You'd be hard pressed to find a more liberal luvvie than Sir David Attenborough. Thanks to some excellent natural history series, Sir David seems to have become one of those people who can do no wrong - but he's never fooled me. Attenborough was behind a lot of the changes that took place in the BBC in the sixties that turned it from a conservative institution into the mouthpiece of the liberal left.
Anyway, it seems Sir David might have upset a few liberals by becoming a patron of the Optimum Population Trust - a fairly benign name for a group that wants to see a cull on human beings.
“There are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes only a mere 56 years ago,” he said, after becoming a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) think-tank.
A hundred years ago there were 1 billion people on earth. By the time we reached the turn of the millennium there were 6 times as many - and this despite two huge global conflicts and the curse of communism which killed off a couple of hundred million. Imagine where we'd be without that!
I can't for the life of me understand what the fuss is about. The earth will sustain as many people as it can sustain - if there are too many then the earth won't be able to sustain them. The population will fall. You'd think that someone like Attenborough would understand that - but apparently not.
I also can't understand why liberals like Jonathan Porritt - another "environmentalist" and patron of the OPT - think that the earth can only accommodate a certain number of people, but Britain can somehow find room for hundreds of thousands of immigrants year after year without ever bursting at the seams.
It's also odd that these people seem to believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming which they insist will kill billions of humans. Why do they worry if that is what they want? Perhaps they know damn well that it won't, but it's a good excuse for limiting the very thing that provides for population growth - economic progress through abundant power supply.
Anyway, I don't know what they are worrying about. Eventually there will be a new Ice Age and the human population on earth will be slashed down to a few hundred million. The earth is a funny thing - no matter what we do it seems to follow its own destiny. Only the supremely arrogant or incredibly stupid think otherwise.
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Lies, damn lies and global warming propaganda
Interesting piece on The Times today by Philip Eden regarding the way certain weather events are "spun" to give the impression that what is happening with our climate is somehow unusual - which it isn't.
Take the summer floods of 2007, which turned Tewkesbury into an island. Much was made of the claim that May, June and July comprised the wettest such three-month period in 242 years of records.
Sounds truly exceptional, doesn't it? It allows ministers to use the U-word - "unprecedented". But it was only the wettest May-to-July period. If you look at all the three-month periods on record, May-July 2007 was merely the 42nd wettest.
Eden article actually laments the way the various agencies - he cites the Met Office and the Environment Agency - who should be providing "objective information" - are "selecting the statistics their political masters want to hear" - something he describes as "data dredging".
Eden attributes this politicised manipulation of the weather stats as being motivated by government wanting to disguise their failure to get to grip with certain tasks - such as flood defences - which is very true, but it is also due to the fact that they want to portray our climate as becoming more "extreme" so that can justify more taxation on the basis of "climate change".
Calling such events "unprecedented" provides an excuse for failure for those we pay to maintain the infrastructure. Sadly, as someone once said: "Thirty years ago, these people had the grace to look thoroughly uncomfortable when they lied to us; now, they lie with a smile on their face."
They lie with a smile because they think they can blame someone else - us!
But it is still lying.
Take the summer floods of 2007, which turned Tewkesbury into an island. Much was made of the claim that May, June and July comprised the wettest such three-month period in 242 years of records.
Sounds truly exceptional, doesn't it? It allows ministers to use the U-word - "unprecedented". But it was only the wettest May-to-July period. If you look at all the three-month periods on record, May-July 2007 was merely the 42nd wettest.
Eden article actually laments the way the various agencies - he cites the Met Office and the Environment Agency - who should be providing "objective information" - are "selecting the statistics their political masters want to hear" - something he describes as "data dredging".
Eden attributes this politicised manipulation of the weather stats as being motivated by government wanting to disguise their failure to get to grip with certain tasks - such as flood defences - which is very true, but it is also due to the fact that they want to portray our climate as becoming more "extreme" so that can justify more taxation on the basis of "climate change".
Calling such events "unprecedented" provides an excuse for failure for those we pay to maintain the infrastructure. Sadly, as someone once said: "Thirty years ago, these people had the grace to look thoroughly uncomfortable when they lied to us; now, they lie with a smile on their face."
They lie with a smile because they think they can blame someone else - us!
But it is still lying.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Return to Life On Mars
In the TV show, Life On Mars, DCI Sam Tyler spends his entire time trying to wake himself from the coma so as to escape from 1973 back to the present. When he eventually succeeds, though, he finds the modern world so superficial and banal he takes his own life in an attempt to return back to 1973 - which he does.
Turns out Sam may not have needed to do that anyway.
Prof Ian Fells, emeritus professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle, said the country will lose a third of generating capacity in the next twelve years as old nuclear and coal fired power stations close down.
With the current politicial situation making it difficult to rely on imported gas or oil, he said Britain will face regular power cuts lasting long enough to delay operations in hospitals, close down schools and bring cities to a standstill.
Ultimately he said the situation would lead to economic downturn and mass unemployment.
All very 1973. All Sam had to do was wait a few years and then he too would be able to enjoy 3 day weeks, power cuts, reading by candlelight and cooking his dinner on a one ring calor gas stove.
Back in 1973, though, this was all caused by a miners strike against the backdrop of an oil crisis. This time, although we have an oil "crisis" of sorts, the real problem is not miners, but environmentalists - the Environazis - who, through their successful propagation of the myth of man-mad global warming, have managed to paralyse government's management of our energy generation and supply.
The power cuts and 3 day week of the seventies was the inspiration for Thatcher's battle against union power culminating in the year long miners strike of 1984/85 which effectively ended union power in Britain - a move which was widely supported by the British public.
I expect a similar thing to happen again - this time with environmentalism - with similar "battles" and tactics - and I expect a similar backing for the move by the British public.
When the cuts start to bite, when people have to walk home through pitch black streets because there are no trains running on the electrified line and all the streetlights are off, when there is no heating or hot water in the house, no power to run the TV, computer, washing machine or tumble dryer, when schools are closed for days at a time and when millions are out of work because there is no power to run the industries and businesses that employ them - people will react with anger.
They will be angry with the government, of course - but they will lay the blame squarely where it lies. The AGW movement.
The folly of the belief in "renewables" will be laid bare and those who had pushed for such things will be derided and condemned. The AGW movement will be dead inside 15 years and environmentalists will have a hard time generating public support for their beliefs ever again.
Turns out Sam may not have needed to do that anyway.
Prof Ian Fells, emeritus professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle, said the country will lose a third of generating capacity in the next twelve years as old nuclear and coal fired power stations close down.
With the current politicial situation making it difficult to rely on imported gas or oil, he said Britain will face regular power cuts lasting long enough to delay operations in hospitals, close down schools and bring cities to a standstill.
Ultimately he said the situation would lead to economic downturn and mass unemployment.
All very 1973. All Sam had to do was wait a few years and then he too would be able to enjoy 3 day weeks, power cuts, reading by candlelight and cooking his dinner on a one ring calor gas stove.
Back in 1973, though, this was all caused by a miners strike against the backdrop of an oil crisis. This time, although we have an oil "crisis" of sorts, the real problem is not miners, but environmentalists - the Environazis - who, through their successful propagation of the myth of man-mad global warming, have managed to paralyse government's management of our energy generation and supply.
The power cuts and 3 day week of the seventies was the inspiration for Thatcher's battle against union power culminating in the year long miners strike of 1984/85 which effectively ended union power in Britain - a move which was widely supported by the British public.
I expect a similar thing to happen again - this time with environmentalism - with similar "battles" and tactics - and I expect a similar backing for the move by the British public.
When the cuts start to bite, when people have to walk home through pitch black streets because there are no trains running on the electrified line and all the streetlights are off, when there is no heating or hot water in the house, no power to run the TV, computer, washing machine or tumble dryer, when schools are closed for days at a time and when millions are out of work because there is no power to run the industries and businesses that employ them - people will react with anger.
They will be angry with the government, of course - but they will lay the blame squarely where it lies. The AGW movement.
The folly of the belief in "renewables" will be laid bare and those who had pushed for such things will be derided and condemned. The AGW movement will be dead inside 15 years and environmentalists will have a hard time generating public support for their beliefs ever again.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sense and sensitivity
A couple of things on global warming caught my eye this morning that seem to link together well. They both relate to the issue of climate sensitivity and the importance of feedback mechanisms - positive and negative.
The first comes via The Reference Frame and it is a short 10 minute video which summarises in simple to understand terms what is meant by climate sensitivity, positive and negative feedback, tipping points and why the IPCC are completely wrong in their model driven guesstimates. There is a longer video posted which I haven't yet watched (but will when I find an hour or so to spare).
The second comes from Roy Spencer and also explains in simple terms what the various terms mean, but adds something extra by claiming that he has discovered the "holy grail" of climate sensitivity - and it is uncomfortable reading for a Canutist.
The prediction of how much manmade global warming we will see in the future (as well as how much past warming was manmade) depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". For many years, climate researchers have struggled to diagnose the Earth's climate sensitivity from measurements of the real climate system. It's almost a "holy grail" kind of search, because if we could discover the true value of the climate sensitivity, then we would basically know whether future global warming will be benign, catastrophic, or somewhere in between.
They are both well presented and relatively easy to follow. The video makes a good intro to Roy Spencer's article so I'd recommend watching that first.
The first comes via The Reference Frame and it is a short 10 minute video which summarises in simple to understand terms what is meant by climate sensitivity, positive and negative feedback, tipping points and why the IPCC are completely wrong in their model driven guesstimates. There is a longer video posted which I haven't yet watched (but will when I find an hour or so to spare).
The second comes from Roy Spencer and also explains in simple terms what the various terms mean, but adds something extra by claiming that he has discovered the "holy grail" of climate sensitivity - and it is uncomfortable reading for a Canutist.
The prediction of how much manmade global warming we will see in the future (as well as how much past warming was manmade) depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". For many years, climate researchers have struggled to diagnose the Earth's climate sensitivity from measurements of the real climate system. It's almost a "holy grail" kind of search, because if we could discover the true value of the climate sensitivity, then we would basically know whether future global warming will be benign, catastrophic, or somewhere in between.
They are both well presented and relatively easy to follow. The video makes a good intro to Roy Spencer's article so I'd recommend watching that first.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Sustainable energy is more important than renewable
As I'm one of those people (a majority according to a recent poll for the Observer) who remain unconvinced that man is responsible for global warming, I suppose you could be forgiven for thinking that I'm opposed to environmental concerns.
But I'm not. Far from it in fact. I believe wholeheartedly in protecting our environment to the best of our abilities and that includes NOT carpeting our landscape in giant windfarms which, without huge government subsidies, would not be economically viable and are, at best, capable of providing a small boost to our fossil fuelled energy generation capacity.
You see, when the wind doesn't blow - or if it blows too hard - they don't produce anything except noise and a gross affront to the aesthetic value of our landscape. It's a similar thing with solar energy - a great idea, but unfortunately the sun doesn't shine all the time during the day and not at all at night - so again, solar power falls short in being sustainable.
By sustainable I mean two things. One is that energy must be sustainable over the long term - in other words, that we have a source of energy supply for decades ahead. The second is that it must be sustainable in the short term - in other words, must be able to meet the immediate power demands of society. Wind and solar power can not meet the second requirement and never will - so they are not sustainable energy supplies.
Which is why I despair when I read things like this.
Electric cars could play a major role in the shift to environmentally friendly transport, the government will reveal this week. As part of its long-awaited renewable energy strategy, to be published on Thursday, it will argue that there is massive potential in the UK for plug-in hybrids, for car batteries charged on grid electricity and for vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
Now leaving aside the hydrogen fuel cell cars (in my opinion, they ARE the future, but the fact is that it requires a lot of energy to produce hydrogen too) and ignoring hybrids (which are costly to produce and are only affordable at the moment as they are subsidised by profits from conventional cars - as well as being no more energy efficient than a conventional car).
The thing that really annoys me is the idea that a car charged by "grid electricity" is a viable alternative to a conventional car. Let's look at one of the cars this article cites ....
Another trial, run by Mercedes, has distributed all-electric, two-seater Smart cars. The first were delivered to Coventry City Council last December with a view to testing them in urban situations for four years. They can be plugged into the mains and run for 70 miles at up to 60mph on a full charge.
Up to 70 miles at speeds up to 60 mph - and then it has to be recharged. For how long? Three hours? Four hours? Overnight? And this is just a two seater - imagine what that would be for a five seat car with power windows, aircon, CD player and all the other electrical goodies we've gotten used to in recent years! A range of 30 miles and a top whack of 40 - wow, I can just imagine what they'd make of that on Top Gear.
And then it is charged up from the national grid. For goodness sake! The national grid can barely cope with demand as it is. With our increasing reliance on renewable over sustainable energy supply the chances are that a full charge might take a day or two - if you're lucky. Can you imagine what that will mean for a trip to the coast - it could take a week or two to drive from Slough to Cornwall. You'd be better off going by horse and cart.
Go by train? But what if the trains are all electric - they won't run either when there is no juice flowing.
What we need is sustainable energy - energy that is there when we need it - and we need our government to focus less on the idea of renewable and more on the idea of sustainable. Either that or we will have to get used to a Britain more like the early 19th century.
Nuclear is the preferred option for many, but I am still in favour of coal for the short to medium term. Coal is something which we have plenty of, which we can rely on, which we can produce relatively cheaply and which will guarantee that when we need power it will be there. In the long term I believe it makes sense - as an island nation - to use wave power, but the technology isn't there yet. The technology isn't there because our government are too easily swayed by Environazi lobbying and waste our money on wind and solar schemes - the favoured "renewables" - which are inconsistent and unreliable as well as being unsightly and expensive.
And I know a lot of people think that the future is one where we all have our own wind turbine and solar panels to generate our energy needs, but these people are living in fantasy land. For a start it is dubious whether wind and solar would be enough for a UK home and when neither is supplying energy, what then? Take power from the national grid? That would mean having a hugely expensive national grid energy supply purely as backup for when individuals power supply fails.
Then there is the fact we are in the EU - the most regulatory obsessed political body on the planet. How long before every home, every individual, is having to apply a raft of regulations to their personal power stations - from regular government inspections to employing a "safety monitor". All the big power generators would be citing competition law and getting you closed down faster than you can say acquis communautaire.
Personal power generation is a lovely idea, but it isn't going to happen.
We need power for all sorts of things - industry, banking, hospitals, schools, airports, railways - the list is endless. The thinking that we can provide the energy needs of all these things from renewables AND then find some extra to charge our cars so we can drive another 40 miles or so is pure fantasy. We need mains charged electric cars right now like we need an outbreak of TB.
But I'm not. Far from it in fact. I believe wholeheartedly in protecting our environment to the best of our abilities and that includes NOT carpeting our landscape in giant windfarms which, without huge government subsidies, would not be economically viable and are, at best, capable of providing a small boost to our fossil fuelled energy generation capacity.
You see, when the wind doesn't blow - or if it blows too hard - they don't produce anything except noise and a gross affront to the aesthetic value of our landscape. It's a similar thing with solar energy - a great idea, but unfortunately the sun doesn't shine all the time during the day and not at all at night - so again, solar power falls short in being sustainable.
By sustainable I mean two things. One is that energy must be sustainable over the long term - in other words, that we have a source of energy supply for decades ahead. The second is that it must be sustainable in the short term - in other words, must be able to meet the immediate power demands of society. Wind and solar power can not meet the second requirement and never will - so they are not sustainable energy supplies.
Which is why I despair when I read things like this.
Electric cars could play a major role in the shift to environmentally friendly transport, the government will reveal this week. As part of its long-awaited renewable energy strategy, to be published on Thursday, it will argue that there is massive potential in the UK for plug-in hybrids, for car batteries charged on grid electricity and for vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
Now leaving aside the hydrogen fuel cell cars (in my opinion, they ARE the future, but the fact is that it requires a lot of energy to produce hydrogen too) and ignoring hybrids (which are costly to produce and are only affordable at the moment as they are subsidised by profits from conventional cars - as well as being no more energy efficient than a conventional car).
The thing that really annoys me is the idea that a car charged by "grid electricity" is a viable alternative to a conventional car. Let's look at one of the cars this article cites ....
Another trial, run by Mercedes, has distributed all-electric, two-seater Smart cars. The first were delivered to Coventry City Council last December with a view to testing them in urban situations for four years. They can be plugged into the mains and run for 70 miles at up to 60mph on a full charge.
Up to 70 miles at speeds up to 60 mph - and then it has to be recharged. For how long? Three hours? Four hours? Overnight? And this is just a two seater - imagine what that would be for a five seat car with power windows, aircon, CD player and all the other electrical goodies we've gotten used to in recent years! A range of 30 miles and a top whack of 40 - wow, I can just imagine what they'd make of that on Top Gear.
And then it is charged up from the national grid. For goodness sake! The national grid can barely cope with demand as it is. With our increasing reliance on renewable over sustainable energy supply the chances are that a full charge might take a day or two - if you're lucky. Can you imagine what that will mean for a trip to the coast - it could take a week or two to drive from Slough to Cornwall. You'd be better off going by horse and cart.
Go by train? But what if the trains are all electric - they won't run either when there is no juice flowing.
What we need is sustainable energy - energy that is there when we need it - and we need our government to focus less on the idea of renewable and more on the idea of sustainable. Either that or we will have to get used to a Britain more like the early 19th century.
Nuclear is the preferred option for many, but I am still in favour of coal for the short to medium term. Coal is something which we have plenty of, which we can rely on, which we can produce relatively cheaply and which will guarantee that when we need power it will be there. In the long term I believe it makes sense - as an island nation - to use wave power, but the technology isn't there yet. The technology isn't there because our government are too easily swayed by Environazi lobbying and waste our money on wind and solar schemes - the favoured "renewables" - which are inconsistent and unreliable as well as being unsightly and expensive.
And I know a lot of people think that the future is one where we all have our own wind turbine and solar panels to generate our energy needs, but these people are living in fantasy land. For a start it is dubious whether wind and solar would be enough for a UK home and when neither is supplying energy, what then? Take power from the national grid? That would mean having a hugely expensive national grid energy supply purely as backup for when individuals power supply fails.
Then there is the fact we are in the EU - the most regulatory obsessed political body on the planet. How long before every home, every individual, is having to apply a raft of regulations to their personal power stations - from regular government inspections to employing a "safety monitor". All the big power generators would be citing competition law and getting you closed down faster than you can say acquis communautaire.
Personal power generation is a lovely idea, but it isn't going to happen.
We need power for all sorts of things - industry, banking, hospitals, schools, airports, railways - the list is endless. The thinking that we can provide the energy needs of all these things from renewables AND then find some extra to charge our cars so we can drive another 40 miles or so is pure fantasy. We need mains charged electric cars right now like we need an outbreak of TB.
Monday, June 02, 2008
A bucket of woe for alarmists
The alarmists seem to be increasingly desperate to find anything that disputes the "climate change is natural" theme - and judging by this latest effort reported by the Independent they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Or should that be bucket?
Scientists believe they can now explain an anomaly in the global temperature record for the twentieth century, which has been used by climate change sceptics to undermine the link between rising temperatures and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The record for sea-surface temperatures shows a sudden fall after 1945, which appeared to go against the general trend for rising global average temperatures during the past century.
Well, no - it didn't "appear" to go against the trend, it DID go against the trend and, despite the headline claiming this new "study" has "discredited" a significant anomaly, it doesn't dispute the fact that there was a very real cooling period between the 40's and 70's at a time when CO2 emissions were at their peak.
Anyway, the main thrust of their argument is this .......
[A]n international team of scientists has investigated the raw data from the period. They found a sudden increase from 1945 onwards in the proportion of global measurements taken by British ships relative to American ships.
Uh huh. So?
The scientists point out that the British measurements were taken by throwing canvas buckets over the side and hauling water up to the deck for temperatures to be measured by immersing a thermometer for several minutes, which would result in a slightly cooler record because of evaporation from the bucket.
How do they know? They weren't there when this was being done, they did not conduct experiments at the time to see if there was a "slightly cooler record" so what this team have actually done is .... guess.
The preferred American method was to take the temperature of the water sucked in by intake pipes to cool the ships' engines. Those records would be slightly warmer than the actual temperature of the sea because of the heat from the ship, the scientists said.
What heat from the ship? These are INTAKE pipes - not exhausts. A ship doesn't generate heat - it's a fucking great lump of metal and probably a darn sight colder than the water it is pushing through!
This study is absolute crap and they know it. Do they know if the canvas buckets were drawn up in the shade or in direct sun? How much water does each bucket hold. How much colder will it get sitting on the deck for a few minutes?
The most remarkable thing about this study in assumption and guesswork is that it somehow managed to get published in Nature magazine - a once respectable scientific journal. That, if anything, tells you more about the politicisation of science than anything else.
Does the study really discredit - as the Independent asserts - the fact that cooling took place between the forties and seventies? No - the only thing this study discredits is science itself.
Scientists believe they can now explain an anomaly in the global temperature record for the twentieth century, which has been used by climate change sceptics to undermine the link between rising temperatures and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The record for sea-surface temperatures shows a sudden fall after 1945, which appeared to go against the general trend for rising global average temperatures during the past century.
Well, no - it didn't "appear" to go against the trend, it DID go against the trend and, despite the headline claiming this new "study" has "discredited" a significant anomaly, it doesn't dispute the fact that there was a very real cooling period between the 40's and 70's at a time when CO2 emissions were at their peak.
Anyway, the main thrust of their argument is this .......
[A]n international team of scientists has investigated the raw data from the period. They found a sudden increase from 1945 onwards in the proportion of global measurements taken by British ships relative to American ships.
Uh huh. So?
The scientists point out that the British measurements were taken by throwing canvas buckets over the side and hauling water up to the deck for temperatures to be measured by immersing a thermometer for several minutes, which would result in a slightly cooler record because of evaporation from the bucket.
How do they know? They weren't there when this was being done, they did not conduct experiments at the time to see if there was a "slightly cooler record" so what this team have actually done is .... guess.
The preferred American method was to take the temperature of the water sucked in by intake pipes to cool the ships' engines. Those records would be slightly warmer than the actual temperature of the sea because of the heat from the ship, the scientists said.
What heat from the ship? These are INTAKE pipes - not exhausts. A ship doesn't generate heat - it's a fucking great lump of metal and probably a darn sight colder than the water it is pushing through!
This study is absolute crap and they know it. Do they know if the canvas buckets were drawn up in the shade or in direct sun? How much water does each bucket hold. How much colder will it get sitting on the deck for a few minutes?
The most remarkable thing about this study in assumption and guesswork is that it somehow managed to get published in Nature magazine - a once respectable scientific journal. That, if anything, tells you more about the politicisation of science than anything else.
Does the study really discredit - as the Independent asserts - the fact that cooling took place between the forties and seventies? No - the only thing this study discredits is science itself.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
IPCC: For entertainment only
New rules come into force this week requiring British fortune tellers to declare that their services are for entertainment purposes only because their prophecies are "not experimentally proven".
So whether you're an astrologer writing in a daily newspaper or a crystal ball gazer working in a carnival tent, you are required to emphasise that what you are doing is just a bit of fun and that your prophecies are not guaranteed.
It's a shame the same rigorous standards aren't applied to the IPCC or the likes of George "Moonbat" Monbiot. Just like a bunch of carnies these people have been pushing their computer generated "projections" as genuine, but are unable to prove them experimentally.
They promised ever increasing temperatures year on year, but for 10 years the global temperature has remained stable and actually even fallen. They promised longer and more droughts, more and more hurricanes, but they were unable to prove it experimentally - if anything, experiments and evidence proved them wrong time and time again.
The big question is why should such rigorous standards be applied to a carnival side show while doomsayers like the IPCC, Stern, Gore, Monbiot and the rest of the alarmists can say what they like without ever having to offer the experimental proof?
Computer models are not proof - the modellers themselves admit that - but based on their predictions western governments are falling over themselves in a rush to strangle their own economies.
The truth is that there is no evidence that climate change is caused by mans CO2 emissions. There is no "experimental proof". All we have are a bunch of very powerful and politically motivated soothsayers who can no more guarantee their predictions than a tarot card reader can.
But the models the IPCC use to predict the future are incapable of seeing the past let alone what is to come. They can not be made to retrospectively match past climate behaviour and yet we are supposed to believe their forecasts?
If you went to a medium who told you that you will only have 2 children, break your arm when you are 27 and die before you are 30 - but you actually have three children, you're already 36 and never had a fracture- then you'd rightly treat their predictions with a considerable degree of scepticism.
But we're supposed to just accept the IPCC computer model predictions even though they are unable to retrodict the past?
And unlike a palm reader, the alarmists aren't even mildly entertaining.
So whether you're an astrologer writing in a daily newspaper or a crystal ball gazer working in a carnival tent, you are required to emphasise that what you are doing is just a bit of fun and that your prophecies are not guaranteed.
It's a shame the same rigorous standards aren't applied to the IPCC or the likes of George "Moonbat" Monbiot. Just like a bunch of carnies these people have been pushing their computer generated "projections" as genuine, but are unable to prove them experimentally.
They promised ever increasing temperatures year on year, but for 10 years the global temperature has remained stable and actually even fallen. They promised longer and more droughts, more and more hurricanes, but they were unable to prove it experimentally - if anything, experiments and evidence proved them wrong time and time again.
The big question is why should such rigorous standards be applied to a carnival side show while doomsayers like the IPCC, Stern, Gore, Monbiot and the rest of the alarmists can say what they like without ever having to offer the experimental proof?
Computer models are not proof - the modellers themselves admit that - but based on their predictions western governments are falling over themselves in a rush to strangle their own economies.
The truth is that there is no evidence that climate change is caused by mans CO2 emissions. There is no "experimental proof". All we have are a bunch of very powerful and politically motivated soothsayers who can no more guarantee their predictions than a tarot card reader can.
But the models the IPCC use to predict the future are incapable of seeing the past let alone what is to come. They can not be made to retrospectively match past climate behaviour and yet we are supposed to believe their forecasts?
If you went to a medium who told you that you will only have 2 children, break your arm when you are 27 and die before you are 30 - but you actually have three children, you're already 36 and never had a fracture- then you'd rightly treat their predictions with a considerable degree of scepticism.
But we're supposed to just accept the IPCC computer model predictions even though they are unable to retrodict the past?
And unlike a palm reader, the alarmists aren't even mildly entertaining.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Making it up as they go along
Remember how the AGW alarmists had to find a way to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period? This inconvenient period of previous high temperatures didn't fit with their narrative so they had to get rid of it. They came up with the infamous Hockey Stick graph which they claimed "proved" global warming was unprecedented and that man-made global warming was genuine.
It was hokum - on a grand scale. So dodgy that even the IPCC won't use it any more - but it did it's job for a while.
More recently, the AGW crowd have had a problem with something harder to get rid of. Satellite data. All their models tell them that the upper atmosphere is where we should be seeing the tell tale signs of global warming, but, unfortunately for the alarmists, the satellite data says it isn't.
The alarmists say that this can't be right so the satellites must be wrong. So guess what? Yep - they've come up with a way to "prove" they are wrong.
Over the last two decades, temperature readings from the upper troposphere -- 12 to 16 kilometres (7.5 and 10 miles) above Earth's surface -- based on data gathered by satellites and high-flying weather balloons showed little or no increase.
Damn - we can't have that shrieked the alarmists.
Oft cited by climate change sceptics, these findings were known to be flawed but still challenged the validity of computer models predicting warming trends at these altitudes, especially over the tropics.
So accurate readings taken by a satellite are "known to be flawed"? But their computer models are perfect, eh? They can't be wrong so the satellite data must be flawed. I kid you not - this is how these people think.
So they had to get rid of the satellite data - and now they have.
[C]limate scientists Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University use a more accurate method to show that temperature changes in the upper troposphere since 1970 -- about 0.65 degrees Centigrade per decade -- are in fact clearly in sync with most climate change models.
Uh huh - more accurate than a satellite reading? More accurate than directly observed readings?
Rather than measuring temperature directly, which had yielded inconsistent results, they used wind variations as a proxy. (My emphasis)
"Inconsistent" with their models, by the way - the actual results are very consistent in saying the models are rubbish.
"We take an alternative approach by using trends in winds to infer those of temperature," say the authors.
What a load of codswallop. How can they genuinely claim that using a trend to "infer" a temperature is more accurate than satellite data? They are making it up as they go along. The whole point of the study was to prove that the computer models aren't crap after all - which they are.
Well, guess what. Two can play at that game.
I've found that rather than measuring global surface temperature directly I've developed a system of using trends in fridge freezers to infer those of outside temperature.
Apparently we're in an ice age.
It was hokum - on a grand scale. So dodgy that even the IPCC won't use it any more - but it did it's job for a while.
More recently, the AGW crowd have had a problem with something harder to get rid of. Satellite data. All their models tell them that the upper atmosphere is where we should be seeing the tell tale signs of global warming, but, unfortunately for the alarmists, the satellite data says it isn't.
The alarmists say that this can't be right so the satellites must be wrong. So guess what? Yep - they've come up with a way to "prove" they are wrong.
Over the last two decades, temperature readings from the upper troposphere -- 12 to 16 kilometres (7.5 and 10 miles) above Earth's surface -- based on data gathered by satellites and high-flying weather balloons showed little or no increase.
Damn - we can't have that shrieked the alarmists.
Oft cited by climate change sceptics, these findings were known to be flawed but still challenged the validity of computer models predicting warming trends at these altitudes, especially over the tropics.
So accurate readings taken by a satellite are "known to be flawed"? But their computer models are perfect, eh? They can't be wrong so the satellite data must be flawed. I kid you not - this is how these people think.
So they had to get rid of the satellite data - and now they have.
[C]limate scientists Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University use a more accurate method to show that temperature changes in the upper troposphere since 1970 -- about 0.65 degrees Centigrade per decade -- are in fact clearly in sync with most climate change models.
Uh huh - more accurate than a satellite reading? More accurate than directly observed readings?
Rather than measuring temperature directly, which had yielded inconsistent results, they used wind variations as a proxy. (My emphasis)
"Inconsistent" with their models, by the way - the actual results are very consistent in saying the models are rubbish.
"We take an alternative approach by using trends in winds to infer those of temperature," say the authors.
What a load of codswallop. How can they genuinely claim that using a trend to "infer" a temperature is more accurate than satellite data? They are making it up as they go along. The whole point of the study was to prove that the computer models aren't crap after all - which they are.
Well, guess what. Two can play at that game.
I've found that rather than measuring global surface temperature directly I've developed a system of using trends in fridge freezers to infer those of outside temperature.
Apparently we're in an ice age.
Friday, May 23, 2008
The murder of science
A first class article (pdf) from a Dr. Hertzberg appears on Carbon Sense Coalition. In the article Dr. Hertzberg pulls apart all the propaganda fed to us through the media by the IPCC and Al Gore. He rips through the distortions, wild assumptions and outright lies that make up the hypothesis that man's emissions of CO2 will bring catastrophic global warming.
But more than that he reveals the way once respected journals such as Nature have become so heavily politicised that they are now refusing papers purely because they do not fit with the "consensus".
The most startling evidence of this comes from a Professor Segalstad from the University of Oslo who has carried out the most authoritative study of CO2 lifespan in the atmosphere (at best, five years).
Professor Segalstad writes to Dr Hertzberg saying ...
A manuscript submitted by me to Nature was rejected with only one sentence "30 years of greenhouse effect research cannot be wrong"
THAT is the "consensus". Closed minds and closed doors. Either you conform to the consensus or you will be frozen out - starved of funding and starved of attention.
We are witnessing a murder - the murder of science.
Read it all.
But more than that he reveals the way once respected journals such as Nature have become so heavily politicised that they are now refusing papers purely because they do not fit with the "consensus".
The most startling evidence of this comes from a Professor Segalstad from the University of Oslo who has carried out the most authoritative study of CO2 lifespan in the atmosphere (at best, five years).
Professor Segalstad writes to Dr Hertzberg saying ...
A manuscript submitted by me to Nature was rejected with only one sentence "30 years of greenhouse effect research cannot be wrong"
THAT is the "consensus". Closed minds and closed doors. Either you conform to the consensus or you will be frozen out - starved of funding and starved of attention.
We are witnessing a murder - the murder of science.
Read it all.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Flannery the flim flam man
Former Aussie of the Year, Tim Flannery (if he's the best they can come up with then God help Australia!) says the only way to combat "climate change" is to pump the atmosphere full of so much sulphur it changes the colour of the sky.
Australia's best-known expert on global warming has updated his climate forecast for the world - and it's much worse than he thought just three years ago.
He may be their "best known" proponent of global warming, but if anyone is actually listening to this asshole then we're in trouble.
The gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth's stratosphere to keep out the sun's rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.
"It would change the colour of the sky," Prof Flannery told AAP.
Er, yeah - and more besides Tim. I think the change in the colour of the sky would be the least of our problems. Acid rain, anybody? Hello?
We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve."
If you're trying to achieve human extinction then you're probably right, Tim! Jeez, what a fruitcake. Oh, maybe I'm being unfair on Tim as he does admit there are risks .....
He conceded there were risks to global dimming via sulphur.
"The consequences of doing that are unknown."
No shit. So let's see, we can ignore fruitcakes like Tim and enjoy a warmer and more productive world or we could follow his advice, blot out the sun with sulphur and hope it doesn't turn the planet into a rancid desert? I wonder what that would do for "biodiversity"? My vote is for option one (no offence Tim, you deranged moonbat).
If this is what the alarmists have been reduced to in order to maintain their religious zealotry then they are more desperate than even I thought. Meanwhile some 32000 US scientists have signed a petition saying that man is not responsible for climate change and the response of the US government is to say "everyone is entitled to their opinion".
Q WorldNetDaily reports that more than 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.s, now signed a petition rejecting global warming, the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases is damaging the Earth's climate. My question: What is the White House reaction to these 31,000 U.S. scientists?
MS. PERINO: I would say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. What's your next question? Q That's all?
MS. PERINO: That's all I'm going to say.
The likes of Ms. Perino would rather listen to 2500 highly politicised IPCC "scientists", crazed loons like Flannery or failed Presidential candidates like Gore with a huge self-interest in the unproven and highly contestable theory of anthropogenic global warming than listen to 32000 scientists from her own nation. So much for consensus science!
Australia's best-known expert on global warming has updated his climate forecast for the world - and it's much worse than he thought just three years ago.
He may be their "best known" proponent of global warming, but if anyone is actually listening to this asshole then we're in trouble.
The gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth's stratosphere to keep out the sun's rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.
"It would change the colour of the sky," Prof Flannery told AAP.
Er, yeah - and more besides Tim. I think the change in the colour of the sky would be the least of our problems. Acid rain, anybody? Hello?
We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve."
If you're trying to achieve human extinction then you're probably right, Tim! Jeez, what a fruitcake. Oh, maybe I'm being unfair on Tim as he does admit there are risks .....
He conceded there were risks to global dimming via sulphur.
"The consequences of doing that are unknown."
No shit. So let's see, we can ignore fruitcakes like Tim and enjoy a warmer and more productive world or we could follow his advice, blot out the sun with sulphur and hope it doesn't turn the planet into a rancid desert? I wonder what that would do for "biodiversity"? My vote is for option one (no offence Tim, you deranged moonbat).
If this is what the alarmists have been reduced to in order to maintain their religious zealotry then they are more desperate than even I thought. Meanwhile some 32000 US scientists have signed a petition saying that man is not responsible for climate change and the response of the US government is to say "everyone is entitled to their opinion".
Q WorldNetDaily reports that more than 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.s, now signed a petition rejecting global warming, the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases is damaging the Earth's climate. My question: What is the White House reaction to these 31,000 U.S. scientists?
MS. PERINO: I would say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. What's your next question? Q That's all?
MS. PERINO: That's all I'm going to say.
The likes of Ms. Perino would rather listen to 2500 highly politicised IPCC "scientists", crazed loons like Flannery or failed Presidential candidates like Gore with a huge self-interest in the unproven and highly contestable theory of anthropogenic global warming than listen to 32000 scientists from her own nation. So much for consensus science!
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The insult to end all insults
Rosie Boycott - a rambling non-entity at the best of times - has an article entitled "The war to end all wars" in The Grauniad today.
No, she is not talking about the rising and imminent threat posed by a resurgent and highly radicalised Islam - a threat which is far more likely to impact our Rosie than any other - but the supposed "threat" caused by CO2.
Leaving aside the fact that CO2 is neither a pollutant or dangerous (unless there isn't enough in which case we all die) the mere fact that she ranks the sacrifices she makes today - using her car less, recycling stuff and only taking two foreign holidays a year - above the sacrifice made by millions of young men who died fighting to preserve her right to talk this garbage in the first place.
I don't know why she just doesn't go the whole hog and defecate on a few war graves.
No, she is not talking about the rising and imminent threat posed by a resurgent and highly radicalised Islam - a threat which is far more likely to impact our Rosie than any other - but the supposed "threat" caused by CO2.
Leaving aside the fact that CO2 is neither a pollutant or dangerous (unless there isn't enough in which case we all die) the mere fact that she ranks the sacrifices she makes today - using her car less, recycling stuff and only taking two foreign holidays a year - above the sacrifice made by millions of young men who died fighting to preserve her right to talk this garbage in the first place.
I don't know why she just doesn't go the whole hog and defecate on a few war graves.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Anthropogenic Global Warming: The new socialism - same results
Although it's not been high profile, there have been a number of news items recently about rising food prices and the potential impact of these. Of course, to anyone who shops regularly this will come as no surprise as we have all seen the way food prices have shot up in recent months. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if the inflation rate was based on things we need to buy and buy regularly rather than being distorted by ridiculous items such as DVD's and mobile phones then the government would not be able to cover up the fact that inflation is running at at least double what it claims and - in the case of food - possible more than triple the current official rate of inflation.
What is less well known though is that the rise in food prices is not entirely down to rising and record oil prices - but due to the fact that there is a global shortage of food staples such as rice and wheat. Partly this is caused by increased demand, but the biggest cause of the problem is global warming alarmism.
Yep, the scaremongers have caused a world food shortage which organisations such as the IMF say will lead to hundreds of thousands of people being at risk of starvation.
Of course, the Environazis will deny this. They will claim that food shortages are a result of the global warming they warned us about - except that there has been no global warming for 10 years and the global temperature is actually in decline with the forecast for this year set to wipe out ALL the warming that was supposedly caused by man in the 20th century. They will tell you that the food shortages are caused by extreme weather conditions caused by global warming, but we've always had extreme weather conditions from time to time and this is nothing new.
There is even evidence (real evidence - not that produced by a model) that food prices are linked to sunspot activity. Indeed, one of Slough's most famous residents (its only famous resident?), Sir William Herschel noted the link between sunspots and food prices in 1801 - and the current rise in food prices comes at a time of very little sunspot activity as solar cycle 23 drags on beyond all predictions and solar cycle 24 continues to refuse to get going.
What is new is that, thanks to the scaremongers of the AGW brigade, millions of acres of land previously used for food production has been turned over to producing the raw material of biofuels - often encouraged by governments in thrall to the AGW NGO protagonists (governments such as ours, the EU). Less land for food production means, inevitably, less food.
The reason why millions of people will be at risk of starvation in the coming years - and why possibly hundreds of thousands may die - is not because of climate change caused by man, but because of the socialist led AGW bandwagon. Yep - just as they killed millions in the 20th century with their perverted ideology, the left are living up to their reputation and are set to kill millions more in the 21st century.
Remember this when someone tells you that religion causes war - because socialism, in its old form and now in its new shape of the pseudo religion of anthropogenic climate change, has caused more deaths than any other idea in the history of mankind.
Friday, August 03, 2007
CO2 hype takes a battering from clouds, sun and sea
Today has been a bad today for supporters of the anthropogenic global warming theory - not that they'd ever admit to that.
First there is this. It's in Belgian German (I think) and I've uses an Alta Vista translation - my comments in (brackets).
CO2 the large boosdoener (wrongdoer?) at the climate change and the reheating of the ground are not. That is the conclusion of a large scientific research of the KMI which is still published this summer.
Not CO2 but water mist is the most important greenhouse gas. That is responsible for wide 75 percents of the greenhouse impact. That is purely scientific facts, but is by the film of already (Al) gore (LOL!) the influence of CO2 this way gehypet (hyped?) that nobody who takes facts still in account, thus Debontridder (the scientist). Everything are attributed unilaterally to CO2. Whereas the complete range warm winters which we have had the last years, is simply a consequence of the ' North Atlantic schommeling '(oscillation). That has now real once do nothing with CO2.
Yeah, I know that we've known for ages that the North Atlantic Oscillation plays a part in European climate and that water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas, is much more significant than CO2 and that man's contributions to greenhouse gases contributes a massive 0.03% of the total atmosphere, but for some reason this is never mentioned by the Canutists. So it's worth it to have something from a Royal Meteorological Institute - even if it is a Belgian Met Office.
If that wasn't bad enough for the AGW religion, next we have this.
Charles Camp and Ka Kit Tung of the University of Washington's department of applied mathematics said that to accurately assess effects from human sources on the planet's climate, scientists must first be able to quantify the contribution of natural variation in solar irradiance to temperature changes.
Camp and Tung said that while the existence of a long-term trend in solar output is controversial, its periodic change within an 11-year cycle has been measured by satellites.
In their conclusion, Camp and Tung note that ....
The pattern shows a global warming of the Earth’s surface of about 0.2 °K, with larger warming over the polar regions than over the tropics, and larger over continents than over the oceans. It is also established that the global warming of the surface is related to the 11-year solar cycle, in particular to its TSI, at over 95% confidence level.
95% certain that global surface warming is related to the 11 year solar cycle. Who'd have thought it. If that wasn't enough to have the climate change wackos reaching for their tranquilisers, along comes another study to send them apoplectic.
Understanding the mechanisms driving such climate variability is difficult because unraveling causal connections that lead to chaotic climate behavior is complicated.
To simplify this, Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation.
The authors show that this mechanism explains ALL global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. (My emphasis).
Finally, as an example of the cycle of climate change, we have this nice little representation.
As I've mentioned before, there is NO evidence of an anthropogenic cause to climate change - it is all speculation based on models that are not initialised properly and which can not even be made to replicate current climate let alone future climate.
And yet none of these reports appear on the BBC which treats anthropogenic global warming as proven. Yet another BBC scandal. One which is yet to be exposed by the MSM but which will come back to haunt the BBC - and many other groups - considerably in the not too distant future.
First there is this. It's in Belgian German (I think) and I've uses an Alta Vista translation - my comments in (brackets).
CO2 the large boosdoener (wrongdoer?) at the climate change and the reheating of the ground are not. That is the conclusion of a large scientific research of the KMI which is still published this summer.
Not CO2 but water mist is the most important greenhouse gas. That is responsible for wide 75 percents of the greenhouse impact. That is purely scientific facts, but is by the film of already (Al) gore (LOL!) the influence of CO2 this way gehypet (hyped?) that nobody who takes facts still in account, thus Debontridder (the scientist). Everything are attributed unilaterally to CO2. Whereas the complete range warm winters which we have had the last years, is simply a consequence of the ' North Atlantic schommeling '(oscillation). That has now real once do nothing with CO2.
Yeah, I know that we've known for ages that the North Atlantic Oscillation plays a part in European climate and that water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas, is much more significant than CO2 and that man's contributions to greenhouse gases contributes a massive 0.03% of the total atmosphere, but for some reason this is never mentioned by the Canutists. So it's worth it to have something from a Royal Meteorological Institute - even if it is a Belgian Met Office.
If that wasn't bad enough for the AGW religion, next we have this.
Charles Camp and Ka Kit Tung of the University of Washington's department of applied mathematics said that to accurately assess effects from human sources on the planet's climate, scientists must first be able to quantify the contribution of natural variation in solar irradiance to temperature changes.
Camp and Tung said that while the existence of a long-term trend in solar output is controversial, its periodic change within an 11-year cycle has been measured by satellites.
In their conclusion, Camp and Tung note that ....
The pattern shows a global warming of the Earth’s surface of about 0.2 °K, with larger warming over the polar regions than over the tropics, and larger over continents than over the oceans. It is also established that the global warming of the surface is related to the 11-year solar cycle, in particular to its TSI, at over 95% confidence level.
95% certain that global surface warming is related to the 11 year solar cycle. Who'd have thought it. If that wasn't enough to have the climate change wackos reaching for their tranquilisers, along comes another study to send them apoplectic.
Understanding the mechanisms driving such climate variability is difficult because unraveling causal connections that lead to chaotic climate behavior is complicated.
To simplify this, Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation.
The authors show that this mechanism explains ALL global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. (My emphasis).
Finally, as an example of the cycle of climate change, we have this nice little representation.
As I've mentioned before, there is NO evidence of an anthropogenic cause to climate change - it is all speculation based on models that are not initialised properly and which can not even be made to replicate current climate let alone future climate.
And yet none of these reports appear on the BBC which treats anthropogenic global warming as proven. Yet another BBC scandal. One which is yet to be exposed by the MSM but which will come back to haunt the BBC - and many other groups - considerably in the not too distant future.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Wind of change
It's nice to see George Monbiot, the Guardian's moral outrage correspondent, finally come clean about "global warming".
It wasn't meant to happen like this. The climate scientists told us that our winters would become wetter and our summers drier. So I can't claim that these floods were caused by climate change, or are even consistent with the models.
Straight from the horses mouth. The scientist are wrong, the models are wrong, the predictions are wrong and the AGW crowd don't have a clue. So, after decades of telling us that our CO2 emissions are heating up the planet and will lead to runaway warming, Monbiot now decides that it's more likely to get chilly.
But, like the ghost of Christmas yet to come, they offer us a glimpse of the possible winter world that we will inhabit if we don't sort ourselves out.
A winter world? So now our rising CO2 is going to make it colder, not warmer then? I wonder if this sudden change in tack has anything to do with the fact that the next two solar cycles are predicted to see extraordinary low levels of activity leading to the possibility of a minimum to match the Maunder minimum of the Little Ice Age.
And, realising that this will make the AGW crowd look very silly indeed, Monbiot is trying to now make it sound like this predicted drop in global temperatures is something they were warning us all along.
It wasn't. Their theory says - and the IPCC say - that rising CO2 will lead to rising temperature.
Monbiot's credentials as a scientist are starting to look increasingly weak. It seems his only real connection to the climate is his ability to flap about like a flag in a breeze.
Incidentally, the rest of his article is just the usual leftist socialist crap beating up on the wealthy. Read it if you want - it's garbage.
It wasn't meant to happen like this. The climate scientists told us that our winters would become wetter and our summers drier. So I can't claim that these floods were caused by climate change, or are even consistent with the models.
Straight from the horses mouth. The scientist are wrong, the models are wrong, the predictions are wrong and the AGW crowd don't have a clue. So, after decades of telling us that our CO2 emissions are heating up the planet and will lead to runaway warming, Monbiot now decides that it's more likely to get chilly.
But, like the ghost of Christmas yet to come, they offer us a glimpse of the possible winter world that we will inhabit if we don't sort ourselves out.
A winter world? So now our rising CO2 is going to make it colder, not warmer then? I wonder if this sudden change in tack has anything to do with the fact that the next two solar cycles are predicted to see extraordinary low levels of activity leading to the possibility of a minimum to match the Maunder minimum of the Little Ice Age.
And, realising that this will make the AGW crowd look very silly indeed, Monbiot is trying to now make it sound like this predicted drop in global temperatures is something they were warning us all along.
It wasn't. Their theory says - and the IPCC say - that rising CO2 will lead to rising temperature.
Monbiot's credentials as a scientist are starting to look increasingly weak. It seems his only real connection to the climate is his ability to flap about like a flag in a breeze.
Incidentally, the rest of his article is just the usual leftist socialist crap beating up on the wealthy. Read it if you want - it's garbage.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Lockwood's folly
Following on from yesterday's post about the remarkable Prof Lockwood who has managed in 4 months to achieve what hundreds of scientists have been trying to find out for decades - well, it seems the good Professor has an even more remarkable gift. Here is a quote from Professor Lockwood's paper.
So Prof Lockwood says that there was a detectable influence caused by an "unknown mechanism" - and then dismisses the possibility of this "unknown mechanism" from the debate on current climate change?
And the man calls himself a scientist? Sounds more like a crystal ball gazer.
Even his claim that TSI has declined since 1985 conflicts with the data provided by the NGDC NOAA data - which shows an upward linear trend as the chart in the picture demonstrates.
There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change.
So Prof Lockwood says that there was a detectable influence caused by an "unknown mechanism" - and then dismisses the possibility of this "unknown mechanism" from the debate on current climate change?
How does he know this mechanism - which he doesn't know about - isn't having an unknown effect now?
And the man calls himself a scientist? Sounds more like a crystal ball gazer.
Even his claim that TSI has declined since 1985 conflicts with the data provided by the NGDC NOAA data - which shows an upward linear trend as the chart in the picture demonstrates.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Shaming of a great institution
In a remarkable departure from scientific process, the Royal Society has concluded that the sun plays no part in the current climate change - even though it has in the past. The "study" was initiated as a response to the Channel 4 film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which was first broadcast last March.
This means that this Royal Society "study" has been completed in just 3-4 months!
Incredible!
To think they could analyse all the data, comb through the hundreds of scientific papers including many that have been published recently and reach a level of certainty in conclusion in just 4 months on a subject that others have been studying for decades without being able to be anywhere near as certain in their conclusion. Wow - those Royal Society boys must really know their stuff. They must have had a team of hundreds working flat out to reach that conclusion so quickly.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.
So, not hundreds - just two. And these two guys have managed to reach a conclusion which "settles the debate" in just 4 months which many other eminent scientists after years of painstaking research disagree with.
Prof Lockwood claims there has actually been a decline in solar activity since 1985 and this proves that the sun can not be the main driver behind climate change. Remarkably enough, Prof Lockwood insists it is caused by CO2 even though CO2 rose rapidly between 1940 and 1970 and yet temperature declined enough to cause a global cooling scare. If two decades of sun activity data proves that the sun can not cause climate change then surely three decades of CO2 data trumps that?
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," Prof. Lockwood is quoted as saying. Really, Mike?
Sounds like Prof. Lockwood is having his cake and eating it.
This isn't "science". It's propaganda. The Royal Society should be hanging it's collective head in shame.
This means that this Royal Society "study" has been completed in just 3-4 months!
Incredible!
To think they could analyse all the data, comb through the hundreds of scientific papers including many that have been published recently and reach a level of certainty in conclusion in just 4 months on a subject that others have been studying for decades without being able to be anywhere near as certain in their conclusion. Wow - those Royal Society boys must really know their stuff. They must have had a team of hundreds working flat out to reach that conclusion so quickly.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.
So, not hundreds - just two. And these two guys have managed to reach a conclusion which "settles the debate" in just 4 months which many other eminent scientists after years of painstaking research disagree with.
Prof Lockwood claims there has actually been a decline in solar activity since 1985 and this proves that the sun can not be the main driver behind climate change. Remarkably enough, Prof Lockwood insists it is caused by CO2 even though CO2 rose rapidly between 1940 and 1970 and yet temperature declined enough to cause a global cooling scare. If two decades of sun activity data proves that the sun can not cause climate change then surely three decades of CO2 data trumps that?
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," Prof. Lockwood is quoted as saying. Really, Mike?
Sounds like Prof. Lockwood is having his cake and eating it.
This isn't "science". It's propaganda. The Royal Society should be hanging it's collective head in shame.
Friday, June 29, 2007
IPCC sea level rise claim is "a fraud"
The claim that the sea is rising at an accelerated rate is bogus. So says one of the world's leading experts on sea level rise, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.
So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use.
Not a simple mistake, either. according to Dr. Mörner.
Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
So if it isn't a simple mistake out of ignorance - what then? As he says, to support predictions of impending doom - you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!
"The observations don't find it!" There is no observed sea level rise, no accelerated rise indicated by satellite data, nothing significant whatsoever - but the IPCC have deliberately falsified data to make it appear there is. Why would they do that?
According to Dr. Mörner, the headline grabbing estimate of a sea level rise of 3m in 100 years are also completely ridiculous.
You couldn't have more melting than after the Ice Age. You reach up to 10 mm per year—that was the super-maximum: 1 meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay, in a very short period, melted away: it came up to 12 mm per year. But these are so exceptionally large, that we cannot be anywhere near it; but still people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It's not feasible!
A rise of 1 metre a century only happens after an Ice Age - and we're currently in an interglacial - so no chance of that whatsoever. The fact is that the IPCC is falsifying data to come up with the answer that their computer models predict. Not only is there no evidence to support their theory, they are changing the evidence that counters it. If that is not political, then what is it?
Time to stop falling for all this garbage. The IPCC, the UN, the EU, the environmental NGO's, the liberal left - they are all involved in the greatest scam perpetrated since man first walked this earth and it is starting to fall to pieces. Some day they are going to have to be held accountable for this fraud.
So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use.
Not a simple mistake, either. according to Dr. Mörner.
Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
So if it isn't a simple mistake out of ignorance - what then? As he says, to support predictions of impending doom - you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!
"The observations don't find it!" There is no observed sea level rise, no accelerated rise indicated by satellite data, nothing significant whatsoever - but the IPCC have deliberately falsified data to make it appear there is. Why would they do that?
According to Dr. Mörner, the headline grabbing estimate of a sea level rise of 3m in 100 years are also completely ridiculous.
You couldn't have more melting than after the Ice Age. You reach up to 10 mm per year—that was the super-maximum: 1 meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay, in a very short period, melted away: it came up to 12 mm per year. But these are so exceptionally large, that we cannot be anywhere near it; but still people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It's not feasible!
A rise of 1 metre a century only happens after an Ice Age - and we're currently in an interglacial - so no chance of that whatsoever. The fact is that the IPCC is falsifying data to come up with the answer that their computer models predict. Not only is there no evidence to support their theory, they are changing the evidence that counters it. If that is not political, then what is it?
Time to stop falling for all this garbage. The IPCC, the UN, the EU, the environmental NGO's, the liberal left - they are all involved in the greatest scam perpetrated since man first walked this earth and it is starting to fall to pieces. Some day they are going to have to be held accountable for this fraud.
Monday, June 25, 2007
How to build a straw man
I make no secret of the fact that I'm sceptical of the supposed anthropogenic aspect of climate change. To me, it just doesn't make any sense, but I've not always taken that position.
Ten years ago, as much of the world was signing up to the Kyoto protocol I was one of those who believed that man was having a potentially catastrophic effect on the earth's climate. I believed that because that was what I was being told - by the newspapers, by the television and even on the Internet.
The Internet, back then was a fairly new thing still - but it was through the Internet 10 years ago that I came across the thing that was to ultimately lead me to alter my position on man-made climate change.
The Milankovitch Cycle.
For those of you not aware, the Milankovitch Cycle refers to the way the earth "wobbles" on its axis. The tilt of the earth varies from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees. As it wobbles, the seasons become more or less marked and the poles receive more or less sunlight depending on whether the earth is tilted closer to or further from the sun.
When I thought about that it made me think - if a minor deviation in the earth's tilt can have such a marked effect on the seasons (effectively warming or cooling the climate significantly) then could that be causing climate change?
But the Milankovitch Cycle in itself could not be the cause of climate change because a cycle lasts around 41,000 years. However, it made me realise that if a minor shift in a part of the planet towards the sun can increase the temperature significantly - and a similar shift away from the sun for another part can reduce the temperature significantly then that suggests that the biggest influencer on the climate must be the sun.
This seemed to be backed up the simple fact that the warmest places on earth tend to be the places that are closest to the sun - the tropics. The difference in the distance to the sun between, say, the Tropic of Cancer and Britain is, in terms of the huge distance between the sun and the earth, insignificant - but it was enough for the sun to have a significantly higher warming effect on the Tropic than on Britain.
My thinking was, of course, very unscientific - but it made me wonder if there was more to this "man-made global warming" than was meeting the eye. From that moment on I became sceptical of man-made global warming - sceptical in the true sense of the word in that I decided to look into the subject in more depth and with a more open mind. Instead of believing everything the media was telling me, I started to question everything.
Over the years I have since learned that the sun doesn't generate energy at the same rate all the time, but that it rises in falls in cycles - an indication of which are sunspots. The greater the number of sunspots the more energy the sun gives out. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it is a good indicator of the strength of the sun. And recently we have had the revelation that the suns activity has an effect on cosmic rays which play an important part in cloud formation - and cloud formation plays a hugely important part in climate.
So, over the last ten years I have gone from being a believer in anthropogenic global warming to a confirmed sceptic. When I believed in it it was because I derived almost all my information on the subject from "approved" sources - the media. But thanks to the Internet I was able to find out things that made me think and, by applying what I like to think of as common sense coupled to more scientific findings I have reached the position today where I believe that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the belief that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the key driver behind climate change. I don't even believe they are a minor driver anymore - they are utterly insignificant.
My view is that, given current information and predictions on solar activity, we are likely as not to see a significant decrease in that activity in the near future - in the next 10-20 years - which will lay to rest this myth once and for all. If these predictions are correct - and there is no guarantee they will be, after all, they are just predictions - then the earth is about to enter a significant cooling phase that may equal conditions of Dalton Minimum or even the Maunder Minimum - periods when freezing winters were common place in Britain.
I wonder, if this happens as I expect, what will happen then to all those people who have supported and propagated the AGW myth? For instance, the IPCC? If we do enter a cooling phase and if we do see temperatures plummet (without any decrease in CO2 levels - what will the reaction of people be to the IPCC? Or the NGO's like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth? And what about the national governments and politicians? And what will be the response to science?
If, as I expect, it is revealed in the near future that all these groups have been lying to us for years and years then I believe it is entirely possible that we will see a collapse of the current establishment. People just will not trust these groups again - not the UN, not the EU, not the NGO's, not the scientists, not the media (especially the BBC) and not the old political parties - for a very long time.
It could mean anarchy, though I suspect it will just mean a return to sensible politics again - with new parties filling the void. Crucially, though, I believe it will see the end of the liberal left - the principle group behind the propagation of the AGW myth.
I have been told that by pinning my beliefs on the prospect of this coming cooling phase, I have built a straw man for myself. Ignoring that the use of "straw man" in this instance is incorrect and assuming they mean an argument that will easily be refuted if we do not enter a cooling phase, I beg to differ. the "cooling phase" is dependent on the predictions of sun activity being right - they may not be and the sun may continue at its current level for some time.
And even if the suns activities don't make a difference and climate change really is driven by man then what does it matter to me? I'm just a blogger who is swimming against the tide. If I'm proven wrong so what? What have I got to lose other than looking a bit silly?
The real straw man has been built by the AGW supporters - and it is massive. And hiding behind this straw man are the reputations and interests of huge organisations, massive political structures and even science itself. These are the groups and people who really have something at stake and that really is a straw man to be proud of.
I also wonder what lengths they will go to to protect their interests and reputations and preserve their power?
Ten years ago, as much of the world was signing up to the Kyoto protocol I was one of those who believed that man was having a potentially catastrophic effect on the earth's climate. I believed that because that was what I was being told - by the newspapers, by the television and even on the Internet.
The Internet, back then was a fairly new thing still - but it was through the Internet 10 years ago that I came across the thing that was to ultimately lead me to alter my position on man-made climate change.
The Milankovitch Cycle.
For those of you not aware, the Milankovitch Cycle refers to the way the earth "wobbles" on its axis. The tilt of the earth varies from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees. As it wobbles, the seasons become more or less marked and the poles receive more or less sunlight depending on whether the earth is tilted closer to or further from the sun.
When I thought about that it made me think - if a minor deviation in the earth's tilt can have such a marked effect on the seasons (effectively warming or cooling the climate significantly) then could that be causing climate change?
But the Milankovitch Cycle in itself could not be the cause of climate change because a cycle lasts around 41,000 years. However, it made me realise that if a minor shift in a part of the planet towards the sun can increase the temperature significantly - and a similar shift away from the sun for another part can reduce the temperature significantly then that suggests that the biggest influencer on the climate must be the sun.
This seemed to be backed up the simple fact that the warmest places on earth tend to be the places that are closest to the sun - the tropics. The difference in the distance to the sun between, say, the Tropic of Cancer and Britain is, in terms of the huge distance between the sun and the earth, insignificant - but it was enough for the sun to have a significantly higher warming effect on the Tropic than on Britain.
My thinking was, of course, very unscientific - but it made me wonder if there was more to this "man-made global warming" than was meeting the eye. From that moment on I became sceptical of man-made global warming - sceptical in the true sense of the word in that I decided to look into the subject in more depth and with a more open mind. Instead of believing everything the media was telling me, I started to question everything.
Over the years I have since learned that the sun doesn't generate energy at the same rate all the time, but that it rises in falls in cycles - an indication of which are sunspots. The greater the number of sunspots the more energy the sun gives out. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it is a good indicator of the strength of the sun. And recently we have had the revelation that the suns activity has an effect on cosmic rays which play an important part in cloud formation - and cloud formation plays a hugely important part in climate.
So, over the last ten years I have gone from being a believer in anthropogenic global warming to a confirmed sceptic. When I believed in it it was because I derived almost all my information on the subject from "approved" sources - the media. But thanks to the Internet I was able to find out things that made me think and, by applying what I like to think of as common sense coupled to more scientific findings I have reached the position today where I believe that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the belief that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the key driver behind climate change. I don't even believe they are a minor driver anymore - they are utterly insignificant.
My view is that, given current information and predictions on solar activity, we are likely as not to see a significant decrease in that activity in the near future - in the next 10-20 years - which will lay to rest this myth once and for all. If these predictions are correct - and there is no guarantee they will be, after all, they are just predictions - then the earth is about to enter a significant cooling phase that may equal conditions of Dalton Minimum or even the Maunder Minimum - periods when freezing winters were common place in Britain.
I wonder, if this happens as I expect, what will happen then to all those people who have supported and propagated the AGW myth? For instance, the IPCC? If we do enter a cooling phase and if we do see temperatures plummet (without any decrease in CO2 levels - what will the reaction of people be to the IPCC? Or the NGO's like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth? And what about the national governments and politicians? And what will be the response to science?
If, as I expect, it is revealed in the near future that all these groups have been lying to us for years and years then I believe it is entirely possible that we will see a collapse of the current establishment. People just will not trust these groups again - not the UN, not the EU, not the NGO's, not the scientists, not the media (especially the BBC) and not the old political parties - for a very long time.
It could mean anarchy, though I suspect it will just mean a return to sensible politics again - with new parties filling the void. Crucially, though, I believe it will see the end of the liberal left - the principle group behind the propagation of the AGW myth.
I have been told that by pinning my beliefs on the prospect of this coming cooling phase, I have built a straw man for myself. Ignoring that the use of "straw man" in this instance is incorrect and assuming they mean an argument that will easily be refuted if we do not enter a cooling phase, I beg to differ. the "cooling phase" is dependent on the predictions of sun activity being right - they may not be and the sun may continue at its current level for some time.
And even if the suns activities don't make a difference and climate change really is driven by man then what does it matter to me? I'm just a blogger who is swimming against the tide. If I'm proven wrong so what? What have I got to lose other than looking a bit silly?
The real straw man has been built by the AGW supporters - and it is massive. And hiding behind this straw man are the reputations and interests of huge organisations, massive political structures and even science itself. These are the groups and people who really have something at stake and that really is a straw man to be proud of.
I also wonder what lengths they will go to to protect their interests and reputations and preserve their power?
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The tallest tree attracts the whinge
There is something about liberal commentators that means they can not resist the inscrutable sayings of the Chinese - no matter how daft they are. Isabel Hilton falls into the trap in today's Grauniad when she quotes a Chinese minister talking about China becoming the world's biggest polluter.
"A tall tree attracts the wind".
Don't you just love it? Of course, it's a stupid saying because - if we're talking about wind as in air currents caused by thermal fluctuations then tall trees attract no more wind than short trees - they just get caught in the wind a little more. On the other hand, if we're talking about wind as in the verbal flatulence of Guardian commentators then he got it spot on.
As China overtakes the USA as the world's biggest polluter, Hilton suggests we should lead by example to encourage China to fall into line regarding climate change - as if this is likely to have any influence whatsoever. China has hardly rushed to follow our "lead" on things like democracy, human rights, the rule of law and personal liberty. If anything, we're heading more their way than they are ours.
But Hilton seems to think they can be won over this time. Does she seriously believe that China would watch us hamstring our economic future with punitive regulation and high cost to industry and then say "hey, that looks like a good idea. Let's do it!" or would they see it as an opportunity? An opportunity to bring in more investment as manufacturers look for countries with less punitive regulation and lower costs to make their goods in.
The basis of Hilton's argument is the liberal self-loathing - or rather self-righteous loathing of the west and particularly the USA. The USA has been, for some time, the "tallest tree" economically speaking - and the one thing the tallest tree is guaranteed to attract is the axe.
"A tall tree attracts the wind".
Don't you just love it? Of course, it's a stupid saying because - if we're talking about wind as in air currents caused by thermal fluctuations then tall trees attract no more wind than short trees - they just get caught in the wind a little more. On the other hand, if we're talking about wind as in the verbal flatulence of Guardian commentators then he got it spot on.
As China overtakes the USA as the world's biggest polluter, Hilton suggests we should lead by example to encourage China to fall into line regarding climate change - as if this is likely to have any influence whatsoever. China has hardly rushed to follow our "lead" on things like democracy, human rights, the rule of law and personal liberty. If anything, we're heading more their way than they are ours.
But Hilton seems to think they can be won over this time. Does she seriously believe that China would watch us hamstring our economic future with punitive regulation and high cost to industry and then say "hey, that looks like a good idea. Let's do it!" or would they see it as an opportunity? An opportunity to bring in more investment as manufacturers look for countries with less punitive regulation and lower costs to make their goods in.
The basis of Hilton's argument is the liberal self-loathing - or rather self-righteous loathing of the west and particularly the USA. The USA has been, for some time, the "tallest tree" economically speaking - and the one thing the tallest tree is guaranteed to attract is the axe.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
IPCC Lead author admits models are garbage
Kevin Trenberth, one of the lead authors of the recent IPCC report has made some startling revelations.
First of all, he claims that the IPCC makes no predictions - just presents possible scenarios.
In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable.
Then he admits that those predictions are made without giving consideration to other climate factors.
But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.
Not sure what he means by "observed trends" - perhaps he is referring to the fact that methane emissions have flattened out and may even be falling - but it's clear that he means that the IPCC are choosing to omit "many" climate factors. And no estimate of the likelihood of these scenarios coming true, either - not even a "best guess". In other words, it's all just pure speculation.
Next, he admits that their climate models are pretty much useless.
None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past.
So these models - on which we are supposed to gamble our economic future - are so poor they can not even be made to reflect the current climate. And yet we're supposed to believe that they can predict the future?
Finally, he admits that, far from the science being settled it has barely started.
However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate.
So there have it - straight from the horses mouth. The IPCC cannot make even a guess, let alone a "best guess", they deliberately ignore many climate factors, the models are useless and they can not make even a reliable prediction about regional climate - today, tomorrow, in ten years or 100 years time.
But we should all believe it and hamstring our economic future based on this? Russell Grant, eat your heart out.
First of all, he claims that the IPCC makes no predictions - just presents possible scenarios.
In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable.
Then he admits that those predictions are made without giving consideration to other climate factors.
But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.
Not sure what he means by "observed trends" - perhaps he is referring to the fact that methane emissions have flattened out and may even be falling - but it's clear that he means that the IPCC are choosing to omit "many" climate factors. And no estimate of the likelihood of these scenarios coming true, either - not even a "best guess". In other words, it's all just pure speculation.
Next, he admits that their climate models are pretty much useless.
None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past.
So these models - on which we are supposed to gamble our economic future - are so poor they can not even be made to reflect the current climate. And yet we're supposed to believe that they can predict the future?
Finally, he admits that, far from the science being settled it has barely started.
However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate.
So there have it - straight from the horses mouth. The IPCC cannot make even a guess, let alone a "best guess", they deliberately ignore many climate factors, the models are useless and they can not make even a reliable prediction about regional climate - today, tomorrow, in ten years or 100 years time.
But we should all believe it and hamstring our economic future based on this? Russell Grant, eat your heart out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)