Category Archives: Climate Modeling

Eight Questions to kill the Kyoto Climate Protocol in 2012

As Canada becomes the first major nation to cut and run from the UN’s global warming scam a prominent environmentalist now plunges another deadly dagger into the soft underbelly of junk climate science.

Geologist and radio and TV broadcaster Leighton Steward succinctly points to eight crucial unanswered questions to slay the mythical climate dragon. The questions Steward poses should now be thrust to the fore as nations scramble for excuses to pull the plug on the Kyoto Protocol’s life support after the abject failure of the UN’s COP17 talks in Durban.

It’s these eight glaring anomalies in the science that Peter Kent, Canada’s environment minister, can add to those 14 billion other reasons (those dollars saved in unpaid UN penalties) why his nation was right to bail out of the biggest scam in history.

Canada, the new climate realist at the party, joins Japan and Russia in steadfastly refusing any new Kyoto-style climate commitments. The CO2-limiting treaty, signed by various world governments in 1997 expires in December 2012 with little if any prospect of a replacement in sight before 2020. But joy of joys, Kyoto is increasingly exposed for being premised on the discredited hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would precipitate runaway global warming.

Inconvenient Questions Routinely Dodged by Alarmist Advocates

In his analysis ‘The climate-change con artists’ for WorldNetDaily (December 9, 2011) Steward lists his eight straightforward key questions that climate science dodged for decades and which must be addressed before cash-strapped governments ever again vote to fatten UN coffers:

  1. Why can’t warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?
  2. Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?
  3. Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?
  4. Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?
  5. Why did many of Earth’s major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man’s CO2 emissions?
  6. Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earth’s CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?
  7. Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?
  8. Why are correlations of Earth’s temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth’s temperature with CO2 levels?

Why are such inconvenient yet crucial questions still left unanswered? What turns mere incompetence into wilful fraud is that these ‘researchers’ were also intentionally ignoring all evidence that disproved their hypothesis.

Governments and voters may now fairly infer that for the last 30 years a clique of government climate scientists in English-speaking nations deliberately wasted millions toying with unfeasible toy models hoping (but failing) to concoct a causal link between carbon and climate.

Two Degrees Celsius Drop in Temperatures ‘Plucked out of Thin Air’

The evidence for fraud gets more compelling when we add to the mix the leaked Climategate 2.0 emails of November 2011. Our conscientious friendly whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, England (UEA) shows us that government climatologists secretly concede the science to back Kyoto is paper-thin.

A main requirement is that the treaty demands a two degree Celsius drop in global temperatures. But top UEA climate scientist, Professor Jones, admits that no scientific basis was ever established for the “2 degrees Celsius” benchmark. Jones admits:

The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means…. I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air.”

[Phil Jones email to C. Kremer; Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:40 PM]

Thus opinion trumps hard evidence in the topsy-turvy world of climate science as further substantiated by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). Buried deep in the 2007 IPCC Report is the disturbing fact that climatologists admit to “low” or “very low” understanding of 13 of the 15 factors that drive climate. [1.]

No wonder Professor Jones chose to break the law and refuse to honor Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests from independent researchers. There was so little evidence to back all those doomsaying climate claims and Jones didn’t want to be caught giving policymakers mere opinions (dressed as ‘fact’). He and his co-conspirators needed to keep milking that research cash cow. All the while, gleeful that their scientists were giving them ammunition to concoct apocalyptic scenarios to scare the public into paying ever higher taxes, the politicians went along with the scam. Just follow the money, as they say.

As Icecap reports, Penn State University, a hub of climate alarm, alone acquired $470,000,000 in federal grants and contracts between 2010 and 2011. After the Sandusky child sex scandal the world now sees just how Penn State values profit over principle.

The US government alone spent over $106 billion on climate research money between 2003 and 2010. Such munificence can buy a lot of ‘consensus’ in university laboratories. Opinionated and ill-informed faux climate science was thus used to justify a $100-billion-a-year “climate change reparation and mitigation” fund for poor nations.

That hotchpotch treaty, designed to severely restrict human emissions of an essential life-giving gas (CO2), offered nothing for the planet while impoverishing humanity by crippling industrial development.

Canada Saves Taxpayer Billions in Moment of Climate Realism

In short, Kyoto was never about climate change but more probably a nefarious UN vehicle for global population control and wealth redistribution – a veritable gravy train for corrupt and opinionated ideologues. No wonder Peter Kent, Canada’s environment minister, denounced Kyoto as one of Canada’s “biggest” policy errors. At the earliest opportunity (Monday 12, December 2011) the Canadian government sensibly invoked its legal rights and withdrew from the Kyoto agreement.

By bailing out of the UN’s climate Ponzi scheme Canada will now save itself having to pay $US14 billion ($A13.94 billion) in needless penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets. Mike Hudema of Greenpeace Canada reacted to the news with the expected doomsayer hyperbole: “The Harper government has imposed a death sentence on many of the world’s most vulnerable populations by pulling out of Kyoto.”

Yet Canada’s environment minister aptly summed up the lunacy of the extreme cost of climate legislation, as it would be:

“the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada.”

Thus by consideration of the aforesaid paucity of hard evidence and Leighton Steward’s Eight Unanswered Questions the Kyoto Protocol deserves to be tossed into the trash can of history. Rest assured, Canada will be just the first of a glut of nations abandoning pointless and moribund UN ‘emissions targets’ that do more harm than good.

Taxpayers have a right to demand this secretive, corrupt and wasteful culture in government science be swept away. It urgently needs replacing with a new era of principled, open and objective science.

[1.] IPCC: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis; 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing.

John O’Sullivan is a science writer and legal analyst, coordinator of the ‘Slayers’ and founder member of Principia Scientific International (PSI).

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, Climategate 2, Climategate 2.0, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, John O'Sullivan, Politics, Science, Slaying the Sky Dragon

Tokelau isn’t Tanking

With COP17 CON17 going on, the shrillness of those who want to make big bucks off the global warming scam is increasing exponentially.

Today we have the Honorable Foua Toloa, head of Government of Tokelau in the Pacific, who believes the island’s 1,400 inhabitants are at grave risk from climate change lack of money. Of course him, and others in charge of low-lying (emphasis on lying) islands worldwide are hoping to cash in on the global warming gravy-train.

You can look at the graph below showing the south Pacific sea-levels at Tuvalu, which is adjacent to Tokelau, and see just how much that sea-level is rising (not).

You can also look at the below graph of the south Pacific. While, yes there is an overall uptrend of 2.73 millimeters per year, note the downtrend that is starting in 2010. Also note that 2.73 millimeters = 0.107480315 inches. Or, a whopping 10th of an inch a year.

Tokelau is 5 meters above sea-level. 5 meters = 16.4041995 feet. Divide 16.4 feet (196.850394 inches) by 0.107480315 inches per year sea-level rise and we find it will take a mere 1,831.5 years for Tokelau to be completely submerged.

You have to ask yourself what all the rush is about? Being submerged in 1,832.5 years? Or, helping the United Nations clown circus by BS’ing everyone in order to get hundreds of billions of dollars sucked from productive countries via phony carbon trading scams and carbon taxes?

You can read more about the low lying that is going on from Andrew Bolt here.

Source: The Daily Mail

Comments Off on Tokelau isn’t Tanking

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Politics, Science, Sea-Level

More Flaws with IPCC 2007 Climate Report AR4

IPCC method

It looks like more of those chickens are coming hope to root upon the roost of the United Nations building. Written by real scientists? Real climate experts? Ummm….OK, if you say so. But read this first.

A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change — which sets the world’s agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate — claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. “We’ve been told for the past two decades that ‘the Climate Bible’ was written by the world’s foremost experts,” Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise told FoxNews.com. “But the fact is, you are just not qualified without a doctorate. In academia you aren’t even on the radar at that point.”

Amazing isn’t it? Not only is it amazing that the report appears to be even worse than initially thought, it’s even more amazing that the whole planet is supposed to change our evil CO2 ways because of this report, claimed as written by experts.  So who were some of these so-called “experts?”

  •  One lead author of the 2001 edition was a trainee at the Munich Reinsurance Company in 2000 and lacked a master’s degree while  on the panel. He did not earn a Ph.D. until ten years later.
  • Another lead author in 1994 earned his master’s only two years earlier and had his first academic paper published in 1995.
  • An Australian academic was an assistant author in 2001 and a lead author in 2007 — despite not earning her Ph.D. until 2009.
  • Dutch geography professor Richard Klein has been a lead author for six IPCC reports and in 1997 became a coordinating lead   author. He was promoted to the panel’s most senior role while he was 28 years old — six years prior to completing his PhD.

You can judge for yourself whether the world should spend billions upon billions over this report or if it should be tossed into the trashcan. The book is available at Amazon for less than $5 bucks if you want to read it. Source: Fox News

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, United Nations

‘Hide the Decline’ – Part Deux

The graph that fooled the world

Here we go again. More questionable warmer data released, which only takes a short period of time to be discredited. Yet more unprecedented, irrefutable proof going down the global warming toilet. That this was touted as the “scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all” is laughable.

From the Daily Mail we get this information:

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree  centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually. 

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

Amazing timing these warmers appear to have . The inconvenient truth is conveniently published a mere week prior to the next global warming cabal with key words and phrases such as irrefutable, stringent and save civilization. So, what’s the problem with this irrefutable evidence?

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no  scientific basis.

No scientific basis? My, what a big surprise! (Not!)

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Credibility? Since when do the warmers need credibility? It’s all about smoke & mirrors, obfuscation, BS, and even sometimes blatant lies!

It seems the information was also conveniently released not only before it was ready, but before other parties of the study were even consulted.

But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to  consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.

He also briefed selected  journalists individually. ‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said. ‘I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did.

‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research  had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.

Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review  process.’

It appears to us that this was all conveniently orchestrated to avoid dissent and to ensure the disinformation was released immediately prior to the climate conference in South Africa. Why else would you brief only selected journalists other than to make sure they were journalist who would faithfully put out your disinformation? Why would you bind other participants with confidentiality agreements other than to silence the opposition?

Sounds like more typical CO2 Insanity to us.

Read it all at the Daily Mail and decide for yourself.

3 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, United Nations

Why Computer Models are Crap

Next time you read an article about global warming that states the computer models predicted something remember this article, which offers proof positive that the computer models used by so-called scientists to predicts unprecedented global warming are crap.

From Scientific American we get this:

When it comes to assigning blame for the current economic doldrums, the quants who build the complicated mathematic financial risk models, and the traders who rely on them, deserve their share of the blame. [See“A Formula For Economic Calamity” in the November 2011 issue]. But what if there were a way to come up with simpler models that perfectly reflected reality? And what if we had perfect financial data to plug into them?

Incredibly, even under those utterly unrealizable conditions, we’d still get bad predictions from models.

That’s right, even a computer model that is “perfect” isn’t worth the electricity used to run it. The problem is calibration. In a nutshell, take a “perfect” model and tweak it any and it is no longer going to predict anything correctly.

The problem, of course, is that while these different versions of the model might all match the historical data, they would in general generate different predictions going forward–and sure enough, his calibrated model produced terrible predictions compared to the “reality” originally generated by the perfect model. Calibration–a standard procedure used by all modelers in all fields, including finance–had rendered a perfect model seriously flawed. Though taken aback, he continued his study, and found that having even tiny flaws in the model or the historical data made the situation far worse. “As far as I can tell, you’d have exactly the same situation with any model that has to be calibrated,” says Carter.

Calibration, tweaking, adjusting, cheating, lying, stealing, or whatever you want to call it, produces crap. Crap financial models or crap climate models, it’s all the same crap.

Note, to reiterate. it doesn’t matter if it agreed with past data, a process called hindcasting, which is a big line you hear from climate modelers, it still comes up with crap predictions! Getting one to agree with the weather in 1900 means nothing according to this article.

The next time you read some horrific article about how global warming is going to make the sea-level rise, cause droughts, floods, and just about anything else you can name including 3-eyed cows and cooties, remember that the climate model used to predict it is crap. Perhaps it was even tweaked to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.

Proof? The computer models used to predict tomorrow’s weather aren’t even right all the time.  So, how can they predict what’s going to happen 20-30-100 years in the future?

Read more details about this at Scientific American.

3 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, NASA, NOAA

Global Warming to Hit NYC in October

Here it comes: The October snow is expected to start late Saturday afternoon and may carry on through the night

Look warmers! It's gonna snow!

Yes, that global warming stuff is certainly hot. On today’s news we can note it’s already snowing in Massachusetts. Colorado had an early snowstorm and Boreal Mountain Resort near Lake Tahoe, California/Nevada, will open up a ski run today.

We now see that New York City will hit by the earliest snow storm since the Civil War. The Civil War ended in 1865. So that’s about 146 years since it’s snowed this early in NYC.

Moreover, it’s predicted that up to a foot of snow could  fall in the region. No doubt many warmer websites will completely ignore this, or blame all that cold air on global warming, which as we all know, is a bunch of hot air.

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Weather

Solar Panel Propaganda

Solar panels, touted by many to be a renewable energy panacea that will rid the planet of all those nasty coal-fired power plants, may be a bigger boondoggle than we already thought. We’ve already complained that they do not appear in many instances to provide a return in investment.

It now appears that the time they provide energy before replacement is required is dramatically less than claimed. Thus shortening not only the life of the panels and the electricity generated, but also reducing the return on investment.

If you listen to the mostly-Chinese manufacturers, solar panels work great. They can be expected to degrade about 0.5% a year. So that is how we build the economic models to finance, insure and subsidize the larger solar systems.

In the real world, we are just starting to find out how bogus many of those predictions are. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory says that panels can degrade as much as 4.5% a year. Or more. Put that in your pro forma and see what your banker and insurance agent — or Congressman — say about that.

While we see claims that average solar panels will last 25 to 30 years, the aforementioned claim of 0.5% per year means that solar panels should last an astounding 200 years (100% ÷ 0.5%). At the realistic rate of 4.5% per year they will only last about 22 years before replacement is needed (100% ÷ 4.5%), which is not even the 25 to 30 currently claimed by many and not even remotely close to 200 years.

It gets worse folks. They don’t only degrade, it appears they also can literally fall apart and it doesn’t take very long.

In Italy last year, “they discovered that after one year in the field, over 90% of the (solar panels) from a one megawatt project began to delaminate and ended up on the ground.”

That is a lot of wasted money. 90% down the tubes after being used for only one year. No return on investment and very little ‘free’ electricity generated. All that is left is an eyesore that is a pile of toxic waste, wasted tax dollars and perhaps a tax deduction for a business loss.

We are adverse to the lies about what renewable energy costs and what it’s capabilities are. We’re also adverse to the physical and financial messes left when solar and wind-power are abandoned. We’re extremely adverse to the rush to install solar and wind-power without having full knowledge about the effects. Look at the carnage left in the previous two links to see what we’re talking about.

California seems to be leading the rush off the proverbial cliff via the implementation of AB32, California’s cap & trade law, that mandates power providers to generate 33% of their power from renewable (green) sources by a not too distant 2020.

With many large solar projects planned in California, it would seem to be a logical move to slow down and find out what our money is being spent on and what the return on investment will be as opposed to rushing in head first, only to find another government mandated, costly boondoggle. To know what happens to government mandated boondoggles one only has to look at the Solyndra and Evergreen Solar fiascos.

You can safely bet that when these solar energy plants fall apart at the seams, the taxpayers and energy consumers of California and other states will get stuck paying for the bill. It’s probably also a safe bet that the messes left at abandoned solar and wind farms will be there for decades as a reminder of what happens when the government gets involved in what should be private enterprise.

Source: AOL Energy

3 Comments

Filed under AB32 California, California Air Resources Board, California Green Jobs, Cap & Trade, CARB, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Energy, Global Warming, Government, Green Energy, Green Tech, Politics, pollution, Renewable Energy, Solar, Solargate, Solyndra, Wind Power