Archive for the ‘Alarmism’ Category

2010 was coldest year in Sweden in 23 years and coldest in Norway since 1941

March 8, 2011

The 2010 winter cold can be coupled to the NAO and to large blocking high pressure areas: image smhi

My actual experiences during 2010 (in Asia and in Northern Europe) and my very real electricity bills are far more compelling than fudged statistics and Hockey Stick Illusions from the global warming alarmists. The reality is that we are in for 2 or 3 decades of cooling courtesy of the sun and man-made carbon dioxide is of little consequence. The sun drives the ocean currents and the North Atlantic Oscillation was negative as it was for the 2009/10 winter.

The global warming / carbon dioxide scare is driven not only by carbon trading scams and catastrophe promoting insurance companies but also by so-called climate scientists who have lost the scepticism that is at the heart of science and developed a Nostradamus complex.

From Stockholm News:

Most people who live in Sweden most certainly remember some really cold months last year, particularly the winter months of January, February and December. There was for certain a serious heat wave in July. But that did not help out: 2010 was the coldest year in Sweden in 23 years.

The Swedish Weather Agency’s preliminary estimations show that Sweden as a whole had around one degree Celsius below normal temperatures last year.

Since 1987, all years have been warmer than normal, except in 1996, which had a small temperature deficit. “Normal” in this context is the average for the years 1961-1990.

The coldest part of the country was in the west, and consequently the western neighbouring country of Norway also had a cold last year. Their general temperature was likewise one degree Celsius below normal. This made last year the coldest in Norway since 1941 and the tenth coldest year since 1900, writes the Norwegian Meteorological Institute.


Floods and Global Warming is fashion not science

February 18, 2011

There is the attempt to link current weather to long term climate, to use computer models to achieve the evidence, and to alarm the public and policy makers that climate change is real and here.

Roger Pielke Jr. points out:

Nature published two papers yesterday that discuss increasing precipitation trends and a 2000 flood in the UK.  I have been asked by many people whether these papers mean that we can now attribute some fraction of the global trend in disaster losses to greenhouse gas emissions, or even recent disasters such as in Pakistan and Australia. I hate to pour cold water on a really good media frenzy, but the answer is “no.”  Neither paper actually discusses global trends in disasters (one doesn’t even discuss floods) or even individual events beyond a single flood event in the UK in 2000.  But still, can’t we just connect the dots?  Isn’t it just obvious?  And only deniers deny the obvious, right? ….

In short, the new studies are interesting and add to our knowledge.  But they do not change the state of knowledge related to trends in global disasters and how they might be related to greenhouse gases.  But even so, I expect that many will still want to connect the dots between greenhouse gas emissions and recent floods.  Connecting the dots is fun, but it is not science.

And Andrew Revkin goes to town in his New York Times blog about how uncertainties and caveats disappear when a political corner is being fought:

….. In scientific literature you rarely see statements so streamlined and definitive. For climate science, this is the equivalent of a smoking gun. News indeed. Add in the extreme floods last year (a period not included in the study) and you have more relevance, although Roger Pielke Jr. this morning notes the importance of distinguishing between analysis of certain kinds of extreme precipitation events and disastrous flooding.

The problem is that the Nature paper is not definitive at all, as you’ll see below.

None of this detracts from the importance of this work, or the overall picture of an increasingly human-influenced climate, with impacts on the frequency of gullywashers.

But this does raise big questions about the standards scientists and journals use in summarizing complex work and the justifiable need for journalists — and readers — to explore such work as if it has a “handle with care” sign attached.

This is not about “ false balance.” This is about responsible reporting.

A previous instance occurred in 2006, when a paper in Science on frog die-offs in Costa Rica included this firm and sobering statement:

Here we show that a recent mass extinction associated with pathogen outbreaks is tied to global warming.

Things were far more complicated, of course, as you can read in my 2008 piece on Vanishing Frogs, Climate and the Front Page.

Peer review becomes incestuous when it comes to Global Warming

February 17, 2011

The Climategate emails revealed the extent to which the global warming establishment were prepared to go to pervert and doctor the peer review process to inhibit the publication of any papers challenging global warming orthodoxy.

Fraser Nelsonthe editor of the Spectator relates the story in his blog of how a critique of faults in a paper written by one of the establishment (Eric Steig) was sent to the criticised Steig himself for peer review!! He writes:

Debunking the Antarctica myths

In January 2009, Nature magazine ran the a cover story (pictured) conveying dramatic news about Antarctica: that most of it had warmed significantly over the last half-century. For years, the data from this frozen continent – with 90 percent of the world’s ice mass – had stubbornly refused to corroborate the global warming narrative. So the study, led by Eric Steig of the University of Washington, was treated as a bit of a scoop. It reverberated around the world. Gavin Schmidt, from the RealClimate blog, declared that Antarctica had silenced the sceptics. Mission, it seemed, was accomplished: Antarctica was no longer an embarrassment to the global warming narrative.

He spoke too soon. The indefatigable Steve McIntyre started to scrutinise his followings along with Nicholas Lewis. They found several flaws: Steig et al had used too few data sequences to speak for an entire continent, and had processed the data in a very questionable way. But when they wanted to correct him, in another journal, they quickly ran into an inconvenient truth about global warming: the high priests do not like refutation. To have their critique (pdf) of Steig’s work published, they needed to assuage the many demands of an anonymous ‘Reviewer A’ – whom they later found out to be Steig himself.

Lewis and Matt Ridley have joined forces to tell the story in the cover issue of this week’s Spectator.

It’s another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science. Real science welcomes refutation: with global warming, it is treated as a religion.

As they say in their cover story:

“Nature’s original peer-review process had let through an obviously flawed paper, and no professional climate scientist then disputed  it – perhaps because of fear that doing so might harm their careers. As the title of Richard Bean’s new play – The Heretic – at the Royal Court hints, young scientists going into climate studies these days are a bit like young theologians in Elizabethan England. They quickly learn that funding and promotion dries up if you express heterodox views, or doubt the scripture. The scripture, in this case, being the assembled reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. …… So has Antarctica been warming? Mostly not – at least not measurably. Retreat of the floating Antarctic ice shelves is a favourite story for the media. But, except in a very few peripheral parts, Antarctica is far too cold to lose ice by surface melting.”

 

Carbon dioxide rip-off has cost Australia $5.5 billion – so far

February 14, 2011

With easy money like this floating around and waiting to be siphoned off it is not difficult to see why the global warming fraud continues! And of course these $5.5 billion are small change compared to the amounts that have been scammed in Europe.

And to make it worse, carbon dioxide emissions are a little less than insignificant for global temperatures.

The Sydney Morning Herald:

Billions blown on carbon schemes

SUCCESSIVE federal governments have spent more than $5.5 billion over the past decade on climate change programs that are delivering only small reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at unusually high costs for taxpayers and the economy.

An analysis by the Herald of government schemes designed to cut emissions by direct spending or regulatory intervention reveals they have cost an average of $168 for each tonne of carbon dioxide abated. ……

The analysis of 17 programs with a total cost of $5.62 billion shows many of the schemes are at odds with the goal of tackling climate change at the lowest cost to the economy. ………

The weighted average cost of the 17 programs was $168 a tonne. They will deliver about 25 million tonnes of carbon abatement in 2020 – less than 10 per cent of that needed to meet the government’s target of reducing emissions in 2020 by 5 per cent on 2000 levels.

The worst offenders have included Labor’s rebates for rooftop solar panels, which cost $300 or more for every tonne of carbon abated, and the Howard government’s remote renewable power generation scheme, which paid up to $340 for each tonne.

Read the article.

European commission extends carbon market freeze indefinitely

January 27, 2011

And about time too.

A raft of countries (including Japan, Australia, Canada and the United States) have already shelved cap and trade schemes.

Of course the fundamental fraud that is carbon trading goes much deeper than just the  recent thefts of credits. Hopefully it will never be revived!

image wattsupwiththat.com

The Guardian:

The European commission’s emergency suspension last week of trading in carbon allowances to put a halt to rampant theft of credits by hackers has been extended indefinitely until countries can prove their systems are protected from further fraud.

While the suspension had been expected to end last night, Brussels now says that the freeze in trades had been imposed to give the commission executive some breathing space to figure out what to do.

“The suspension last week was only a transitional measure to give the commission and member states the time to assess the situation and decide the way forward,” the commission’s climate spokeswoman, Maria Kokkonen, said. “Okay, this hurts, but it must hurt in order to make things more secure, more robust. Evolution through crisis.”

A total of 30 countries that participate in the Emissions Trading Scheme, Europe’s flagship climate change policy, must now send assessments of the situation performed by independent monitors. On 19 January, the commission suspended “spot” trading in allowances after up to 2m permits worth around €30m were stolen by computer hackers. Brussels said that half the participating countries were not sufficiently secure. Permits went missing in Austria, the Czech Republic and Greece.

Another perversion of science: Confirmation bias in the name of global warming dogma is also scientific misconduct

January 25, 2011

A new paper has been published in Ecology Letters

Ran Nathan, Nir Horvitz, Yanping He, Anna Kuparinen, Frank M. Schurr, Gabriel G. Katul. Spread of North American wind-dispersed trees in future environmentsEcology Letters, 2011; DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01573.

In this paper the authors have assumed that climate change will cause changes to CO2 concentration and wind speed. They have assumed also that increased CO2 will “increase fecundity and advance maturation”. They have then modelled the spread of 12 species as a function of wind speed.

So far so good – they have actually modelled only the effect of wind speed  which they assume will reduce due to climate change.

Their results basically showed no effect of wind speed:

“Future spread is predicted to be faster if atmospheric CO2 enrichment would increase fecundity and advance maturation, irrespective of the projected changes in mean surface windspeed”.

And now comes the perversion!

From their fundamental conclusion that wind speed has no effect and that therefore any CO2 increase resulting from climate change will enhance the spread of the trees, they invoke “expected” effects to deny what they have just shown:

“Yet, for only a few species, predicted wind-driven spread will match future climate changes, conditioned on seed abscission occurring only in strong winds and environmental conditions favouring high survival of the farthest-dispersed seeds. Because such conditions are unlikely, North American wind-dispersed trees are expected to lag behind the projected climate range shift.”

This final conclusion is based on absolutely nothing  and their modelling showed nothing and yet this paper was accepted for publication. I have no problem that a result showing “no effect of wind speed” be published but suspect that it needed the nonsense, speculative conclusion to comply with current dogma.

Science Daily then produces the headline: Climate Change Threatens Many Tree Species

when the reality is

This study Shows No Effect of Wind Speed But Yet We Believe that Climate Change Threatens Many Tree Species

“Our research indicates that the natural wind-driven spread of many species of trees will increase, but will occur at a significantly lower pace than that which will be required to cope with the changes in surface temperature,” said Prof. Nathan. “This will raise extinction risk of many tree populations because they will not be able to track the shift in their natural habitats which currently supply them with favorable conditions for establishment and reproduction. As a result, the composition of different tree species in future forests is expected to change and their areas might be reduced, the goods and services that these forests provide for man might be harmed, and wide-ranging steps will have to be taken to ensure seed dispersal in a controlled, directed manner.”

Whether the perversion is by the authors themselves anticipating what is needed to get a paper published or whether it is due to pressure from the Journal Ecology Letters or by their referees is unclear.

Abstract:

Despite ample research, understanding plant spread and predicting their ability to track projected climate changes remain a formidable challenge to be confronted. We modelled the spread of North American wind-dispersed trees in current and future (c. 2060) conditions, accounting for variation in 10 key dispersal, demographic and environmental factors affecting population spread. Predicted spread rates vary substantially among 12 study species, primarily due to inter-specific variation in maturation age, fecundity and seed terminal velocity. Future spread is predicted to be faster if atmospheric CO2 enrichment would increase fecundity and advance maturation, irrespective of the projected changes in mean surface windspeed. Yet, for only a few species, predicted wind-driven spread will match future climate changes, conditioned on seed abscission occurring only in strong winds and environmental conditions favouring high survival of the farthest-dispersed seeds. Because such conditions are unlikely, North American wind-dispersed trees are expected to lag behind the projected climate range shift.

In essence this paper is only based on belief and the results actually obtained are denied. It seems to me that denying or twisting or “moulding” results actually obtained to fit pre-conceived notions is not just a case of confirmation bias but comes very close to scientific misconduct.

New study confirms Himalayan glaciers will not disappear any time soon

January 24, 2011
This NASA image shows the formation of numerou...

Glacial lakes, Bhutan: Image via Wikipedia

Reuters reports:

(Reuters) – Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing despite an overall retreat, according to a study on Sunday that is a step toward understanding how climate change affects vital river flows from China to India.

“Our study shows there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover,” scientists at universities in Germany and the United States wrote in the study of 286 glaciers.

The findings underscore that experts in the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were wrong to say in a 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035 in a headlong thaw. The panel corrected the error in 2010.

The report said that 58 percent of glaciers examined in the westerly Karakoram range of the Himalayas were stable or advancing, perhaps because they were influenced by cool westerly winds than the monsoon from the Indian Ocean.

Science News says:

Glaciers largely stable in one range of Himalayas

Dirk Scherler of the University of Potsdam, Germany, and his colleagues report in the January 23 Nature Geoscience. ……. but in Karakoram, 58 percent of studied glaciers were stable or slowly expanding up to 12 meters per year…..

The new findings are consistent with what Kenneth Hewitt of Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, has observed, and point to the fact “that the picture of climate change effects in high Asia is much more complicated than most people realize.”

Indeed, for much of the past century Karakoram’s glaciers were in retreat. A 2005 paper by Hewitt described a turnaround that commenced only in the late 1990s. In the new study, Scherler’s team looked for factors that might affect the responsiveness of Himalayan glaciers to regional warming. A rocky blanket quickly emerged as a major one.

D. Scherler, B. Bookhagen and M.R. Strecker. Spatially variable response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change affected by debris cover. Nature Geoscience (in press, online January 23, 2011). DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1068.

Indian Environment Ministry challenges IPCC and CO2 conclusions

January 21, 2011
Cropped from image of Jairam Ramesh the Indian...

Jairam Ramesh: Image via Wikipedia

That there is little love lost between Rajendra Pachauri and the Indian Minister of Environment Jairam Ramesh is no secret. (Pachauri made the ill-advised and stupid remark about “voodoo science” regarding Ramesh and the Ministry’s claims debunking the IPCC ststements on Himalyan glaciers). Now according to the Hindustan Times the Ministry of Envirionment has produced a paper concluding that solar effects on clouds represent about half the warming effects attributed to CO2:

India has once again challenged the UN’s climate science body – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — through a new scientific paper. The Environment ministry sponsored paper says that human induced global warming is much less than what the R K Pachauri headed IPCC had said. The cause is reduced impact of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) on formulation of low clouds over earth in the last 150 years, says a paper by U R Rao, former chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation, released by Environment minister Jairam Ramesh. ….

Analyzing the data between 1960 and 2005, Rao found that lesser GCRs were reaching the earth due to increase in solar magnetic field and thereby leading to increase in global warming. “Consequently the contribution of increased CO2 emission to be observed global warming of 0.75 degree Celsius would only be 0.42 degree Celsius, considerably less than what predicted by IPCC,” the paper said to be published in Indian Journal Current Science had said. This is about 44 % less than what IPCC had said.

Ramesh in 2009 had released a similar scientific paper saying that the IPCC’s claim that most Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 was wrong. A few months later, after a review the IPCC regretted the error. If Ramesh latest bid gets globally recognition, it can alter the rules of UN run climate negotiations of 200 nations.

Impact of GCRs on global warming had been highly controversial since 1998, when Henrik Svensmark of Danish National Space Center said it was causing global warming. A decade later a joint European study debunked the claim, saying there was no co-relation. …

“I just want to expand scientific debate on impact of non-Green House Gases on climate change,” Ramesh said, when asked whether he was again challenging the IPCC. “Science is all about raising questions.”

International climate science is mainly western driven and collaborates the view of the rich world that gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2) are the main contributor for global warming. Any scientific work challenging the view has been debunked as work of a sceptic.

“Climate science is much more complex than attributing everything to CO2,” said Subodh Verma, climate change advisor in the Environment ministry.

And, its first impact has come from IPCC chairperson R K Pachauri, who has told the government, that impact of GCRs on global warming will be studied in depth in the fifth assessment report to be published in 2013-14. In its earlier four assessment reports, IPCC had not studied the impact of GCRs in detail.

The Global Warming establishment does not much like this paper. But they have now been reduced to claiming that everything – even directly conflicting evidence – supports the theory of man-made CO2 on global warming:

V Ramanathan of US based Scripps Institute of Oceanography at University of California said the Rao’s paper strengthens the case for greenhouse a primary driver for global warming. “The observed rapid warming trends during the last 40 years cannot be accounted for (by) the trends in GCRs,” he said, in his comments on Rao’s paper.

Science is indeed all about asking questions.

It seems to have been forgotten that anyone who  is not a sceptic deep down  is not – and can not be – a scientist.

No “peak” gas in sight as IEA doubles estimates of gas reserves

January 20, 2011
United States shale gas plays

Image via Wikipedia

Known reserves of Natural gas were  thought to be sufficient for 60 to 120 years. Now with shale gas being produced in large quantities, the IEA has revised known reserves upwards to 250 years — and they could be further revised upwards.

Yet another scare scenario of resource depletion bites the dust!!

From the BBC:

The world may have twice as much natural gas than previously thought, according to the rich nations’ think tank the International Energy Agency (IEA). The world may have 250 years of gas usage at current levels thanks to “unconventional gas” from shale and coal beds, Anne-Sophie Corbeau, senior gas expert at the IEA told BBC News.

Estimates may even be revised upwards. Studies are underway into newly-recoverable sources, Ms Corbeau said. But she stressed that the totals were highly uncertain, and depended on price, technology and the accessibility of supplies.

“The gas story is huge,” she told BBC News. “A few years ago the United States was ready to import gas. In 2009 it had become the world’s biggest gas producer. This is phenomenal, unbelievable.” The US achieved the change through a technological breakthrough in which firms found a way of using tiny explosions to free gas previously trapped in a common rock – shale.

Miss Corbeau said other nations were now rushing to replicate the US success by exploiting gas currently trapped in various types of rock where it was thought to be impossible to access.

She said conventional natural gas supplies were assured for 60 years – with maybe a further 60 years if engineers could get to other supplies. She admitted there is great uncertainly about how much unconventional gas is possible to exploit, but said the best estimate is that new sources will stretch gas supplies to 250 years at current levels.

“The resources are really huge,” she said.

“We probably have 920 trillion cubic metres – that is more than 300 times the current annual demand for gas. “Not all of this will be recoverable, but any country that develops new gas supplies will have a global impact on gas availability and price, as gas markets are all inter-connected.”

Global warming paper withdrawn for being “false and impossible”

January 20, 2011

Global warming enthusiasts are getting desperate it would seem. Perhaps they are disturbed by their crumbling credibility as the entire faith is being debunked. Polar bears are thriving and the Sun is very quiet and we are in for 20 or 30 years of a cooling trend and the effect of man-made CO2 having any significant effect on warming is looking more and more implausible. Catastrophe claims are being exaggerated to the level of the impossible and draconian measures are being called for. The global warming crowd are sounding more like eco-fascists whose creed is that discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression” are the only solution.

On the one hand we have one of the high priests of the global warming faith (NASA’s James Hansen) calling for authoritarian measures a la China to enforce de-carbonisation – http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/hansen-us-democracy-not-competent-to-deal-with-global-warming-calls-on-communist-china-to-save-humanity/

The NASA scientist at the heart of the global warming fiasco seems set to stir more controversy after declaring in an op ed piece for The South China Morning Post and a personally published follow-up that American democracy is not competent to deal with global warming, and communist China now represents the world’s “best hope”.

In the op ed piece for the Chinese newspaper, which he entitled Chinese Leadership Needed to Save Humanity (published as The Price of Change) Hansen placed the blame for the vast majority of Co2 emissions supposedly causing global warming on his home country of America, and appealed to China not to follow the same path. Hansen said that China was the world’s “best hope” and called for them to “lead the world through the most dangerous crisis that humanity and nature have ever faced”.

In a follow-up article published on his website Hansen calls Americans “barbarians” and slams American democracy, calling for China to raise tariffs on American-made products until such time as America falls into line. …….

Hansen goes on to condemn the current democratic system in America as “dysfunctional” as it will not enact the carbon taxes he has been calling for. All is not lost, though, as he advises the Chinese government what to do about Congress in a truly incredible passage in his letter:

“However, there is a way around that, which becomes obvious with the realization that an initially modest carbon fee is in China’s own interest. After agreement with other nations, e.g., the European Union, China and these nations could impose rising internal carbon fees. Existing rules of the World Trade Organization would allow collection of a rising border duty on products from all nations that do not have an equivalent internal carbon fee or tax.

The United States then would be forced to make a choice. It could either address its fossil fuel addiction with a rising carbon fee and supportive national investment policies or it could accept continual descent into second-rate and third-rate economic well-being”.

And now we have Canadian TV revealing that

“A study warning that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020, creating deadly consequences for the global food supply, is being debunked as false and impossible”.

The study came from a little-known, non-profit group based in Argentina, called the Universal Ecological Fund. An embargoed copy of the study appeared on Eurekalert!, a news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that’s followed by many journalists.

The study was picked up by a number of international news organizations Tuesday. But it appears the study’s claims were erroneous. …… The correction came after The Guardian newspaper in the U.K. published a reaction piece to the study. The paper said it had interviewed climate scientists who told them that rapid global warming at the rates projected by the study was impossible.

“2.4 C by 2020 (which is 1.4C in the next 10 years – something like six to seven times the projected rate of warming) has no basis in fact,” NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt told the newspaper in an email.

According to The Guardian, the study’s lead author Liliana Hisas, who is the UEF’s executive director, erred by overlooking how the oceans, which absorb heat, will compensate for global warming by delaying the effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.

Hisas said she stands by her report’s findings, which have been endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.

The AAAS says that after receiving complaints that the study’s conclusions were impossible, it has removed all references to the study from its website.

“EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting of an erroneous news release on 18 January 2011,” the news service wrote in a notice to journalists who subscribe to the service.

  1. It should be noted that the Universal Ecological Fund is just another lobby group, and
  2. that “the Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani” who supervised this work got his much-maligned Peace Nobel as part of the IPCC for lobbying activities and not for any scientific endeavour, and
  3. the paper seems to have received little or no competent scientific review before being published by EurekAlert