More false prophecy:  Greenie Messiah is running late

“Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations, and ‘we expect that [real-world] warming will resume in the next few years,’ the Hadley Centre group writes…. Researchers … agree that no sort of natural variability can hold off greenhouse warming much longer.”  - Richard Kerr, Science (2009)

That’s Richard A. Kerr, the longtime, award-winning climate-change scribe for Science magazine, the flagship publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The article, “What Happened to Global Warming? Scientists Say Just Wait a Bit,” was published October 1, 2009.

The article is important in the history of climate thought because it captures neatly the (over)confidence of the scientists who turn to models to justify their faith that past overestimation will soon be reversed. Judith Curry’s recent discovery of F. A. Hayek’s Nobel Prize Lecture in Economics, The Pretense of Knowledge, marks a new front in the mainstream climate debate. [1]

Secondly, today’s explanation for the “pause” (a term used in Kerr’s 2009 article) is not mentioned back then—ocean delay.

Third, Kerr frames the debate in political terms with Copenhagen just ahead—and fails to interview or include the contrary views about how climate sensitivity might be less than the climate models assume in their physical equations.

Here is the guts of the Kerr article as the 5th year anniversary comes this year:

"The blogosphere has been having a field day with global warming’s apparent decade-long stagnation. Negotiators are working toward an international global warming agreement to be signed in Copenhagen in December, yet there hasn’t been any warming for a decade. What’s the point, bloggers ask?

Climate researchers are beginning to answer back in their preferred venue, the peer-reviewed literature. The pause in warming is real enough, but it’s just temporary, they argue from their analyses.

A natural swing in climate to the cool side has been holding greenhouse warming back, and such swings don’t last forever. “In the end, global warming will prevail,” says climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City.

The latest response from the climate community comes in State of the Climate in 2008, a special supplement to the current (August) issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Climate researcher Jeff Knight and eight colleagues at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, U.K., first establish that—at least in one leading temperature record—greenhouse warming has been stopped in its tracks for the past 10 years.

In the HadCRUT3 temperature record, the world warmed by 0.07°C±0.07°C from 1999 through 2008, not the 0.20°C expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Corrected for the natural temperature effects of El Niño and its sister climate event La Niña, the decade’s trend is a perfectly flat 0.00°C.

So contrarian bloggers are right: There’s been no increase in greenhouse warming lately. That result came as no surprise to
Knight and his colleagues or, for that matter, to most climate scientists. But the Hadley Centre group took the next step, using climate modeling to try to quantify how unusual a 10-year warming pause might be.

In 10 modeling runs of 21st century climate totaling 700 years worth of simulation, long-term warming proceeded about as expected: 2.0°C by the end of the century. But along the way in the 700 years of simulation, about 17 separate 10-year intervals had temperature trends resembling that of the past decade—that is, more or less flat.

From this result, the group concludes that the model can reproduce natural jostlings of the climate system—perhaps a shift in heat-carrying ocean currents—that can cool the world and hold off greenhouse warming for a decade. But natural climate variability in the model has its limits. Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations, and “we expect that [real-world] warming will resume in the next few years,” the Hadley Centre group writes.

And that resumption could come as a bit of a jolt, says Adam Scaife of the group, as the temperature catches up with the greenhouse gases added during the pause.

Pinning the pause on natural variability makes sense to most researchers. “That goes without saying,” writes climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany by e-mail. “We’ve made [that point] several times on RealClimate,” a blog.

Solar physicist Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., and climate modeler David Rind of GISS reached the same conclusion in a peer-reviewed 15 August paper in Geophysical Research Letters. They broke down recent temperature variation into components attributable to greenhouse gases, pollutant aerosols, volcanic aerosols, El Niño/La Niña, and solar variability.

Combined, those influences explain all of the observed variability, by Lean and Rind’s accounting. But unlike the Hadley Centre’s model-based analysis, this assessment attributes a good deal of climate variability to variability in solar activity. That’s because most models can’t translate solar variability into climate variability the way the actual climate system can (Science, 28 August, p. 1058), Rind says.

Researchers may differ about exactly what’s behind recent natural climate variability, but they agree that no sort of natural variability can hold off greenhouse warming much longer. “Our prediction is that if past is prologue, the solar component will turn around and lead to rapid warming in the next 5 years,” says Rind.

Climate modeler David Smith of the Hadley Centre, who was not involved in the State of the Climate analysis, says his group’s climate model forecasts—made much the way weather forecasts are made—are still calling for warming to resume in the next few years as ocean influences reverse (Science, 10 August 2007, p. 746). Whether that’s in time to boost climate negotiations is anyone’s guess."

The ball is back in Richard Kerr’s court. Dr. Kerr, let’s have a five-year update for Science with a headline like “What Happened to Global Warming: Can Mainstream Climate Science Regain Its Footing?” His update might well take into account Judith Curry’s current post, IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW), that documented “several key elements … weakening of the case for attributing the warming [to] human influences:

* Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections

* Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2

* Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012

* Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent

* Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming.”

SOURCE





Warmists get scammed

Oh, the humanity! Internet scammers are creating their own conferences on global warming threats and remedies. They call for papers, and offer air fares and accommodation for presenters. Moreover, papers endorsed by the scammers’ “peer review panel” will be published in “prestigious” fake climate journals.

To secure your room at the five-star London hotel, please pay the hotel a small refundable deposit of 300 pounds by using the (fake) hotel’s payment website. The 0844-prefix hotel phone number involves a re-direction to who-knows-who.

Top-tier scamming emails are signed ostensibly by  “Christiana Figueres” – the UN climate body’s real-life    executive secretary from Costa Rica. She distinguished herself last October blaming NSW bushfires on global warming – unless some scammer was impersonating her. She also won the Hero for the Planet award in 2001, unless that was another hoax.

Disgruntled would-be climate-science travellers have found the address of one London hotel to be that of a pet shop, and another to be that of the Marylebone Crematorium.

The next fake conference, funded by “the UN”, will begin in London’s “Kings Park Hotel”  on January 27 on the theme of an Integrated Global Response to Sustainable Development and Climate Change Proposals.  You may even be provided with lifelike air-travel e-tickets.

The scammers have done their homework and get the right inspirational tone:

“The situation in the world’s developing countries, which contributed least to the crisis and are most severely affected , has led some economists to warn of ‘lost decades for development’ which could have catastrophic consequences for rich and poor countries alike.”

Serious climate conference junketeers are indignant. One blogged, “My guess is these folks are unrelated to the typical climate denialists – they’re just con men out to steal money.”  That’s what I’d call damning skeptics with faint praise!

Someone else on that thread rudely chipped in:

“Of course they probably reckon that anyone stupid enough to fall for the typical alarmist propaganda put out by the hugely funded AGW bandwagon is probably stupid enough to fall for this sort of transparent scam, and they’re probably right.”

The climate conference scammers have been trolling for warmist authors for half a decade. Using a scam-watch site, I spent half an hour on a rough count of climate conference scams (a good model spawns variants so it all gets a bit rubbery). I counted 23 fake climate conferences and exhibitions in 2011, 10 in 2012 , three in 2013 and one so far this year. They seem, like the warming scare per se, to be on a downward trend.

Often the geography of both scammers and victims is woozy. One “London” conference was supposed to be   in a cottage in a Hampshire village.  A London hotel address was in Edinburgh.

The scammers have even managed to come up with new acronyms, like WGGW – “Working Group of Global Warming”, with a conference at the Mayfair Hotel in Park Lane.

SOURCE





Report: U.S., Canadian Energy Resources Could Provide 100% Domestic Liquid Fuel Needs by 2024

A new report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute stated that the United States, in partnership with Canada, has the energy resources to make the country completely independent of outside sources for liquid fuel supplies by 2024.

Calling the state of the U.S. oil and natural gas sector a “renaissance,” the report overview stated, “America also finds itself on the cusp of energy self-sufficiency and security through reliable, affordable, and abundant supplies of domestic oil and natural gas that can sustain and empower us well into the foreseeable future.

“In fact, the U.S. is already the global leader in oil and natural gas production and together with Canadian energy supplies could produce more than 100 percent of its liquid fuel needs by 2024,” the report, titled “The State of American Energy: America’s Energy, America’s Choice,” stated.

What’s critical to reaching that goal is making the right energy decisions, according to Jack Gerard, president and CEO of API, a national trade association that represents all segments of America’s technology-driven oil and natural gas industry.

“The question before us today is whether we have the vision and wisdom to take full advantage of our vast energy resources,” Gerard said in his prepared remarks at the release of the report in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. “The energy policy choices we make today are among the most important and far reaching policy decisions we will make in the 21st century.

“We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to reshape, realign and reorder the world’s energy market and improve domestic prosperity to an unprecedented degree,” Gerard said. “But only if we get our nation’s energy policy right today.”

Here are some highlights of the report, which was complied for API by IHS.

 *  Lower natural gas prices are predicted to increase industrial output by 2.8 percent by 2015 and by 3.9 percent by 2025, according to IHS.

 *  The oil and natural gas sector supports approximately 529,000 U.S. jobs, according to the report.

 *  The oil and natural gas industry pays approximately $85 million a day to the U.S. Treasury in taxes, royalties and other fees, according to the report.

 *  Economies in numerous states are benefiting from oil and natural gas operations, including Pennsylvania, Texas, Louisiana and North Dakota. In 2012 alone, more than 38,000 Ohio jobs were supported by unconventional oil and natural gas activity.

 *  IHS estimates that capital spending in oil and gas midstream and downstream infrastructure has increased by 60 percent between 2010 and 2013, from $56.3 billion to $89.6 billion. This increase in capital spending has provided both an economic stimulus and shows how shale driven oil and gas production is reshaping the U.S. oil and gas infrastructure landscape.

 *  The IHS forecast of oil and gas infrastructure investment over the next 12 years (2014 – 2025) estimates a cumulative spending of $890 billion (in 2012 dollars) in the base case, and $1.15 trillion in the high production case.

 *  Lower natural gas prices are predicted to increase industrial output by 2.8% by 2015 and by 3.9 percent by 2025, according to IHS.

 *  The oil and natural gas sector supports approximately 529,000 U.S. jobs, according to the report.

 *  The oil and natural gas industry pays approximately $85 million a day to the U.S. Treasury in taxes, royalties and other fees, according to the report.

The report also highlighted the Keystone XL pipeline project, which has not been approved by the Obama State Department.  The completed pipeline would be able to transport up to 830,000 barrels of oil daily from Canada and U.S. Bakken Shale formation to U.S. refineries – more than 90 percent of what the U.S. imported from Venezuela in 2012.

The report also noted the limited access for oil and natural gas production on federal lands. Approximately 87 percent of offshore areas controlled by the government are off limits to development and production.

The number of drilling permits issued on federal lands declined by 36 percent between FY2008 and FY2012, and the number of wells drilled fell by 40 percent during that time, according to the U.S. Department of Interior.

The wait for a federal drilling permit averaged 228 days in 2012 compared to 10 days for a state permit in North Dakota or 14 days in Ohio, the report stated.

“To fully realize the opportunities of this new energy future, we must make the deliberate choice to take greater advantage of our oil and natural gas resources and ensure our ability to refine these resources,” the report’s conclusion stated. “We must build the facilities and infrastructure needed to bring fuels, natural gas, and other petroleum products to market.

“North America’s energy resources are bountiful,” the conclusion stated. “The benefits of unlocking them flow throughout all sectors of our economy and to families in every state,” the report’s conclusion stated.

SOURCE



Gas Pump Alarmism

We'll give eco-fascists credit for one thing – a strong devotion to hyperbole. By their logic, no atmospheric event exists that's not somehow a result of global warming. And no evidence to the contrary will prevent even more extreme alarmism. In San Francisco, the environmental group 350.org is now demanding labels be posted on gasoline pumps that warn Americans of the danger presented by “dirty oil.”

Citing the popular talking point that “we're not going to feel the effects until well into the future,” group member Jamie Brooks claims, “The goal isn't to take transportation away from people and say, 'You're a bad person.'” Instead, “The goal is to create a signal saying, 'You need to change your behavior.'”

Unsurprisingly, Brooks didn't bother to offer a practical alternative. On the other hand, we'll be glad to offer them a horse and carriage to aid in distributing the stickers.

SOURCE



German nuclear shutdown unlawful

The forced closure of RWE's Biblis nuclear power plant after the Fukushima accident was unlawful, the German Supreme Administrative Court has ruled. The utility is now likely to sue for considerable damages.

Germany's reaction to the Fukushima accident in 2011 was extreme, with Chancellor Angela Merkel making two decisions: one to order a shutdown of eight units that started operation in or before 1980 for a three-month moratorium period; and subsequently that those units may not be allowed to restart. Without consultation or reference to independent regulatory advice on the safety of the plants, the orders were executed by the German states which are home to the reactors.

Today the state of Hesse was told it acted illegally by enforcing the decisions on the Biblis nuclear power plant sited in the state, backing up a decision made in February 2013 by the Administrative Court of Hesse. This had been appealed by the Hesse government, but today's ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed that appeal, making the state court's decision binding with no further appeal possible. Efforts to force the shutdowns were "formally unlawful because [RWE] had not been consulted and this constituted a substantial procedural error," said the court.

Plant owner RWE can now sue for compensation over the loss of the Biblis units as an asset. The plant has two reactors, Biblis A and B, which are pressurized water reactors rated at 1167 MWe and 1240 MWe respectively and which had been licensed to operate until 2019 and 2021 just two months before the shutdown order. The company has previously said it suffered losses of over €1 billion ($1.3 billion) in 2011 alone due to the Biblis shutdown.

The same shutdown orders hit Germany's other nuclear operators, EOn, Vattenfall and EnBW, although EnBW is 45% owned by the Green-governed state of Baden-Wurttemburg and is not contesting the shutdown or appealing a ruling that upheld the fuel tax. EOn and RWE have doubts about the legality of the shutdown order, but have chosen not to pursue the matter in court, industry group Deutsches Atomforum told World Nuclear News.

Instead the companies are contesting the constitutionality of the 2011 amendment to the Atomic Act which redrew operating periods for remaining reactors. Another set of questions on the fuel tax have now been referred by German courts to the European Court of Justice. Sweden-owned Vattenfall is contesting the shutdown via international arbitrartion.

Collectively the utilities lost 8336 MWe of nuclear generating capacity, closing Biblis A and B, Neckarwestheim 1, Brunsbuttel, Isar 1, Unterweser, and Phillipsburg 1. Despite only starting operation built in 1984, Krummel was not brought back from long-term shutdown.

SOURCE





Britons unconvinced over anthropogenic climate change claims

A new ComRes/ITV poll has revealed that Britons are still unconvinced over the claim that human action has resulted in climate change, and the notion that the weather is worsening as a result of it.

While 65 percent of the 2047 polled believe that “weather in the UK seems to get worse every year”, only 38 percent believe that “the recent storms and flooding in the UK are probably a result of climate change mainly caused by human activity”, while 32 percent disagreed with that statement.

Moreover, older Brits, who fell into the categories of between 55 – 64 years of age, and those age 65+, believe more firmly than their young counterparts that “the recent storms and flooding in the UK are no worse than they have been in the past, and are probably not a result of climate change at all”.

Those between the ages of 18-54 agreed, on average, at a rate of 23.75 percent, that Britain’s recent foul weather was not a direct result of climate change, while those aged 55 and over believed that to be the case at a rate of 37.5 percent, revealing perhaps that those with more experience of Britain’s varied weather conditions over the past decades are more sceptical of alarmist environmentalist claims.

However, most (55 percent) still agreed that it was the “government’s responsibility to prevent damage to people’s homes and businesses from flooding”, with 65 percent backing the idea that the “government should dedicate more money to improving flood defences, even if it means budget cuts elsewhere”.

The fact that half of those polled disagree, or ‘don’t know’ about whether climate change is “really happening” will no doubt be a blow to the ‘big green’ lobby, that spends tens of billions of pounds worldwide trying to sell the idea of climate change, and its tax-heavy ‘solutions’.

That the gap between those who believe in anthropogenic (man-made) climate change impacting UK weather is just 6 percent, will no doubt also come as a blow to climate change proponents.

The ComRes/ITV survey quizzed 2047 people from across the country, and also found that Ed Balls was nearly as untrusted with economic matters as UKIP’s Nigel Farage. The full results are available here.

SOURCE

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************