Such an historian would be very valuable but this historian is a Leftist biographer, not a climate historian. So his remarks are just another version of the usual Green/Left boilerplate. Had he been a climate historian he would certainly not have spoken of "unprecedented" weather at the moment.
Instead of making sweeping assertions for which he has no evidence, a mere biographer ought to admit that he’s just operating on blind faith. AGW snobs like to sneer at skeptics, “Oh, are YOU a climatologist?” — never realizing that the question cuts both ways
MSNBC’s Martin Bashir show had a segment a few weeks ago on “The political legacy of Hurricane Irene” with historian Douglas Brinkley, author of “The Great Deluge,” about Katrina and New Orleans.
Bashir asked Brinkley whether Obama’s failure to mention climate change was an opportunity that’s been missed.... After calling on Obama to deliver “a presidential prime time address on global warming,” Brinkley, who has authored and edited books on Ronald Reagan, compares Obama’s inaction on climate to Reagan’s on AIDS. He says “you see President Obama at this juncture needing to lead on the global warming issue.” Brinkley goes on to say:
You know I’m here in Austin right now and it’s 109 degrees. All over the country, in the Great Plains, there’s drought, there’s wildfires that have been going on in New Mexico, there’s a lot of unprecedented weather patterns going on here. We all know the word global warming, but only the president has a security documents.
So I would urge President Obama … sometime within the, say, next half a year, come to the American people and say I came into office giving a lot of speeches about global warming, here’s what we know about it and here’s some of the things we might have to do with the future to make America safe.
If you listen to the entire interview, then you heard Bashir say that when he interviewed Bill Nye the science guy, Nye was supposedly “absolutely clear that hurricanes like this were the result of climate change.” As you can guess, Nye didn’t quite say that.
Times Atlas makes 'absurd' claims about shrinking of Greenland ice sheet
Even the Warmists piss on it
A new map of the world that indicates a huge chunk of the Greenland icesheet has melted due to climate change has been criticised as "ludicrous" by leading polar scientists.
The latest edition of the Times Atlas of the World claimed15 per cent of Greenland's former ice-covered land has turned "ice-free" in the last 12 years. But scientists from the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University say the figures are wrong, and that the ice has melted by less than one per cent during that time.
Professor Liz Morris, a senior associate at the institute, said a “serious error” had been made. She said the cartographers appeared to have muddled satellite data on elevation with ice cover and assumed that below a certain level there was no ice. In fact the ice sheet carries on to the shore in many areas. She feared the “ludicrous claim” could be used as the latest tool to deny climate change, following similar exaggerations about the melting of the Himalayan ice glaciers.
“We are not saying in any way that climate change and the loss of the ice sheet is not going on," she said. "The danger is if people quote these absurd figures the next thing that happens is climate change sceptics say scientists are making daft claims. We are not. It is the publicity people.”
The 13th edition of the "comprehensive" version of the atlas included a number of revisions made for reasons of environmental change since the previous edition was published in 2007. The break-up of some Antarctic ice shelves due to climate change, the shrinking of inland waters such as the Dead and Aral Seas, and the drying up of rivers such as the Colorado River are all documented.
Most strikingly, the publicity claimed that "for the first time, the new edition of the (atlas) has had to erase 15 per cent of Greenland's once permanent ice cover - turning an area the size of the United Kingdom and Ireland 'green' and ice-free. "This is concrete evidence of how climate change is altering the face of the planet forever - and doing so at an alarming and accelerating rate."
Graham Cogley, Professor of Geography at Trent University, Ontario, Canada, said glacier shrinkage happens very slowly - at around 0.2 per cent a year - rather than the 1.5 per cent suggested by the Times Atlas. He explained this is still a serious threat to the planet. “Climate change is real, and Greenland ice cover is shrinking. But the claims here are simply not backed up by science. This pig can’t fly."
The Times Atlas is not owned by The Times newspaper. It is published by Times Books, an imprint of HarperCollins, which is in turn owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
A spokesman for HarperCollins said its new map was based on information provided by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The spokesman said: "Since The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World 10th Edition, in 1999, we have had to erase 15 per cent of Greenland’s once permanent ice sheet. "This is based on information provided by the much respected and widely-cited National Snow and Ice Data Center (Atlas of the Cryosphere, Boulder, Colorado USA).
"While global warming has played a role in this reduction, it is also as a result of the much more accurate data and in-depth research that is now available. Read as a whole, both the press release and the 13th edition of the Atlas make this clear."
Climate 'scientists' arbitrarily increase guesswork about CO2 effects by 25% in latest model
Attention alarmists: the latest version of the world's most widely used climate model arbitrarily increases the fictitious forcing from CO2 'back-radiation' and non-existent positive-feedbacks from clouds by 25%, from a fallacious 3.2C to 4.0C per doubling of CO2.
Journal of Climate 2011 doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00197.1
The Evolution of Climate Sensitivity and Climate Feedbacks in the Community Atmosphere Model
A. Gettelman et al
We use the major evolution of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) to diagnose climate feedbacks, understand how climate feedbacks change with different physical parameterizations, and identify the processes and regions that determine climate sensitivity.
In the evolution of CAM from version 4 to version 5, the water vapor, temperature, surface albedo and lapse rate feedbacks are remarkably stable across changes to the physical parameterization suite. However, the climate sensitivity increases from 3.2K in CAM4 to 4.0K in CAM5.
The difference is mostly due to (a) more positive cloud feedbacks and (b) higher CO2 radiative forcing in CAM5. The inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks are largest in the tropical trade cumulus regime and in the mid-latitude storm-tracks. The sub-tropical stratocumulus regions do not contribute strongly to climate feedbacks due to their small area coverage.
A “modified Cess” configuration for atmosphere only model experiments is shown to reproduce slab ocean model results. Several parameterizations contribute to changes in tropical cloud feedbacks between CAM4 and CAM5, but the new shallow convection scheme causes the largest mid-latitude feedback differences and the largest change in climate sensitivity. Simulations with higher cloud forcing in the mean state have lower climate sensitivity.
This work provides a methodology for further analysis of climate sensitivity across models and a framework for targeted comparisons to observations that can help constrain climate sensitivity to radiative forcing.
Oceans Are Now “Hiding” The Effects of Someone Driving an SUV Instead of a Volt
See, the reason that the world is not burning to cinders from slightly above 350ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere....it's about 387ppm now, a level certainly never seen in the history of the Earth. Doom!........is because those mean oceans are hiding the effects
New analysis led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) suggests that the relative slowdown in global air temperature rises during the past decade may have been caused in part by the planet’s deep oceans.
Scientists from NCAR and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia claim that the oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming.
You see? Anthropogenic global warming is still happening, but is being hidden by a natural process....wait, a natural process is hiding it? Could it possibly be that natural processes have caused the vast majority of perceived warming since the end of the last cool period, the Little Ice Age?
The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet (300 meters) as the main location of the “missing heat” during periods such as the past decade when global air temperatures showed little trend. The findings also suggest that several more intervals like this can be expected over the next century, even as the trend toward overall warming continues.
Uh huh. Computer simulations. How about some hard data?
NCAR’s Gerald Meehl, lead author of the study said: “We will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future. However, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume. This study illustrates one reason why global temperatures do not simply rise in a straight line.”
See? It's so easy: they've found a way to say globull warming is real, it's Mankind's fault, it's just that the oceans are hiding the effects. This way, they can continue pushing their cult (and getting research grants).
To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model’s ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures.
The simulations, which were based on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, indicated that temperatures would rise by several degrees during this century. But each simulation also showed periods in which temperatures would stabilize for about a decade before climbing again. For example, one simulation showed the global average rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) between 2000 and 2100, but with two decade-long hiatus periods during the century.
So, no actual hard data? No measurements of the deep oceans to see if this is actually happening? You know, I love playing 1st person shooters, but, I am under no illusion that they make me a badass warrior capable of wiping out thousands of enemies a day. I'd actually have to go out and train in the real world. The "science" of climate change seems to always ignore the real world.
This study is simply a follow up to the one by Kevin "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at this moment and it is a travesty that we can't" Trenberth that attempted to say that the warming was playing Where's Waldo and hiding from us. Because it must be hiding! It couldn't possibly be that decades of alarmist hysteria was based on a false notion (stamps foot)!
Warmism drives up housing costs
Comment from Australia but applicable in the USA and UK too
What is causing the housing affordability crisis in Australia? Land restrictions and low interest rates are typical answers. But people forget about the impact of seemingly minor government rules like regulations that stipulate minimum dwelling sizes and quality.
Next year, the National Strategy on Energy Efficiency will require all residential properties, new and existing, to have consistent energy efficiency ratings. The idea is buyers and renters will then make better choices about energy efficiency – thereby mitigating climate change and saving themselves a few dollars to boot.
That sounds nice, but the reality is otherwise. Mandating ratings will impose real costs on sellers, lessors and taxpayers, which will exacerbate the housing affordability crisis. Licensed assessors will require training and charge fees to make assessments; bureaucrats will have to enforce and administer the assessments.
The supposed benefits – lower greenhouse gas emissions and household savings – are tentative at best.
Australian residential buildings emit 10% of Australia’s greenhouse emissions, and Australia as a whole contributes 1.5% of the world’s emissions. Even if slowing the growth of 0.15% of the world’s greenhouse emissions would effectively mitigate global warming, will these measures actually work?
As anyone who’s bought or rented knows, the energy efficiency of a home is a marginal consideration. Location, appearance, size and quality overwhelm any other factors. Indeed, renters tend to care even less about a dwelling’s energy efficiency if they are sharing (household utility bills tend to be split equally).
As for savings, everyone already has the ability to calculate the payoffs from more energy efficient fittings and appliances. And businesses have a natural incentive to advertise any potential savings from such installations. It is not the role of government to nanny how people manage their household utility bills.
The government claims buyers and renters suffer from ‘uneven information’: that owners and sellers have superior information. That might be true at first, but it is no bold feat for prospective buyers and tenants to inspect appliances and fittings. Indeed, inspecting a house is vastly easier than assessing the reliability of a used car’s engine – and the government does not mandate assessments there.
Moreover, the proposed mandatory efficiency standards undermine the role of real estate agents. Agents exist to bridge any knowledge gap between buyer, sellers and renters.
If the government wants to encourage energy-efficient products, it should alter the price of energy directly and make the installation of energy efficiency products more appealing. By contrast, the compulsory efficiency standards impose certain costs only to elicit dubious benefits.
Australia: Electricity bills will soar for decades
VICTORIANS will be $1050 worse off under the looming carbon tax, according to the State Government's controversial modelling.
In a report that was last night dismissed by the [Leftist] Federal Government, Victoria's Coalition predicts electricity bills will soar for decades.
The state figures suggest the typical income in Victoria would be $60,504 by 2015 without a carbon tax and $59,445 with the tax.
There would be 35,000 fewer jobs and investment would be down 6 per cent according to the report, which does not include all federal compensation.
The numbers are contained in the final report by Deliotte Access Economics, which was commissioned by the Department of Premier and Cabinet to assess the impact of the carbon tax on Victoria.
The report provoked outrage inside the Gillard Government, which has previously attacked the integrity of Victoria's modelling.
"Victorians know that the Liberals have repeatedly misrepresented the facts in the climate change debate, and it seems Mr Baillieu's at it again here with this report by a paid consultancy firm," federal Treasurer Wayne Swan said.
The State Government defended the report, which it will release today. "The economic modelling assumptions underpinning the analysis in this report have been aligned, to the extent possible, to the recently-released modelling undertaken by the Commonwealth Treasury," a Coalition spokesman said.
The Deloitte report names Melbourne, Gippsland and Barwon as the Victorian regions hardest hit by the tax and estimates electricity prices will rise 23 per cent by 2030.
Federal modelling predicts a short-term jump of just 10 per cent.
Mr Swan, who will release updated federal modelling this week, said Victoria's modelling was out of step with other states and federal Treasury.
Mr Baillieu was criticised over preliminary Deloitte figures showing 23,000 fewer Victorian jobs in 2015.
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 blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here