Tag Archives: global warming

Are there still any global warmest believers out there? Why?

Henson and his settled scientists

Henson and his settled scientists

The Wall Street Journal dredges up  2001 interview with global warming “expert” and NASA puppeteer, Jim Henson, predicting the state of the world by 2009.

As it turns out, Salon was way ahead of the curve in covering how “climate change” is “already affecting our daily lives.” This is from a 2001 interview with Bob Reiss, author of a book called “The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather and Our Terrifying Future”:

Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

That conversation would have taken place in 1988 or 1989, which means Hansen was making predictions about what would happen by 2009.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

And the paradigm keeps crumbling

al-gore-settled-scienceHigher temperatures in Pacific attributable to natural wind shifts, not global warming.

A new study released Monday found that warming temperatures in Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of North America over the past century closely followed natural changes in the wind, not increases in greenhouse gases related to global warming.

The study compared ocean surface temperatures from 1900 to 2012 to surface air pressure, a stand-in for wind measurements, and found a close match.

“What we found was the somewhat surprising degree to which the winds can explain all the wiggles in the temperature curve,” said lead author Jim Johnstone, who did the work while a climatologist at the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington.

“So clearly, there are other factors stronger than the greenhouse forcing that is affecting those temperatures,” he added.

The study released by the online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences does not question global warming, but argues there is evidence that in at least one place, local winds are a more important factor explaining ocean warming than greenhouse gases.

It was greeted with skepticism by several mainstream climate scientists, who questioned how the authors could claim changes in wind direction and velocity were natural and unrelated to climate change.

Johnstone and co-author Nathan Mantua, a research scientist with the NOAA Fisheries Service in Santa Cruz, California, pointed to the fact that one steep ocean warming period from 1920 to 1940 predates the big increases in greenhouse gases, and an ocean cooling period from 1998 to 2013 came while global average temperatures were at or near all-time highs.

They also noted that the wind changes consistently preceded the ocean surface temperature variations by about four months, showing the wind was causing the changes to temperature, not the other way around.

James Overland, a research oceanographer at the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, said the study reinforced findings that the North Pacific has a lot of natural variability in 5- to 20-year time scales, and he reached the same conclusions on changes in the Bering Sea.

“Natural variability cannot be ruled out as an important mechanism,” he said in an email.

During the entire period from 1900 to 2012, there has been an increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit in ocean surface temperatures in the area from Hawaii to Alaska, and down the coast to British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California, according to the study.

The wind acts to change temperature through speed and direction. When the wind blows faster across the water, evaporation increases, and like sweat drying on the skin, cools the water surface. Winds from the south drive warmer air and water to the region. Winds from the north drive in colder air and water.

“It just seems to us it’s a pretty simple story,” Mantua said. “Yet it’s going to take people by surprise, because it is ingrained in our minds that if the climate warms up in the course of the century, it’s probably because of global warming, the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases and other things humans have done that have pushed it in a warming direction.”

All of which explains the global warmists’ increasing hysteria. They sense the consensus the concocted is falling apart, and they are afraid.

UPDATE: Today the LA Times reports on this story, straight up. When global skepticism breaks through the media’s wall of silence, you know something is seriously afoot.

Psst! Wanna buy a magazine?

Psst! Wanna buy a magazine?

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

As the “settled science” crumbles

Remember this?

Remember this?

WSJ: Whatever happened to global warming?

On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won’t attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?

In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).

Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or “hiatus”), but that it doesn’t after all invalidate their theories.

Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built.

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

And so on. None of this is news to the skeptics and atheists, but to fully-committed members of the Church of Mother Gaia, the loss of their bedrock will be as shattering as sunrise the day after the predicted end of the world. Those with the most to lose from the collapse of the paradigm: “green” businesses, and social progressives, will become the new deniers, but eventually the sheeple will grow immune to their heat mongering and when that happens, the media will also lose interest and return to covering the Kardashians. Less media hype, less fear, less interest, less media hype: it will be a downward spiral into indifference.

Of course, since the goal of the two groups behind this bullshit was never saving the earth but control of the people on it and profiting from that control, the progressives will drum up a new scare story and their business partners will move swiftly to refocus their products (I’m guessing snowblowers to fight the coming ice age, but it could be anything). It would nice if the sheeple remembered this entire trumped-up scam before deciding to go along with the next one, but why should human nature and gullibility change now?

We can at least hope for a brief hiatus between the final end of this hoax and the world-wide acceptance of the next one.

 

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Greens rejoice: electricity rationing returns to England

"The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time",

“The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time”,

Four-hour daily blackouts.

Emergency measures will be introduced to prevent the lights going out this winter.

Offices and factories will be offered compensation to undergo 1970s-style energy rationing and shut down for up to four hours a day to prevent households being plunged into darkness.

In addition, owners of old power stations will be asked to switch them back on to meet the country’s demands.

National Grid had not planned to use this option until next winter. But yesterday it revealed a series of fires and setbacks had knocked some of the UK’s biggest generators out of service. Two nuclear power plants are also offline, and are unlikely to be running in time for the start of the colder weather.

‘The Government has been crossing its fingers and hoping that it’s all fine. It’s blindingly obvious that if you have a tight market then you will be more vulnerable to shocks.’

An Ofgem spokesman said: ‘We are confident that National Grid has the right levers to keep the lights on.

‘However, no electricity system anywhere in the world can give a 100 per cent guarantee that the lights will stay on.’

That didn’t used to be an impossible task for industrialized countries.

But “oh joy”,says British-based “Frack off”.

Despite the conceit that mankind is somehow separate (and above) the natural world, our existence is inextricably linked to a network of systems that is buckling under an onslaught of destruction caused by resource extraction and pollution. This destruction is being driven by man-made social systems that demand never-ending growth on a finite planet.

Unless we dismantle these social systems and replace them with ones that can work with natural systems, not against them, we cannot hope to change the course we are on. Dreams of fancy technofixes and new energy sources are simply self-justifications for continuing down this path of self-destruction. We are exploiting pretty much the whole world and there are no significant new frontiers left to exploit. Trapped inside this closed system we will be forced to confront the consequences of our actions one way or another.

16 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit

Global warming models don’t jibe with actual historical temperature recordings, so scientists blame errors in collecting the data.

When you have trillions of dollars at stake, all being funneled to your friends and into your own pockets, you can’t exactly admit that the models supporting all that spending (and, far more important to some, the centralized control it gives governments) are fucked up, can you?

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Then act like it

Leonardo Dicaprio “demands action on climate change”

Today, environmental activist Leonardo Dicaprio urged people to sign a new petition encouraging leaders to take action on climate change through a post on the actor’s Facebook page: “The science is in: climate change is real and man-made. The debate is over. Spread the word and demand action.” The petition reads: “We call on you to respond to the unequivocal findings of the IPCC report with ambitious action to stop catastrophic climate change. It is up to you to lead a ‘BIG fix’: B — Big oil and polluters out of politics, I — Invest in cleaner and smarter energy, G — Global, ambitious and binding deal to cut emissions. Global warming is the most significant planetary crisis of our time and it demands courageous leadership. We call on you to meet this historic responsibility.”

Tuesday, June 17, 2014: Leonardo Dicaprio jets to Washington D.C. to speak at a State Department sponsored “Save Our Seas” conference.

And why did Leonardo have to take a jet to Washington – couldn’t he have ridden his wind powered bicycle there? No, silly, because he and 21 of his closest friends are down watching the World Cup in Brazil on a $1 billion yacht owned by a homophobic, anti-Semitic, dictatorial billionaire Saudi friend of his.

So they all fly down to Brazil to entertain themselves on a yacht that’s been driven half-way around the globe to meet them, then Leo flies back to the US to testify on the critical importance of saving the planet and, finished, will fly back to rejoin his friends. I hope he doesn’t miss too many games, poor guy.

All aboard HMS Leo - party time!

All aboard HMS Leo – party time!

17 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Government: fuel from corn waste worse than gasoline

 

Better living for Dupont

Better living for Dupont

In a government-funded study, researchers concluded that using corn waste for ethanol produced more greenhouse gas emissions than regular gasoline.

WASHINGTON — Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration’s conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.

The conclusions deal a blow to what are known as cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue.

The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticized the research as flawed. They said it was too simplistic in its analysis of carbon loss from soil, which can vary over a single field, and vastly overestimated how much residue farmers actually would remove once the market gets underway.

“The core analysis depicts an extreme scenario that no responsible farmer or business would ever employ because it would ruin both the land and the long-term supply of feedstock. It makes no agronomic or business sense,” said Jan Koninckx, global business director for biorefineries at DuPont.

Later this year the company is scheduled to finish a $200 million-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn residue from nearby farms. An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100 percent better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The research is among the first to attempt to quantify, over 12 Corn Belt states, how much carbon is lost to the atmosphere when the stalks, leaves and cobs that make up residue are removed and used to make biofuel, instead of left to naturally replenish the soil with carbon. The study found that regardless of how much corn residue is taken off the field, the process contributes to global warming.

“I knew this research would be contentious,” said Adam Liska, the lead author and an assistant professor of biological systems engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “I’m amazed it has not come out more solidly until now.”

The Environmental Protection Agency’s own analysis, which assumed about half of corn residue would be removed from fields, found that fuel made from corn residue, also known as stover, would meet the standard in the energy law. That standard requires cellulosic biofuels to release 60 percent less carbon pollution than gasoline.

Cellulosic biofuels that don’t meet that threshold could be almost impossible to make and sell. Producers wouldn’t earn the $1 per gallon subsidy they need to make these expensive fuels and still make a profit. Refiners would shun the fuels because they wouldn’t meet their legal obligation to use minimum amounts of next-generation biofuels.

EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in a statement that the study “does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol.”

But an AP investigation last year found that the EPA’s analysis of corn-based ethanol failed to predict the environmental consequences accurately.

From the “science” to the so-called “remedies”, it’s all a fraud, and all about enriching large corporations, political insiders and professional alarmists.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized