Fair Use Note

WARNING for European visitors: European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent. As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies. You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.

Thomas Paine

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

Friday, June 8, 2012

8 June - Chasing the Weather Whirlwind

SkepticsSkeptics (Photo credit: Newtown grafitti)
ReflectionsReflections (Photo credit: kevin dooley)
English: Graphic illustrating the percentages ...English: Graphic illustrating the percentages of public opinions on the likelihood of some scientists falsifying global warming research. Based on Rasmussen polling of 1,000 American adults conducted July 29-30, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Drinking water at BackDrinking water at Back (Photo credit: Nirmal Adhikari)
no correlationno correlation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Sources of stratospheric chlorine. According t...Sources of stratospheric chlorine. According to World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 44, Geneva, 1998. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
14th March 2011 (Day 283) - How Does Order Arise?14th March 2011 (Day 283) - How Does Order Arise? (Photo credit: helenogbourn)
Web 2.0 SummitWeb 2.0 Summit (Photo credit: Kevin Krejci)

Calling the Prince of Darkness, Calling Beelzebub

( You have to love Harper fans. They are so astute. )

Climate Disasters

  1. Climate Skeptic Chemist Dr. Art Robinson: 'I don't believe in doing scientific research with government money'
  2. New peer reviewed study: Good food, walking and cycling keep climate change away
  3. Warmists claim 'North Carolina Considers Making Sea Level Rise Illegal' -- But reality is on side of skeptics
  4. Forbes Mag. says human sacrifice affects climate! 'Climate change is happening, it's a problem & we ought to do something about it. What we ought to do about it is is impose carbon tax'
  5. Asian Air Pollution Warms U.S More than Our GHG Emissions (More futility for U.S. EPA)
  6. Fred Pearce: On Safe Drinking Water, Skepticism Over UN Claims: UN claims 'world had reduced by half the proportion of people drinking unsafe water'
  7. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi on claim that 'US is warmest year on record' -- 'Globe is cooling'
  8. UNEP Warns of New 'Tipping Points' Being Reached -- '20-30 years into future...far enough away that it can be forgotten when date approaches & Armageddon hasn't yet arrived on schedule'
  9. UN's Rio Earth Summit 'will be a farce': UN process 'has proved utterly unsustainable, a dysfunctional mess that generates nothing but endless meetings, agendas and reports'
  10. Gleick Review Won't Be Made Public, Pacific Institute Says: 'The UK Guardian's headline gives the distinct impression Gleick was cleared of forgery by the Pacific Inst. But he wasn't
  11. Heartland Inst. Responds to Pacific Inst.'s Reinstatement of Gleick – cites Federal criminal prosecution
  12. Ahead of Rio summit, U.N. report embraces 'boundaries': 'Planetary boundaries has been seen as a successor to global warming, climate change or biodiversity as a top-level message'
  13. A Skeptic's Treasure Trove of Peer Reviewed Science That Challenges The AGW Climate Change 'Consensus'
  14. Warming nears point of no return, scientists say: 'The Earth is reaching a 'tipping point' in climate change that will lead to increasingly rapid and irreversible destruction'
  15. Politico cites Climate Depot's Morano on Gleick: 'It appears the Pacific Institute recognizes no consequences for clearly unethical behavior'

It Has Been Foretold

The World Meteorological Organization has issued he following statement:

Several regions of the world are currently coping with severe weather-related events: flash floods and widespread flooding in large parts of Asia and parts of Central Europe while other regions are also affected: by heatwave and drought in Russian Federation, mudslides in China and severe droughts in sub-Saharan Africa. While a longer time range is required to establish whether an individual event is attributable to climate change, the sequence of current events matches IPCC projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming.
Even though the IPCC report can be parsed in many ways, I await the textual exegesis that supports the claim that the "sequence of current events matches IPCC predictions."  This will be difficult given that the IPCC didn't even make projections for 2010.  I welcome in the comments efforts to justify the claim by the WMO.

I am coming to the conclusion that there is something about the climate issue that makes people -- especially but not limited to academics and scientists -- completely and utterly lose their senses.  The WMO statement is (yet) another example of scientifically unsupportable nonsense in the climate debate. 
Because various unsupportable and just wrong claims are being advanced by leading scientists and scientific organizations, it would be easy to get the impression that on the issues of extreme events and climate change, IPCC science has a status similar to interpretations of Nostradamus and the Mayan calenders. 

4. Fred said...
All my ex post facto forecasts are 100% accurate.
eric144 said...
In my opinion, what is happening is that a very large number of people are being told to lie. As they are salaried employees, they really don't have much of a choice. Scientists, journalists and many others are doing it. * Let me be honest and say if I was a climate 'scientist', I would keep my head down and my mouth shut, unless I was directly told to do something unethical. This is a gigantic criminal enterprise coming from the very top of global politics (Soros, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase etc.). It's why the sceptics are almost all toward the end of their careers or retired. There are obviously zealots like the RC squad. They are lying because they think are one of the good guys. It's a culture thing. Dope, music, liberalism, music etc. Steve Jobs made a fortune extracting money from suckers like these. Everything is a commodity in 2010. *I took redundancy rather than do a whole lot of unethical things. Mine and friends' recent experiences of a top UK university were pretty awful. The staff were extremely unhappy and all over the place.

dagfinn said...
In the hypothetical parallel universe which many climate activists believe they inhabit, unlimited money for climate mitigation seems to be available (ignoring obvious political realities). And, for even more extravagant wishful thinking, the allocation of resources to climate policy does not compete with anything else that's actually worthwhile. It can somehow be taken exclusively from luxury spending. In the real world, of course, public spending on climate is most likely to compete with public spending on other environmental problems.

Frontiers of Faith and Science said...
If Russian peat bogs and NW India/Pakistan never suffered from fire/flood, the claim this is caused by CO2 could have some credibility. But peatbogs have been burning since there have been peatbogs, and Pakistan/India have been flooding since there have been river basins in the area. I fail to see that these historically typical events can blamed on the social obsession of CO2. Now if people were going to talk about how diverting water from peatbogs lets them dry out more, and how over development and poor development near a river increases flood risks, then we could discuss something. But to blame CO2 at ~350ppm for these fires and floods only makes the one doing the blaming look ignorant, and the person believing the CO2 story look naive.
Roger Pielke, Jr. said...
Anyone who wants to listen to my "debate" with Bob Ward earlier this year about climate change and disasters can find it here: http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&id=1000
eric144 said...
Bob Ward Does it concern you that the man who funds your employer, The Grantham Institute for Climate Change, $ 100 billion plus dollar hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham wrote this in his recent newsletter ? "Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me. In a fast-moving fi eld rife with treacherous politics, there will be many failures. Marketing a “climate” fund would be much easier than outperforming with it." http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_SummerEssays_2Q10.pdf Do you see that as a conflict of interest ? Similarly with the massive involvement of the finance industry in funding and running the $100 million a year lobby group The Environmental Defense Fund. http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=365 Tony Blair is also earning literally millions a year promoting global warming for JP Morgan Chase, Zurich insurance and others. George Soros, one of the most successful hedge fund managers in the world is on the UN climate finance group along with Larry Summers (Citigroup) and your hedge fund sponsored colleague Lord Stern. Perhaps they all lie awake at night wondering how many hurricanes and floods there will be in 100 years ?
Frontiers of Faith and Science said...
@Bob Ward, Every time you AGW promoters try to demean a skeptic, all you do is make yourselves look more and more shallow and reactionary. You still have answered in any meaningful way why floods in a flood prone region, and fires in a fire prone region are caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. By the way, a certain amount of the weather causing rain in Pakistan is going to become snow pack in the Himalayas. think about that a bit. Do you have any idea how AGW promoters looked after blaming the Australian fires on CO2, only to find out that bad land and forestry management was the real cause?
. jgdes said...
Well I had a feeling that there actually was a real scientific explanation somewhere and I learn from New Scientist that it is "unusual holding patterns in the jet stream". http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727730.101-frozen-jet-stream-links-pakistan-floods-russian-fires.html Abnormal jet stream behaviour was responsible for the incredibly cold Northern Winter too of course. Nice to see some real science. The challenge for scientists then is to prove what affects the jet stream. May it perhaps be the current solar minimum as Nes Scientist suggests? "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century" says David Hathaway of NASA. Didn't Lockwood link the solar minimum to the cold Winter in Europe? Hasn't Elsner now linked the solar cycle to hurricanes? Apparently water management was also partly to blame in Pakistan and forest management was also partly to blame in Russia. In any event saying that an extra (disputable) 4% of water vapour in the atmosphere affects the Jet Stream is scientifically untenable to the point of putting the cart before the horse. And of course the models cannot predict anything about the Jet Stream so any argument that they predicted this is totally without foundation. Ergo no need for more pointless ifs and maybes about CO2. The Science says it's almost certainly blameless.
Roger Pielke, Jr. said...
-62-Bob Ward Please bring those sort of arguments to our next debate ;-) I'll remind you of these wise words: "[I]t is difficult to tell to what extent, if any, climate change has also already affected past disaster losses around the world. Extreme weather events are rare, so identifying small trends is difficult when losses vary so much from year to year, creating a lot of "noise" in the dataset, and many competing factors contribute to the overall pattern." Bob Ward, 26 January 2010 The Guardian Well said!!
65. eric144 said...
Bob Ward is right. They got 97% of the scientists and all the journalists, all of the corporations and all of the governments. They've got the doctors. Climate change 'will increase heart deaths' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10917611 They got the linguists now Linguist on mission to save Inuit 'fossil language' disappearing with the ice. Cambridge researcher will live in Arctic and document Inughuit culture and language threatened by climate change. Struck dumb by global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Earth_concert,_London We got loony Lord Monckton, mad Mike Morano and silly Sarah Palin. The banks and the oil companies have bought and paid for the whole damned lot. Put down your spreadsheets and put your hands in the air. You are not going to win the science argument. The weather catastrophe argument may be nonsense, but as Ward said, the Guardian and New Scientist are being paid to tell the opposite story. The BBC is doing the same. The seminal Stern report predicting the future economic consequences of global warming was produced while Stern was being paid by Jeremy Grantham, a hedge fund billionaire who predicts the climate will be the biggest investment opportunity of the future. Now he has been set up with his very own little credit rating system to play with. Stern plans credit rating for carbon offset deals http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/15/carbonoffsetprojects.carbonemissions The voters know this is is a scam, they want to know why it is being perpetrated.
eric144 said...
Sorry, wrong link Linguists http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/13/inuit-language-culture-threatened This was the link for the Live Earth concerts. The music industry is a very big deal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Earth_concert,_London
67. drrocket said...
WMO addresses a "sequence of current events" which "matches IPCC projections". IPCC's projection has three principal elements in its sequence of events: 1. Human CO2 emissions will accumulate in the atmosphere, exceeding ocean uptake capability. 2. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 causes global warming in the amount of the "equilibrium climate sensitivity", which is " likely" (> 66% chance) to be between 2ºC to 4.5ºC, and is "very likely" (> 90%) to exceed 1ºC. Technical Summary, ¶TS.6.4.2, Robust Findings, p. 88. And by climate change, IPCC means global warming. See Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change, AR4, SPM, p. 2. 3. Climate change is expected to cause "more frequent and longer-lasting heat waves", "greater risk of draught", "intense precipitation and flooding", and "future tropical cyclones could become more severe, with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation." FAQ 10.1. In FAQ 10.1, IPCC concedes that "changes in some types of extreme events have already been observed." IPCC was not forecasting what was already occurring, the events WMO selected to underscore as evidence of IPCC forecasting accuracy. IPCC was instead making the distinction that climate change would evoke extreme events. Later WMO quotes the lead paragraph of FAQ 10.1 correctly where it says climate change causes extreme events. WMO then finds support for IPCC's global warming model in the fact of the existence of extreme events, lifting the effect out of IPCC's cause and effect hypothesis. WMO makes matters worse by attributing FAQ 10.1 to p. 122 of IPCC's Technical Summary of AR4. The Technical Summary ends at page 91, and cites FAQs without reprinting them. Where FAQ 10.1 is found on page 122 is in IPCC's companion report to AR4, "Frequently Asked Questions". There IPCC cautions that it was "not approved in detail", and requests, "When referencing specific FAQs, please reference the corresponding chapter in the report from whence the FAQ originated." WMO did not cite to chapter 10. Where the TS provided the equilibrium climate sensitivity (#2 above), it cited chapter 10, ¶10.2. On that same page, the TS provides just one Key Uncertainty: "Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change." Indeed! IPCC's model for global warming requires ACO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere, but not natural CO2 (#1, above). And it calculates an equilibrium climate sensitivity with a static (parameterized) model for clouds. IPCC ignores the short term dynamic connection of cloud cover and hence cloud albedo to solar radiation, a positive feedback to solar radiation. And simultaneously it ignores the long term dynamic response of cloud cover and albedo to specific humidity, a negative feedback to global warming. IPCC's first element is not just false, but preposterous. It rests on the assumption that natural climate processes are in balance, an assumption contradicted by its own paleo record. See "The Acquittal of CO2" at rocketscientistsjournal.com. IPCC's second element is false due to an abundance of modeling errors and faux human fingerprints. See, id., "IPCC's Fatal Errors" and "The Sun". The third element is the only part of the sequence IPCC got right, but WMO managed to bungle that in a mistaken or misguided effort to validate IPCC's model. The WMO statement is a case study of a leading scientific organization, if not losing its senses, perhaps of having never acquired the requisite acumen to read and cite with precision. Either that or it is complicit in a fraud.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment