Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The data does not agree with the theory of greenhouse gas induced global warming

Dr. Noor van Andel has updated his paper "CO2 and Climate Change" and explains in greater detail how climate scientists have adjusted radiosonde (weather balloon) data to try to bring it into agreement with their computer models and concept of greenhouse gas induced global warming. This is the opposite of the normal scientific procedure of adjusting the models to fit the data. The unadjusted data does not show the elusive "hot spot" predicted by climate models and conventional 'greenhouse' theory. Dr. van Andel's latest version also expands on the descriptions of Miskolczi's 'saturated greenhouse' theory and the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al. Excerpt:
"...This behavior has been a problem for many, as it falsifies a main point of the global-warming-by- greenhouse-gases- hypothesis. The warming by increased CO2 can only result from "increased back radiation" from the atmosphere to the surface, and for this the warming of the troposphere due to increased CO2 must be more than the surface warming. all models predict much more warming at 300 - 400 hPa compared to the surface warming trend. This is not observed.

There has been a large activity to bring models and observations in line, strangely only by adjusting the measurements instead of adjusting the models. The radiosonde measurements are adjusted so that they show the larger warming trend around 300 hPa that the models must assume to exist to get antropogenic CO2 induced warming, or to attribute the surface warming to increased CO2. Scores of publications and discussions try to prove this "atmospheric hot spot" must exist in the real world because the models say so. One example I show below:

From: Toward Elimination of the Warm Bias in Historic Radiosonde Temperature Records-Some New Results from a Comprehensive Intercomparison of Upper-Air Data, HAIMBERGER et al, JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, VOLUME 21, 4587) we take the following figure:

Fig. 14 shows that the unadjusted 1979-2006 tropical temperature profile trends in the tropics, left graph, dotted line, shows a constant 0.1 K/decade warming with height until 200 Pa [11 km in the tropics], and above this height a substantial cooling trend, with a minimum of -1.2 K/decade [minus twelve times the surface warming trend!] at 70 Pa. Exactly like the fig.12 observations from Hadoffice show. This behavior is does not agree with the accepted theory of Greenhouse-gas induced global warming, that assumes a decrease of the convection activity with rising SST, because the temperature and moisture at 500-100 hPa in theory both rise, and this rising ?e prevents convection. This is known as the "hot spot". It is the main "positive feedback" assumed by the models to get the high climate sensitivity to be able to attribute the warming 1976-2010 to the CO2 increase. It is also called the "super Greenhouse Effect'. It exists only in climate models. This is the reason that so many corrections or adjustments have been proposed to the radiosonde measurements; the maximum adjustment [see left graph] reaching 0.9 K/10y, or 10§C/decade from 1979 to 2009, that makes an adjustment of 2.7 §C between the HadAT temperature measurement. and the unadjusted radiosonde measurement. Radiosonde sensors have a precision of 0.1 §C! Physically it is impossible that convection decreases as the driving force for convection increases. Riehl & Malkus measured and quantified this deep convection in 1958 for the first time by flying into thunderstorms and derived the ?e mathematics, which are soundly and simply founded in atmospheric thermodynamics. Thunderstorms are very local phenomena, they cannot and are not well parameterized in climate models. Clearly frequency and intensity of these storms is increasing fast with SST. Any CO2 in the atmosphere, if it would increase SST, is regulated back by this deep convective cooling mechanism.

The main error in the climate models is that they suppose heating and moistening, and thus higher ?e [temperature], of the upper troposphere by CO2, in contradiction with radiosonde and satellite measurements. This assumed heating & moistening leads the model to assume an increase of ?e [temperature] at this height, which makes deep convection decrease as a result of increasing SST, very unphysical as we have seen here above.

In the real world however, the upper troposphere will dry out as a result of stronger deep convection, because cloud top temperature goes down and condensation efficiency increases with deep convection intensity. In the region that the air spreads from the ITCZ and subsides, radiation into space is therefore enhanced. The lowest temperatures in the troposphere are to be found in the deep convection cumulonimbus tops, sometimes -80 §C. All water is then in solid form, which coalesces easier and snows [rains] out more efficiently. This drying out has been documented well in the ERA and in the NCEP reanalysis historical time series. But it is hotly contested by IPCC- quoted authors, again because it is incompatible with climate models. "


The shame of Green Britain: Families go without food to pay winter fuel bills

ONE of the coldest winters in a century saw Welsh people risking their health by switching off heating in the face of rising energy bills, a report has found.

The Bevan Foundation report said some families also plunged themselves into debt or went without food in an effort to afford to heat their homes. It warns the Assembly Government will not meet its target of eliminating fuel poverty by 2018 with its current approach.

The shocking report comes just a week after Children in Wales and Consumer Focus Wales warned children's health and education is being put at risk by fuel poverty.

James Radcliffe, author of the Bevan Foundation report, Coping with Cold, said: "The combination of rising energy prices and the return of colder winters means more people are affected by fuel poverty.

"It is clear that the target of eliminating fuel poverty by 2018 will not be met through the current strategy. "We need to start thinking about alternative ways of tackling fuel poverty and helping people stay warm during the winter. It is unacceptable that the UK has such a high rate of excess deaths over the winter compared to countries like Sweden which have even colder weather."

The Bevan Foundation asked 120 people in South Wales how they responded to cold weather in last year's winter. The winter of 2009-10 was the coldest in 30 years with the mean UK temperature falling to 1.5C, the lowest since 1978-79.

Provisional figures for this winter (2010-11) reveal it was the coldest for 100 years, with the mean temperature in the UK plummeting to -1C, compared to the long-term average of 4.2C.

The Bevan Foundation research found people were cutting back on food to pay for energy or even going without warmth to keep bills low. Just under a third never increased their heating in the cold.


Is Britain's Met Office becoming irrelevant?

A strange question perhaps, considering the considerable political influence the Met Office has within political circles when it comes to energy and climate policy. But certainly one worth asking following a comment by Northern Ireland's Regional Development Minister last month.

On the topic of burst water pipes and the severe supply problems affecting thousands of people in Northern Ireland over the Christmas period, the Belfast Telegraph reported on 19th January:

Forecasts of another seven years of the extreme winter that triggered the burst pipes crisis in Northern Ireland may force changes to how water is plumbed into homes, the regional development minister has warned.

Conor Murphy, facing questions from his Stormont scrutiny committee on the Christmas emergency, said some meteorologists believed the region had entered a weather cycle that would see successive deep freezes.

In the face of that, Mr Murphy said the Executive may have to look at changing building regulations to ensure that water pipes are buried deeper and insulated better.

What makes the comment interesting is this response to a Freedom of Information request submitted by Autonomous Mind (using an alias), enquiring which Meterologists provided this advice and requesting a copy of the advice that was provided to the Minister enabling him to make his assertion.

The response from the NI Department for Regional Development is telling:

This shows that for all his multitude of failings, Conor Murphy is listening to what meteorologists other than the Met Office are saying about changes to our weather that contradict the Met Office line of ever increasing warming. Not only that, they are using what they have listened to in official evidence to government committees.

A very small example maybe, but marginalising the Met Office in this way - intentionally or otherwise - represents a visible crack in the climate consensus that has consistently told us mankind is changing the climate, making the world warmer and the result will be warmer and wetter winters. The structures are weakening.


Sanity slowly returning to global warming policy

Somebody should check the water Gunter Oettinger is drinking because it must contain something that restores common sense in critically important public policy discussions. Oettinger is the European Union's energy commissioner and, according to Britain's Guardian newspaper, he has dashed hopes of Big Green environmentalists worldwide with these words: "If we go alone to 30 percent, you will only have a faster process of deindustrialisation in Europe. I think we need industry in Europe, we need industry in the U.K., and industry means CO2 emissions."

He was referring to proposals that the EU increase its current carbon monoxide emissions reduction goal from 20 percent to 30 percent. Oettinger predicted that what is left of European industry would flee the continent and move to Asia if that happens. The net result would be loss of jobs and economic vitality in Europe and quite possibly even more emissions because Asian countries will not impose such draconian reductions on industry.

Meanwhile, here in America, the Department of Agriculture reported this week that corn reserves are at their lowest level in nearly two decades. Federal officials, according to the New York Times, say the reserves are down because ethanol producers are buying corn as fast as possible in anticipation of a federal policy allowing the amount of corn-based fuel mixed with gasoline to increase from 10 percent to 15 percent.

The price of a bushel of corn has doubled in the face of that demand, going from $3.50 a bushel to more than $7 a bushel, which drives up food prices more generally. "The price of corn affects most food products in supermarkets. It is used to feed the cattle, hogs and chickens that fill the meat case, and is the main ingredient in Cap'n Crunch in the cereal aisle and Doritos in the snack aisle. Turned into corn sweetener, it sweetens most soft drinks," the Times reported. There was no indication in the Times story that those same federal officials will do anything about this situation, but at least they recognize the connection between rising food prices and increasing ethanol production.

Rising corn prices in the United States are mirrored worldwide, thanks to growing demand for biofuels in response to mandates from government officials concerned about "being green." The same thing happened in 2008, but the experts dismissed it as a product of an extremely rare convergence of factors that won't likely be repeated any time soon.

But, as Princeton University's Tim Searchinger wrote in The Washington Post, "this 'perfect storm' has re-formed not three years later. We should recognize the ways in which biofuels are driving it." Thus, we are reminded of the Law of Unintended Consequences. American policymakers would do well to stop listening to environmental ideologues and start drinking from the same fountain of common sense that clarified Oettinger's thinking.


Obama Energy Secretary Promises "Massive" Coal Plant Closures

White House agenda to bankrupt coal industry via EPA regulations accelerates despite rolling blackouts

Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu has launched the next phase of the White House's publicly stated agenda to bankrupt the coal industry via EPA regulations after announcing the prospect of "massive" coal plant closures even as Texas and other states suffer rolling blackouts as a result of maxed-out power plants that cannot cope with demand.

The Obama administration's strict enforcement of draconian EPA regulations has led to new clean-burning coal-fired plants being mothballed and other existing ones being shut down, which has in turn led to Texas and other states becoming energy-dependent, leading to shortages and blackouts exacerbated by freezing temperatures.

Despite White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer's brazen lie in claiming that the blackouts are solely a result of "mechanical failures," the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the agency that oversees the state's power, confirmed this morning that the threat of blackouts was ongoing as a result of a "maxed out grid".

This "maxed out grid" is a consequence of federally enforced EPA restrictions that have led to the delay, mothballing and closing down of coal-fired plants. In Texas, approval for the much-needed Las Brisas Energy Center has been delayed for 3 years as a result of EPA meddling in Texas' energy policy.

A federal court ruling last month gave the EPA permission to proceed with greenhouse gas regulation in Texas, temporarily superseding Texas' non-compliance with the new regulations which came into force on January 2. The White House's claim that EPA regulations are not currently affecting Texas is a complete fabrication.

Now White House Energy Secretary Steven Chu has made it clear that "massive" amounts of coal-fired plants in the United States will be closed down over the next five to eight years.... "We're going to see massive retirements within the next five, eight years," Chu said at a renewable-energy conference in Washington yesterday.


The Warmists' abuse tells me they're losing

As an example of the writers Andrew Bolt is referring to below see a rave from the hysterical Mark Hertsgaard here. Hertsgaard thinks he is Galileo but has got it exactly backwards. It is Hertsgaard who relies on conventional authority and who quotes not one single scientific fact

One of the Guardian's five "environment bloggers" - five! - notes a new sign of desperation in the warmist movement:
According to environmental activists planning a day of protests across the US tomorrow, "climate crank" is set to be the latest name added to the growing list - self-appointed, or otherwise - which already includes sceptic, denier, contrarian, realist, dissenter, flat-earther, misinformer, and confusionist.

If they put as much effort into reasoning as they do into abusing they might get further.

The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer recognised abuse as the very last trick of person whose arguments have collapsed. In his essay on rhetoric, catchily rebadged by a publisher recently as The Art of Always Being Right: Thirty Eight Ways to Win When You Are Defeated, he lists such sliming as tactic 38:
A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person....

But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application. Now the question is, What counter-trick avails for the other party? for if he has recourse to the same rule, there will be blows, or a duel, or an action for slander.

A cool demeanour may, however, help you here, if, as soon as your opponent becomes personal, you quietly reply, "That has no bearing on the point in dispute," and immediately bring the conversation back to it, and continue to show him that he is wrong, without taking any notice of his insults. Say, as Themistocles said to Eurybiades - Strike, but hear me . But such demeanour is not given to every one.



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: