Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

A voice of sanity in “climate science”

April 6, 2011

Prof. Dr. Vincent Courtillot Präsentation

This needs no comment but should be required watching for anybody who claims to be a “climate scientist” or wants to pontificate about global warming.

Dr. Vincent Courtillot is a professor of geophysics at the University Paris-Diderot and Chair of paleomagnetism and geodynamics of the Institut Universitaire de France.

In the recent lecture below he explains how solar cycles control the climate by influence on cloud formation (the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al) and via influence on ocean oscillations and length of day. Dr. Courtillot notes that IPCC climate computer models do not correlate with observations and that temperature trends vary substantially between North America and Europe (which is contrary to IPCC computer model predictions).

He also notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet.


h/t wuwt

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Climate, Solar science | Comments Off on A voice of sanity in “climate science”

European Climate Action: Don’t know what it will cost, don’t know what it will achieve

March 10, 2011

They don’t know why and what it will cost and they don’t know what it will achieve but, The European Commission on Tuesday unveiled a roadmap for building a low-carbon economy by 2050, proposing an 80 percent to 95 percent cut of greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 levels.

“We need to start the transition towards a competitive low-carbon economy now. The longer we wait, the higher the cost will be,” Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action, said when presenting the roadmap to European Union (EU) lawmakers in Strasbourg, France.

The roadmap described the cost-effective pathway to reach the EU’s objective of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent to 95 percent of the 1990 levels by 2050. It recommended Europe should achieve it largely through domestic measures since by mid-century international credits to offset emissions will be less widely available than today.

In the meantime Jill Duggan from the European Commission’s Directorate General of Climate Action and the EC’s National Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change is in Australia to tell them how good Europe’s emission trading system is and why they should do something similar.  In a radio interview she demonstrated her ignorance.

Jill Duggan

Andrew Bolt

Thursday, March 10, 2011 at 01:38pmDuggan’s utter inability to answer is a scandal – an indictment of global warming politics today. (Listen here):

AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

JD:  Yes.

AB:  Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD:  No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB:  Right.  You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I don’t know.  It’s very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, don’t you?  And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB:  Right.  Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB:  That’s right.  You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  What’s your estimation of how much – because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures – what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C – so that’s increases – you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion – or whatever you think the figure is – what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature?  Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  It’s 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear.

AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You don’t know the cost.  Do you know the result?

JD:  I don’t have a cost figure in my mind. Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB:  So if I put a figure to you – I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome – would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 – if you go your way and if you’re successful – the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?

JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB:  If just Europe alone – for this massive investment – will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?

JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?

AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what I’m curious about;  that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You don’t know what it costs.  And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB:  Well what’s your modelling?  That’s the one that everyone’s quoting.  What’s your modelling?

JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

Full article and transcript is here.

The demonisation of carbon dioxide will probably continue for another 5 to 10 years until it becomes apparent that we are actually in a cooling period and therefore that man-made carbon dioxide is irrelevant and immaterial.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Climate, Fraud | Comments Off on European Climate Action: Don’t know what it will cost, don’t know what it will achieve

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.


Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Climate, Scientific Fraud, Sweden, Weather | Comments Off on 2010 was coldest year in Sweden in 23 years and coldest in Norway since 1941

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.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Climate, Weather | Comments Off on Floods and Global Warming is fashion not science

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.”

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Antarctic, Scientific Fraud | Comments Off on Peer review becomes incestuous when it comes to Global Warming

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 environments. Ecology 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.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Climate, Environment, Media, Peer review, Science | Comments Off on Another perversion of science: Confirmation bias in the name of global warming dogma is also scientific misconduct

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

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Climate, Scientific Fraud | 5 Comments »

Since last ice age, warming and cooling have been caused by ocean currents

January 16, 2011

A new paper in Science giving ocean currents in the Atlantic their due (and without finding it necessary to appeal to tales of carbon dioxide). Perhaps the science is not so settled after all!

File:Oceanic gyres.png

The five major ocean-wide gyres — the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, and Indian Ocean gyres. Each is flanked by a strong and narrow “western boundary current,” and a weak and broad “eastern boundary current”: Wikimedia

The Deglacial Evolution of North Atlantic Deep Convection. by D. J. R. Thornalley, S. Barker, W. S. Broecker, H. Elderfield, I. N. McCave.  Science, 2011; 331 (6014): 202 DOI: 10.1126/science.1196812

Science Daily reports:

… Scientists have long suspected that far more severe and longer-lasting cold intervals have been caused by changes to the circulation of the warm Atlantic ocean currents themselves.

Now new research led by Cardiff University, with scientists in the UK and US, reveals that these ocean circulation changes may have been more dramatic than previously thought. The findings, published January 14, 2011 in the journal Science, show that as the last Ice Age came to an end (10,000 — 20,000 years ago) the formation of deep water in the North-East Atlantic repeatedly switched on and off. This caused the climate to warm and cool for centuries at a time.

The circulation of the world’s ocean helps to regulate the global climate. One way it does this is through the transport of heat carried by vast ocean currents, which together form the ‘Great ocean conveyor’. Key to this conveyor is the sinking of water in the North-East Atlantic, a process that causes warm tropical waters to flow northwards in order to replace the sinking water. Europe is kept warmer by this circulation, so that a strong reduction in the rate at which deep water forms can cause widespread cooling of up to 10 degrees Celsius. ….. The new results suggest that the Atlantic ocean is capable of radical changes in how it circulates on time scales as short as a few decades.

Dr Thornalley said: “These insights highlight just how dynamic and sensitive ocean circulation can be. Whilst the circulation of the modern ocean is probably much more stable than it was at the end of the last Ice Age, and therefore much less likely to undergo such dramatic changes, it is important that we keep developing our understanding of the climate system and how it responds when given a push.”

Paper Abstract:

Deepwater formation in the North Atlantic by open-ocean convection is an essential component of the overturning circulation of the Atlantic Ocean, which helps regulate global climate. We use water-column radiocarbon reconstructions to examine changes in northeast Atlantic convection since the Last Glacial Maximum. During cold intervals, we infer a reduction in open-ocean convection and an associated incursion of an extremely radiocarbon (14C)–depleted water mass, interpreted to be Antarctic Intermediate Water. Comparing the timing of deep convection changes in the northeast and northwest Atlantic, we suggest that, despite a strong control on Greenland temperature by northeast Atlantic convection, reduced open-ocean convection in both the northwest and northeast Atlantic is necessary to account for contemporaneous perturbations in atmospheric circulation.

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Climate, Geosciences, Oceans, Science, Weather | 1 Comment »

“Not inconsistent with man-made global warming” !!

January 15, 2011

Climate Science – if there is such a thing – had long ago abandoned science to become a lobby for “global warming theory”. But the “scientists” are plumbing new depths.

It has not taken long for “climate scientists” to claim that all extreme weather events (heat wave in Russia, floods in Pakistan, coldest December in 100 years , droughts in Australia and now floods in Brazil and Australia)  are all “not inconsistent with global warming” implying by some strange, convoluted logic that all these weather events (which are also consistent with history repeating itself) somehow add to the body of “evidence” which “proves” that man-made global warming is happening. There have even been crack-pot scientists with such a vested interest in the “man-made global warming” ideology  who have found it possible to blame volcanic activity and even the earthquake in Haiti on “global warming”!!!

The current strength of the La Ninã conditions are perfectly consistent with other theories based on ocean variation and the frigid winters are quite consistent with the quiet Sun (which went spotless again yesterday). All current weather is also consistent with man-made effects being totally negligible and instead being dominated by the sun’s cycles and with the oceans as the primary vehicle for transporting heat around the globe. Weather is not climate and in fact none of the “extreme” weather events  are outside the range of weather variations that have been experienced over the last 1000 years.

The floods in Brazil have claimed over 500 lives and in Australia – which is far better prepared – the death toll will likely be between 20 – 30. In Australia where a higher flood occurred in 1974 in Brisbane voices are beginning to be raised that the “global warming” lobby have actually prevented the use of dams and implementation of proposed water management policies which could have been able to better manage these regular and recurring flood conditions.

The history of floods in Brisbane is telling:

Highest annual flood peaks for Brisbane

Highest annual flood peaks for Brisbane

The floods this year in Queensland are nothing new. Why would this flood be evidence of man-made global warming but not the floods of the 1800s? In fact the history of these weather conditions in Brisbane is not inconsistent with global cooling, the coming of an ice-age or an apocalyptic end to the earth in 2012!

thepunch.com.au

Any scientist who is concerned with science and not with religion, politics or defending his past conclusions would know that being “not inconsistent” with some theory carries no weight in a scientific proof – but it does sound so credible in a TV sound-bite.

But we can expect that over the next few years that every natural disaster or extreme weather event will be taken by the members of a dying religion as being “not inconsistent with” and therefore as proof of man-made global warming.

 

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Climate, Natural Disasters, Science, Weather | Comments Off on “Not inconsistent with man-made global warming” !!

And yet another irreproducible, irrefutable result!!

January 10, 2011

From EurekAlert:

New paper in Nature Geoscience examines inertia of carbon dioxide emissions

New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres.

The study, to be published in the Jan. 9 Advanced Online Publication of the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first full climate model simulation to make predictions out to 1000 years from now. It is based on best-case, ‘zero-emissions’ scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary.

The Daily Mail headline proclaims

(and perhaps – following Nostradamus – we should only use quatrains !)

Sea levels will rise by at least 13ft in next 1,000 years, claim scientists

Global sea levels will rise

By at least 13ft in the next 1,000 years

As a result of carbon dioxide emissions,

Scientists have warned.

 

The ‘unstoppable’ impact of global warming

Will cause a catastrophic collapse

Of the West Antarctic ice sheet

By the year 3000.

 

“Ongoing climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions” by Nathan P. Gillett, Vivek K. Arora, Kirsten Zickfeld, Shawn J. Marshall and William J. Merryfield will be available online at http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html

Or perhaps it should have been published here:

The Journal of Irreproducible Results


Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Climate, Science | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »