Thursday, April 3, 2014

Climate Models -- 98% Wrong


Regarding climate models, 98% of them didn’t predict the pause in surface temperature trends (von Storch 2013) . 

Even under the most generous interpretation, models are proven failures,  100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else (Taylor 2012). 

They get cloud feedbacks wrong by a factor 19 times larger than the entire effect of increased CO2 (Miller 2012). 

They don’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale (Anagnostopoulos 2010 and Koutsoyiannis 2008). 

They don’t work on the tropical troposphere (Christy 2010,  Po-Chedley 2012Fu 2011, Paltridge 2009). The fingerprints they predicted are 100% missing.

Some models truly resemble the real thing -- without actually being a working model.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

"Horrible Risk" of Man-Made Climate Change




After several days of late-night wrangling, more than 100 governments unanimously approved the scientist-written 49-page summary — which is aimed at world political leaders. The summary mentions the word “risk” an average of about 5 1/2 times per page.  “Changes are occurring rapidly and they are sort of building up that risk,” Field said.

The problems have gotten so bad that the panel had to add a new and dangerous level of risks. In 2007, the biggest risk level in one key summary graphic was “high” and colored blazing red. The latest report adds a new level, “very high,” and colors it deep purple.  You might as well call it a “horrible” risk level, said van Aalst: “The horrible is something quite likely, and we won’t be able to do anything about it.”
The report predicts that the highest level of risk would first hit plants and animals, both on land and the acidifying oceans.  Climate change will worsen problems that society already has, such as poverty, sickness, violence and refugees, according to the report. And on the other end, it will act as a brake slowing down the benefits of a modernizing society, such as regular economic growth and more efficient crop production, it says.
“In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans,” the report says.  And if society doesn’t change, the future looks even worse, it says: “Increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts.”


Tuesday, April 1, 2014

US Government -- 6 trillion dollar Godzilla



The United States economy produces just over $16 trillion in total goods and services every year. China's economic output is, by the most reliable measure, over $8 trillion. The next largest national economy is Japan, producing around $5 trillion in total economic output. Federal, state, and local governments in the US, however, consume more than $6.2 trillion. US government spending, in fact, is about the same as the total economic output of France and Germany combined. 



Taken together, government in the United States, at all levels, consumes about 40% of the overall economy. Considering only of the federal government or individual states obscures the complete footprint of government in the US.  


Sunday, March 30, 2014

Natural Sources of Carbon Dioxide


In 2011, fossil fuel use created 33.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.


The largest natural source of carbon dioxide emissions is from ocean-atmosphere exchange. The oceans contain dissolved carbon dioxide, which is released into the air at the sea surface. Annually this process creates about 330 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.
Another important natural source of carbon dioxide is soil respiration and decomposition. Many organisms that live in the Earth's soil use respiration to produce energy. Amongst them are decomposers who break down dead organic material. Both of these processes releases carbon dioxide as a byproduct. Annually these soil organisms create about 220 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

Fossil fuel -- 33 billion tonnes per year (2011)
Ocean & soil -- 550 billion tonnes per year
33/550 x 100% = 6%.  
Fossil fuel is a 6% source of CO2, compared to the major natural sources of CO2.

This data conveys the idea that computer modeling is very very difficult with regard to the impact of man-made CO2 emissions, and the effect (if any) on climate-change.
  

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Noah -- what a load of crap


Saw the movie, and walked out when Noah was threatening to kill the baby that would preserve humanity.  The movie starts out fine: the seed of Cain and seed of Seth have different values. Noah's family are the good people of the earth, taking care of people, plants, and animals, alike.
But somewhere in the the middle of the movie, Noah decides that his family is as bad as the rest of humanity, and they must all die so that the "perfect creation" can continue undefiled by man.

Noah is saving the creatures -- not humans with superior values -- that's when I walk.


"This portrayal of Noah is disappointing for a number of reasons.  Not only does it do a disservice to the character of a major biblical prophet (as many Jews, Christians, and Muslims have reportedly complained), but it completely obscures the role of Noah as a willing covenant partner with God, consciously taking on the role of a second Adam in the re-Creation of the world.  Don’t get me wrong — it is totally understandable to imagine that Noah would be disappointed with mankind and believe that all of them, even himself, deserved to be wiped out because of the corruption that they had brought upon God’s creation.  However, in the biblical account, Noah is made aware, before the flood comes, that God will save him and all his house; as God tells him: “Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation” (Gen. 7:1).  In the previous chapter, God informs Noah that he is establishing a covenant with him that the text implies salvation by means of the ark.  There is no question, for the biblical account, regarding Noah’s worthiness to be saved, nor that of his family with him.  There is no confusion on Noah’s part — as far as we are told in the text — regarding God’s good intentions for his family.  Indeed, we are told in Genesis 6:8–9 that “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” and that he “was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.” This description is much like that of Enoch, who also “walked with God” and who was taken up alive by God into heaven (Gen. 5:24).  So the flawed and uncertain Noah of Aronofsky’s film, although sympathetic and believable, is just too distant from the biblical Noah for me."
http://www.heavenlyascents.com/2014/04/01/noah-a-catastrophe-of-biblical-proportions-but-still-pretty-good/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HeavenlyAscents+%28Heavenly+Ascents%29

Why don't your tell the people how you really feel: OK

Good review with regard to the huge differences with the biblical narrative and the apocrypha, etc. However, just from a story-telling perspective, I found the movie terribly terribly wanting. I would give it a C-. Yes, The Fountain was wonderful; I weep when I watch that compelling drama, with it's beautiful mysticism.  Noah? Aronofsky stole the title and applied it a sci-fi story, which was not at all compelling. The inconsistencies are legion. For example, the dramatic purpose of main character shifts completely, because, what? he realized that men are "fallen" and therefor must be destroyed? Oh, how insightful. The movie was boring; the CGI was low-rent. The character development -- of all the characters -- was piss-poor. The movie was crap. I felt completely ripped-off, like someone picked my pocket at the carnival.  And that's just assuming you allow for the movie to play as a sci-fi, and forget about the slander to Noah's character. A curse on Aronosky, and a plague on his house, for stealing the good name of a beloved biblical character.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

UN's WMO Spin on Global Warming


"Levels of these greenhouse gases are at a record, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable," Jarraud told a news conference.
Natural phenomena like volcanoes or the El Nino/La Nina weather patterns originating in Pacific Ocean temperature changes had always framed the planet's climate, affecting heat levels and disasters like drought and floods, he said.
"But many of the extreme events of 2013 were consistent with what we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change," declared the WMO chief, pointing to the destruction wreaked by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.
However, the atmosphere has not been warming for a decade now, as the models predict, even with elevated levels of CO2.  And the big insurance executives, who measure the real impact of "extreme events" in dollars & cents, assert that we have not experienced "extreme" weather. A devastating typhoon in the Philippines?  Not new at all.  
Get back to the world-community when there's a comparable typhoon in Los Angeles.  That would be an example of something new.  To reference a terrible typhoon in the Philippines as an example of extreme weather should elicit collective laughter from the world wide web. Next time we have a devastating riot in Los Angeles, let's blame it on human-induced climate change because that would make as much sense.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Climate Deniers, Unite !



The site below identifies 40 prominent people who use the pejorative phrase "Climate Deniers" in public discourse.   I am a climate denier; of course the climate changes, due to solar radiation cycles, etc.  In 2014, its not clear which direction the climate is going; the next solar cycle to tell the future, not some graph showing CO2 in the atmosphere; plants need carbon dioxide as much as we need oxygen.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html

Am I offended? Yes. Especially when the most aggressive faction of the "climate alarmists" are call for prison time for Deniers.

A professor at Rochester Institute of Technology -- wrote recently that the “well documented funding of global warming denialism” is not only wrong but “ought to be considered criminally negligent.” He complains that “climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.” And his solution is, “The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public's understanding of scientific consensus.” 


Monday, March 10, 2014

The Khan Rode Global Warming Trend



"A long period of warm, wet weather spanning several decades helped one of history’s most fearsome tyrants to conquer most of Asia and Eastern Europe and form the largest continuous land empire the world has known, a study has found.

Genghis Khan owes his place in history to a sudden shift in the Asiatic climate from the cold, arid period that immediately preceded his ascent as leader of the Mongol empire, to the warmer, wetter weather that allowed his horsemen to expand out from Central Asia.

Scientists studying ancient Siberia pine trees in central Mongolia that date back nearly 2,000 years believe that Khan’s rise to power coincided precisely with a period of unusually heavy rainfall over a couple of decades which allowed the arid grasslands of the Asian Steppe to flourish.

Tree rings, which record periods of good and bad plant growth, show that the years from about 1180 to 1190, which immediately preceded Genghis Khan’s rule, suffered an intense drought that probably stoked the political turbulence that helped him to come to power.

Genghis Khan died in 1227 but his sons and grandsons continued to conquer more territory and eventually controlled what became modern Korea, China, Russia, eastern Europe, southeast Asia, Persia, India and the Middle East – before the empire began to fragment."

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Climate Insensitiviey


Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the fossil fuel into carbon dioxide). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.


This is because, as scientists such as the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels have long argued, "climate sensitivity" (ie how the planet's temperature responds to CO2 emissions) is considerably lower than the IPCC's computer models project. So much so that it should be called "climate insensitivity", he believes.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Climate Data -- Tampering & Falsification???

Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed. Maybe that is because the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, which would be well before any of the supposed climate catastrophes the warming hysterics have tried to use to shut down capitalist prosperity.

Yet, just last week, there was Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson telling us, by way of attempting to tutor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, “For the record, and for the umpteenth time, there is no ‘great amount of uncertainty’ about whether the planet is warming and why.” If you can read, and you have gotten this far in my column, you know why Robinson’s ignorance is just another Washington Post abuse of the First Amendment. Mr. Robinson, let me introduce you to the British Met Office, stalwart of Global Warming “science,” such as it is, which has already publicly confessed that we are already three quarters through 20 years of No Global Warming!

Booker could have been writing about Robinson when he concluded his Sunday Telegraph commentary by writing, “Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?”


But there is a fundamental problem with the temperature records from this contentious period, when climate science crashed into political science. The land based records, which have been under the control of global warming alarmists at the British Met Office and the Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit, and at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., show much more warming during this period than the incorruptible satellite atmosphere temperature records. Those satellite records have been further confirmed by atmospheric weather balloons. But the land based records can be subject to tampering and falsification.

Collapsing Faith if Global Warming

Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,

“Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.”

A news report from India (The Hindu April 22, 2013) stated, “March in Russia saw the harshest frosts in 50 years, with temperatures dropping to –25° Celsius in central parts of the country and –45° in the north. It was the coldest spring month in Moscow in half a century….Weathermen say spring is a full month behind schedule in Russia.” The news report summarized,

“Russia is famous for its biting frosts but this year, abnormally icy weather also hit much of Europe, the United States, China and India. Record snowfalls brought Kiev, capital of Ukraine, to a standstill for several days in late March, closed roads across many parts of Britain, buried thousands of sheep beneath six-metre deep snowdrifts in Northern Ireland, and left more than 1,000,000 homes without electricity in Poland. British authorities said March was the second coldest in its records dating back to 1910. China experienced the severest winter weather in 30 years and New Delhi in January recorded the lowest temperature in 44 years.”

Booker adds, “Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations.”


Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.

Global Cooling, Mini Ice Age?


At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,


“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.
But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,

“German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years – and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a “Mini Ice Age.” Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’”