Topic: The Global Warming Super Thread

[ModlrMike]

I was suddenly struck by a new theory on AGW last night while at work:

All of this rampant obesity we're seeing has caused the earth's rotation to slow due to an increase in the earth's mass, allowing the sun to linger longer on the surface thereby driving up the global temperature. The same theory accounts for the time dilation effect whereby some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

[Thucydides]

Just wow. Follow the links to see the graphs:

http://miltonconservative.blogspot.com/2012/01/icelandic-saga-continues-fraud-is.html

The Icelandic Saga Continues (The Fraud is Breathtaking)
 
January 18, 2012
tags: GISS, Iceland

By Paul Homewood

Just to recap, we have learnt that GISS temperatures for Iceland and Greenland have been artificially adjusted, with the result that current temperatures appear much warmer than when compared with the warm period during the 1940’s. Temperature data for Reykjavik from the Iceland Met Office confirmed that this adjustment was wholly artificial and resulted in a net warming of about a half a degree centigrade since 1940 and that the actual mean temperatures in the last decade are about a degree less than GISS show.

I also have data from the Iceland Met Office for two other stations, Stykkisholmur and Akureyri and these show the same pattern of adjustments as the graphs below illustrate.

image

image

In both cases the temperatures from 1940 to 1964 have been adjusted downwards, and as with Reykjavik the overall effect is to create about a half a degree of warming.

On further investigation, it appears that the adjustments have actually been carried out by GHCN, whose figures GISS use. The changes seem to have taken place when they issued a revised version, 3.1, of their database in November 2011. The GHCN website gives access to all their stations and shows both adjusted and unadjusted data. Examination of these records confirms that, out of eight stations in Iceland, seven have had such artificial warming applied, e.g

image

The top right hand graph (red) is the unadjusted version, middle one is adjusted, and the bottom one graphs the adjustment (blue is minus, red plus).

Evidence is already building up that these adjustments are not limited to only Iceland. Similar adjustments have already been found in Greenland, Ireland and Scotland.

This issue raises several points of concern :-

1) These are palpably not “one-off” adjustments, which might be justified for station location changes or other local reasons. Have they been made as a result of a deliberate decision by GHCN, or are they the result of an error or a faulty piece of software?

2) If the result of error, what does this tell us about the quality control procedures at GHCN and GISS?

3) How many other similar adjustments have been made previously that have not been spotted? Would these have been uncovered without the attention of independent observers?

4) If GHCN believe the adjustments are justified, why have they not published their results and reasons for discussion, before issuing the revision? According to their CHANGELOG “GHCNMv3.1.0 is released with several minor corrections and a reworking of internal arrays for more efficient operations.” No mention of large scale temperature adjustments!

5) What assurance do we have that more changes of this sort won’t be made in future?

[Haletown]

Inconvenient Numbers



http://www.cartalk.com/content/bob-lutz-green-car-guy-who-says-global-warming

    Car Talk: A lot of people seeing your involvement in the Chevrolet Volt and Via Motors might conclude that your views on the environment had evolved since you said that global warming was “a crock of *$%*#@.”

    I don’t pursue the electrification of the automobile out of any fear I might have of planetary meltdown. First of all, you have to realize that carbon dioxide is a trace gas, one of most minimal gases in atmosphere. If you believe in the greenhouse effect, you should realize that methane, also known as bovine flatulence, has more than 20 times the power of CO2, and yet nobody talks about it. More than 98 percent of CO2 is from natural causes—just two percent is from humans, and mostly from stationary sources. And just a fifth of the human-caused emissions are from the global automotive sector. You could plug up the spark plug holes of every car and truck on the planet with cement and it would be a rounding error as far as CO2 production is concerned.

    The whole thing [blaming cars for global warming] is outrageous, and the purpose is to create an artificial scarcity of fossil fuel to raise prices and get alternative fuels, which cost way more, to start paying off.

[Haletown]

How the Great Global Warming Scam works at the grass roots level.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/019105.html

And the insult to injury . . .  we pay the eco nutters to gum up the works.

[MJP]

 From the Toronto Sun and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Harper’s smarter, On green energy, the PM was right. His critics were wrong
By Lorrie Goldstein ,Toronto Sun

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/25/harpers-smarter?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=recommend-button&utm_campaign=Harper%92s+smarter

If Canada’s “green” media — especially in the Parliamentary Press Gallery — demanded the same standards of accountability of themselves as they do of politicians, they would be killing entire forests right now apologizing to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Why? Because in sidestepping the economically suicidal stampede onto the green energy bandwagon which they relentlessly shilled for, Harper was right and they — along with the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens — were wrong.

Today, so-called “green” energy is in retreat all over the developed world, as taxpayers and consumers in countries that blindly raced into it are in open revolt against paying exorbitant, ever-rising prices for unreliable, inefficient power sources that don’t lower carbon dioxide emissions.

Germany is poised to slash public subsidies for solar energy — which sent shares in solar companies crashing world-wide — because it can’t afford the grossly inflated, 20-year feed-in-tariffs it has been paying for energy that’s so unreliable. It has had to import nuclear power from France and the Czech Republic this winter to avoid blackouts, plus restart an old, oil-fired electricity plant in Austria.

As Germany’s Spiegel Online reported: “Solar energy has gone from being the great white hope to an impediment to a reliable energy supply.”

In the U.K., an all-party alliance of MPs has been formed to fight the proliferation of wind turbines, amidst public fury over higher energy prices, unreliability and the problems it has caused for the nation’s electricity grid. Even world-famous U.K. environmentalist James Lovelock, who supports nuclear power, has described wind turbines as useless and growing blights on the landscape.


More on link

[Haletown]

Glowball Warming . . . . coming undone faster than a cowboy's zipper at en of the cattle drive whorehouse



"Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-prominent-scientists-publish-a-letter-in-wsj-saying-theres-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/#comment-876994


Too bad about the $$$hndreds of $$$Billions of taxpayers dollars wasted around the world building useless wind turbines and solar parks, paying off greenie political cronies at Solyndra and dozens of other eco-grifter greenie companies.

That money would have bought a lot of free public education and healthcare.

[Thucydides]

Real science:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/the-coup-de-grace-for-global-warming-catastrophe.php

THE COUP DE GRACE FOR GLOBAL WARMING CATASTROPHE?
Going through this week’s issue of Nature magazine, which arrived in my in-box yesterday, the following short squib in their “research highlights” section appears:

Warming, but not as much

The climate system may be less sensitive to greenhouse-gas warming than many models have predicted.

Nathan Gillett and his co-workers at Environment Canada in Victoria, British Columbia, analysed how well the latest Canadian Earth System Model tracked temperature changes attributable to volcanoes, man-made aerosols and rising greenhouse-gas emissions. They adjusted the model using temperature records from 1851 to 2010 — 60 years of data more than most previous analyses. The model predicted a short-term increase of 1.3–1.8 °C for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which is low in the range of estimates from previous forecasts.

Nature links to the original article in Geophysical Research Letters (subscription required unfortunately, though you can read the abstract), entitled “Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations.”  It is a typically dense article filled with all of the usual qualifiers, but several things make this a bombshell and a blow to the catastrophist narrative. First, this study was conducted by the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis of Environment Canada, which is Canada’s EPA, so the climate campaigners can’t use their favorite talking point that this comes from a private, fossil-fuel funded skeptic outfit.  Second, there is no disguising that the finding of this model, along with recent similar studies, that global warming is overestimated by roughly a factor of two in the usual models the IPCC uses.  The authors appear to know that this is politically incorrect, and add the usual caveats at the end to mitigate the implications of their findings: “[W]e find that [the model’s] multi-decadal internal climate variability is lower than that in other models.  We therefore recommend caution in interpreting the scaled projections derived from this single model. . .”  The authors appear duty-bound to include that the full range of possible warming could be 1.2 – 4.3 degrees C, but the body of their study and the strength of their main conclusions do not give much support for this.

This is merely the latest in a series of recent climate modeling studies that conclude that the standard “consensus” forecast of the amount of warming to be expected by a doubling of carbon dioxide has been dramatically overestimated.  Which is just about par for the course with most environmental scares.  As more studies like this dribble out from the scientific community, eventually we’ll reach the proverbial “tipping point” beloved of so many climate alarmists—only it won’t tip the way they think.

[Haletown]

Real science:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/the-coup-de-grace-for-global-warming-catastrophe.php

Trying to walk back the hysteria & fear mongering they have been spewing isn't going to save their reputations.

The era of easy eco grifting, selling the scam, is over. Only the really heavy Greenie Kool Aide guzzlers still carry the CO2 torch, still believe, still think they are winning the battle for public support.

What scam will they think of next?

[Thucydides]

What scam will they think of next?

Most people don't remember "Global Cooling" 

[Haletown]

Most people don't remember "Global Cooling" 

right  . . .  but we have to make vewy, vewy, vewy scawy  . . .so maybe we should exaggerate, hyperventilate and go all hysterical and label it "Global Ice Age Will  Freeze Yer *** Off"

Has a nice fund raising ring too it. 

[GAP]

right  . . .  but we have to make vewy, vewy, vewy scawy  . . .so maybe we should exaggerate, hyperventilate and go all hysterical and label it "Global Ice Age Will  Freeze Yer *** Off"

Has a nice fund raising ring too it. 

Think Ice Cubes/Bags of Ice......incorporate a global cooling message into each cube, this will remind the masses on a consistant basis.....

[Haletown]

Think Ice Cubes/Bags of Ice......incorporate a global cooling message into each cube, this will remind the masses on a consistant basis.....

Excellent . . . .  an idea for an advertising campaign   


"Buy our Ice or the Planet Gets It"

[Thucydides]

Global cooling may be more of a threat than we might think (and unlike Global warming, the conswequences of global cooling include crop failure and lower crop yields, factors that may have caused civilizations to collapse in the past during other episodes of global cooling):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By David Rose

Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
 
A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

Hotter summers 'may kill 5,900 every year', warns first national risk assessment of climate change
Winter bites back: Britain braced for first cold snap of year as ice and snow transform countryside in scenes of breathtaking beauty
What are the mysterious blue balls that fell from the sky over Bournemouth?

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest  a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the  Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
 
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

[WeatherdoG]

I can well imagine that there are many people working in the Met Office in the UK that don't believe the official line they are forced repeat, much like there are people who don't agree with the party line within EC. Like all employees though, they can't be publicly seen going against what the bosses tell the world.

[Thucydides]

Well this is real science and it is really frightening:

http://metanoodle.blogspot.com/2012/01/coming-ice-age-will-that-be-venti-or.html

The coming ice age: Will that be Venti or Grande?
It's going to get a lot colder.  "Global Warming" and "Cooling trend since 1998" are blips.  The real story has been known for decades.  Here's the Venti chart.  Look at the 100,000 year cycles and the temperature cliff we are falling off.  (1986).


Global Temperature


Below is the Grande chart in 10,000 year steps. Greenland shows rhythmic 10C degree swings on a fine time scale with the last uptick about 9000 years ago when the glaciers that had been covering Canada had mostly disappeared.  Back then the Haida were migrating on foot from the Prince Rupert area to Haida Gwai.  Think about it.   Obama had the gall to talk about causing seas to fall.  The IPCC has the arrogance to elevate our puny presence above the sun, the seas and the currents of magma far below our feet.  It's like a primitivist belief in magic that our incantations cause the rain to fall, the crops to grow and pestilence to disappear.  The next ice age is about to start.

How do they know this stuff?  A little bit of the water vapour in the air is formed with heavy hydrogen, a rather rare but naturally-occurring form of hydrogen. (They collect it and use it for cooling some nuclear reactors). The amount of heavy hydrogen being formed in the atmosphere goes up and down with the temperature of the air.  A core drilled down over 11,000 feet in Greenland went through ancient layers of ice.  Testing that ice to see what percent included heavy hydrogen produced the graph.

[Thucydides]

Interesting history lesson; look at the "solutions" offered, then look at the date. The more things change....

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/01/31/the-coming-of-the-new-ice-age-end-of-the-global-warming-era/?print=1

The Coming of the New Ice Age: End of the Global Warming Era?

Posted By Zombie On January 31, 2012 @ 11:19 am In Uncategorized | 144 Comments

I just finished reading a terrifying new book about climate change. I learned this:

• Climate change is happening faster than we realize and it will have catastrophic consequences for mankind.
• There’s very little we can do to stop it at this late stage, but we might be able to save ourselves if we immediately take these necessary and drastic steps:

    - Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;
    - Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;
    - Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;
    - Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;
    - In general embrace all environmental causes.

You of course recognize these as the solutions most often recommended to ameliorate the looming crisis of Global Warming. But there’s a little glitch in my narrative. Because although the book I read was indeed about climate change, it wasn’t about Global Warming at all; it was instead about “The Coming of the New Ice Age,” and it isn’t exactly “new” — it was published in 1977.

The Solution Remains the Same

As many other pundits and analysts have pointed out, in the mid-to-late 1970s we endured a massive “climate change scare” that was the exact opposite of the one we’re enduring now. Back then, the media and activists trumpeted the arrival of a new ice age, with the specter of ice sheets and glaciers covering half the northern hemisphere, and brutal winters in the remaining ice-free zones.

The fact that the media and popular culture and academia have veered from one panic-inducing disaster scenario to another one which completely contradicts the first one is funny enough in its own right. But reading The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age opened my eyes to an even more significant aspect of this serial crisis-mongering:

    The “solutions” prescribed to solve both Global Warming and the looming Ice Age are exactly the same.

In both cases, proponents of the theory-du-jour say that in order to stave off disaster, we must reverse the march of civilization, stop our profligate use of carbon-based fuels, cede power and money from the First World to the Third World, and wherever possible revert to a Luddite pre-industrial lifestyle.

I realized: The solution (commit civilizational suicide) always remains the same; all that differs are the wildly divergent purported “crises” proffered up to justify the imposition of the solution.

Seen from this angle, the entire Climate Change field should be more properly reframed thus:

    In order to weaken and eventually destroy the existing industrialized nations, we must devise an ecological “crisis” so severe that only voluntary economic suicide can solve it; and if this first crisis doesn’t materialize as planned, then devise another, and another, even if they flatly contradict our previous claims.

I had long suspected that this is the most accurate characterization of Climate Changeology; but reading The New Ice Age clinched it for me. The true purpose of climate change disaster-mongering is to permanently cripple the First World, and to elevate the Third World, in order to create a planet with no economic inequality. The goal remains constant; the supposed imminent catastrophes justifying it come and go as needed.

Below, I’ll present scanned pages from the book so you can see for yourself.

The scenario we’re in reminds me of the classic Twilight Zone episode called “The Midnight Sun”: At first we see the characters sweltering in increasingly unbearable heat as the Earth, knocked out of its orbit, slowly plummets into the sun. Just as they are all about to burn to death, in typical Twilight Zone fashion, the lead character wakes up — she had in fact merely been having a fever dream about the world getting hotter; in reality, the Earth had been knocked away from the sun, and they’re all going to freeze to death. Ha ha — gotcha! Just as in the narratives spun by the climate change catastrophists, the Earth is doomed either way, even though the disaster scenario flips from one extreme to its exact opposite. Hot, cold, whatever; one way or the other, Mother Nature will wreak revenge on us for our hubris!

Ice Ages Are Making a Comeback

Turns out my choice of reading material (discovered recently at a rummage sale for 25¢, in case you’re curious) was fortuitous, as climate change — and ice ages — are suddenly back in the headlines this past week. And the news is not good for the crisis-mongers.

First we learned that the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is actually helping us stave off the next inevitable ice age by a few years. Yes, you read that right: the “runaway global warming” scenario is now off the table; a new ice age is coming for sure, and whatever human warming effects there may be will only make our descent into the deep freeze a little more comfy.

Then, in a different breakthrough, leading scientists announced the discovery of a heretofore undetected type of molecule in the atmosphere which spurs cloud formation and negates global warming effects. Thanks to something called “Criegee biradicals,” the more we pollute, the more clouds form, and the cooler the planet becomes. Thus, the cumulative effect on the climate due to mankind’s activity: zilch. So for the second time in a week, the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming theory was fatally undermined.

But wait! We’re not done. Next up: A study out of Harvard proving that warming and cooling cycles are caused by orbital wobble and precession of the poles; and that the only reason the next ice age hasn’t arrived quite on schedule yet is due to our beneficial increase in carbon dioxide. Yes, that’s right: more data showing that another ice age is inevitable sooner or later.

A third nail in AGW’s coffin in less than a week? Why wasn’t this front page news?

But brace yourself — because those nails in the coffin were just the opening act. The next bit of news was the real blockbuster, a stake through AGW’s heart:

Now we learn that the world has not warmed at all for the last 15 years, and that the entire recent “global warming” hubbub was totally imaginary. Furthermore, the recent cooling is so significant that we may be headed for — you guessed it — a “mini ice age.”

Still not enough for you? The coup de grace came from our own USDA, which released a new “Plant Hardiness Zone Map” indicating that the mild global warming spike of a few years ago was actually good for plant growth and biodiversity. In other words: Even if we do experience warming, it makes the world a nicer place.

And that was just one week’s news. I wonder what next week will bring?

Now, you’d think that this devastating barrage of body blows would basically bring an end to the whole Global Warming “controversy.”

But no. Because, you see, true believers are nearly impervious to facts. In the midst of all this, the AGW activists and bullies continued their relentless quest to reshape the world’s economic landscape, as if they still had the upper hand. They even launched a witch hunt against “denier” weathermen, threatening to get any TV meteorologists fired unless they present global warming propaganda during their forecasts. Meanwhile, Al Gore continued on his decade-long tirade, declaring that “civilization is at risk” if the presidential candidates don’t cave into his demands immediately. And if you check the Web sites of any number of climate change nonprofits and organizations, they’re all still in hysterical crisis mode about the coming calamity. To them, you see, news stories like the ones we saw this week may come and go, but Global Warming is forever!

Something’s Gotta Give

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold,” as William Butler Yeats once wrote. This disconnect between reality and hysteria can’t last forever. As impervious as Global Warmists may be to facts, they’re highly sensitive to their social environment. Eventually, as the general public loses interest in humoring the hysterics, whose status is rapidly dropping from “cutting-edge hipsters” to “embarrassing kooks,” the Alarmists will go into a huddle and emerge with a new crisis scenario so horrifying and immediate that something must be done NOW! And that something, as we learned above, will be the exact same something prescribed to solve the previous crisis.

We already saw the first half of this transition just a short time ago. For years, the crisis peddlers threw all their weight behind the phrase “Global Warming” to describe the looming disaster. But in recent years as data crept in casting some doubt on their prognostications, the phrase “Global Warming” was inconspicuously discarded and replaced with the more flexible “Climate Change.” Voilà! No matter what the weather did, it could be chalked up to “climate change,” because hey, change could go either way, right?

Needless to say, however innocuous “climate change” may have sounded, the activists said Trust us, it’s way worse than mere “global warming,” so the drastic solutions we proposed earlier are still required.

But the ever-growing mountain of evidence pointing to an eventual (naturally occurring) ice age phase in the distant future may trigger yet another huddle among the climate change crowd. Perhaps after a suitable wait, banking on everyone’s short memory, they’ll re-emerge from the huddle this time dropping “Climate Change” for something ice-age themed, like “Accelerated Glaciation,” or perhaps “Man-Made Chill Factor.”

And you can guarantee that they’ll have a solution for this new crisis; and it will be the exact same solution they announced for climate change, and for global warming before that, and yes, for the looming ice age they worried about the previous time back in the ’70s: De-industrialize the First World, end civilization as we know it, and cede power to “the global south,” i.e. the Third World.

The Evidence

To prepare you for this eventuality, I hereby present scans from The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age, published in 1977 and written by “The Impact Team,” a coalition of authors from various fields.

Each scan below is taken from a page in The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age; click on any image to see the passage in context on the full page.

Under each passage I’ll make a few comments; but in general, the text speaks for itself.

Think of this as a warning from the past. Not a warning about looming ice ages, but rather a warning to ignore politically motivated disaster-mongers.


Put the words “Conspiracy” and “CIA” on a 1970s book cover, and you’ve got a guaranteed bestseller.


The thesis of the book is that ices ages are the long-term norm, punctuated by very brief warm spells; the one we’re in now is quickly coming to an end.


The ol’ “appeal to authority” trick was just as common back then as it is today: “Many climatologists believe that since the sixties the world has been slipping toward a new ice age.” When you combine “many climatologists” with “the CIA” you have pretty much an unimpeachable case.


The evidence — it is overwhelming.


Oh no! Here comes the ice! Doom!


Armadillos are the previous panic’s polar bears. One always needs a cutesy “charismatic megafauna” to symbolize any crisis.


Perhaps NBF (“Neo-Boreal Freeze”) will be the new AGW (“Anthropogenic Global Warming”).


“And this ice sheet only has to reach a thickness of twelve inches to make a major new ice age irreversible. It is believed that the process could take only seven or ten years.” My God, at that rate — we’ll be in a new ice age by 1984!


Massive disaster scenarios like this are par for the course in the climate change field. Even extreme outlying possibilities have to be taken into account in our preparations.


Almost every country in the world (with the exception of the hottest areas) will suffer either “Obliteration by ice sheet,” or “Extensive Glaciation,” or “Severe Drought,” or “Parts Glaciated; Parts Drought-stricken.”


Interestingly, the “Impact Team” also gives space to the other faction of climatologists — whom they dub the “hot-earth men,” a primitive term for “Global Warmists.” The hot-earth men are the mortal enemies of the “cool-earth men,” i.e. the ice age predictors, who are obviously more correct and who are therefore given the soapbox throughout the book. What we see here in 1977 is an interesting historical pivot point: The crisis-mongers needed an ecological disaster to hype, and at that moment in history there were two factions battling for the microphone, each trumpeting the exact opposite scenario: the “hot-earth men” and the “cool-earth men.” The media weighed the two views, decided that the cool-earth men had more evidence, more team members and a better argument, and so ran with the “new ice age” story. When that didn’t pan out, they later dumped the cool-earth men and embraced their rivals.


In the three snippets above we see the standard theory of that era: That man-made pollution causes more dust and aerosols in the atmosphere, which end up blocking sunlight and cause a cooling effect that outweighs any warming effect. Needless to say, in the current era, the sun-blocking aspect of pollution is pooh-poohed and the greenhouse effect championed.


In the passages above the authors give a full explanation of the “hot-earth men”‘s theory about potential global warming. They lay this out as a backup plan; just in case the ice age doesn’t arrive, they would still be able to claim they they predicted the opposite as well. Like a fortune-teller who tells you that you’ll make a fortune betting on the stock market, but there’s also a slim possibility that you’ll lose everything; whatever happens, she can say “I told you so!”


And here we get to to gist of the book: the “solution” to the crisis. The remaining scans spell out all the steps we need to take to survive the upcoming ice age, and — who could have guessed? — they’re the exact same steps we now need to take to survive global warming! And the same verbiage and terminology is used as well: Americans are “junkies” who are “addicted” to oil, and the evil corporations dupe us into extravagance. Et cetera, and so forth.


We’re running out of oil; the Europeans are so much more advanced and frugal than us; we’re going broke paying for our overuse of fossil fuels; you know the drill.


My God, solar power won’t solve our energy needs for another 20 years? That’s not until 1997! How can we survive until then?

On a more serious note, pay close attention to the sentence interrupted by this caption: the authors see the need for “legislation…specifying fuel selection and consumption.” This is the exact same wet dream of the Global Warming alarmists today.


Wait just a minute — you said this book was from 1977. But look: it refers to “Governor Jerry Brown of California.” He’s the governor right now, in 2012! So you must be lying — this must be a brand-new book!

“Now we must reduce our standard of living in small ways — lowered room temperatures, fewer gadgets, smaller cars — and in big ways — legislated home improvements, energy-use taxes, and staggered working hours.”

Sound familiar?


In order to stave off the next ice age, we must “add an ecology tax to each ton [of coal] extracted…to repair the damage done.” This is the precursor to today’s “carbon tax,” which as we all know is necessary to stave off global warming.

The remaining recommendations are partly in line with modern alarmists’ demands, but are not yet fully formed; the authors are still open to the idea of increased domestic oil production. Shocking!

The authors still need some schooling to catch up to the modern way of thinking: there is still some optimism amid the pessimism.

And so it begins: “the need for major coordinated international efforts to cope with climatic change.” Fast forward a few decades: Kyoto, Durban, the IPCC — [face palm].

“It is probable that only by supplying aid on an unparalleled scale can the rich nations of the world assist the poor…. America must address itself to a massive program of agricultural and economic assistance….”


This section is amazingly prescient: “The United States government must level with its citizens and explain that all man’s reserves are finite. Given the Earth’s natural limitations, our current phenomenal rate of waste, inherent in our current consumption of both fossil fuels and food, must stop. … In addition, it is probable that taxes should be based on the horsepower and corresponding energy efficiency of automobiles. Energy prices must be raised to reflect America’s energy import bill and the scarcity value of fossil fuels.” As you remark to yourself that this sounds remarkably similar to our current government policy, remind yourself that this was proposed in 1977 to combat a looming ice age.


It’s incredible how the wet dreams of the crisis-mongers back then so closely resemble the wet dreams of today. A fast food tax, a big house tax, federal laws enforcing energy restrictions….

“Shower, Don’t Bathe.” Ah, the ’70s. Nostalgia!

This list could be taken almost verbatim from any number of modern-day global-warming alarmist groups.

Article printed from Zombie: http://pjmedia.com/zombie

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/01/31/the-coming-of-the-new-ice-age-end-of-the-global-warming-era/

[Thucydides]

When I visited the House of Lords’ minister, Lord Marland, at the Climate Change Department a couple of years ago, I asked him and the Department’s chief number-cruncher, Professor David Mackay (neither a climate scientist nor an economist, of course) to show me the Department’s calculations detailing just how much “global warming” that might otherwise occur this century would be prevented by the $30 billion per year that the Department was committed to spend between 2011 and 2050 – $1.2 trillion in all.

The response says everything you ever needed to know about the Global Warming/Climate Change scam:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/huhne-is-no-loss/

Huhne is no loss
Posted on February 3, 2012 by Anthony Watts
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Today’s resignation of Chris Huhne, the UK Minister for Climate Change, offers the prospect of a belated return to sanity at the former Ministry of Agriculture in Whitehall. Huhne now faces prosecution for an alleged attempt to pervert the course of justice by asking his then wife to say that she was driving at the time when one of Britain’s thousands of speed cameras caught him going faster than the law allows.

Under Huhne, the Climate Change Department has been indistinguishable from a lunatic asylum. I first came across him – or, rather, didn’t come across him – when he and I were due to debate the climate at the annual jamboree of a massive hedge-fund in Spain three years ago. Huhne only found out that I was to be his opponent when he reached Heathrow Airport. He turned straight around and went back to London.

When I visited the House of Lords’ minister, Lord Marland, at the Climate Change Department a couple of years ago, I asked him and the Department’s chief number-cruncher, Professor David Mackay (neither a climate scientist nor an economist, of course) to show me the Department’s calculations detailing just how much “global warming” that might otherwise occur this century would be prevented by the $30 billion per year that the Department was committed to spend between 2011 and 2050 – $1.2 trillion in all.

There was a horrified silence. The birds stopped singing. The Minister adjusted his tie. The Permanent Secretary looked at his watch. Professor Mackay looked as though he wished the plush sofa into which he was disappearing would swallow him up entirely.


Eventually, in a very small voice, the Professor said, “Er, ah, mphm, that is, oof, arghh, we’ve never done any such calculation.” The biggest tax increase in human history had been based not upon a mature scientific assessment followed by a careful economic appraisal, but solely upon blind faith. I said as much. “Well,” said the Professor, “maybe we’ll get around to doing the calculations next October.”

They still haven’t done the calculations – or, rather, I suspect they have done them but have kept the results very quiet indeed. Here’s why.

The UK accounts for 1.5% of global business-as-usual CO2 emissions. At an officially-estimated cost of $1.2 trillion by 2050, or $834 billion after inter-temporal discounting at the minimum market rate of 5%, the Climate Change Act aims to eradicate 80% of these emissions. So just 1.2% of global emissions would be abated even if the policy were to succeed in full.

Business-as-usual CO2 concentration, as the average of all six IPCC emission scenarios, would be 514 ppmv in 2050. A full and successful reduction of UK emissions by 80% over that period would reduce that concentration to – wait for it – 512.5 ppmv. This dizzying reduction of 1.5 ppmv over 40 years would have the effect of abating 0.008 K of the 1.05 K of warming that the IPCC would otherwise have expected to see by 2050.

The UK policy’s mitigation cost-effectiveness – the cost of abating just 1 Kelvin of warming if every nation pursued the UK’s policy with the same cost-ineffectiveness – works out at $108 trillion per Kelvin abated.

The policy’s global abatement cost – the cost of abating all of the 1.05 K warming that would otherwise occur over the policy’s 40-year lifetime – would be $113 trillion, or $16,000 per head of the global population, or almost 7% of global GDP over the period.

To determine how much better it would be to do nothing than to try to abate that warming, it is necessary to agree on how much damage the warming might abate. The Stern Report on the economics of climate change produces some of the most extreme and exaggerated cost estimates, so we shall use it for the sake of being as fair as possible.

Stern agrees with most sources that if there is 3 K warming this century (which the IPCC predicted at the time), it will cost 0-3% of global 21st-century GDP (actually, he says “now and forever”, but that is one exaggeration too many). However, the IPCC’s current central estimate is that the CO2 we emit between 2000 and 2100 will cause little more than 1.5 K of warming. So let us assume that this 1.5 K of CO2-driven warming will cost us 1.5% of global 21st-century GDP.

Yes, I know that anything less than 2 K will probably be beneficial, but we have to bear in mind the already-committed warming of 0.6 K that the IPCC says is already in the pipeline on account of our past sins of emission, and the warming from the non-CO2 greenhouse gases that is not addressed in the UK’s CO2-reduction policy.

However, Stern’s calculations are all based on an inter-temporal discount rate of just 1.4%, which is far lower than the minimum rate of return on capital, which is 5%. Correcting the Stern-based 1.5%-of-GDP cost of taking no action to allow for the minimum market discount rate brings that cost down to 0.3% of GDP.

Accordingly, the 6.85%-of-GDP cost of taking action to mitigate the warming would give an impressive action/inaction ratio of 22.8. Bottom line: it is almost 23 times more expensive to pursue the policies outlined in the Climate Change Act than to sit back, do nothing, enjoy the sunshine, and adapt in a focused way to the consequences of what little warming the IPCC predicts may occur.

Just one problem with this entire calculation. It depends upon the assumption that the $1.2 billion spent by Mr. Huhne’s former department  to 2050 would actually achieve an 80% reduction in Britain’s CO2 emissions. And that may not be a justifiable assumption. Real-world climate-mitigation policies are proving far more costly than government estimates.

The United Kingdom is no longer a democracy. We still have all the trappings, but in reality it no longer matters who we vote for. Five-sixths of our laws, including overall policies on environmental matters, are set by the unelected, unaccountable, unsackable Kommissars (that’s the official German name for our new and hated masters) of the failed European Union. For the seventeenth year in a row, the EU’s own court of auditors has declined to sign off the Kommissars’ annual accounts as a true and fair record of how they have squandered the $3 million an hour we pay them. It is these Kommissars who dictate that we must have carbon trading.

So let us compare the pie-in-the-sky cost estimates in the Climate Change Act with the actual, real-world cost of the EU’s four-times-collapsed carbon trading scam – er, scheme. The calculation is similar to that which we did for the UK alone.

Over the ten-year timeframe of the EU’s scheme, CO2 concentration will have risen to 413 ppmv, or 412.4 ppmv if the scheme is fully successful, abating 0.004 K of “global warming”. The cost of the scheme, according to Bjorn Lomborg, is 2.5 times the cost of the trades actually executed: call it $230 billion a year, or $2.1 trillion after 5% discounting over the ten years.

The mitigation cost-effectiveness of the EU scheme is $535 trillion per Kelvin abated; its global abatement cost over the period 2010-2020 is $117 trillion, or $17,000 per head of global population, or 22% of global GDP over the ten-year period. And that is 72 times more costly than the 0.3%-of-GDP cost of the climate-related damage that the policy is intended to forestall.

This, too, understates the true cost-ineffectiveness of trying to tax, trade, regulate, reduce or replace CO2. For the predicted rate of warming is not occurring. By many methods, the climate literature demonstrates that the models are over-predicting CO2-driven warming at least threefold. If so, then the true cost of the EU’s mad policy, of which Mr. Huhne and his party are such enthusiastic supporters, could be at least 200 times greater than the cost of climate-related damage from doing nothing at all.

Will Mr. Huhne’s successor get the sums done and scrap the Climate Change Act? Will the EU come to its senses? Don’t count on it. Gradually, though, reality is breaking through. Desubsidization of solar and even of fashionable wind energy has now begun in the UK, Denmark, Germany and Spain.

The sheer cost of these pointless, environment-wrecking “alternative” energy sources is so crippling that European governments, already near-bankrupted by their incompetent management of the mickey-mouse Euro, cannot any longer afford these self-indulgent indulgences. The removal of Mr. Huhne from the scene will at least take Britain one step nearer to sanity, scientific reality and economic common sense about climate change.

[Haletown]

"“breathtaking ­hypocrisy”


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2012/02/05/green-guru-flies-to-tahiti-to-lecture-on-global-warming-115875-23735649/

I am sure Gaia will forgive him because he believes he is doing good.

[Thucydides]

Trust the men from Oz to find the best way to pour mockery and scorn on climate alarmists:

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/cold_is_old/

COLD IS OLD
 
Tim Blair
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 06:04am
 
The hot new word for “cold” is “extreme”. To give an example:
Regions across Europe sustained another deluge of extreme weather over the weekend.
See how often you can work this hip and happening term into routine conversations! These may help get you started:

• “I’m going extreme turkey.”

• “She got extreme feet.”

• “In the extreme light of day …”

• “Stone Extreme Steve Austin.”

• “They gave me the extreme shoulder.”

• “The spy who came in from the extreme.”

• “Feed an extreme, starve a fever.”

• “For a hard earned thirst, you need a big extreme beer, and the best extreme beer is Vic, Victoria Bitter.”

So lets all raise an extreme one...

[Haletown]

DeSmugBlog gets p-owned.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/18/top-ten-things-heartland-institute-will-do-with-6-4-million-in-funding/

And they are about get a big law suit as well.

Wonderful news

[Haletown]

because the expert's models say global warming is real . . .

[ArmyVern]

...

So lets all raise an extreme one...

Hmmmm, somehow, "I'm an extreme-hearted *****" just isn't cutting it for me. 

[Sythen]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2012/02/20120220-194840.html

OTTAWA -- A top climate scientist is shoving a stick into the gears of the global-warming machine, saying Alberta's oilsands are not to blame - coal is.

Dr. Andrew Weaver, a professor at the University of Victoria, B.C., and a lead author on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says Alberta's oilsands actually produce only a tiny bubble of greenhouse gases.

More on link.

[Thucydides]

Hmmmm, somehow, "I'm an extreme-hearted *****" just isn't cutting it for me. 

Wow, that's extreme, Vern     

[Haletown]

FakeGate, Act3 Scene 1  Gleick 'Fesses Up.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/statement-by-the-heartland-institute-on-gleick-confession/

This dude is so in deep doo-doo . .  he's the big promoter of Ethics for the Warmongers.

Ethics, ya right . . .  for Thee but necessarily for Me.



And the spinners over at DeSmogBlog are nailing him to the "Whistleblower" cross.

The lawyers are going to have a blast  with this one.