James Hansen Alarmed over Inexplicable Global Cooling

August 20, 2012

By WND | AUGUST 20, 2012

While NASA climate alarmist James Hansen insists record summer heat and drought are caused by man-made global warming, leaked internal emails from just three summers ago reveal that he and his colleagues expressed alarm that the planet was inexplicably cooling.

Hansen, often called the “godfather of global warming,” asserted earlier this month that blistering heat across the United States is so rare that it can’t be anything but the man-made global warming he has been warning about for decades.

“This is not some scientific theory,” he told the Associated Press. “We are now experiencing scientific fact.”

But in 2009, as the thermometer hit record lows in America, he and other climate scientists panicked in a flurry of emails: “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”

They lamented that Mother Nature was not cooperating with their predictions that global temperatures would smash heat records last decade. They blamed their miscalculation on sulfate emission trajectories and revised their forecast to show a cooling trend lasting until 2020.

Then, they predicted, global warming would return with a vengeance.

In an Oct. 12, 2009, email to Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, fellow warming alarmist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., asked, “Where the heck is global warming?”

“We have been asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record,” he added. “The Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday[sic] and then played last night in below freezing weather.”

Then Trenberth dropped a bombshell: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

He ended by admitting the global warming “data are surely wrong.”

“Our observing system is inadequate,” he wrote.

Read Full Article →

Filed under English, North America, Politics, World Tagged with , , , , ,

Global Bullies, Climate Models and Dishonesty in Climate Science

May 26, 2012

By Dr. DAVID EVANS | THE REAL AGENDA | MAY 25, 2012

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence,  was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid 1990s.

At this point official “climate science” stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade – yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected”. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.

One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%! The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site, sciencespeak.com. Look at the photos, and you’ll never trust a government climate scientist again.

They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results “global” warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off.

So it’s a question of trust.

If it really is warming up as the government climate scientists say, why do they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results? And why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources? This is so obviously a scam now.

So what is really going on with the climate?

The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 – 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture.

Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

A carbon tax?

Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the stone age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold – in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Sorry, but you’ve been had.

Finally, to those of you who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes carbon dioxide a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

This article first appeared on JoNova

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Politics, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Climate Coup: The Science

April 22, 2012 2 Comments

We checked the climate models against our best and latest data. They got all their major predictions wrong—air temperatures, oceans temperatures, atmospheric warming patterns, and outgoing radiation.

By DR. DAVID EVANS | SPPI | APRIL 23, 2012

Introduction

Our emissions of carbon dioxide cause some global warming, and it has indeed warmed over the last century. But this doesn’t prove that our emissions are the main cause of that warming—there might be other, larger, natural forces on the temperature. The key question is: how much warming do our emissions cause?

Climate scientists use their climate models to estimate how much. In this article we check their main predictions against our best and latest data, and find they got them all wrong: they exaggerated the warming of the air and oceans, they predicted a very different pattern of atmospheric warming, and they got the short-term relationship between outgoing radiation and surface warming backwards. The latter two items are especially pertinent, because they show that the crucial amplification due to the water feedbacks (mainly humidity and clouds), that is assumed by the models, does not exist in reality. This amplification causes two-thirds of the temperature rises predicted by the models, while carbon dioxide only directly causes one third. This explains why the models overestimate temperature rises.

We check the performance of the climate models against impeccably sourced, publicly available data from our best and latest instruments. See the end notes for how to download the data yourself.

Checking the Theory of Manmade Global Warming Against the Data

The theory of manmade global warming is that the world has been warming for the last few decades, that this is almost entirely due to our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)2, and that the warming by 2100 will be a dangerous 3–4°C.

The theory is embodied in the climate models, which are used to predict the future climate. We will now check their predictions against the best and latest global data, collected by our most sophisticated instruments. The climate models have been essentially the same for almost 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2 even while they became more detailed as computer power increased. So it is fair to compare their predictions from over two decades ago with what subsequently happened.

Warning, forbidden data: The data in this article is impeccably sourced, from our best instruments, and is publicly available. Yet none of it has appeared in the mainstream media, ever, anywhere in the world. This observation leads into the political argument in Climate Coup—The Politics. As you look at the data, ask yourself whether it is relevant and whether the media should withhold it from us.

Air Temperatures

The best sources of air temperature data are the satellites. They circle the earth 24/7, measuring the air temperature above broad swathes of land and ocean, covering all of the globe except near the poles, and are unbiased. Satellite measurements started in 1979; early problems with calibration have long since been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. The data presented here comes from NASA satellites and is managed at the University of Alabama Hunstville (UAH).6 This is an impeccable source of data, and you can easily download the data yourself. The data is currently collected from this satellite:

One of the earliest and most politically important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the “father of global warming”. Here are his three predicted scenarios, taken from his peer-reviewed paper in 198811 and re-graphed against what the NASA satellites subsequently measured (all starting from the same point in mid-1987):

Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.

In particular, look at his scenario C, which is what his climate model predicted would happen if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was no longer rising. In reality the temperature is below his scenario C prediction even though our CO2 emissions continued to increase—which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the warming effect of our CO2 emissions.

A more considered prediction by the climate models (and the earliest that cannot be wiggled out of) was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report:

After 21 years, the real-world warming trend is below the lowest IPCC prediction.

Ocean Temperatures

The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational.

Ocean temperature measurements before Argo are nearly worthless. They were made with buckets, or with bathythermographs (XBTs)—expendable probes that fall through the water, transmitting data back along a pair of thin wires. Nearly all measurements were from ships along the main commercial shipping lanes, so geographical coverage of the world’s oceans was very poor—for example the huge southern oceans were barely monitored. XBT data is much less precise and much less accurate than Argo data—for one thing, they move too quickly through the water to come to thermal equilibrium with the water they are trying to measure.

Argo buoys duck dive down to 2,000 meters, measuring temperatures as they slowly ascend, then radio the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.

The ocean heat content down to 700m as measured by Argo is now publicly available, and you can easily download the data yourself. Ocean heat content is measured in units of 1022 Joules, which corresponds to a temperature change of about 0.01°C. The climate models project ocean heat content increasing at about 0.7 × 1022 Joules per year.

The average sea level rise since 2004 is about 0.33 mm per year, or about 3.3 cm (1.3 inches) per century, which confirms the Argo message that the oceans haven’t warmed recently. In contrast, the IPCC in 2007 predicted a sea level rise of 26 to 59 cm by the end of the century if our CO2 emissions continue unabated, and Al Gore suggested in his movie that we might see a rise of 20 feet and half of Florida underwater.

Read Full Article →

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Politics, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Do you feel duped about Global Warming? You’re not alone

February 9, 2012

Spiegel Online
February 9, 2012

Will reduced solar activity counteract global warming in the coming decades? That is what outgoing German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt claims in a new book. In an interview with SPIEGEL, he argues that the official United Nations forecasts on the severity of climate change are overstated and supported by weak science.

The articulate utility executive is nervous at the beginning of the conversation. He is groping for words — not a common occurrence for the practiced provocateur. After all, Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, has been a rebel throughout his life. “Perhaps it’s just part of my generation,” he says.

He is typical of someone who came of age during the student protest movement of the late 1960s, and who fought against the chemical industry’s toxic manufacturing plants in the 1970s. His party, Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname “Feuerfritze” (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle. “I’m going to make enemies in all camps,” he says.

He wants to break a taboo. “The climate catastrophe is not occurring,” he writes in his book “Die Kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.

He has only given the book to one climatologist, Jochem Marotzke, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, to read prior to its publication. Marotzke’s assessment is clear: Vahrenholt represents the standpoints of climate skeptics. “A number of the hypotheses in the book were refuted long ago,” Marotzke claims, but adds, on a self-critical note, that his profession has neglected to explain that global temperatures will not increase uniformly. Instead, says Marotzke, there could also be phases of stagnation and even minor declines in temperature. “This has exposed us to potential criticism,” he says.

While books by climate heretics usually receive little attention, it could be different in Vahrenholt’s case. “His fame,” says Marotzke, “will ensure that there will be a debate on the issue.”

The book is a source of discomfort within Vahrenholt’s party. No one with the SPD leadership is willing to comment on the theories of their prominent fellow party member, from former Environment Minister and current SPD Chairman Sigmar Gabriel to parliamentary floor leader Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who was given an advance copy of the book.

A lecture Vahrenholt was scheduled to give at the University of Osnabrück in northwestern Germany was recently cancelled.

Read Full Article…

Filed under World Tagged with , , , ,

Bill Gates Finances Insane Geo-Engineering Programs

February 8, 2012 1 Comment

by John Vidal
The Guardian
February 8, 2012

A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a “plan B” for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.

Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth’s climate.

Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space,except for small-scale scientific studies.

Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.

“We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property,” said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.

“The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises,” said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. “The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre.”

Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.

As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society’s inquiry into solar radiation management last year through hisCarbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.

Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, are the world’s two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run theFund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer’s money, which comes directly from Gates’s personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.

Read Full Article…

Filed under World Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain-Lain

Partner Links