Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Carefully-reasoned new paper finds no support for any global warming theory

Natural Science, Vol.3 No.12, December 2011

Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact

by Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi


In this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) quan- tifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale. In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively.

In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years.

Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and WMO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.


A revealing email from a dendrochronologist who refuses to make unproven assumptions

Climategate email 1738:

My aim is not to kill dendrochronology, and it is not with an air of superiority that I dare to examine its weaknesses. However, there are bounds to dendrochronology, as there are to every field of investigation, and the discipline has spilled over way outside of those bounds, to the point of absurdity.

There is uncertainty associated with estimating an accurate age for even a living tree that you cut down today, and much more when you try to make chronological sense out of pieces of trees of uncertain origin.

What troubles me even more than the inexactness attending chronological estimates is how much absolute nonsense -- really nothing but imaginative speculation -- about the environment of the past is being deduced from tree rings and published in dendrochronology journals.

You wrote that "But honestly, Ron, we also practice quite a lot of rigor, reflection, questioning etc." I don't doubt that, but dendrochronology has persistently rejected walking the hard road, that of understanding the fundamental genetic and environmental factors controlling wood formation.

As I see it, the peer review process in dendrochronology must be fundamentally flawed to allow such publications. Physiologist remain to build any real confidence in their ideas of how environmental factors influence tree ring formation, and dendrochronologists therefore are not at all justified in pretending that they do.

The bounds of dendrochronology will be extended, as will confidence in dendrochronological reports, when your group stops pretending that it knows the answers before it has done the needed research. Again, I am troubled by your group that it shows little humility, no genuine desire to discover the truth.

Hal, in response to my challenge (below) to dendrochronology to begin doing some scientific research based on experimentation rather than simple observation, you wrote: "We think these kinds of questions are equally important, if not more important as we are likely to destroy our planet unless we learn quickly what the trees have to say about our past."

Well, if that's what you really think, why isn't anyone, at all, in your large community that has received huge funding allocations doing it? However, I don't buy your negativistic justification for doing such research. If your referring to the impact of climate change on earth, you're overlooking the geological record that clearly indicates climate change has occurred frequently and is normal to our planet.

You may also want to consider that trees have been around for several hundred millions years, and that those of the Carboniferous lived on a globe much warmer than ours.


Unhiding the decline

The CRU has just got a grant for a project headed "The Dendroclimatic Divergence Phenomenon: reassessment of causes and implications for climate reconstruction".

The description of the project below describes what Michael Mann "hid" in his hockeystick graph. The simple explanation of their "problem" -- that trees are useless as thermometers -- is still being resisted, however. Interestingly, they admit that there may be "systematic bias" in existing chronologies

Palaeoclimate reconstructions extend our knowledge of how climate varied in times before expansive networks of measuring instruments became available. These reconstructions are founded on an understanding of theoretical and statistically-derived associations acquired by comparing the parallel behaviour of palaeoclimate proxies and measurements of varying climate.

Inferences about variations in past climate, based on this understanding, necessarily assume that the associations we observe now hold true throughout the period for which reconstructions are made. This is the essence of the uniformitarian principle.

In some northern areas of the world, recent observations of tree growth and measured temperature trends appear to have diverged in recent decades, the so called "divergence" phenomenon. There has been much speculation, and numerous theories proposed, to explain why the previous temperature sensitivity of tree growth in these areas is apparently breaking down.

The existence of divergence casts doubt on the uniformitarian assumption that underpins a number of important tree-ring based (dendroclimatic) reconstructions. It suggests that the degree of warmth in certain periods in the past, particularly in medieval times, may be underestimated or at least subject to greater uncertainty than is currently accepted.

The lack of a clear overview of this phenomenon and the lack of a generally accepted cause had led some to challenge the current scientific consensus, represented in the 2007 report of the IPCC on the likely unprecedented nature of late 20th century average hemispheric warmth when viewed in the context of proxy evidence (mostly from trees) for the last 1300 years.

This project will seek to systematically reassess and quantify the evidence for divergence in many tree-ring data sets around the Northern Hemisphere. It will establish a much clearer understanding of the nature of the divergence phenomenon, characterising the spatial patterns and temporal evolution.

Based on recent published and unpublished work by the proposers, it has become apparent that foremost amongst the possible explanations is the need to account for systematic bias potentially inherent in the methods used to build many tree-ring chronologies including many that are believed to exhibit this phenomenon.


‘Spaceship Earth’: A new brand of environmentalism?

by Steve Milloy

Meet the new central planning; the same as the old central planning. The Washington Post reports:
Spaceship Earth enters 2012 belching smoke, overheating and burning through fuel at a frightening rate. It’s feeling pretty crowded, and the crew is mutinous. No one’s at the helm.

Sure, it’s an antiquated metaphor. It’s also an increasingly apt way to discuss a planet with 7 billion people, a global economy, a World Wide Web, climate change, exotic organisms running amok and all sorts of resource shortages and ecological challenges.

More and more environmentalists and scientists talk about the planet as a complex system, one that human beings must aggressively monitor, manage and sometimes reengineer. Kind of like a spaceship.

This is a sharp departure from traditional “green” philosophy. The more orthodox way of viewing nature is as something that must be protected from human beings — not managed by them. And many environmentalists have reservations about possible unintended consequences of well-meaning efforts. No one wants a world that requires constant intervention to fix problems caused by previous interventions…


DDT - Lets Have Another 10,000 Studies!

By Rich Kozlovich

Every time you turn around you will see that the government is funding another study to find out if ______________(fill in the blank) happens! Funding studies and forming committees to ‘study’ issues is a great way for so-called leaders to defer decisions that could be politically uncomfortable. Then there are the studies that are actually nothing more than conclusions in search of data. Those of us who have been around for a while have now had the opportunity to observe the realities and outcomes of what was, and in many cases still is, conventional wisdom.

There have been thousands of studies regarding the effects of DDT on the environment, people and wildlife, and most of them were junk science…..conclusions in search of data. A number of years ago (although an outsider) I had the opportunity and privilege of being a part of a group formed by Dr. Rutledge Taylor that produced a film documentary about DDT called 3Billion and Counting. My contributions were mostly via phone calls and e-mail, however the Doc added me to the credits so I think that my small offerings were of some value.

At one point he had received almost 100 studies from one of the anti-DDT groups that claimed all sorts of things. He sent them to me and asked me to look them over. Since I am not formally trained, and for the most part I am an autodidact, I really didn’t feel qualified and told him so. He asked if I would at least try. Very reluctantly I agreed.

That was one of the best and most enlightening things that ever happened to me.

As I went through the first ten, very carefully outlining and taking notes on what was clearly wrong with those studies, I found out that they were filled with claptrap; speculation, weasel words, logical fallacies and weak associations. I went through the next ten just as carefully, without taking notes this time, and found the exact same pattern in all of them. I skipped to every fifth study only to find the same pattern over and over again. In short, these studies were nothing more than “academic welfare”! You know what welfare is; pay without work; work being the operative word for producing something of value. And in these cases the ‘academic welfare’ produced preconceived conclusions. Conclusions in search of data! And everyone one of these studies was produced after DDT was banned! Why?

Why has millions been spent on DDT studies after it was banned if the science was clear in the first place? What is this overwhelming need to continue demeaning a product that has been banned? Why do they keep attempting to convince everyone that DDT caused all the things the Rachel Carson claimed they did in her book? Why? Because Carson’s book was filled with lies, speculation, incorrect conclusions and little of no references to some of her health claims. And over the years there have been a great many respected scientists who have said so. The issue never goes away because those who know the truth refuse to be quiet, and they have made headway with a great many people, especially the decision makers in countries with serious malaria problems. So then….what is this all about.

It is about the worth of studies and their effect on people’s thinking. Just because it is a “study” doesn’t make it factual!

In the book Fluoride Wars by R. Allan Freeze and friend Dr. Jay Lehr, outline the value of studies. There have been THOUSANDS of studies on fluoride because of it being added to our water supplies to ward off tooth decay. At one point someone decided that they needed a standard to determine which studies really had any scientific worth. On page 194 they state:
“The question of experimental design deserves further mention. You may recall that many methodological flaws identified by critics of the original fluoridation trial. Those who designed these early studies were taken to task for failing to keep track of the oral health history of their subjects, failing to control for confounding factors such as socioeconomic status of dental hygiene practices, and falling to use examiners who were blind to the exposure status of each subject. Many of the same problems crop up on many of the studies that were put under review by the various review teams listed in Table 7.5. (You will have to get the book to see Table 7.5) The Ontario and York University reviewers were the only ones who tried to establish a minimum acceptable set of standards for the inclusion of a study in their assessments. Both sets of acceptance criteria were based on establishing a hierarchy of studies, giving greater weight to those with the most careful controls. Those that took care to eliminate examiner bias received greater weight than those that didn’t. Those that tracked individual subjects longitudinally through time received greater weight than those that sampled the population statistically without tagging individual subjects. Those that recorded careful histories for their subjects and used them to control for confounding factors received greater weight than those that did not. It is instructive to note that the York University review found only 214 studies out of the thousands that have appeared in print during the period 1951-1999 that met their acceptance criteria, and of these, only 26 provided a defensible analysis of the direct impact of fluoridation on dental caries.”

Normal people would think that this was a noble effort. After all - once again - isn’t the search for “truth” the real purpose behind doing studies? No; not to the activists! The goal of the activist movements is to only have “their” truth appear, and they don’t care how many lies it takes to do it!

So, what was the reaction to this study from the anti-fluoride activists? Some went ballistic and one even wrote most demeaningly by saying:
“I guess the York study wasn’t actually a study as studies go”….."because this study didn’t study animals or people, it simply studied studies. Although this was touted to be the study to end all studies, almost immediately both the Green Party and the Fluoride Action Network published their studies of the York study. These were then studies of the study that studied studies. The studies of the study that studied the studies pointed out that this study that studied the studies had left some 3000 studies unstudied, and they called for further study of the study of the studies as this study and done.”

What should have drawn “kudos for their careful selection process…..all they got were brickbats for their ‘unstudied studies’” and a call for more studies.

So why do scientists tolerate this? Because money has turned science into politics! The “holy grail” of science is no longer truth, but grant money, and the universities and scientific communities are addicted to it. As for those scientists who refuse to bend to this corruption; they are shuttled aside by those bringing in the money to these research institutions, even those who held prestigious positions within the scientific community. As for the younger scientists with no credentials and no accomplishments; they will become part of the system or they will be out. Western science has turned into a Lysenkoian cesspool, starting with DDT and continuing with Global Warming.

Over the years I have had people demand that I produce studies to prove my views about DDT. I don’t bother to do so, or for that matter to even answer them any longer. Why? For two reasons! One, the information is now available to everyone who wants to know the truth and two, because it doesn’t matter what I say, what I do or what I produce they will cling to their fallacies no matter what…..they are nothing more than intellectually dishonest “time wasters”.

The studies that show that DDT was one of the greatest discoveries in mankind’s history isn’t from a study group or a lab. It is in ……reality. Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. In ‘reality’ untold millions of lives were saved because of DDT and untold hundreds of millions were prevented from being sickened because of DDT. Those who were the most heavily exposed worldwide to DDT didn’t show effects they attempt to show in so many of these “studies”. It didn't wipe out whole eco-systems, it didn't cause egg shell thinning, it didn't do any of the things they claim. The claims by Carson and her acolytes, including these modern day Lysenkoians, about the evils of DDT just aren’t true.

We really need to get this. The green movement is irrational and misanthropic. Once that is understood everything else falls into place. DDT was the green movements bridge to money and power and they will never give up on their claims because DDT is foundational to their existence. If DDT’s ban can be overturned then everything they stand for must be questioned.

If someone cannot, or refuse to get that, then they have become lost in the fever swamps of environmentalism, and I don’t care what they think.


Double whammy from green taxes: British families will have to pay more for fuel and flights

Britons face soaring costs for fuel and family holidays as a result of green taxes, experts warn today. A leading energy analyst has predicted that one in three households will face fuel poverty if the Government does not back a new era of nuclear power.

In a separate report, think-tank Civitas says that environmental charges imposed on airlines by Brussels from this week mean that a family of four will have to pay an extra £130 for return flights to the U.S. by the end of the decade.

The fuel poverty claim is made by Tony Lodge, a former adviser to the Conservatives, in a report from the Centre for Policy Studies.

He warns that failure to build new atomic plants will leave the country reliant on expensive foreign gas; the expense of importing this would then be passed on to customers through higher fuel bills.

Britain’s existing nuclear power plants are due to close within a few years. As a result, the country’s nuclear capacity will fall by 75 per cent. A number of coal-fired plants are also set to shut, as the Government strives to meet EU targets for reducing carbon emissions.

Wind farms – funded by green taxes on homes and businesses – will not be able to cover the resulting energy shortfall, Mr Lodge warns. He says that without more nuclear power plants, the UK will be dependent on gas for over 80 per cent of its electricity by 2025. Most of this would come from Russia and the Middle East.

Mr Lodge, a CPS research fellow, argues that the cost of the imported gas, and the electricity it would produce, would be so high that more than 8.5million families would be forced to choose between heating and eating as energy bills rise.

Government plans to penalise power firms that use coal to generate electricity – by imposing minimum prices – will effectively make it uneconomic to continue mining in the UK.

This ‘will result in over one billion tonnes of economically recoverable UK coal reserves becoming stranded’, Mr Lodge says. He adds that the Government is doing too little to either promote new nuclear plants or give firms interested in building them guarantees about future income.

The CPS study, titled ‘The Atomic Clock – How the Coalition is Gambling with Britain’s Energy Policy’, is released today. It warns: ‘Britain risks becoming yet more dependent on foreign gas and unmanageable renewable energy to generate electricity.

‘Consequently, Britain’s 26million households, who spend around £20billion a year on energy, will face higher bills at a time of falling household income.’

The director of the CPS, Tim Knox, described the current policy of adding hefty green taxes to bills to fund a move to wind energy as ‘incoherent’. ‘Unilateral energy taxes, delays to new generating plants and a lack of generation diversity will drive up costs,’ he added.

The Civitas report, also released today, focuses on the EU Emissions Trading System, which is designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft engines. The directive came into force on January 1. The think-tank found that related charges will cost airlines £1billion a year – most of which will be passed on to businesses and consumers through higher prices.

Airlines are now required to buy a ‘permit to pollute’ to cover the cost of their carbon emissions – with extra fees for those who exceed their emissions limit.

But in a damning assessment, Civitas researcher David Merlin-Jones says the scheme will line the pockets of energy bosses and banks while doing little to help the environment.

The report states that the emissions trading scheme ‘fails on both counts: it provides only marginal emissions reductions and at a high cost to businesses and consumers’.

It continues: ‘The EU ETS pushes up energy bills, increasing fuel poverty, while power companies make billions in windfall profits. ‘Vested interests have all but paralysed the effectiveness of EU ETS, with banks making billions out of playing the carbon credit market.’



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: