Archive for July, 2008

Sunspots and global temperature


“The claim that correlations between sunspot activity and global temperature do not imply causality comes from a pair of global warming religionists, enlisted by the American Physical Society to put down skepticism in the ranks about global warming dogma. It is a great example of how intellectually dishonest the eco-religionists are.

Sunspot activity leaves an isotope signature in the geologic record. So does temperature, allowing researchers to compare contemporaneous sunspot activity and temperature, going back many thousands of years. On every time scale, the level of solar-magnetic activity (aka sunspot activity, or the solar wind) consistently “explains” statistically about 90% of temperature variation. (The geological evidence is amassed for laymen in Fred Singer’s 2007 book Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 years, but none of this is new to professional climatologists.)

Do our religionists think that the temperature of the earth is somehow determining the level of solar activity? Do they imagine some mysterious third influence, driving both the solar wind and global temperature? Even when there is every reason to expect the solar weather to have all kinds of affects on global temperature? We literally live inside the sun’s “atmosphere,” its extended corona of solar wind. How could that NOT affect global temperature.

Even if the mechanism is not fully understood (though there looks to be a pretty good chance that Svensmark has it nailed), the existence and direction of causality are highly certain. This is as close to having “proof” as empirical science gets.” “Global warming Idiots: “Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.”


"Here's how Gore works"


Patrick Michaels: “Here’s how Gore works. He’ll cite one scientific finding that shows what he wants, and then ignore other work that provides important context. Here’s a list of his climate exaggerations from his well-publicized July 17 rant, along with a few sobering facts.

Gore: “Scientists . . . have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire [North Polar] ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.”

Fact: The Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is now for several millennia after the end of the last ice age. We know this because there are trees buried in the tundra along what is now the arctic shore. Those trees can be dated using standard analytical techniques that have been around for decades. According to Glen MacDonald of UCLA, the trees show that July temperatures could have been 5-13°F warmer from 9,000 to about 3,000 years ago than they were in the mid-20th century. The arctic ice cap had to have disappeared in most summers, and yet the polar bear survived!

Gore: “Our weather sure is getting strange, isn’t it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory. . . .”

Fact: The reason there “seems” to be more tornadoes is because of national coverage by Doppler radar, which can detect storms that were previously missed (not to mention that every backyard tornado winds up on YouTube nowadays). Naturally, the additions are weak ones that might, if lucky, tip over a cow. If there were a true increase in tornadoes, then we would see a definite upswing in severe ones, too. If anything, the historical record indicates a slight negative trend in the frequency of major tornadoes, based upon death statistics.

Gore: “ . . . longer droughts . . . ”

Hogwash. The U.S. drought history, given by the Palmer Drought Severity Index, is readily available and extends back to 1895. There’s not a shred of evidence for “longer droughts” in recent decades. The longest ones were in the 1930s and 1950s, decades before “global warming” became “the climate crisis.”

Gore: “ . . . bigger downpours and record floods . . . ”

It’s true, U.S. annual rainfall has increased about 10 percent (three inches) in the last 100 years. But it’s equally true that this is a net benefit. Temperatures haven’t warmed nearly enough to increase the annual surface evaporation by the same amount, so what has resulted is a wetter country during the growing season. Farmers love this, because most of the nation runs a moisture deficit during the hot summer growing season. Increasing rain cuts that deficit.

Gore: “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.”

This is likely James Hansen of NASA, Gore’s climate guru. He has written and given sworn testimony that six feet of sea-level rise, caused by the rapid shedding of Greenland’s ice, could happen by 2100. Why didn’t Gore defer instead to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization with at least a few hundred bona fide climate scientists? Its 2007 compendium estimates that the contribution of Greenland’s ice to sea level during this century will be around two inches. Gore also forgot the embarrassing truth that there has been no net change in the planetary surface temperature, as measured both by thermometers and satellites, for the last ten years.” “The Grand Exaggerator

"Democrats' history of "no" on ANWR"


“Democrats use a variety of tactics and excuses to avoid any kind of meaningful domestic energy production. Their most consistent response over the last 27 years since Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) to allow future oil exploration and production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is that it would take too long for the oil to come on line to do any good. Yet, at other times, some very liberal Democrats seemed to be all for ANWR oil. Read this curious timeline, below (info courtesy of the Republican House Energy Action Team). …

Two myths run through the Democrats’ ceaseless mantra. First is the “only six months” supply claim. They know this is a gross distortion. In fact there is oil equal to 16 years of imports from Saudi Arabia — more than enough to affect world petroleum prices. Second, it only takes 10 years to get the oil because of absurd permitting processes. We could, otherwise get the oil much sooner. The Alaska pipeline, an engineering marvel, was built in just 3 years.” “Democrats’ history of “no” on ANWR

You think gas is expensive in the U.S.?


“PETROL price gouging may have hit a new high with motorists in the UK being asked to pay the equivalent of $4.17 a litre.” “Panic buying as petrol hits $4.17 a litre

Gouging? Only by the government.



“A picture is worth a thousand words – or in this case ten billion barrels.

A group of ten House Republicans just did something few ecotourists have ever done – they visited Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and saw first-hand the 2,000 or so acres of the 19.6 million acre refuge believed to lie on top of America’s single largest untapped source of oil.

Anti-drilling activists have characterized this area as an environmental jewel, but the pictures of this expedition show a bleak, flat, nearly treeless expanse of no aesthetic and minimal ecological value. Little wonder the place gets almost no tourists. Granted, Alaska has some of the nation’s most stunning scenery – but not anywhere near the areas that would be disturbed by drilling for ANWR’s estimated 10 billion barrels. In fact, even if this portion of ANWR were opened to drilling, the state would still have 140 million acres that are fully protected – an area equal to the entire states of California and New York combined.

ANWR drilling has other things going for it as well. The oil rich part is only 70 miles away from the existing trans-Alaska pipeline. There is strong state and local support for drilling – unlike in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats in Alaska are strongly pro-production. And decades of drilling in nearby Prudhoe Bay has proven that oil drilling can be done in an environmentally responsible manner.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) was on the trip and argues that ANWR “is a treasure trove of energy that will yield a lot with only minimal intrusion.” Others disagree, but how many of them have ever been there?” “A congressional trip to ANWR

Pielke's IPCC proposal


“An oligarchy is a

“form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.”

This definition certainly fits with the IPCC, as illustrated by the closed meeting in which Gerald Meehl, Jonathan Overpeck, Susan Solomon, Thomas Stocker, and Ron Stouffer are organizing in Hawaii in March 2009. …

The Workshop is also open to only the IPCC Working Group 1 Lead Authors [LAs] and Contributing Lead Authors [CLAs] from all four assessments. While the goals of the Workshop are appropriate scientific topics, the closed character of the Workshop and its location perpetuates the exclusiveness of the IPCC process.

This small community of climate scientists is controlling the agenda with respect to the assessment of climate change. This is an oligarchy.

Climate Science urges that a new group of climate scientists be empowered to lead the next IPCC report. The inbred group of scientists who are to attend the Hawaii workshop, while most are excellent scientists, have a conflict of interest in that they have already presented their viewpoints on the role of humans in the climate system [at the expense of excluding peer reviewed science viewpoints, however …].

The next IPCC assessment should involve only scientists who have not taken a strong position on the IPCC reports, but who have outstanding scientific credentials.” “Climate assessment oligarchy – the IPCC

"Evidence of variability of atmospheric CO2 in the twentieth century"


Ernst-Georg Beck: “Conclusion: Atmospheric CO2 concentration varies with climate, the sea is the dominant CO2 store, releasing the gas depending on multi-decadal changes of temperature.”

Links here, here, here.

David Evans on the missing tropical troposphere hot spot


“Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.

We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes—weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hotspot whatsoever.

So an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of the recent global warming. So we now know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming.” “The Missing Greenhouse Signature

Another green rip off


“MIAMI – Nearly 39,000 Florida Power & Light customers gave the company $11.4 million over four years to develop green energy, but a report shows most of the money went toward administrative and marketing costs. …

The voluntary program charges FPL customers $9.75 per month – on top of the regular energy bill – to help develop alternative power sources. Nearly 39,000 FPL customers participate in it.

According to FPL’s web site, for every 10,000 subscribers, the company will develop 150 kilowatts of solar energy in Florida and buy 1,000 kilowatt hours of renewable energy credits.

Public Service Commission staff said only 24 percent of the $11.4 million collected from customers went toward developing renewable energy. The rest went to marketing and administrative costs.” “Report: FPL green energy program misleading

The Junk Man on coral


“”Marine biologists” should know, but apparently do not, that corals evolved during periods of the Earth’s history when temperatures were significantly higher than today’s and when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were more than 10 times higher, so they are most assuredly not doomed by the trivial changes currently anticipated.

Finally, everyone should remember that a scant few thousand years ago today’s shallow water corals allegedly so at risk were dead limestone outcrops, awaiting global warming and the melting of the ice sheets of the last great glaciation to raise sea levels again and recolonization by polyps spawned from areas now drowned, dark and devoid of living surface-type corals. These are adaptable critters occupying whatever niche happens to suit them over the last few hundred million years, over massive ranges and at varying altitudes depending on whatever the climate and sea levels did.” “Oh get real! Coral grief“, JunkScience July 24.