“The first question most people ask me these days are how could all those global warmers have got it so wrong? My answer is to remind them of the millennium bug, the dot com bubble and the credit crunch, together these have caused tens of thousands of the world’s most highly paid and computer literate people to succumb to a mass hysteria.” - David Bellamy, CCNet
Posted by BR at February 22, 2009 05:04 PMTell me alarmist, What model had the climate of the last two years in its projections? The last ten years?
***
I read the health care czar job is being thrown to the curb. President Obama will replace this czar with a climate czar.
***
"A full analysis of satellite-measured lower tropospheric temperatures indicates that none of the global temperature variations from 1978 to 2008 can be attributed to the effect of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. The record shows global climate oscillations with a period of three to five years and a peak-to-peak amplitude of 0.4 to 0.5 degrees Celsius about a common, fixed mean temperature that lasted from 1978 to 1997. Since this mean temperature did not change for twenty years the late twentieth century warming touted by IPCC and others simply did not happen. The cause of these newly discovered climate oscillations is large-scale periodic movement of ocean waters from shore to shore, part of the El Nino – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system. It is accompanied by a massive, periodic transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere and back again which was previously
unsuspected and which is detectable even in land-based records. This major atmospheric phenomenon is missing from all IPCC Global Circulation Models (GCMs) and thereby invalidates conclusions drawn from their climate models. Satellite records show that this oscillatory period ended with a giant warming peak known as the “super El Nino of 1998.”
Carbon dioxide cannot explain the lack of warming in the eighties and nineties, nor any of the abrupt warmings that followed, nor the stasis of the twenty first century high, nor the temperature downturn that followed it in 2007 and bottomed out in 2008. A direct comparison of these satellite data with ground-based measurements is also possible. Comparing satellite (UAH MSU LT) and land-based (HadCRUT3) data for the eighties and nineties gives HadCRUT3 a warming trend of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade (one degree per century) while lower tropospheric satellite data show no warming at all. This is compounded by the fact that satellite measurements of midtropospheric temperature show a long-term cooling effect for this period. Looking for sources of error in ground-based data one is led to the usual suspect, the urban heat island effect.
Fatal computer errors in IPCC climate models derive from the fact that none of the abrupt warmings and coolings on the record, especially since 1998, can be attributed to the greenhouse effect. Hence, all IPCC models purporting to predict (project??) climate a hundred years into the future are invalid and their predictions/projections must be discarded. To summarize: existing theory used by the IPCC can neither explain the observed climate nor predict the future. Carbon dioxide warming has been shown to be non-existent in the eighties and nineties, and the warming since 1998 is not carbonaceous in origin. It follows that Quijotic carbon dioxide policies like the Kyoto Protocol and the cap-and-trade laws should be abandoned."Icecap
Posted by peter at February 22, 2009 08:20 PMNice try Peter.
Posted by Steve Soto at February 22, 2009 10:31 PMSteve, Are you telling Peter it was a nice try because he was both his very imitable self (read dittohead) AND BR, or because he was so professional with his cut & paste?
It certainly can't be the content.
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 23, 2009 06:41 AMPeter:
We just launched a satellite that will circle the earth 20 times a day and will take hundreds of measurements of Carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere. The results will be available soon. Would you then agree if these measurements show the obvious? Or are you going to stick to the RNC talking points?
Posted by suresh at February 23, 2009 01:45 PMWhat's the obvious? That China and India are producing at double the 2007 IPCC rates that were projected with some inflation built in? That the third world also is seeing a doubling of output of CO2? Why has it been so cool lately? The last year or two? What model projected our latest climate?
Tell me why the Carbon offest market is collapsing?
"A collapsing carbon market makes mega-pollution cheap
Europe's system to edge up the cost of emissions and boost green energy has backfired. There isn't much time to rescue it." from the Guardian
"'Roll up for the great pollution fire sale, the ultimate chance to wreck the climate on the cheap. You sir, over there, from the power company - look at this lovely tonne of freshly made, sulphur-rich carbon dioxide. Last summer it cost an eyewatering €31 to throw up your smokestack, but in our give-away global recession sale, that's been slashed to a crazy €8.20. Dump plans for the wind turbine! Compare our offer with costly solar energy! At this low, low price you can't afford not to burn coal!"
Set up to price pollution out of existence, carbon trading is pricing it back in. Europe's carbon markets are in collapse."
8.2 for what used to cost 31.00! There's Europe's guidelines for ya.
"A lot of the blame lies with governments that signed up to carbon trading as a neat idea, but then indulged polluters with luxurious quantities of permits. The excuse was that growth would soon see them bumping against the ceiling.
Instead, exchanges are in meltdown: a tonne of carbon has dropped to about €8, down from last year's summer peak of €31 and far below the €30-€45 range at which renewables can compete with fossil fuels.
The lesson of the carbon slump, like the credit crunch, is that markets can be a conduit, but not a substitute, for political will. They only work when properly primed and regulated. Europe hoped that the mere creation of a carbon market would drive everyone away from fossil fuels. It forgot that demand had to outstrip supply, and that if growth stops, demand drops too.
There is not much time to rescue the system. Carbon trading remains at the heart of the international response to climate change. Obama backs what Americans call cap and trade. Australia wants to try the same thing. It should be at the heart of a deal at the Copenhagen summit this winter. But both are hesitating, given Europe's mess."
So much for the enlightened in Europe. They understand what side their toast is buttered. Economy first, jobs first, climate change...last. Just like that PEW survey a few weeks ago...climate change ranked dead last in American's worries.
Then there's...
"Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site."
The size of Kalifornia, that's not much.
Posted by peter at February 23, 2009 05:21 PM