Federal government spending on climate change research in 2011

Until a few days ago I knew that the US government spent an excessive amount of taxpayer money on climate change research. It was just a general notion; I had read occasional articles showing the funding of certain agencies like NASA but I didn't know many specifics. Then on New Years Day, I wrote a very quick article where I randomly picked a document from a Google search showing funding for climate change. The numbers astonished me. I decided to take a closer look.

The document is the The American Association for the Advancement of Science's report. The entire report is here, but I am only looking at chapter 15 which is here. The report is basically a snapshot of US Federal spending on research, including budgets for 2011 and how these numbers compare to previous years. The chapter on climate change is short and easy to read. It shows that all US agencies that conduct climate change research are expected to have larger budgets for 2011.

Remember, these numbers are not set in stone, but they will not be drastically different from the actual numbers. I also need to make a caveat. Just because this funding has been labeled 'climate change research' does not mean it is necessarily not linked to another field as well.

For example, some of the costs associated are for satellites, which are important in more than just climate research. This is not entirely frivolous spending. Even so, the numbers are staggering. Let's look at some agencies and their budgets.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
NOAA's total budget request is $5.6 billion, which would be an increase of 17.0 percent. Of this, $437 million would be for climate research funding, which is an increase of $77 million.

$437 million spent on climate change research in one year, in one agency. Here's another:
National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF would receive $7.4 billion in FY 2011, an increase of 8 percent relative to the FY 2010 appropriation. The request includes $370 million under the USGCRP framework, which is an increase of 16.0 percent. The Geosciences Directorate would receive $955 million (a 7.4 percent increase) in FY 2011 with $480 million going to Atmospheric and Earth Sciences. NSF's Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) program would receive $765.5 million. This is intended to promote discoveries and capability needed to inform societal actions in ways that contribute to environmental and economic sustainability. NSF's request also includes $19 million for RE-ENERGYSE, a joint program with the Department of Energy intended to promote education in clean energy research. An additional $10 million would fund Climate Change Education, which seeks to increase understanding of climate among the next generation of Americans.

$480 million here, $765.5 million there, throw in another $10 million for climate education and you've got $1.25 billion dollars spent on climate change research just at the NSF, just in ONE YEAR! Next is NASA:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA's FY 2011 budget request is $19.0 billion. NASA Earth Science is a relatively small fraction of this total, $1.8 billion or 9.5 percent, but would increase substantially relative to the FY 2010 appropriation (up 26.8 percent). NASA Earth Science funds climate change R&D through several programs. Two of particular note are Earth Science Research, which would receive $438.1 million (an increase of 14 percent)...

It seems like the $450 million mark is a common budget for climate research among these agencies. NOAA's funding, the NSF's atmospheric science funding, and NASA's Earth Science research are all around $450 million. It may be an interesting coincidence. Next is the Department of Energy:

Department of Energy (DOE).
The President's budget request for DOE in FY 2011 is $28.4 billion. This includes $4.6 billion for R&D in the Office of Science (an increase of 3.8 percent), and $2.4 billion for energy R&D (an increase of 6.8 percent). Within the Office of Science, the Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER), which supports basic research in atmospheric sciences, terrestrial ecosystems and climate modeling, would receive $627 million (an increase of 3.8 percent). BER's request includes $28.6 million for the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science (TES) program, which examines the impact of climate change on biological systems and land-surface carbon cycle feedbacks to climate change.

$627 million taken from a taxpayer or borrowed from a future taxpayer, spent in one year. Next the Department of the Interior:
Department of the Interior (DOI).
DOI requests $171 million (an increase of 26.0 percent) for its Climate Change Adaptation initiative, which seeks to identify areas and species most vulnerable to climate change and implement coping strategies. Of this, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) would receive $77.9 million for climate science (an increase of 15.5 percent).

How many jobs could be created in 2011 if $171 million were still in the hands of US taxpayers, instead of being spent on climate studies which have been done many times before? Studying areas vulnerable to climate change? That's already been done by every agency, twice. Next is the EPA:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
EPA requests $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (an increase of 1 percent). Of this, $43.5 million is new funding for regulatory efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act. EPA requests $22 million for its Global Change Research Program, which assesses the impacts of global change on air and water quality, ecosystems, human health, and socioeconomic systems in the United States with a primary goal of promoting adaptation efforts.

I don't even understand what this means. How does giving the EPA $169 million reduce emissions? Also, does it really cost $43.5 million a year (more) to regulate greenhouse gases? Lastly, the USDA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
USDA requests $159 million for climate change research, an increase of 42.0 percent, and $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41.0 percent. USDA's climate change efforts (and those of the U.S. Forest Service which is part of USDA) center on helping farmers and land owners adapt to climate change impacts (e.g., enhanced fire stress, insect outbreaks, droughts, floods, and heat stress) and promoting carbon storage in soils and forests.

A 42% increase in climate change research? $159 million spent in a single year, by the USDA? Crop yields are up! CO2 helps crops! Imagine spending $159 million in 2011 to research things that actually help people.

The amount of money being spent on climate change research this year is astounding. I urge you to read the document yourself. Here is the question to take away: what are we getting for the billions of dollars we've spent? When 2011 is over will we look back at the published research and be satisfied with how our billions have been spent? This type of spending has occurred for some time, and what do we have to show for it? Multiple federal agencies having multi-hundred million dollar budgets in the same (controversial) field is wasteful. Let's make sure 2011 is the last year these budgets increase.


Prof. Hans von Storch replies to some questions

He is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Germany. He is critical of politicized science generally

1 – Climate Science and Political Power: birth of a new relationship

Q. The climate issue has become very prominent in the political agenda and climate science results, methods and outcomes have taken a primary role in the political decision process. Why, in your opinion, climate science has become so important for political power?

A. My interpretation is that issues of quality of life, and this is to large extent related to the environment we live in, has become a dominant political goal of large chunks of the populace in the affluent west. Climate has become the most important environmental concern, maybe because concern about a “worsening climate” is an old cultural construct in the west, where the concept had flourished for a long time that a higher power would punish people for sinful behavior. The traditional sins have been replaced by sins against the environment in general and against climate in particular. Climate stands for all these problems, and the climate problem is easy to grasp, has simple answers, which are consistent with traditional knowledge claims.

Climate science is a convenient partner for policymaking – first because it resonates positively with the requests of the electorate, second it allows politicians to avoid accepting responsibility but to place responsibility on science – “science tells us to do this and that”.

Q. When did this close relationship begin? When did the political attention on climate science become so relevant to make climate change issue a part of the global political debate? Could we say that there is a starting point for the relationship between political power and climate science?

A. This relationship began about 15 years after the emergence of the green movement, when the so far dominant conflict – the east-west-conflict – ceased. The climate problem is well suited for a global debate, because it may be framed so that almost all relevant problems, the north-south problem, inequality of development, injustice due to former colonialism, environmental degradation are included. A time-wise specific“starting point” I would find difficult to set.

2 – Politics, Climate Science and money

Q. In the second half of the 20th Century, political institutions in the G8 countries invested heavily into climate research. Do you think that the level of funding is actually matching the demands that come from the society at large and it is adequate to address some of the most pressing questions?

A. In principle, yes. There is some research included which is mostly “climate” by name only. The question is if the generous funding siphons funds from other fields, which would deserve better funding, given the seriousness of the issues (e.g., health issues)

3 – A new, vast and varied audience

Q. This vast attention from the political power and the prominence of climate change issues in the international political agenda brought climate science on a global stage and climate scientists and their science are in the limelight. Results from laboratories and from computer simulations are catching attention not only by your colleagues, but even by decision makers, diplomats, business leaders and the public opinion. It is a very varied audience.
Did this new audience change the relationship between climate scientists and their own job?

A. For many it did mean a change in doing the “job”, because doing climate science was no longer an issue of “satisfying curiosity” – the conventional motivation of scientists – but also an issue of providing support for a policy, which is perceived “good” or needed. A few went that far that they became very vocal activists (e.g., Hansen), while for more it meant a dedication to a “climate protection policy”. A serious problem is, however, that many act a slight self-censorship by checking language, and assertions, for avoiding of being “misused” by “skeptics”.

Q. Do you think they are able to influence a political decision, the public opinion, strategic and economical and financial decisions?

A. Yes.

Q. Does this new influence affect the way in which a scientist looks at his job and his role in the society and among researchers?

A. For the most activist scientists, yes. Some feel that they not only have the right but also a superior insight, to tell policymakers what to do.

Q. Do you feel there is any consequence in the professional relationships among colleagues?

A. Yes, the activist scientists have sometimes better chances in publishing in key journals such as “science” or “PNAS”, but also to hold important scientific positions in advisory government bodies. As a consequence scientists less engaged in the issue of man-made climate change, in particular those who hold fully or partly skeptical positions, find themselves sometimes marginalized.

4- Different languages

Q. Politics and science use different languages, they obey different rules, pursue different aims. How can these different worlds be able to maintain an effective dialogue on climate change? How can they find a common ground?

A. Ethnologically, the two groups indeed represent different “tribes”, with different cultures. They fulfill different functions in society. I think an effective dialogue is possible, but such a dialogue requires a mutual understanding of the other tribe’s culture, needs and language. Individual scientists as well as individual politicians have understood this need very well and have developed adequate approaches, but most scientists have difficulty to understand this challenge. I would guess that politicians are generally better practitioners of such a cross-cultural exchange, because politicians are generalists, but scientists are narrow specialists (Fachidioten is a German term).

5 – Key players

Q. Who are the most important players, both scientists and politicians, in the history of the relationship between climate science and politics? Who did play the most important role in forging this relationship ? Who are the scientists or politicians that you shouldn't forget to cite if you are talking about climate science and politics?

A. You mean individuals? Bert Bolin would be a name, Stephen Schneider another, Jim Hansen, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber and Hartmut Grassl in Germany – my view is certainly rather parochial. Al Gore in the US.

6 – Global Warming and Environmentalism

Q. In the public debate, Global Warming issues always moves to the forefront of environmentalism. What do you think of this trend in the public opinion?

A. This tendency has its problems –as it downgrades the relevance of other environmental issues. If one big animal is dominating in the arena of public attention, the others appear as less relevant; however, while climate policy is pretty much a failure so far, the chances for having success with other problems may be large.

7 – The Public Debate on Global Warming

Q. The debate on climate issues involves political power, international organizations, energy issues, economics and public opinion. Is this big attention good news for scientific research? Do you think that climate scientists and their science could benefit from such a vast debate which is involving scientists along with politicians, sociologists, economists, and so on?

A. The transdisciplinary character of the climate issue is certainly one of the attractive challenges of climate sciences. Surely, it is not easy, and the enormous public interest, as well as the usage of climate science as a political support for a certain policy, causes the whole field to be become “postnormal” (i.e., associated with large inherent uncertainty, with high stakes of various actors, and with different cultural values intertwined – according to Silvio Funtovicz’ and Jerome Ravetz’ concept.)

In such a situation, policymaking and scientific knowledge generation begin to mix – to the disadvantage of both systems. Science becomes less scientific but more political, and politics becomes less political but more scientific. There is no “cure” to this phenomenon, but a broad discussion involving policymakers and the public may help to make things more transparent, allowing to identify which vested interests are involved how.


The eco war on humanity: Some comments

The UN’s IPCC Assessor David Shearman wants you to pay an eco tax of $18,000 for every child you have. This is to compensate the planet for you being a human. Don’t forget the eco elitists in power think you are a disease, a scourge on the planet, a virus that needs to be eliminated so the logical consequence is they want you to pay even more for being a human – that is to them of course.

They have taken it upon themselves to represent the earth – no one voted them there – they elevated themselves to that position and now they feel they have the right to tell the rest of us how to live. They are taking their Malthusian steps like the Fabians – one step at a time. Putting us in a pot of cold water like lobsters and slowly heating it till it is boiling.

The UN and Barack Obama’s science czar John Holdren has always been an advocate of population control. Some of the measures he supports is compulsory abortion of American women, forcibly sterilising the country by additives to the water supply (in the manner of fluoride). This is the same Holdren who thinks that children up to the age of two are not really human beings and so can be eliminated without any qualms. Again we have an anti-human eco-elitist in power deciding whether you will have descendants or not, if so how many and of those that live how diseased they will be and what their life span will be.

Holden’s co-author Paul Ehrlich predicted the end of the world (these eco elitists love trying to scare humanity to death) but was incredibly wrong (as they usually are). He proposed carbon offsets to stop the poor from breeding - obviously the rich like him are ok to multiply. And yet there is much more in his hatred of humanity that this eco elitist proposes. It is quite appalling.

In recent days Ted Turner Chairman of the United Nations Foundation Board (also founder of CNN) has advocated a one child policy for the western world in order to save the planet. He has donated over $1 billion to the UN to further his ‘special interests‘. He has also rescued the UN previously giving them huge sums of money.

I wonder what the dinner party is like for these UN eco elitists? “Hey Paul I agree we must wipe 100 million out in the next 10 years“. “Yeah Ted the human pests are just doing too much damage to our world – we want to enjoy it without them getting in the way“. “How do you propose we do it John“? “‘Oh don’t worry boys the UN already has it under control – another cigar and port?”

And then there’s the UN’s depopulation agenda. World population down to 500 million. The UN is monitoring the situation and the UN can see that its policies through puppet governments are working. It now has World Population Day for the masses – or elimination of them. Then there’s agenda 21 and it’s social engineering – placing you in prison cities. There is also codex alimentaris – making it illegal for you to use natural remedies for you health.

So as the world freezes while the UN squanders our money on global warming it is worth remembering the biggest killer in the history of the earth and humanity is the cold. Ice ages have almost wiped us out completely. But as dead bodies are being dug out of the ice the UN and it’s eco elitists will still be telling us through the lamestream media even the cold is proof that the world is warming and they will still be demanding even more money from our puppet governments in the form of trillion dollar eco debts and they will still be there putting up the cost of keeping warm.

The UN will handle all the financial transactions from the guilt funds and eco taxes, making trillions in the process and living the life of excess whilst they keep us poor. Whilst the UN is enriching itself they will be (as they are now) driving you into poverty. Can't afford to pay your electricity bills? Can't afford to keep warm in a cooling world? Just think this is only the beginning and it could get a lot worse, as long as we let them and their puppets stay in power.

More HERE (See the original for links)


For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, 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


No comments: