Heliogenic Climate Change

“The revolt by American Chemical Society members is one of the most important pieces of good news ever in the saga of anthropogenic global warming. When real scientists finally get a chance to vent their opposition to global warming mythology, and more importantly, to have it published in a widely read publication, it’s the beginning of the end of the alarmists’ stranglehold. Once the debate is truly joined, there will be so many holes revealed in standard AGW orthodoxy that it will sink without a trace alongside cold fusion, polywater and mental spoon bending. The ACS revolt also illustrates the classic divide between the views of the members of many large national organizations, who are generally normal people scattered across the heartland, and their leaders, who more often than not these days are housed in Washington, DC, and positioned far to the left of their constituents. The classic example is AARP, with a membership of generally conservative elderly folk and a leadership made up of flaming Maoists. The American Chemical Society’s headquarters is at 16th and M Streets, NW — across the street from the National Geographic Society, in the middle of the belly of the liberal beast. It’s filled from top to bottom with hand-wringing, knee-jerking, affirmative-acting Democrats who are probably all as shocked as the editor at the visceral outpouring against his absolutely ho-hum (to them) platitudes about the looming disaster of global warming and the implacable evil of those who would deny it. The carefully stacked cards are starting to fall” “Re: Chemists in Excited State“
-

“It’s getting harder and harder [for] warmists to get away with their blanket statements that a “scientific consensus” on global warming exists. Now, an organization [American Chemical Society] that bills itself as “the world’s largest scientific society” is facing a grassroots rebellion from its scientist members. Marc Morano of Climate Depot has the exclusive story …

This incident may impress itself on other warmist scientists. No editor (or writer) wants to be upbraided in public this way, so casual claims of consensus are probably going to be coming our way less frequently in the future. Once the emperor is seen to have no clothes, pretending otherwise in public becomes difficult.” “Warmist editor faces blowback from scientists” h/t Climate Depot
-

“As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.

The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human — on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause.” “Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council: An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society” h/t IceCap today
-

“An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the “consensus” view was growing “increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is “startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the “world’s largest scientific society.”

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”

Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.” Read the rest here: “Group ‘Startled’ By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed!“

-

Thanks to reader/commenter Fred.
-

“President Obama’s top science adviser, John P. Holdren, advocated the “de-development” of the United States in books he published in the 1970s.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.”

In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for “de-development” of the United States demanded a redistribtuion of wealth.

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”" “White House Science Adviser Advocated ‘De-Development’ of the United States“
-

“The staggered phase out of energy-wasting light bulbs begins on Sept. 1 in Germany. The unpopularity of the energy-saving compact fluorescent bulbs that will replace them is leading consumers and retailers to start hoarding the traditional bulbs.

As the Sept. 1 deadline for the implementation of the first phase of the EU’s ban on incandescent light bulbs approaches, shoppers, retailers and even museums are hoarding the precious wares — and helping the manufacturers make a bundle. …

Hardware stores and home-improvement chains in Germany are seeing massive increases in the sales of the traditional bulbs. Obi reports a 27 percent growth in sales over the same period a year ago. Hornbach has seen its frosted-glass light bulb sales increase by 40-112 percent. When it comes to 100-watt bulbs, Max Bahr has seen an 80 percent jump in sales, while the figure has been 150 percent for its competitor Praktiker.

“It’s unbelievable what is happening,” says Werner Wiesner, the head of Megaman, a manufacturer of energy-saving bulbs. Wiesner recounts a story of how one of his field representatives recently saw a man in a hardware store with a shopping cart full of light bulbs of all types worth more than €200 ($285). “That’s enough for the next 20 years.”

And hoarding doesn’t seem to be just a customer phenomenon. The EU law only forbids producing and importing incandescent bulbs but does not outlaw their sale. “We’ve stocked up well,” a spokesman for Praktiker told SPIEGEL.

And what’s ironic — in the short term, at least — is that the companies that manufacture the climate-killing bulbs are seeing a big boost in sales. According to the GfK market research company, sales in Germany of incandescent light bulbs between January and April 20, 2009, saw a 20 percent jump over the same period a year earlier, while CFL sales shrank by 2 percent. …

But — like laws on bent cucumbers — many have mocked the light bulb legislation as just another example of an EU bureaucracy gone wild. Holger Krahmer, for example, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany’s business-friendly FDP party has accused the EU of imposing ‘light bulb socialism.”" “Germans Hoarding Traditional Light Bulbs“

“AMSTERDAM – A Dutch authority ruled against work to deepen and widen an inlet in the south of the country to give larger cargo ships easier access to Antwerp in neighboring Belgium.

The ruling — made on environmental grounds — has implications for Antwerp’s development as a port, Europe’s third largest container port based on 2008 figures.

Both the Netherlands and Belgium wanted to start the work last year when the first permits were issued for dredging work.

But in a provisional ruling Tuesday, the Dutch Council of State said Dutch Agriculture and Fisheries Minister Gerda Verburg was unable to conclude with “sufficient certainty” that the area would not be adversely impacted by the work.

“The passage of larger ships is of crucial importance for us,” Antwerp Port Alderman Marc Van Peel was quoted saying by Belgian media.

Environmental groups De Zeeuwse Milieufederatie and the Netherlands Society for the Protection of Birds had objected to work in the Westerschelde, an estuary for the Scheldt river that runs through Belgium and out into the sea in Dutch territory.

The groups argued the area was an internationally unique region where mud and sandbanks attract a large number of migratory birds.” “Dutch Authority Bars Antwerp Cargo Inlet Work“

The EU ETS (cap and trade scheme) is already a massive tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Now the French government, ever hungry for more and more revenue, wants to impose an additional direct tax. How much blood can the government squeeze from it’s citizens under the phony pretext of “fighting global warming”:

“PARIS – France should aim to introduce a tax on carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 to help fight global climate change, a panel advising the government said on Tuesday.

The plan has already drawn fire from intensive fuel users such as farmers and fishermen, and the government pledged to offset any tax with cuts elsewhere while the head of the panel indicated the scheme might have to be delayed.

“Carbon dioxide emissions are a threat to life on the planet … among the many necessary responses, a significant tax on carbon dioxide emissions is one the most pertinent and efficient,” the panel concluded. …

Under the carbon tax plan, France would bill 32 euros ($46) for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2010 and lift the levy progressively to 100 euros per ton by 2030. …

Business associations, on the other hand, worry that the tax may hurt their competitiveness.

“The carbon tax should not be an umpteenth tax used for filling up the state coffers,” the small business union, the CGPME, a small business union, said in a statement.” “France Faces Internal Fight Over Carbon Tax“

“Consider this headline: “Environmental justice advocates win major victory over Chevron in Richmond”

Chevron has stopped construction to expand its refinery’s capacity in Richmond, Calif., the result of a lawsuit filed by environmental activists. The project would install new technology and reduce emissions, but groups like Communities for a Better Environment cannot accept any successful energy operation. With the halting of the project, 1,000 construction jobs were eliminated.

Chevron has produced a video with personal testimonials, first-person accounts from those harmed by the campaign against energy.

We’ll put it bluntly: These activists are contemptuous of the people employed at Chevron. If 1,000 people lose their jobs, they view it as a small price for driving the energy sector out of the Bay Area and California.

California’s unemployment rate is 11.6 percent.” “Victory! Environmental lawsuit costs 1,000 jobs” h/t Tom Nelson

“Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who said in May that he wanted to use federal policy to “coerce” people out of their cars, told CNSNews.com on Friday that what he really meant to say is that he wants to use federal policy to “lure” people out of their cars.

At a May 21 event at the National Press Club, LaHood responded to a piece in Newsweek written by columnist George Will, which quoted LaHood as saying, “I think we can change people’s behavior,” and mocked him as the “Secretary of Behavior Modification.”

At that May event LaHood talked about a Transportation Department initiative that is designed to change people’s behavior by getting them to walk and use bicycles rather [than] drive, and he specifically described the initiative as “a way to coerce people out of their cars”.

“Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative,” the moderator of the press club event asked LaHood. “Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?””

“It is a way to coerce people out of their cars,” said LaHood.

Eventually, LaHood argued at the press club that columnist George Will was the only person who didn’t really like the idea of using government policies to encourage [coerce!] people to not use their cars.

“And the only person that I’ve heard of that objects to this is George Will. Check out Newsweek magazine,” said LaHood.

The moderator then asked: “Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it’s an example of government intrusion into people’s lives. How do you respond?”

LaHood responded defiantly. “About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives,” he said. “So have at it.” …

After his testimony, LaHood also talked to reporters about his “livability initative.” Getting people out of cars is just one part of an overall plan to change the way we live.” “Transportation Secretary Now Says He Wants to ‘Lure’–Not ‘Coerce’–People out of Their Cars“
-

“California recently passed a bill rejecting import of heavy oil from Canadian tar sands because the state’s research found of. …

In a free and global market, the pain to California and US is the gain to other countries especially those in Asia. China is more than happy to secure a steady long term supply of crude oil from a stable government such as Canada as they are scouting around the world to look for countries strapped for cash in a global recession.

It proved a point again and again: whenever you have government mixed up in a free market, they will do more ham than good.

Every time!” “Canadian tar sands“

News flash: sea ice retreats in summer!

“Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world’s weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating.” “Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide” h/t Tom Nelson

California Democrats decide bankrupt California doesn’t need billions in new royalty revenue from oil extraction:

“LOS ANGELES, July 24 (Reuters) – The California state assembly killed a chance on Friday for the state’s first new offshore oil drilling lease since 1969, after the idea narrowly passed the senate earlier in the day.

The measure was defeated by a 43-30 vote in the assembly and was taken out of the budget bill approved on Friday that seeks to close a $26 billion budget deficit.” “California kills offshore oil lease project“

“The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. …

It turns out that there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1oC for each doubling of CO2). The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity.” “Resisting climate hysteria” h/t Climate Realists

Prior posts on Lindzen’s new paper here and here
-

As predicted, Roy Spencer opines on the new cloud paper in Science:

“I’m getting a lot of e-mails asking about a new study by Clement et al. published last week in Science, which shows that since the 1950s, periods of warmth over the northeastern Pacific Ocean have coincided with less cloud cover. The authors cautiously speculate that this might be evidence of positive cloud feedback.

This would be bad news for the Earth and its inhabitants since sufficiently strong positive cloud feedbacks would have the potential of amplifying the small amount of direct warming from our carbon dioxide emissions to disastrous proportions.

The authors are appropriately cautious about the interpretation of their results, which are indeed interesting. In my view, though, the potential interpretation of their results in terms of cloud feedback has the same two problems that previous studies have had. These have to do with (1) the regional character of the study, and (2) the issue of causation when analyzing cloud and temperature changes. …

[T]here is a bigger – and less well appreciated — problem in the inference of positive cloud feedback from studies like that of Clement et al.: that of causation.

I am now convinced that the causation issue is at the heart of most misunderstandings over feedbacks. …

Using the example of the new Clement et al. study (the observation that periods of unusual warmth on the northeast Pacific coincided with periods of less cloud cover)…what if most of that warming was actually caused by the decrease in clouds, rather than the decrease in clouds being caused by the warming (which would be, by definition, positive cloud feedback)? In other words, what if causation is actually working in the opposite direction to feedback?

It turns out that, when a circulation-induced change in clouds causes a temperature change, it can almost totally obscure the signature of feedback — even if the feedback is strongly negative. This is easily demonstrated with a simple forcing-feedback model, which is what one portion of our new JGR paper submission deals with. It was also demonstrated theoretically in our 2008 Journal of Climate paper.

In other words, a cloud change causing a temperature change gives the illusion of positive feedback – even if negative feedback is present.

In the case of the new Science magazine study, one of the major changes seen in temperature and cloudiness (and other weather parameters) occurred during the Great Climate Shift of 1977, an event which is known to have been accompanied by changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, such as immediate and prolonged warming in Alaska and the Arctic. And since circulation changes can cause cloud changes, this is one example of a situation where one can be fooled regarding the direction of causation.

This issue of the direction of causation is not easy to get around. While I’ve found some researchers who think this is only a matter of semantics, and who claim that all we need to know is how clouds and temperature vary together, our 2008 J. Climate paper demonstrated that this is definitely not the case.

The bottom line is that it is very difficult to infer positive cloud feedback from observations of warming accompanying a decrease in clouds, because a decrease in clouds causing warming will always “look like” positive feedback.

Based upon the few conversations I have had with other researchers in the field on this subject, the issue of causation remains a huge source of confusion among climate experts on the subject of feedbacks. Even though our 2008 Journal of Climate paper on the subject outlined the basic issue, the climate research community has still failed to grasp its significance. Hopefully, the more thorough treatment we provide in our JGR resubmission [here and here] will help the community better understand the problem — if it ever gets published.” “New Study in Science Magazine: Proof of Positive Cloud Feedback?“

Those of you who have been watching the Tour de France, as I have, the last three weeks may find this amusing:

“Cycling superstar Lance Armstrong is under fire after it was revealed that his latest bike for the Tour de France has been decorated with hundreds of dead butterflies.

Controversial Brit artist Damien Hirst has designed the machine for America’s seven-time Tour winner to ride into Paris tomorrow.

Hirst, who had earlier created works with insects, bred the butterflies, which were then killed and their wings glued to the hi-tech bike.

But Sam Glover, of animal rights group Peta, called the stunt “barbaric”.

“Lance Armstrong is all about life – about not dying and overcoming adversity,” the Sun quoted him as saying.

Armstrong, 37, is a cancer survivor and has plans to raise cancer charity funds.” “Lance Armstrong’s fly-cycle criticised by animal welfare groups” h/t The Global Warming

“Whether or not climate change is man-made or down to nature this still doesn’t mean that we should continue polluting [Idiot!] our planet with ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is not the only ecological problem [It's not a problem!], and we should be really trying to find solutions to all other ecological problems as well. Making our industry more green would be a step of the most significant importance to preserve our planet for our future generations.” “Climate change – Man made or down to nature?” h/t Global Warming
-

“The evidence is piling up every day that the world is now getting cooler instead of warmer, the oceans are now cooling instead of warming, the ice is returning to the Arctic rather than receding, the sea ice in the Antarctic is at record levels, and that rising sea levels have moderated. The sun has recently gone into a less active phase of fewer sun-spots, and the ocean decadal currents have changed from a warming to a cooling phase.

Before too long the global warming scare will be as dead as the scares about the Y2K bug or acid rain. Already some of the global warming alarmists, anticipating this may soon happen, are re-inventing their alarmism into the scare about the oceans becoming acidified by our CO2 emissions – even though the oceans already contains 90 times more CO2 than the atmosphere (Chilingar, et.al.) Beyond all these things, however, we need to get to what this debate and this climate change alarmism is really all about.

Beyond all this alarmism about global warming or ocean acidification, we need to see that on a deeper level it is a debate about carbon, and when we dig into that level of the debate we will finally see that behind the demonization of carbon and CO2, it is all about an attack on humanity itself.

Global warming alarmism is not a science, but a religio/political movement. This paper will show why it [is] a dangerous totalitarian ideology and a more serious threat to human freedom than Communism or Nazism. It is also like a bad joke, because carbon just happens to be the most wonderful of all the elements in the periodic table because of its ability to make so many organic compounds that are fundamental to the formation of life. Yet here is a movement that is all about demonizing carbon.” “The vindication of carbon mean the vindication of human freedom“
-

“Another new paper was just published in Journal of Climate. Jason Box, Lei Yang, David Bromwich, and Le-Sheng Bai wrote an article called

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007: abstract, full paper (PDF)

which discusses data from Greenland since 1840. No unprecedented recent warming is found. For example, they find that the 1919-1932 warming [anomaly] was 1.33 times greater than the 1994-2007 warming.” “Climate feedbacks from measured energy flows“
-