Thursday, January 26, 2012

One of the great cathedrals of Global Warming -- Britain's Met Office -- pooh poohs the effect of falling solar output

They appear to be considering total irradiance only. Despite their great reliance on "multipliers" in CO2 theory, they overlook multipliers of solar changes -- such as Svensmark's demonstration of the effect on clouds. And their whole edifice is built on the demonstrably wrong claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 increases terrestrial temperatures.

The Met office is such a failure at prediction that they have given up trying to forecsast seasons ahead. Piers Corbyn, by contrast is a successful long-range weather forecaster so his scathing dismissal of the Met Office assessment is clearly from someone who really does understand what is going on. I append it at the bottom of the article below

New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun's activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.

It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).

Gareth Jones, a climate change detection scientist with the Met Office, said: "This research shows that the most likely change in the Sun's output will not have a big impact on global temperatures or do much to slow the warming we expect from greenhouse gases.

"It's important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system."

The study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum - a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level - the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

Peter Stott, who also worked on the research for the Met Office, said: "Our findings suggest that a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases on global temperatures in the 21st Century."

During the 20th Century solar activity increased to a 'grand maximum' and recent studies have suggested this level of activity is at or nearing its end.

Mike Lockwood, an expert in solar studies at the University of Reading, used this as a starting point for looking at the most probable changes in the Sun's activity over the 21st Century.

Met Office scientists then placed the projections into one climate model to see how they may impact temperatures.

Professor Lockwood said: "The 11-year solar cycle of waxing and waning sunspot numbers is perhaps the best known way the Sun changes, but longer term changes in its brightness are more important for possible influences on climate.

"The most likely scenario is that we'll see an overall reduction of the Sun's activity compared to the 20th Century, such that solar outputs drop to the values of the Dalton Minimum (around 1820). The probability of activity dropping as low as the Maunder Minimum - or indeed returning to the high activity of the 20th Century - is about 8%. The findings rely on the assumption that the Sun's past behaviour is a reasonable guide for future solar activity changes."


Corbyn replies

The UK Met Office and BBC promoted statement is extremely delusional and dishonest and a cover-up of reality. Full article: Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming

Their 'expectation' that the world will warm by 2C this century 'due to increased greenhouse gas emissions' is proven drivel based on their own failed self-serving fraudulent models.

They deliberately choose to know almost nothing about solar influences on earth's weather and climate and create 'information' designed to deceive.

It is the largely predictable vast changes in solar charged particle flux and sun-earth magnetic connectivity which control weather and climate.

That is why we at long range forecasters

1. Confidently predict that the world will continue general cooling to 2035 - see presentation in submission to UK parliament enquiry into Dec 2010 supercold which we predicted -

2. Systematically predict and will continue to predict extreme weather events and situations many months ahead around the world:

The CO2 driver theory of weather and climate is delusional nonsense propagated by a self-serving failed sect. Their 'theory' fails to explain past weather and climate; all its predictions over the last ten years have failed and it cannot and never will predict anything.

The dangerous delusional CO2 sect must be destroyed before it's diktats destroy the world economy and thousands more lives are lost from the chosen refusal of governments across the world to allow the application of scientific advanced forecasting of extreme weather which can help reduce disruption and destruction and save money and lives.

SOURCE (See the original for links)

Obama has an epiphany on the road to Damascus this year's election

Backs fracking and more drilling for oil. Whether his rhetoric will translate into action is the big doubt

President Barack Obama pushed drilling for gas in shale rock and support for cleaner energy sources to boost the economy in his final State of the Union address before facing U.S. voters in November. He also pledged more oil drilling.

Hydraulic fracturing, the process of injecting water, sand and chemicals underground to free gas trapped in rock, could create more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade, Obama said yesterday. The process, called fracking, is among a list of energy policies Obama said would fuel economic growth.

“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy,” Obama said.

Obama reiterated support for conservation and cleaner sources of power and pledged more oil drilling as part of an ‘all-out, all-of-the-above’’ policy “that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.” He said domestic energy production is at an eight-year high and imports of foreign oil were declining, prompting criticism from Republicans.

“It’s just a blind accident, if in fact we are producing more oil or natural gas than in previous years, it’s not because of any of his efforts,” Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican and head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said after the speech.

Republicans also sought to contrast Obama’s pledge to use energy policy to create jobs with his denial of a permit to TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline to connect Canada’s oil sands to refineries on the Gulf coast.


GM in damage control as Volt loses spark

The Volt plug-in hybrid was supposed to signal a new dawn for the world’s biggest car maker, but demand is slumping under the weight of controversy over a post-crash fire.

General Motors has been forced to mount a multi-front defence of its battery-powered Chevrolet Volt amid signs demand for the vehicle is slumping.

GM Chief Executive Dan Akerson told a House of Representatives panel that the Volt had become a “political punching bag” and that a US safety probe of the vehicle in part was politically motivated. The car maker launched national television and print ads defending the car's safety and fielded Volt questions online while the hearing was underway.

"We did not engineer the Volt to be a political punching bag," Mr. Akerson said at a House panel looking into whether US regulators delayed releasing information on a probe of the vehicle. "And that, sadly, is what the Volt has become."

The Detroit car maker reacted strongly to counteract the impact of the probe and the hearing on perceptions of the Volt. Dealer orders for the car are down, the company said, and GM is considering slowing production due to less-than-expected demand.

Congressional critics accused the agency of purposely failing to disclose the investigation for months, arguing that any perception of Volt as dangerous would hurt the White House after President Barack Obama and members of his administration touted the car in efforts to promote electric vehicles.

The Volt "is a halo car not so much for GM but for this administration," said Republican Mike Kelly.

The vehicle has become a polarising issue amid Republican criticism of the Obama administration's financial support of electric and other alternative vehicles.

"For the sake of the Volt and electric vehicles in general it is important we close the door on this issue," said GM spokesman Rob Peterson. The company, he said, launched the ad campaign amid worries that attention the Volt has received because of the safety investigation could deter customers or give them the impression the car is dangerous despite being declared safe by NHTSA.

NHTSA closed its safety investigation last week, saying the car poses no unusual risk of fire. GM from the start maintained the car is safe but took unprecedented steps to reassure Volt owners and the public that it was taking the matter seriously, including repurchasing some vehicles.

The company is adding steel reinforcements around the battery to prevent damage in the case of a crash. It also will add a sensor to monitor coolant levels and a bracket to the top of the coolant reservoir to prevent an overflow.

The Volt was failing to meet demand expectations before safety questions arose. GM fell about 2300 vehicles short of its goal to sell 10,000 in 2011. The company also has backed off its target of selling 45,000 Volts in the US this year.

Several dealers have said they are struggling to sell Volts and some are declining to take all the vehicles offered to them. Earlier this month, Vice Chairman Steve Girsky said the company was unsure how much demand exists for the vehicle and will decide by June if the vehicle "has legs."

Before the probe, the car was hamstrung by supply issues, its high cost and slow sales in California, where the vehicle didn't qualify for a tax credit and unrestricted use in car-pool lanes. GM will soon release a version of the Volt in California that meets those standards.

The car maker has not yet restarted production of the Volt following the holiday shutdown of its factories. Mr. Akerson said he expected production to resume in a few weeks. On Wednesday, he said demand for the car is improving.

GM, in the print ads, touted the car's safety and called the car, "the most significant step ever in GM's history to give customers a choice beyond oil."

Much of Wednesday's hearing focused on NHTSA Administrator David Strickland, who defended the agency's move to wait six months to disclose concerns about a potential fire risk in the Volt amid criticism from lawmakers that the decision was politically motivated.

Mr. Strickland took heat from members who accused the agency of waiting to publicize its investigation into Volt batteries for fear of hurting Obama administration efforts to advance electric vehicles.

"We pulled no punches," in the Volt investigation, Mr. Strickland said. If the Volt was unsafe, he said, “we would have clearly disclosed it”.

NHTSA disclosed in November it was investigating potential fire risk in the Volt because one of the vehicles caught fire weeks after a severe crash test. The announcement came months after the fire incident and immediately following a Bloomberg News report on the incident.

Mr. Strickland said the agency waited to announce the investigation because it took months to determine whether the Volt battery was the cause of the fire -it occurred in a facility with other vehicles - and whether a fire could occur again.

He said the car never posed an imminent threat to drivers as the fire occurred weeks after the crash. In subsequent testing, three batteries sparked or caught fire but only after they were removed from the vehicles and intentionally damaged.

"Not only would I drive one, I would drive one with my wife, mother and baby sister on board," he said.


New Book Looks at Global Warming and Climate Change from a Geological Perspective

Written from a unique geological perspective, Dr. G Dedrick Robinson's new book, Global Warming-Alarmists, Skeptics & Deniers: A Geoscientist looks at the Science of Climate Change, is a 69,000-word book aimed at non-specialist readers interested in learning the latest scientific findings concerning climate change and how great a danger it actually represents.

Written from a geological perspective, Dr. Robinson's book emphasizes key findings and conclusions from peer-reviewed science journals rather than attempting to smear the politics and motives of those with differing views. Its fourteen chapters use an easy-to-understand question and answer format to cover the entire climate-change-global-warming spectrum including the physics of the greenhouse effect, the carbon cycle and why the science of geology is key to understanding global warming.

References and a short summary are provided at the end of each chapter and many graphs and charts are included. The book is about the science of global warming, not the politics or various policy directions the U.S. government might choose. It is not intended to lambaste any political party, branch of government, way of thinking or person.

It presents the science in a straightforward manner in everyday language without uncalled for political bias. It is the authoritative, concise guide to the global warming controversy that has long been needed.

Dr. Craig D. Idso, founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, says the book “ a refreshing read on a topic of great societal importance...because the authors evaluate key predictions and controversies of the global warming debate using logic and science.”

Professor Robert M. Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia, says “Writing in an easily accessible style for all readers, and using Socratic dialogue, Robinson leads us systematically through the simple science information that is needed to answer the question, 'Are human carbon dioxide emissions causing dangerous global warming?'

And the more surprised you are that the answer to this question is 'no,' then the more you need to read this excellent book.”

G Dedrick Robinson Ph.D., author of nearly fifty science journal articles, is based in the Appalachian foothills region of South Carolina. He has closely followed the climate change debate during the course of his thirty-year career as a geology professor at James Madison University in Virginia.


NASA's Research Substantiates Trend Towards Global Cooling - Human "Global Warming" From CO2 Has Disappeared

Latest data from NASA / GISS confirms the robust deceleration of global warming, revealing the non-significant impact on global temperatures by CO2

The AGW alarmist claim of "accelerating" global warming requires, at minimum, an increasing rate of temperature change as denoted by an increasing slope of a linear trend line. The two above charts plot the rolling 10-year trend (slope) of the annual GISS temperature data - the left axis of both charts represents slope in terms of temperature change per hundred years (century).

The leftmost chart reveals a large variation in speed and level of temperature change since the 1800s. The right chart takes the same data but only plots the last 15 years of GISS "acceleration" and "deceleration."

From the 2001 peak of a +3.48°C/century temperature rate, it has now fallen at the end of 2011 to an almost flat rate of +0.04°C/century temperature increase. Per the actual evidence, the increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 (grey arrow and grey area of charts) has zero influence on whether global temperatures are accelerating or decelerating.

These two charts do not represent predictions of future temperatures, but both clearly indicate that the IPCC and major climate research agencies have been substantially wrong in predicting "accelerating" warming.

Likewise, they have been substantially wrong in their assumption that the climate sensitivity to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 is positive, growing and nearing a runaway tipping point. The empirical evidence proves all of these assertions to be essentially false.


* Global temperatures are decelerating, not accelerating

* Rising CO2 levels do not cause global temperatures to continuously increase

* Climate sensitivity to CO2 levels is not robust

* IPCC predictions of "runaway" temps and climate "tipping points" are without empirical merit.

SOURCE (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: