Warmist crooks backpedal

Now that they have got the lie splashed worldwide they can afford to do that

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.

Scientists disagree over its significance, but there is little doubt that the rapid warming of the 1980s and early 1990s has slowed – although greenhouse gas emissions have surged.

Bob Ward, of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change, said the new figures showed the notion that global warming had ‘stopped’ was a ‘myth’, although it had ‘temporarily slowed’. Since 1951, he added, the long-term trend was for warming of 0.12C per decade, and in his view, it would ‘pick up again unabated’ if emissions continued to rise.

However, if the long-term rate is 0.12C per decade, this would mean the world would be 1C or so warmer by the end of the century, not 4C-5C as some have claimed.

Climate sceptics insisted that the new figures showed the warming ‘pause’ had continued. Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said ‘there has been no statistically significant warming trend since 1997’ – because the entire increase over this period was smaller than the error margin.

SOURCE





How Gavin Schmidt Cheated To Create The Required Talking Point

Gavin quietly says that there is a 62% chance that 2014 was not the warmest year on record, but he had to give his boss a talking point for the State of the Union address this week.

So Gavin simply fabricated warm temperatures across huge areas like Greenland, where he had no actual thermometer data in December.



Gavin showed much of  western Greenland 1-2C above normal, when it was actually 2C below normal. It doesn’t take a lot of that sort of cheating to get temperatures up 0.02 globally.

There is only one chance in 27 million that there is a smidgen of truth to the hottest year ever claim.

SOURCE





Tim Ball comments on the fraud

Schmidt knows, after all his years with the CRU gang and participation in creation and naming of the RealClimate web site, that it is all about the headline. He has achieved that, and all the pointing out of errors and deceptions will not alter the impression left with the media and the public. As it is said, the lie is twice round the world before the truth even has its boots on.

The best antidote is the continuance of cold weather, especially in the eastern U.S. and Western Europe. The 2014 claim was pushed out of people's minds in the UK by the cold and snow of this week.

This was the same trend that started the public questioning the global warming fiasco. All the skeptics efforts had little effect, partly because the media did not report properly. It was a couple of cold winters that started the doubts and as usual, cartoonists captured this before most. Here is an early example of the growing cynicism.



As the events contradicted their hypothesis, instead of revisiting the science, as normal science requires, they simply moved the goalposts. The CRU gang's reaction was recorded in the leaked emails,  A 2004 CRU email from the Minns/Tyndall Centre on the UEA campus said:

“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”

 To which Swedish Chief Climate negotiator Bo Kjellen replied,

“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”

 Schmidt has taken on the James Hansen mantle with vigour and purpose and the climate deception continues.

Via email




'STACK THEORY' MATHEMATICS PAPER OFFERS A MORE HEURISTIC MODEL THAN ONE USING CO2 VARIATIONS

In a detailed new mathematical study the actual atmospheric effect of infrared-active gases are examined for climatic impact. Principia Scientific International (PSI) researcher, Jef Reynen explores the so-called 'stack model' of earth's climate and finds that it is possible to more accurately model climate without factoring in any 'greenhouse gas effect.'

His new paper, Lessons from a chicken wire stack on the Moon, re-examines a concept first addressed at PSI three years ago. Back then Reynen considered a finite difference one-stream-heat-flow formulation. More recently, he has employed the more transparent finite element method (FEM).

Due to the recurrent failures of computer simulations to model climate, Reynen's more pragmatic approach employs the concept of a stack of chicken wire in a vacuum environment (that is, where convection is not possible) e.g. on the Moon. In a vacuum, the stack has a temperature and heat flux completely defined by the process of radiation, without convection. Conventional computer climate modeling disavows itself of the dominance of convection (e.g. wind impacts) and applies a far more radiation-obsessed approach; whereas in the reality of planet Earth, it is nearly the other way around. This, says Reynen, has been climate science's great error.

In the Reynen model, a stack of grids represents the IR-active gases. Reynen refuses to talk about“greenhouse gases and their effect” because that's a misnomer according to him and other PSI scientists. What can be described by this innovative new model is an explanation of the atmospheric effect that keeps our planet at a pleasant temperature – strictly in accordance with sound thermodynamic principles. This fits with original concepts from the earlier days of climate research, and the potential temperature already defined by Poisson and more recently by adiabatic lapse rates. That approach was abandoned by conventional climate science in a “wrong turn” made in the 1980's in preference for the now increasingly discredited carbon dioxide-driven 'greenhouse gas' theory.

As Reynen and PSI colleagues insist, greenhouses in nurseries are warmer because the glass roof hinders the convective cooling! There is no enhanced radiative effect achievable in this glass house scenario and the notion of CO2 radiative warming is bogus.

As is shown by the stack model, the evacuation of heat from the planet is rather by convection from the surface of the planet to the upper layers and from thereon by radiation to outer space - thanks to the IR-active gasses with three or more atoms per molecule, like H20 vapor, CO2, CH4, O3, N20...

The stack in a vacuum absorbs nearly the full longwave (LW) radiation from the surface and in steady state emits it immediately. The net result is a temperature that is tens of degrees lower than the measured temperature distribution in an atmosphere of 99% O2 and N2 - on planet Earth. That temperature distribution is described with the environmental lapse rate ELR = - 6.5 K/km being between the dry adiabatic lapse rate DALR = -10 K/km and the saturated adiabatic lapse rate SALR = -5 K/km. These lapse rates follow from sound thermodynamic principles of adiabatic expansion, with or without moisture and the environmental lapse rate in between, from measurements.

What Reynen shows is that when the stack is 'put' in earth's atmosphere, the IR-active trace gases do not cool to what is observed in a vacuum; the trace gases remain at the temperature of the atmosphere. No detailed heat transfer calculations are necessary; the heat capacity of the trace gases is negligibly small compared to that of the bulk of the 99% O2 and N2 of the atmosphere.

The IR-active trace gasses near the surface absorb little heat from the surface since they are at about the same temperature!

The evacuation of heat from the planet is carried out by convection from the surface to higher layers and from there on by radiation from IR-active trace gasses to outer-space.

The validation of the stack model i.e. the question whether a stack of chicken wire can represent the traces of IR-active gases, was carried out in a parameter study by varying the distribution of the thickness of the wires such that results of the analyses coincided with K&T type of studies (Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E., 1997), based on the two-stream formulation of Schwarzschild, however ignoring the back-radiation and thereby the non-physical huge atmospheric absorption.

In this fascinating update, Reynen has compared the stack results with recent results of Ferenc Miskolczi, based on the two-stream Schwarzschild procedure, but ignoring the back-radiation and the huge atmospheric absorption. The findings are another mathematical proof against the existence of any supposed 'greenhouse gas effect' in our climate system.

SOURCE




CLIMATE ALARMISTS TURN BACK THE CLOCK

by Viv Forbes

Three centuries ago, the world ran on green power. Wood was used for heating and cooking, charcoal for smelting and smithing, wind or water-power for pumps mills and ships, and whale oil or tallow for lamps. old wind powerPeople and soldiers walked or rode horses, and millions of horses and oxen pulled ploughs, wagons, coaches and artillery.

But smoke from open fires choked cities, forests were stripped of trees, most of the crops went to feed draft animals, and streets were littered with horse manure. For many people, life was “nasty, brutish and short”.Then the steam engine was developed, and later the internal combustion engine, electricity and refrigeration came along.

Green power was replaced by coal and oil. Carbon energy powered factories, mills, pumps, ships, trains, and smelters; and cars, trucks and tractors replaced the work-horses. The result was a green revolution – forests began to regrow and vast areas of crop-land used for horse feed were released to produce food for humans. Poverty declined and population soared.

But new environmental problems emerged. Smoke pollution from burning cheap dirty coal in millions of open fires, old boilers and smelters produced massive smog problems in cities like London and Pittsburgh.The solution was improved technology, sensible pollution-control laws and the supply of coal gas and coal-powered electricity to the cities.

The air was cleared by “Clean Coal by Wire” at the flick of a switch and “Piped Coal Energy” at the click of a gas-lighter. In some places use of hydro, geothermal and nuclear power also helped.In recent years, however, affluent urban alarmists have declared war on the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil and gas. They claim it is a pollutant and it causes dangerous global warming.

The pollutant claims are easy to refute. The worst air pollution in the world today is the Asian smog. Smog is very visible – but carbon dioxide is a transparent gas that is exhaled by all living creatures.Smog is air polluted with particulates and noxious gases – but there are no particulates or noxious components in carbon dioxide.

Therefore carbon dioxide plays no part in creating smog. Smog consists of ash particles, unburnt fuels and noxious gases produced by the inefficient combustion of anything, usually in open fires or obsolete boilers engines or smelters with no pollution control equipment. Wind-blown dust, bush and forest fires, blue haze from forests and drifting volcanic ash add to the smog.

Modern coal-fired power stations with efficient pollution controls do not release detectable particulates or noxious gases. Bans on dirty combustion and more clean electricity will clear the smog of Asian cities. All gases in the atmosphere have an effect on global climate, usually a moderating one, reducing the intense heat of the midday sun and reducing the rate of cooling at night. But only in theoretical climate models does carbon dioxide drive global warming - real evidence contradicts them.

The unrelenting war on carbon fuels has far greater risks, with some zealots advocating “Zero Emissions”, while also, incredibly, opposing nuclear and hydro-power. They would take us all back to the BC Era (before coal).Already urban environmentalists are polluting city air by burning wood (“biomass”) and briquetted paper in stoves and home heaters; and trying to prevent millions in Asia and Africa from getting cheap clean electricity.

Other misguided nations are clearing forests and transporting low-energy wood chips to burn in distant power stations. And the high costs of green energy are already forcing some poor people to burn old books and strip parks and forests for fire-wood. In addition, crops that once fed people are now making “green” ethanol to fuel cars, and native forests are being cleared and burnt to make way for more fuel crops. Our modern “Iron Horses” are eating the crops again.

The use of carbon fuels in the production, fertilising, transport and storage of food has been a major factor in allowing the world population to grow by several billions since the start of the industrial revolution. If climate alarmists succeed in turning back the clock, food and energy will again become reserved for the rich and powerful, and billions of poor people will die of starvation or exposure.

SOURCE





Blatant Warmist misrepresentation of the facts

An article at CNN now professes that "the climate is ruined. So can civilization even survive?"  Well, if CNN's current quality is any indication, civilization may have already died.  This statement from the CNN piece is worthy of some discussion:

"The burning of coal, oil, and natural gas has made the planet warmer than it had been since the rise of civilization 10,000 years ago. Civilization was made possible by the emergence about 12,000 years ago of the 'Holocene' epoch, which turned out to be the Goldilocks zone -- not too hot, not too cold. But now, says physicist Stefan Rahmstorf, 'We are catapulting ourselves way out of the Holocene.'

This catapult is dangerous, because we have no evidence civilization can long survive with significantly higher temperatures. And yet, the world is on a trajectory that would lead to an increase of 4C (7F) in this century. In the opinion of many scientists and the World Bank, this could happen as early as the 2060s.

What would 'a 4C world' be like? According to Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (at the University of East Anglia), 'during New York's summer heat waves the warmest days would be around 10-12C (18-21.6F) hotter [than today's].' Moreover, he has said, above an increase of 4C only about 10% of the human population will survive.

Believe it or not, some scientists consider Anderson overly optimistic".

Let's get this straight.  The hottest days during a New York summer are headed towards a 22º F increase by as early as the 2060s, and this projection is "overly optimistic" (i.e., the actual increase could be much higher)?

Here are New York's average maximum July and August temperatures since records began in 1895.



After increasing slightly from the late 1800s to the 1930s, the temperatures have not increased whatsoever.  The non-parametric correlation since 1930 is almost a perfect non-correlation (p=0.96).  This isn't cherry-picking.  There are simply no significant increasing trends since 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, or 1990.  In fact, starting in 1950 – and continuing for each decade since – the correlation has turned negative toward cooling, not warming.

The hottest ever day in New York was during July 1936, when the temperature reached 106º F.  As a result, a 22º F increase by the 2060s means annual maximum temperatures reaching 128º F.

For comparison, here is the annual maximum temperature in the Big Apple since 1895.



There has been no significant trend in New York's annual maximum temperature (aka "hottest days during a New York summer") since 1895, 1900, 1910, etc., all the way up to the present.  During the past several decades, the correlation is negative – toward lower summertime extreme maximum temperatures, not higher.

Summertime maximum temperatures in New York predicted to increase by up to 22º F by the 2060s due to climate change, and yet trends are headed in the opposite direction.  Perhaps it is the climate models that are ruined?

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

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