Heliogenic Climate Change

“AFTER the release of the Rudd Government’s green discussion paper on climate change last month, eyes are focused on how business and the community will be affected by the mitigation costs of climate change.

But there has been little attention given to climate change and its implications for Australian policing. As the principal domestic security actor in Australia, with 44,000 officers, the eight police forces that serve this country need to think harder about how climate change may affect their core business.

Most Australian senior police officers haven’t considered climate change to have much relevance for their work. The notable exception is Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty, who suggested last September that climate change could eclipse terrorism as the security issue of the century.

Climate change could have wide-ranging implications and challenges for Australia’s police. New legal regimes are required to manage carbon markets and these will require compliance and enforcement.

Compliance under the carbon pollution reduction scheme will involve liable entities monitoring and reporting emissions at least annually.

The Government proposes establishing an emissions trading regulator as an incorporated body with a high degree of operational independence. The regulator will have its own investigation and enforcement mechanisms, and trading activities could be covered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

Detailed compliance and enforcement arrangements are to be developed, but the regulator and ASIC may wish to invite police involvement to investigate criminal breaches of the scheme once legislation has been defined. This will require police to develop knowledge and competencies on the use of emissions trading for money laundering and fraud.” “Greenhouse cops needed on planetary beat“

“But much like a majority of scientists in the Academia, Leonard Susskind is “progressive” (far left) when it comes to politics and global warming is one of the main incarnations of modern leftism. It is about the regulation of the world. The basic questions (or, more precisely, the key answers) have nothing to do with science and they are not allowed to be questioned by science. …

The case of global warming and equality is completely analogous. The left-wing believers are ready to use the scientific method to analyze all kinds of small questions and phenomena. For example, they may scientifically study the gaugino masses or the squirrels in New Jersey that almost no one outside their narrow field cares about.

But in their viewpoint, science has its boundaries, too. When it comes to the fundamental question such as “should the government remove all inequalities between the people?” or “should the government regulate?” or “should the government pay huge and increasing money to the Academia?” or other questions that could directly influence the previous three, there is no room for a scientific debate. The debate is over before it started. These are pre-determined dogmas. “Wrong” answers would make all of their life and work meaningless.

For example, one can talk about all kinds of somewhat detailed climatological questions with Andy Strominger, too. But he would explicitly make you sure that these arguments don’t really matter because the regulation and redistribution are good things even if the whole “science” is completely wrong. That’s how it works. Science is irrelevant here. In the following day, he would have a lunch will Al Gore and a dinner with Naomi Oreskes.”

“Leonard Susskind, global warming, and groupthink“

“As the estimated cost of measures proposed by politicians to “combat global warming” soars ever higher – such as the International Energy Council’s $45 trillion – “fighting climate change” has become the single most expensive item on the world’s political agenda.

As Senators Obama and McCain vie with the leaders of the European Union to promise 50, 60, even 80 per cent cuts in “carbon emissions”, it is clear that to realise even half their imaginary targets would necessitate a dramatic change in how we all live, and a drastic reduction in living standards. …

The significance of the past year is not just that the vaunted “consensus” on the forces driving our climate has been blown apart as never before, but that a new “counter-consensus” has been emerging among thousands of scientists across the world, given expression in last March’s Manhattan Declaration by the so-called Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.

This wholly repudiates the IPCC process, showing how its computer models are hopelessly biased, based on unreliable data and programmed to ignore many of the genuine drivers of climate change, from variations in solar activity to those cyclical shifts in ocean currents.

As it was put by Roger Cohen, a senior US physicist formerly involved with the IPCC process, who long accepted its orthodoxy: “I was appalled at how flimsy the case is. I was also appalled at the behaviour of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it.

“In particular I am referring to the arrogance, the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science; and the politicisation of the IPCC process and the science process itself.”

Yet it is at just this moment, when the IPCC’s house of cards is crumbling, that the politicians of the Western world are using it to propose steps that can only damage our way of life beyond recognition. It really is time for that “counter-consensus” to be taken seriously.” “The catastrophe behind climate change“

“Trash the entire report. It’s neither scientific nor logical. It’s a political document. Send the product lead back to Asheville and the senior editor back to Hollywood.” “Record low for climate science“

“An almost linear global temperature increase of about 0.5C/100 years (~1F/100 years) seems to have started at least one hundred years before 1946, when manmade CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. …

One possible cause of the linear increase may be Earth’s continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400-1800). This trend (0.5C/100 years) should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years [0.6C increase] when estimating the manmade contribution to the present global warming trend.” “Is Earth still recovering from the Little Ice Age?”, IceCap, What’s New & Cool, August 28.

This leaves an upper limit of only 0.1C possibly due to CO2 increase in the 20th century from 280 to 380 ppmv. This in turn means, because of the logarithmic dependence of temperature on concentration, a doubling of CO2 to 560 ppmv might possibly lead to an upper limit on additional warming of only 0.1C.

This is not a crisis, this is not even a problem, in fact it is beneficial since CO2 will increase agricultural production and green the Earth.

Earth’s recovery from the Little Ice Age is a result of changes in solar cycles, just as the Little Ice Age itself was caused by the Maunder Minimum.

View Earth’s recovery from the Little Ice Age: Mendenhall Glacier; Ilulissat Glacier.

“A final draft of the Republican Party platform includes a first-ever plank on global warming that says human activity has contributed to climate change.

“The same human activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere,” the draft reads. “Increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth.”" “GOP Platform Draft: Global Warming is Man-Made“

True, but the effect is trivial compared to natural effects (see next post above). It’s not broke, don’t fix it.

I’m posting this now because of the recent hysteria over arctic sea ice, even though it pre-dates the advent of this blog. You will recall this NASA press release from last October explaining that the loss of arctic sea ice last summer was not due to “global warming”:

“Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. “The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.” “NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007“

Then came this NASA press release the following month:

“A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. …

“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison. …

“The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum,” he said. “It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again.”" “NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face“

“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. …

Indeed we find compelling evidence from several atmospheric general circulation model simulations without prescribed GHG, aerosol, and solar forcing variations (Table 1) that the continental warming in Fig. 1a is largely a response to the warming of the oceans rather than directly due to GHG increases over the continents (Table 2). …

In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the direct local effect of anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental warming.” “Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming“

“In the past, sea temperatures were obtained from measurements by passing ships in the sea lanes of the world. It is only in the past three decades that more accurate data on sea surface temperatures has become available. The analysis of this recent data by the author shows that:

– the oceans regulate the composition of the
atmosphere;

– the influence on climate of human-generated carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is negligible; and

– global climate change has natural causes.

The oceans and the atmosphere are quite shallow in relation to the vast surface area of the oceans. The interaction of the atmosphere and the oceans is essentially a phenomenon of the ocean surface. It would be expected that there would be almost a direct correlation between levels of CO2 in the air and the global mean sea surface temperatures, and that is the case. …

The chart shows that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global average sea surface temperatures are locked together. The correlation is so firm it is reasonable to include it as a condition in the computer simulations used to study climate change. …

Global average sea surface temperatures are now starting to fall. It is reasonable to contemplate that sea temperatures may gradually decline towards the average of the previous century. That would be a drop of about 0.35˚C. That would mean that atmospheric CO2 levels would also similarly decline towards the average of the past century.” “Carbon dioxide and the oceans“

“A perversion of science” — Pat Michaels

Steve McIntyre notes that the report features Mann’s infamous creation, the thoroughly debunked “hockey stick” temperature graph, on p. 2.

“A new all-time low for NOAA” — Joe D’Aleo

“As a result we do not have a unified synthesis product but a document that promotes a particular narrow perspective on climate science based on the prejudices of the Editors” — Roger Pielke, Sr.

“This comment therefore focuses on one fundamental issue that must be corrected if the report is to have any credibility. Data integrity problems contaminate the historical record that is the underpinning of the entire report.” — Joe D’Aleo

“The CCSP established a rigorous process for the writing and editing of its reports in order to limit the ability of political appointees to massage the report in desired directions. But apparently the CCSP review process has left a gaping hole for a single non-governmental, non-technical, non-expert to shape the report in politically desirable ways.

On an issue as high politicized as climate change, where bloggers and others are paying close attention, the inclusion of a doctored image, the cribbing of an old, misleading figure, and the inclusion of an editor’s personal views in the guise of a science assessment is remarkable, even in a draft for public comment. Even if the excuse is plain old sloppiness, the report is a big fat black eye for the world’s leading climate science program.” — Roger Pielke, Jr.

“To say the least, I’m shocked that NCDC’s leadership has changed from being the nation’s record keeper of weather and climatic data, to being what appears to me now as an advocacy group. The draft document reads more like a news article in many places than it does a scientific document, and unlike a scientific document, it has a number of what I would call “emotionally based graphics” in it that have nothing to do with the science.” — Anthony Watts

“

A striking feature of the Report is a unilateral presentation of information, with an almost exclusive concentration on greenhouse gases, and particularly on the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, as the dominant cause of the Modern Warm Period. The Report totally ignores studies which disagree with the man-made warming hypothesis.” — Zbigniew Jaworowski

“If this nation is to develop an effective climate change policy it needs to be grounded on sound science. Asking the public to comment on documents it has not seen is about as far from the scientific method as one can possibly get. The public deserves scientific information if it is to validate this report.” — Bill Kovacs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

“This … CCSP report is Co-Chaired by Thomas R. Karl, Jerry Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson with the Senior Editor and Synthesis Team Coordinator Susan J. Hassol. These are the same individuals who have led past CCSP reports … with Tom Karl and Tom Peterson deliberately excluding scientific perspectives that differ from their viewpoints … Susan Hassol was writer of the HBO Special “Too Hot Not to Handle”. This HBO show clearly had a specific perspective on the climate change issue, and lacked a balanced perspective. The HBO Executive Producer was Ms. Laurie David. As a result, this report continues the biased narrow perspective of the earlier CCSP reports …

Thus the conclusion is that the US CCSP Program has failed in it’s mission. These reports have become state and in-bred, since the same people are repeating their perspective on the climate issue. …

As recommended in the Climate Science weblog … we need new scientists who are not encumbered by their prior advocacy positions on climate change to lead the preparation of balanced climate assessment reports.

The response of the media when this report is released in its final form will also be enlightening. Those reporters who parrot the synthesis without questioning its obvious bias and conflict of interest should be identified as sycophants. Those who adequately communicate the diversity of scientifically supported disagreements with the report should be lauded for the true journalist that they are.” — Roger Pielke, Sr.

Apparently NOAA, NCDC, and CCSP got the message. They have yanked the report: “Climate Report Held Following Exposure“; “Skeptics win one! NOAA/NCDC to hold the CCSP report“.

“It is apparent that Solar Cycle 23 is a long one. I agree with Jan Janssens’ spotless day-derived result of month of minimum being July 2009. If Solar Cycle 24 is as weak as I think it will be, then it will have a slow ramp up – much slower than the late 19th century cycles used for comparison.

This leads to another point. Solar cycles generally have four years of rise and seven years of decline. Solar Cycle 5 (the first half of the Dalton Minimum) had 6.9 years of rise and 5.4 years of decline. If Solar Cycle 24 mimics Solar Cycle 4 in this way, then year of maximum will be 2016, four years after the latest estimate from NASA’s solar prediction panel. …

Each day’s passing of anaemic Solar Cycle 24 sunspot activity reinforces the imminent cooling.

The above graph is for a 13 year Solar Cycle 23. If it turns out to be 13.6 years, that will result in a further 0.4 degree decline.” “Progression of Solar Cycle 23/24 Minimum“

Recently the New York Times published an alarmist article by Stephan Ferris, “Ice Free“, warning of the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and accompanying sea level rise of 23 feet. Debunked here by Joe D’Aleo: “Greenland Again“

“Global Cooling: Global Warming has Ended – Many Scientists Say“

“The number of sunspots visible on the Sun normally shows an 11-year periodicity, and the current sunspot cycle (cycle 23) had a maximum in 2001, and is entering a minimum phase with few sunspots currently visible. Our data show that there are additional changes occurring in sunspots, independent of the sunspot cycle, and these trends suggest that sunspots will disappear completely. Such an event would not be unprecedented, since during a famous episode from 1645-1715, known as the Maunder Minimum, the normal 11-year periodicity vanished and there were virtually no sunspots visible on the solar surface (1). Recent studies of the appearance rate and latitudinal drift of sunspots (2) and of the solar magnetic field (3) predict that the number of sunspots visible in future cycles will be significantly reduced. Finally the occurrence of prolonged periods with no sunspots is important to climate studies, since the Maunder Minimum was shown to correspond with the reduced average global temperatures on the Earth (4).” “Sunspots may vanish by 2015“

This unpublished paper, rejected by Nature in 2006, is by two scientists at the National Solar Observatory at Kitt Peak.

“The offshore oil and gas and Rocky Mountain oil shale development ban days are numbered – 35 days and counting, to be specific. That’s because the bans expire at the end of this fiscal year, Sept. 30, and come October there is nothing in current law that prevents green-lighting the leasing and exploration process. President Bush has persistently called on Congress to act on drilling, but the ball is now in his court, not theirs. If he pledges to veto an extension of the ban, opponents of oil drilling will have no other option but to cave in, because veto-sustaining blocks in both Houses of Congress have made their commitment to allowing the ban to end, clear in writing.” “Drilling down on the drill ban“

Prior post here.

“Some scientists believe that an extreme cooling episode, potentially a mini-ice age, is imminent. Others think that it may already be under way. …

This involves natural factors, most notably the Sun and Earth’s oceans. We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes. Studying these and other factors suggests that a cold, not warm, climate may be in our future.” “Is global warming on the wane?“

“Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, chaffed for many years under the thumb of Soviet totalitarianism. In his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles – What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? he argues there is a new mantra menacing the West – that environmentalism has become a significant threat to human liberty and progress.

Environmentalism, Klaus warns, is “an anti-human ideology,” which “sees the fundamental cause of the world’s problems in the very expansion of homo sapiens.” For radical environmentalists, human prosperity is undesirable because it alters the Earth’s landscape from its natural state. So they try to limit and ultimately arrest the engine of progress – economic freedom – through the regulatory state.

The most dangerous manifestation of environmentalism, notes Klaus, is global warming alarmism.” “Green shackles“

“Savour that frozen margarita in your hand, for soon you might not be able to afford it. Mexico’s tequila industry is about to become the latest victim of America’s growing thirst for ethanol.

Soaring demand for biofuel has sent global commodity prices through the roof, prompting farmers of blue agave, the cactus-like plant from which the country’s national spirit is made, to move into more lucrative cash crops such as wheat and corn.” “Tequila sunset: The ethanol boom“

“NEARLY ONE THIRD of Americans still believe there is no solid scientific evidence for climate change [no, no one disputes climate is changing and always has]. And half of those believe that scientists are still debating the issue.

This confusion, according to a US historian, is no accident and comes is a direct result of campaigning by special interest groups to confuse the public and sow doubts about the reality of changing climate. The nature of this campaign will be revealed in a public lecture in Dublin next week by Prof Naomi Oreskes, history professor at the University of California, San Diego. …

The cause of climate change “was settled in the scientific community a decade ago”, so she wanted to find “how this has come to be, who is behind this campaign to claim there is scientific disagreement” on the issue.

She puts it down to a vigorous and persistent effort by special interest groups to counter accepted scientific facts with findings purporting to come from credible scientists.

“We know where the money is coming from. We know this has been funded by a mix of sources including the fossil-fuel industry and particularly the coal industry,” she says. “It is based on getting scientists to challenge scientists on anything that challenges the free market system.” …

It creates a situation in which the public is left confused over apparently conflicting evidence even though there is no real grounds for conflict. This in turn encourages the public to doubt all climate science findings and to assume that all are based on theory rather than fact.” “Why climate-change denial persists“

But they won’t, they’re too lazy and under the thrall of the ecotheists: “12 Facts about Global Climate Change That You Won’t Read in the Popular Press“

I like his points 5, 6 and 7 the best:

“5 Reconstruction of paleoclimatological CO2 concentrations demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is near its lowest level since the Cambrian Era some 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today without causing a “runaway greenhouse effect.”

6 Temperature changes lead, not lag, CO2 changes on all time scales. The oceans may play a key role, emitting carbon dioxide when they warm as carbonated beverages lose fizz as they warm and absorbing it as they cool.

7 Most of the warming in the climate models comes from the assumption that water vapor and precipitation increase as temperatures warm, a strong positive feedback. Water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas than CO2. However, that assumption has been shown in observations and peerreviewed research to be wrong, and in fact water vapor and precipitation act as a negative feedback that reduces any small greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide.”