Sunday, January 25, 2015
Peer-reviewed academic journal article notes Thermostasis
I have been pointing out for years that the piddling temperature changes Warmists agonize about in fact show thermostasis -- i.e. that we live in an age of remarkable temperature stability. My comments were directed at the last 100 years or so but the report below shows that, within broader limits, thermostasis in fact goes way back. Global warming is a remarkably baseless scare fueled by crooked and grant-hungry Leftist scientists who probably could not lie straight in bed
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley below shows that, even if you asssume that a CO2 increase leads to warming -- which he accepts -- the disasters predicted from that depend entirely on completely theoretical and unproven multiplier effects -- effects not observed in actual known climate systems.
The global satellite dataset shows no global warming for 18 years, 3 months. The actual warming since the UN climate panel first reported in 1990, compared to the average of all five major global temperature datasets, has been half what the panel had predicted with “substantial confidence.”
Even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) upper-ocean heat content chart, when converted back to the ocean temperature change from which NOAA calculated it, shows ocean warming over the past decade at a rate equivalent to just 5 tenths of one degree Celsius per century.
Global sea-ice extent reached a satellite-era maximum late in 2014. Land area under drought has declined for 30 years. Patterns of flooding, of tropical cyclones, and of extra-tropical storminess show little change. Sea level is barely rising.
Grave Errors in Assumptions
The January 2015 edition of Science Bulletin, a joint publication of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the State Science Funding Council, carries a new peer-reviewed paper by Dr Willie Soon, Professor David Legates, Matt Briggs, and myself revealing the climate concern that’s supposed to lead to an internationally binding treaty in Paris this December is based on a series of elementary but grave errors in climate models. Without the errors, the so-called “climate crisis” melts away.
The errors of the enormously complex climate models are attributable to a well kept secret: Doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations should result in an average global warming of just 1 degree Celsius, and possibly less than half that, but climate modelers erroneously assume that “temperature feedbacks” —climatic changes triggered by a direct warming such as from CO2— triple warming. Without the assumed tripling, there is no climate problem.
Ice cores show over 800,000 years the absolute mean global temperature has probably varied by little more than 1 percent (or just 3 Cº) either side of the long-run average. This remarkable thermostasis suggests a small increase in global temperature cannot trigger a far larger increase driven by feedbacks. It is more likely temperature feedbacks attenuate the trivial direct warming caused by our sins of emission.
Flawed Models, Flawed Predictions
Models calculate the mutual amplification of distinct temperature feedbacks using a World War II equation from electronic circuit design that is inapplicable to the climate. The misconceived use of this equation is the main reason for scientists’ wild forecasts of 3, 5, or even 10 Cº global warming in response to doubling the CO2 in the air.
In modern conditions the overwhelming thermostatic influence of the two giant atmospheric heat-sinks—the oceans and outer space—dampens the already small direct warming from a doubling of CO2.
Simpler climate models that don’t assume unconfirmed feedback mechanisms calculate even if all the world’s affordably recoverable CO2 were released at once, only 2.2 Cº of global warming would result. This asymptote (a limit that global temperature can approach but never quite reach under modern conditions) has ruled the climate for a billion years. The equation misused by the official climate models to determine what is known as the “system gain”—the factor by which temperature feedbacks were thought to increase any direct warming—does not represent it.
Climate Singularity Assumed
Instead, the equation contains what is called a “singularity”—the very opposite of an asymptote [limit] — that does not exist in the real climate. As the simulated conditions in the models approach the singularity, the incorrect equation suggests sudden, massive global warming. In the real atmosphere, comfortably sandwiched between two great heat-sinks, this imagined “tipping point” is impossible.
The model developed by Monckton of Brenchley et al. in Science Bulletin was also designed to test whether there is unrealized global warming “in the pipeline.” The answer is no.
In blogs, in interviews, and in the learned journals, desperate climate scientists have advanced some 70 mutually incompatible explanations for why the world has not warmed as fast as the general-circulation models had predicted. The truth is the models should not have predicted anywhere near that much global warming in the first place.
Unnecessary UN Deal
Our central estimate shows even if people do absolutely nothing about global warming the world will be less than 1 Cº warmer in 2100 than it is today.
Where does our research leave the UN climate negotiating process? The correct response would be to shut the global climate talks down. Yet, according to a statement by the UK’s Sir David King, to the House of Commons’ Environmentalist Committee early in 2014, only two countries were then opposing global Save-The-Planet government.
One was Canada, but Sir David predicted a convenient change of government early in 2015. The other was Australia, whose prime minister, Tony Abbott, has already swept away the CO2 tax.
All other nations, in defiance of science and the mounting evidence against alarm, are expected to toe the party line.
Since President Obama has unilaterally permitted China to remain part of the climate negotiations even though it will not have to cut its huge emissions, China will sign onto the agreement—even if the Politburo reads the Science Bulletin.
Arctic disappearance: Animation reveals perennial ice melting over 27 years
This is more crookedness. They consider only one type of ice in one location. Including all ice types at both poles shows polar ice levels at a record high. And even the ice they obsess about is not shrinking overall. In the second last sentence below they admit that it is now back to normal. Amazing!
Global temperatures last year were the highest since records began in 1880, according to US scientists.
But as well as the increase of the planet’s average temperature, climatologists are particularly concerned about melting sea ice in the Arctic.
Now a time-lapse animation has been created to show how fast the world's oldest ice is vanishing.
Each winter, sea ice expands to fill the Arctic Ocean basin, peaking in volume in March. Every summer, the ice pack shrinks and is at its smallest in September.
The ice that survives one summer melt or more becomes thicker and is more likely to survive over a longer period of time.
Temperatures across the world averaged 0.8°C (1.4°F) above 20th century averages - making 2014 the warmest year in records dating back 134 years.
The Met Office has also announced that 2014 was the hottest year for the UK in records dating back to 1910.
But since the 1980s the amount of old, hardy ice, known as perennial or multiyear ice, has declined.
The animation charts the vanishing of this ice from 1987 to November 2014.
The dark blue areas in the video depicts first year ice that formed in the most recent winter, while the oldest ice, which is older than nine years old, is shown in white. Dark grey areas indicate open water.
By showing how the colours – the types of ice – change in the region, the animation emphasises how quickly the Arctic is changing as the planet warms up.
It also shows how the Arctic sea ice moves continually and escapes the Arctic Ocean via the Fram Strait, east of Greenland.
Ice lost through the Strait used to be replaced by ice growth in the Beaufort Gyre, northeast of Alaska, where perennial ice used to last for years.
But this changed at the beginning of the 21st century when warmer waters made it less likely that ice would survive its passage though the south of the gyre.
From 2008 onwards, the oldest ice has diminished to a narrow band along the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and in 2012, the ice melt broke all previous records.
After that worrying year, the melt was less severe in 2013 and 2014.
Overall, the amount of perennial sea ice recorded last spring was enough to meet the approximate 1981-2010 median. [i.e. it was back to the average]
However, experts worry that the increase was a blip and that the long-term trend will continue to be downward.
More HERE (See the original for links, graphics etc.)
Fascinating Climate Policy PhD of a Member of the European Parliament
She's become pretty skeptical. Excerpts by the younger Pielke below
Eija-Riitta Korhola is a rare politician. She was a long-serving member of the European Parliament from Finland as a member of the European People’s Party, the largest block in the legislature. She has also recently completed an academic dissertation for a PhD in a policy field that she specializes in – climate policy. I can’t recall ever hearing of another politician completing a PhD while in office. Rare indeed.
Korhola’s dissertation is titled, “The Rise and Fall of the Kyoto Protocol: Climate Change as a Political Process” and can be found here in PDF. It makes for fascinating reading. Below are a few excerpts from the preface.
On her early advocacy for climate policy as a politician:
"I was not the only one, but without doubt,I was one of the first Finnish politicians to knowingly push the issue of climate change and its threats onto the political agenda. In 1994, I published my first effusions in Vihreä Lanka, a weekly green newspaper, to which I had contributed as a columnist for five years. In the 1999 European elections, my main topics were climate change and development issues. “It won’t pay off, these themes will not attract the public”, was the feedback, which I nonchalantly ignored with the thought of not wanting to make calculations about these kinds of issues. I was worried about the effects of climate change on nature and society. I read the warnings issued by various environmental organisations."
On her unique perspective:
"I focus on the problem of climate change, because in this field,I hold, besides the status of a researcher,the position of an expert who has also gained some legislative experience. I start from the assumption that a dual role will not automatically degrade the quality of the research. At least, this dual experience could be utilised and tested as a rare opportunity: my experience of 15 years with an active role in the field of climate policy of the Union – which still perceives itself as a forerunner in combating climate change – constitutes a particular vantage point.I am thinking of the EU’s most important climate instrument, emissions trading, in particular. At its different stages, I have been serving in various key positions, and therefore, I am able to offer an insider’s view from a legislator’s point of view."
"When I entered politics, I wondered why climate change was not discussed at all. The time then came when I began to wonder, if it was possible to talk about anything without being forced to mention climate change."
Her view on EU climate policy:
"In my study I agree with those who regard the UN’s strategy – and the EU’s follow-up strategy – not only as ineffective but also harmful. The reason can be found in both the wickedness of the problem–i.e.the fact that it is hard to intervene in it in the first place – and that the selected problem-solving model has failed, as the problem’s wicked nature has not been recognised. The attempt to resolve it has been based on an assumption that it is a one-dimensional,tame problem. However, as the saying goes, a wicked problem requires wicked solutions. The matter has been worsened by a lack of knowledge and expertise. Because I was present, I can testify that, for instance, when the Members of the European Parliament(at that time altogether 632 MEPs) voted on issue of emissions trading, I could easily count the number of those who knew something about the matter with the fingers of my two hands."
Like many people who have critiqued climate policy, she finds that critique is not welcomed:
"Unfortunately, the political atmosphere is ideological to such an extent that criticism towards the chosen means is very often interpreted as climate scepticism."
She has some hard words for European environmental groups:
"Another conclusion of mine is as scathing as my previous reference to the 20-year delusion [of UN climate policy]. It concerns the environmental movement. I suggest that the movement has, above all, failed in its strategy to combat climate change, but also quite often in its other environmental policies. Again, good intentions do not guarantee a wise strategy. The environmental movement regards economic growth as an enemy of the environment although practice has proven that in precisely those quarters of the world where economic well-being prevails and basic needs are satisfied, people are more interested in taking care of their environment. Poverty, in its turn, is the biggest environmental threat,although it has been romanticised in environmentalist rhetoric."
She includes one of her blog posts in which she offers a view that policy making should be robust to scientific debates:
"I have come to think that a good politician should rather be a ”climate agnostic”. In principle, it does not matter, what conclusion science comes to: if the legislation we make is good enough, one does not have to take sides; except the side of consideration and quality. Climate policy should be so robust, sturdy and of such good quality that it does not struggle with the uncertainty factors and differences of opinion within science."
This is a similar view to that which I express in The Climate Fix.
There is much, much more in the dissertation. For those wanting the bottom line, jump to pp. 291-296 for a concise summary of conclusions.
If you are interested in an insider’s perspective on European climate policy or just interested in how a real-world, elected decision maker grapples with the complexity of climate policy, the entire dissertation is well worth reading.
And note that those "emerging technologies in life sciences" (quote from below) are certainly going to blow us up
The Doomsday Clock’s minute hand has been moved two minutes closer to midnight as experts warn we are closer than ever to a global catastrophe.
In a live international news conference, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) said that the threat of climate change and nuclear war posed a very serious threat to modern society.
Their symbolic clock is now set at three minutes to midnight, but while they say it is not too late to avert disaster ‘the window for action is closing rapidly’.
Key topics discussed included evidence of accelerating climate change and the increasing threat of nuclear war after failed promises from various international governments.
‘The danger is great but our message is not one of hopelessness,’ Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS), said in the announcement. ‘We find conditions to be so threatening that we are moving the hand two minutes closer. It is now three minutes to midnight,’ she continued."
Countries emitting carbon dioxide and other gases are transforming Earth’s climate in a dangerous way, she said, leaving millions vulnerable to rising sea levels, famines and 'killer storms.'
‘Members of the BAS board are today imploring citizens of the world to speak clearly and demand leaders take necessary steps,’ Ms Benedict continued.
The BAS want to see action taken to cap greenhouse gases to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and reduce spending on nuclear weapons.
‘We are not saying it is too late, but the window for action is closing rapidly,’ she added.
‘The world needs to awaken from its lethargy. Moving the clock hand inspires changes to help push the process along.’
The BAS was founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project.
The physicists set up the Doomsday Clock in 1947 after their atomic bombs hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.
Their Clock was created to convey threats to humanity and the planet. Midnight represents Doomsday, or when these threats will peak and cause a global catastrophe.
It was created to convey threats to humanity and the planet, and midnight represents Doomsday, or when these threats will peak and cause a global catastrophe. Click 'The Clock Shifts' on the picture above to see an interactive timeline of the Clock's history
The decision to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made by the Bulletin's Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates.
The Clock has become a universally recognised indicator of the world's vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in life sciences.
Since it was set up, the hand on the clock has moved 18 times, and each move represents how the scientists view the world's chances of survival in the face of these threats.
Blunt-Inhofe amendment against China climate deal
Jan. 22, 2015, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement urging passage of the Blunt-Inhofe amendment against the China climate deal:
"President Obama's China climate change deal puts the United States economy and our workers at a competitive disadvantage and the Senate is urged to pass a sense of the Senate resolution opposing its implementation without having gone through the full ratification process.
"American workers continue to be hurt by President Obama's extremist environmental policies with stagnant wages and lost job growth opportunities. Obama's China deal would further escalate the cost of electricity stunting the rebuilding our nation's manufacturing base.The Senate must stand up for America's workforce by making it clear that the President's China climate deal should not be implemented."
Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change Is Real but Splits on That Pesky Cause
As "Slate" saw it
Confused by the “science” on climate change? Well, apparently so is the U.S. Senate.
In a series of nonbinding (but potentially embarrassing) votes on Wednesday, the Senate has decided overwhelmingly that global warming exists. Minutes later, in a second vote, senators failed to agree on a root cause.
According to the Hill, the Senate first voted 98-1 in favor of a nonbinding amendment that said “climate change is real and not a hoax.” Republicans read the text of that amendment in such a way as to absolve themselves of taking a stand on the human component of global warming. (Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, of Mississippi, was the lone holdout.) The second vote on an amendment by Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz, of Hawaii, wasn’t so clear-cut. That amendment read, in part: “It is the sense of Congress that 1) climate change is real, and 2) human activity significantly contributes to climate change.” Though the vote on the second amendment was 50-49 in favor, it needed 60 votes to pass.
The first amendment was intended to take a swipe at Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, and the new chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He’s also a leading Senate climate denier who’s so sure climate change is a massive conspiracy by the world’s scientists, he wrote a book about it. In a surprise, he actually voted for Wednesday’s amendment, “but he made clear he doesn't believe humans are the primary driver of climate change” said the Hill. Instead, he used the Bible to support his vote:
“Climate is changing, and climate has always changed, and always will, there's archeological evidence of that, there's biblical evidence of that, there's historic evidence of that, it will always change,” Inhofe said on the Senate floor. “The hoax is that there are some people that are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful that they can change climate. Man can't change climate.”
The debate over S.1 is the first about energy on the Senate floor in eight years, according to the New York Times. Obama is expected to veto the bill, but that didn’t stop the Republican-controlled Congress from taking a stand. “Part of the Democrats’ strategy is to put Republicans on the record about an issue that’s controversial inside the GOP but is much less so with the public and Democratic Party,” says the Wall Street Journal.
Mashable’s Andrew Freedman notes that this isn’t the first time the Senate has attempted to legislate the existence of climate change. In 2005, the Senate approved a nonbinding amendment similar to the second amendment. That the Senate wasn’t able to do the same on Wednesday is telling of how increasingly political the question of human-caused climate change has become in the last decade.
Yet, since 2005, evidence has continued to mount that climate change is driven by human activity. As Obama noted during Tuesday’s State of the Union, 14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest on record globally. More greenhouse gases were emitted into the atmosphere in 2014 than in any other year in human history. In his speech, Obama said “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations.”
Because the votes are nonbinding, there are no real implications beyond the political. But with the 2016 presidential campaign just around the corner, Democrats figure this is a perfect time to put potential Republican contenders on the record. Among them, Florida’s Republican Sen. Marco Rubio stands out. Rubio, who isn’t quite sure how old the Earth is, was recently installed as chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, where he directly oversees the budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, America’s leading scientific agency on climate. Oh, he’s also polling among the top three Republican contenders for president in 2016.
Inhofe, Rubio, and Ted Cruz, of Texas—another Republican presidential contender—all voted against the second amendment on the cause of climate change. According to National Journal, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina were the only Republicans to vote against party lines on the amendment endorsing humans as the primary cause of climate change.
The vote comes after Obama mocked Republicans during his State of the Union speech for using the "I’m not a scientist" defense to justify continued knuckle-dragging on climate change. “The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it,” he said.
The Senate is expected to take up the issue again on Thursday, including votes on at least one more amendment regarding the cause of climate change:
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
Posted by JR at 1:41 AM