Republicans kill global warming committee
Republicans kill House global warming committee.
Republicans kill House global warming committee.
Tag: climate
Republicans kill global warming committee
University of Virginia resists releasing climate documents
Another whitewash? The University of Virginia is resisting releasing a variety of climate documents being requested under the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Key quote:
In response to a previous FOIA request, U.Va. denied these records existed. However, during Cuccinelli’s pre-investigation under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (“FATA”), a 2007 law passed unanimously by Virginia’s legislature, which clearly covers the work of taxpayer-funded academics, U.Va. stunningly dropped this stance.
Another whitewash? The University of Virginia is resisting releasing a variety of climate documents being requested under the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Key quote:
In response to a previous FOIA request, U.Va. denied these records existed. However, during Cuccinelli’s pre-investigation under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (“FATA”), a 2007 law passed unanimously by Virginia’s legislature, which clearly covers the work of taxpayer-funded academics, U.Va. stunningly dropped this stance.
Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts
A plunge in solar activity in December
The monthly update of the Sun’s developing sunspot cycle was published tonight by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. You can see the newest graph below, which shows the slow rise in sunspots (blue/black lines) in comparison with the consensis prediction made by the solar science community in May 2009 (red line).
Not only does the Sun’s generally quiet trend continue, its activity took an additional plunge in December, dropping significantly from the previous month. This drop is probably due to the seven days of no sunspots that took place in mid-December.
All in all, we continue to head for the weakest maximum in two hundred years (see the graph on this page), which in the past meant very cold weather. Though scientists do not yet understand why the Sun does this or how these changes in solar activity influence the climate as much as they do, that this in now happening at a time when we have the technology to truly study it is an opportunity that must not be missed.
Naked bodies and a new Messiah
If anyone had any doubt that the global warming movement is undergoing a serious collapse, this so-called news article from Spiegal Online, entitled “Naked bodies and a new Messiah: Green groups are trying to sex up climate change,” probably lays that doubt to rest. Key quote:
Environmentalists and scientists are concerned about the massive drop in public interest in the topic over the last year. Now they are looking for new strategies to turn the tide. They’re searching for so-called “mind bombs” — highly emotional images that reduce a complex problem down to one core message.
Sadly, the article never asks the fundamental question: What do “mind bombs” have to do with facts, data, and proving your theories are correct in the real world?
The answer of course is obvious: Nothing.
» Read more
Why Most Published Research Findings are False
Why most published research findings are false. And written by a published but skeptical climate scientist. Key quote:
In global warming research, there is a popular misconception that oil industry-funded climate research actually exists, and has skewed the science. I can’t think of a single scientific study that has been funded by an oil or coal company.
But what DOES exist is a large organization that has a virtual monopoly on global warming research in the U.S., and that has a vested interest in [anthropogenic global warming] theory being true: the U.S. Government. The idea that government-funded climate research is unbiased is laughable. The push for ever increasing levels of government regulation and legislation, the desire of government managers to grow their programs, the dependence of congressional funding of a problem on the existence of a “problem” to begin with, and the U.N.’s desire to find reasons to move toward global governance, all lead to inherent bias in climate research.
Why most published research findings are false. And written by a published but skeptical climate scientist. Key quote:
In global warming research, there is a popular misconception that oil industry-funded climate research actually exists, and has skewed the science. I can’t think of a single scientific study that has been funded by an oil or coal company.
But what DOES exist is a large organization that has a virtual monopoly on global warming research in the U.S., and that has a vested interest in [anthropogenic global warming] theory being true: the U.S. Government. The idea that government-funded climate research is unbiased is laughable. The push for ever increasing levels of government regulation and legislation, the desire of government managers to grow their programs, the dependence of congressional funding of a problem on the existence of a “problem” to begin with, and the U.N.’s desire to find reasons to move toward global governance, all lead to inherent bias in climate research.
The 97% “Consensus” is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists
The 97% “Consensus” is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists. Key quote:
Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW [anthropogenic global warming]. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it.
The 97% “Consensus” is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists. Key quote:
Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW [anthropogenic global warming]. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it.
This winter is the Stalingrad in the ‘Climate War’
This winter is the Stalingrad in the ‘Climate War’.
This winter is the Stalingrad in the ‘Climate War’.
Appeals court blocks EPA’s Texas takeover
Laws matter: The federal appeals court in Washington, DC, today blocked EPA’s takeover of Texas carbon-emmission regulation.
Laws matter: The federal appeals court in Washington, DC, today blocked EPA’s takeover of Texas carbon-emmission regulation.
Heading towards a Maunder Minimum
Though I have been saying that the Sun’s lack of sunspots the last two years suggests the possibility of that we might be facing an extended period without solar activity, I am not a solar scientist. Today, in a paper published today on the Los Alamos astro-ph website, a solar scientist says just that. Key quote:
One method that has yielded predictions consistently in the right range during the past few solar cycles is that of K. Schatten et al., whose approach is mainly based on the polar field precursor. The incipient cycle 24 [on-going right now] will probably mark the end of the Modern Maximum, with the Sun switching to a state of less strong activity.
Though I have been saying that the Sun’s lack of sunspots the last two years suggests the possibility of that we might be facing an extended period without solar activity, I am not a solar scientist. Today, in a paper published today on the Los Alamos astro-ph website, a solar scientist says just that. Key quote:
One method that has yielded predictions consistently in the right range during the past few solar cycles is that of K. Schatten et al., whose approach is mainly based on the polar field precursor. The incipient cycle 24 [on-going right now] will probably mark the end of the Modern Maximum, with the Sun switching to a state of less strong activity.
The sun found to vary in unexpected ways
Recent monitoring of the Sun’s brightness as it went from maximum to minimum in its solar cycle has found that, surprisingly, the changes in brightness across different wavelengths do not necessarily vary in lockstep. Key quote:
SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall. The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.
The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate. [emphasis mine]
Recent monitoring of the Sun’s brightness as it went from maximum to minimum in its solar cycle has found that, surprisingly, the changes in brightness across different wavelengths do not necessarily vary in lockstep. Key quote:
SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall. The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.
The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth’s lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate. [emphasis mine]
Avoiding the facts in the climate debate
Yesterday the New York Times published a long article by Justin Gillis describing the work of Charles Keeling, the scientist who first measured the increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. The article is very much worth reading, as it does a generally reasonable and detailed job of giving the history, background, and importance of Keeling’s research.
Unfortunately, the flaws of Gillis’s article illustrate the difficulty of debating climate change science, or maybe any political issue, in our times. Though Gillis does make an effort to give the skeptical scientists their fair due, he is so convinced they are wrong that his article in the end fails to address the basic areas of disagreement on which the entire climate debate today hinges. In fact, by avoiding some of the debate’s most basic issues, Gillis ends up creating barriers which make an honest analysis of the issues impossible.
That this seems to happen in almost all political debates today is distressing, at the least. How can we honestly face our problems if we refuse to face all the facts on which those problems hang?
Let’s consider the specific areas where Gillis’s demonstrates a large blind spot:
1. One of the fundamental facts that throws a wrench in all global warming theories is the fact, recognized by all climate scientists, that in all past global warming events, the Earth’s climate warmed before the levels of carbon dioxide rose. In other words, an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere did not cause global warming. Instead, the warming encouraged the increase in carbon dioxide.
An honest appraisal of the science of climate change would always recognize this puzzling but very significant data point. Gillis, however, fails to mention it. Nor is Gillis alone in this failure. Almost all global warming advocates as well as their willing helpers in the press routinely ignore this important detail. Yet, that climate scientists can’t explain this fact is one of primary reasons many are skeptical of the disaster scenarios put forth by global warming advocates.
As I say, an honest discussion of this subject would always recognize this point.
2. As his primary evidence that the Earth is now warming from the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Gillis has this to say:
In 2007, a body appointed by the United Nations declared that the scientific evidence that the earth was warming had become unequivocal, and it added that humans were almost certainly the main cause. Mr. Gore and the panel jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This “body” is of course the IPCC. That Gillis is strangely reluctant to actually name this organization in his article suggests he knows its reputation is seriously damaged. Rather than face this fact and deal with it, however, he prefers to ignore it, and in the process help his readers avoid this fact as well.
Yet, the IPCC reports have known problems. They contain some fundamental factual errors, as well as citing as evidence numerous press releases from environmental advocacy groups, hardly a reliable source of information. This is not to say that the IPCC reports should be dismissed wholesale, but for Gillis to depend on them as his sole source of proof of global warming without recognizing these problems is not only inappropriate, it discredits everything he writes. It also suggests that he relies more on the prestige of the organization who issued the report, rather than the science behind it. His further reference to Al Gore and the Nobel prize is further evidence of this reliance on authority.
Once again, an honest appraisal of the present state of the global warming debate would gladly face all these facts, and describe them for the reader.
3. Gillis makes the unfortunate decision to call anyone who questions the science of global warming a “contrarian.” The use of this denigrating term, comparable to the use of the term “denier”, suggests that Gillis has a closed mind about the subject, and has no interest in finding out anything about the skeptical view.
An honest appraisal of the debate, however, would avoid these kinds of loaded terms. It is perfectly fine to note the weaknesses of the skeptical position. It is not acceptable to use ad hominem attacks to discredit them.
All in all, the three examples above encompass all of the basic problems we face in almost all our political debates today:
- First, the refusal to face some inconvenient facts.
- Second, the willingness to rely on authority or prestige, rather than the facts themselves.
- And third, the willingness to use ad hominem attacks to discredit anyone who disagrees with you.
Until we stop doing these foolish things, we will find it impossible to discuss or solve our problems reasonably, and with good will.
There’s a mini ice age coming, says man who beats weather experts
There’s a mini ice age coming, says a man whose predictions the last few winters have been better than the British weather service.
There’s a mini ice age coming, says a man whose predictions the last few winters have been better than the British weather service.
Automakers suing EPA over higher ethanol mix gas
Good intentions strikes again! Automakers are suing the EPA over its decision to allow a higher ethanol mixture in gasoline. Key quote:
Automakers say they are worried the EPA decision would eventually lead to motorists unknowingly filling up their older cars and trucks with E15 and hurting their engines. The problem could be exacerbated if E15 fuels are cheaper than more conventional blends, prompting owners of older vehicles to use the fuel despite the potential engine problems.
Good intentions strikes again! Automakers are suing the EPA over its decision to allow a higher ethanol mixture in gasoline. Key quote:
Automakers say they are worried the EPA decision would eventually lead to motorists unknowingly filling up their older cars and trucks with E15 and hurting their engines. The problem could be exacerbated if E15 fuels are cheaper than more conventional blends, prompting owners of older vehicles to use the fuel despite the potential engine problems.
A Dalton Minimum Repeat is Shaping Up
Apropos my post yesterday on the sunspot cycle: A Dalton Minimum repeat is shaping up.
Apropos my post yesterday on the sunspot cycle: A Dalton Minimum repeat is shaping up.
Electricity from wind plant so expensive no one will buy it
The electricity produced from a proposed wind plant will be so expensive the company can’t find customers. They do have one customer, however, but one wonders why:
In its 15-year deal, National Grid agreed to pay 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour for Cape Wind power beginning in 2013, with a 3.5 percent annual increase. The starting price is twice what National Grid pays today for power from fossil fuels, and regulators say the contract will add about 1.7 percent to its residential customers’ bills.
Read the whole article. It explains a lot about the failures of renewable energy, and how the efforts of the government and environmentalists to force it on us is misguided and downright foolish.
The electricity produced from a proposed wind plant will be so expensive the company can’t find customers. They do have one customer, however, but one wonders why:
In its 15-year deal, National Grid agreed to pay 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour for Cape Wind power beginning in 2013, with a 3.5 percent annual increase. The starting price is twice what National Grid pays today for power from fossil fuels, and regulators say the contract will add about 1.7 percent to its residential customers’ bills.
Read the whole article. It explains a lot about the failures of renewable energy, and how the efforts of the government and environmentalists to force it on us is misguided and downright foolish.
Radar data from the European satellite has been used to make a map of ocean circulation across the Arctic basin.
Radar data from the European satellite, Cryosat-2, has been used to map the ocean circulation across the Arctic basin.
Radar data from the European satellite, Cryosat-2, has been used to map the ocean circulation across the Arctic basin.
The Sun is blank
For the first time since October 10, and only the third time since August, the Earth-facing side of the Sun is blank, showing no sunspots. All told, 2010 has only been blank 13% of the time, for a total of 46 blank days, with only 12 days left in the year. These numbers contrast sharply with 2009, when the Sun was blank 71% of the time, or 260 out of 365 days.
It is very clear that the solar minimum is now over, and that the Sun ramping up to its next maximum. Blank days should soon cease (today might very well be the last for years), and the number of sunspots should continue to increase through approximately 2013, when astronomers now expect the maximum to peak.
It will be a weak maximum, however, likely accompanied with cold weather. At least, this has been the pattern for the last ten centuries, based on the best data that scientists have. When the Sun produces sunspots, the Sun gets hotter, and though that increase in radiation appears slight, it seems enough to warm the Earth’s climate. This is what appears to have happened around the year 1000, during what climate scientists call the Medieval Warm Period.
And when the Sun goes blank, or produces fewer sunspots, the Sun dims, and the Earth’s climate cools. This is what happened in the 1600s and 1700s, when the Little Ice Age gripped much of the Earth. It also happened in the first two decades of the 1800s, the last time the Sun produced as few sunspots as it is now, and when at least one year was called “the year without a summer”. Interestingly, that cold period at the beginning of the 1800s was also a period of intense volcanic activity, which threw a lot of dust and material into the atmosphere and thus helped contribute to the cooling of the Earth.
The last half of the 20th century, however, has not seen that much volcanic activity, which has made the atmosphere today clearer than any time in the past five decades. It has also been a time of increased solar activity, with most of the solar maximums peaking at generally higher numbers. No wonder scientists have detected evidence of a slight warming in the climate.
However, that warming appears to be ending, and it is doing so at the same time the Sun is going spotless. Though we don’t yet fully understand the mechanics of how these two events are linked, it behooves us to pay close attention. No climate prediction or computer model will mean anything if it does not.
Meanwhile, solar scientists remain unclear about the causes behind the solar cycle’s ebbs and flows. They have a reasonable idea that the cycle is caused by the Sun’s magnetic dynamo as it flips from one polarity to another. But why this happens is still subject to debate.
More importantly, it remains a complete unknown how long the next sunspot minimum will be. The Sun could spring back to life, as it did in the 1850s, producing lots of sunspots. Or sunspots might fade out for a few additional decades, as they did in the 1600s.
Sadly, based on the state of our science today, this is a question that probably no one will be able to answer — until we actually see it happen.
EPA regulations to go into effect says court
Two stories on the recent attempts of the EPA under the Obama administrions to create new climate regulations. First, a federal appeals court decided Friday not to block the new EPA climate regulations. Second, the war between Texas and the EPA over the EPA’s effort to regulate Texas industry continues unabated.
Two stories on the recent attempts of the EPA under the Obama administrions to create new climate regulations. First, a federal appeals court decided Friday not to block the new EPA climate regulations. Second, the war between Texas and the EPA over the EPA’s effort to regulate Texas industry continues unabated.
8 Observations From The Cancun Climate Conference
Eight observations from the Cancun climate conference. I like this quote the best:
“The enterprise is pompously and risibly dedicated in equal parts to wealth redistribution and self-perpetuation, as a platform for, and along the way, engaging in visceral anti-Americanism.”
Read the whole thing. Very entertaining, in a depressing sort of way.
Eight observations from the Cancun climate conference. I like this quote the best:
“The enterprise is pompously and risibly dedicated in equal parts to wealth redistribution and self-perpetuation, as a platform for, and along the way, engaging in visceral anti-Americanism.”
Read the whole thing. Very entertaining, in a depressing sort of way.
EPA Delays Job-Killing Emissions Regulations
“Elections have consequences.” EPA suddenly delays new rules governing industry emissions.
“Elections have consequences.” EPA suddenly delays new rules governing industry emissions.
Kyoto Protocol is dead, long live the climate fund
It appears the climate meeting in Cancun has ended without much success. Unable to get an renewal of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, the diplomats instead agreed to create a $100 billion “Green Climate Fund” that is mostly funded by the First World nations but is mostly distributed by the Third World. See the notes at 10:45 am on this blog and at 12:20 am on this blog. Key quote:
[The fund] will have 25 members of developing countries on its board, compared to only 15 for developed countries. This gives developing countries a much stronger role. The World Bank is a trustee.
The real question is whether the new Congress in the U.S. will appropriate any money at all to this scam.
It appears the climate meeting in Cancun has ended without much success. Unable to get an renewal of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, the diplomats instead agreed to create a $100 billion “Green Climate Fund” that is mostly funded by the First World nations but is mostly distributed by the Third World. See the notes at 10:45 am on this blog and at 12:20 am on this blog. Key quote:
[The fund] will have 25 members of developing countries on its board, compared to only 15 for developed countries. This gives developing countries a much stronger role. The World Bank is a trustee.
The real question is whether the new Congress in the U.S. will appropriate any money at all to this scam.
Obama climate cash pledge in doubt
The Obama administration’s $30 billion cash pledge at last year’s climate summit is in doubt.
Not only do I think this is good, I continue to wonder how any administration (not just Obama’s) can make such a pledge in the first place, considering the fact that under our Constitution all such allocations must first be approved by Congress.
The Obama administration’s $30 billion cash pledge at last year’s climate summit is in doubt.
Not only do I think this is good, I continue to wonder how any administration (not just Obama’s) can make such a pledge in the first place, considering the fact that under our Constitution all such allocations must first be approved by Congress.
Cancun blog
Want to follow the Cancun climate summit come to an end, for good or ill, on this its final day? Check out this blog.
Want to follow the Cancun climate summit come to an end, for good or ill, on this its final day? Check out this blog.
NASA Satellite Sees An Early Meteorological Winter In US Midwest
NASA satellite sees an early meteorological winter in the American midwest.
I know this is weather, not climate, but according to the repeated claims of global warming scientists for the past decade, cold winters like this should no longer be happening. But they are, which means there must be holes in their science!
NASA satellite sees an early meteorological winter in the American midwest.
I know this is weather, not climate, but according to the repeated claims of global warming scientists for the past decade, cold winters like this should no longer be happening. But they are, which means there must be holes in their science!
Clouding the climate picture
Two seemingly conflicting research papers, both focusing on how the formation of clouds might affect, or be affected by, global temperatures, actually end up combining to show that the world’s climate models can’t be trusted. In other words the basic science of predicting climate change remains seriously flawed.
At issue in both papers is how much and under what circumstances clouds help to warm or cool the planet. Do they reflect solar energy back into space or hold it within the atmosphere like a blanket – and by how much? The answer is crucial to determining where global temperatures will be heading in this century – and what if any policies the world’s governments should be adopting to deal with the situation.
The latest research, appearing this week in the journal Science, is the work of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University. In it he examines the weather-satellite databases covering atmospheric conditions over the past 10 years, looking for discernible patterns where changes in temperature have resulted in changes in cloud cover, or vice versa.
In particular, Dessler chooses El Niño and La Niña events in the Pacific Ocean. El Niño, which occurs every three to seven years, is accompanied by an enormous finger of warm water extending eastward along the tropical Pacific, all the way to South America and first appearing around year end. La Niña, which also erupts periodically, produces the opposite effect – a large zone of colder-than-normal water stretching across the Pacific. Both events tend to attract attention, because they usually generate severe weather affecting large areas of North and South America and elsewhere.
El Niño and La Niña are ideal subjects for climate researchers. They both develop quickly and produce, respectively, recognizable spikes and troughs in temperatures. For example, scientists studying the relationship of clouds to temperature can observe changes in cloud cover over the Pacific that precede, coincide with, and follow El Niño and La Niña and then use those changes to estimate how cloud cover affects or is affected by air temperature.
As Dessler describes in the Science paper, he did find evidence of what he calls a small positive feedback, meaning that clouds may prevent some solar heat from radiating into space, thereby warming the planet. He also doesn’t rule out the possibility of a small negative feedback, but says it probably isn’t large enough to overcome other factors contributing to warming.
But Dessler includes several assertions in his text that completely debunk the idea that climate science is “settled,” as asserted by former Vice President Al Gore and a host of others. For example, early on in the paper, Dessler acknowledges that “the most complex and least understood” of climate-feedback mechanisms is cloud feedback. And later on, he admits that “what we really want to determine is the cloud feedback in response to long-term climate change. Unfortunately, it may be decades before a direct measurement is possible.”
The earlier paper, published in the summer of 2010 in the Journal of Geophysical Research, by Roy Spencer and William Braswell of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, goes much farther in challenging the cloud-temperature link. The global warming community has tried for years to discredit Spencer’s work and to brand him as a “denier,” partly because for more than a decade he has produced findings that call into question the reliability of the host of earthbound instruments used to collect global temperature data.
Such accusations have been entirely unfair, because even Spencer, in his eminently readable and informative blog, has asserted from time to time that he isn’t sure whether the climate is changing and human activity is responsible. What gets him into trouble with the conventional wisdom is his emphasis on what’s wrong with current climate science and what remains unknown – and though it’s a short list, it’s formidable:
- “Everyone agrees that the net effect of clouds is to cool the climate system on average. But the climate models suggest that the cloud feedback response to the addition of [carbon dioxide] to our current climate system will be just the opposite, with cloud changes acting to amplify the warming.” [Ed. To put it more simply, clouds cool the climate, except when they are used in global warming climate models.]
- “While we know that evaporation increases with temperature, we don’t know very much about how the efficiency of precipitation systems changes with temperature.”
- “There [is] a variety of processes … which can in turn alter the balance between evaporation and precipitation, which will then cause warming or cooling as a result of the humidity change – rather than the other way around.”
[Ed. Concerning the second and third quotes: Since water vapor in the atmosphere is by far the most powerful greenhouse gas, far more important than carbon dioxide, not understanding its detailed relationship with temperature means no model can do a reliable job of predicting the climate.]
In their paper Spencer and Braswell likewise look at the relationship between clouds and temperature. In an extremely detailed and – even to climate researchers – dense examination of the same satellite database, the two authors present an argument that separates the phenomenon of cloud formation from anything relating to temperature changes. As Spencer comments in his blog, regarding the feedback data, “even the experts in the field apparently did not understand them.”
But even interested lay readers can glean the gist of Spencer and Braswell’s findings simply by looking at the graphs they present, which contain jumbles of data points suggesting a complete disconnect between cloud formation and temperatures. This is a strong indication that we don’t know which is the cause and which is the effect, though most climate researchers assume temperature is the cause and clouds are the effect. At best, the researchers conclude, there’s evidence for a slight negative feedback – clouds causing cooling when temperatures rise – but overall there appears to be no link between the two phenomena over long periods.
“I cannot remember a climate issue of which I have ever been so certain,” as Spencer wrote about this finding on his blog.
The debate over the cloud-temperature link is bound to go on, but these two papers should make one thing clear: Until the connection between cloud formation and temperature is established or debunked once and for all, the models being used to predict future climate cannot be trusted. So perhaps when the new Congress looks at climate-related issues its members might want to consider them in this context.
top NASA scientist says that all global warming models are too gloomy
The uncertainty of science! A top NASA scientist says that the models used by global warming scientists are far too gloomy, leaving out the cooling effects of increased plant production in a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere. Key quote:
It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there’s really no need to get in an immediate flap. If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming.
The uncertainty of science! A top NASA scientist says that the models used by global warming scientists are far too gloomy, leaving out the cooling effects of increased plant production in a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere. Key quote:
It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there’s really no need to get in an immediate flap. If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming.
WikiLeaks Cables Confirm Worst Fears of Climate Skeptics
It ain’t about science: WikiLeaks cables confirm worst fears of climate skeptics.
It ain’t about science: WikiLeaks cables confirm worst fears of climate skeptics.
Corn ethanol tax credits on the way out?
Maybe I’ll be able to eat corn again instead of putting it in my car! Corn ethanol tax credits on the way out?
Maybe I’ll be able to eat corn again instead of putting it in my car! Corn ethanol tax credits on the way out?
Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old “dihydrogen monoxide” petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy
And these are the people who want to tinker with the climate: Cancun climate summit attendees eagerly sign petition to ban “dihydrogen monoxide,” which in plain language is nothing more than water!
And these are the people who want to tinker with the climate: Cancun climate summit attendees eagerly sign petition to ban “dihydrogen monoxide,” which in plain language is nothing more than water!