Not So Fast...

Listening to Obama and the lapdog lamestream media's reports, you'd think that the U.S. was burning up with record high temperatures, burning down from wildfires, being blown apart by tornadoes and hurricanes, and so on.

Reality?  Not so much...

Just Sayin'...

The IPCC and it's gang of warmists (Hansen, Mann, etc.) love to tell us that the science is settled with respect to global warming.  Their models, upon which virtually everything they assert rests, are chock full of questionable assumptions and faulty data, but the warmists nonetheless assure us that the models tell the whole truth, the only truth, and nothing but the truth.  Amongst these “truths” is that variations in the brightness of the sun have almost no effect on global average temperatures – so little, in fact, that the majority of the models used by the IPCC reports don't even bother to include it.

This morning I read a report by several climatologists that claims they have discovered the cause of the (roughly) 100,000 year Ice Age cycle.  This cycle has long been known, but was unexplained (at least, in any rigorous and plausible way).  These scientists claim to have solved the riddle (by producing a computer model that can reproduce Ice Ages).  The cause, they say, is a cyclical variation in “insolation” (a five dollar word meaning sunlight striking the Earth).

So, the science is settled: variations in solar radiance (which result in variations in insolation) do not cause global warming, but variations in insolation do cause Ice Ages.  The sun can't heat the Earth, but the lack of sun can cool it.

Right.

Just sayin'...

Climate Models: an Epic Fail!

Dr. Roy Spencer is a climatologist and long-time anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptic.  He's just done all of us a favor by plotting all 73 of the climate models used by the IPCC to support their predictions of AGW – along with the actual observations since the mid-'70s.  The data chosen is the “tropical mid-troposphere” temperature – the temperature of the middle of the troposphere (the lower 12 miles or so of our atmosphere, so about 6 miles high) at latitudes within 20&deq; of the equator.  He chose this particular data for two reasons:

1. The IPCC models make a clear prediction of rapidly increasing temperature in this area.
2. Since the 1970s, we have excellent objective observational data for this area (from both balloons and satellites), with more than enough data to allow the various sensors to be cross-calibrated.

On the chart below, the IPCC predictive models are the lines; the square and round dots are the actual observed temperatures.

As Dr. Spencer says, this divergence between the models and the actual observations isn't news – skeptics have been reporting it for years.  It's just becoming more and more obvious as the evidence accumulates that the IPCC models are fatally flawed.

There's no shame in their models being in error.  There's great shame in their defense of them, even in the face of solid evidence to the contrary.  That's not how science is supposed to work...

In Praise of CO2...

Harrison Schmitt (of Apollo fame) and William Happer have an interesting article in today's WSJ.  The lead:

Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

Read the whole thing...

Climate Change Causes Prostitution...

I'll bet you didn't know that!  But several CongressCritters have said so, therefore it must be true.  Right?

Well, wait a second.  First, all thirteen of the CongressCritters making this assertion happen to be Democrats.  That's either a pattern or a one-in-8192 coincidence.  I'm going with pattern.

Then the sponsor is Representative Barbara Lee.  That certainly sets off the alarm bells, as Ms. Lee is a veritable poster child for radical progressivism in the U.S.  You'll not be surprised to hear that she's represented a San Francisco Bay district for the past 15 years.

So let's tote this up:
– bill is sponsored by Barbara Lee
– Barbara Lee is from California, San Francisco Bay area
– bill is supported by 13 Democrats
– bill blames climate change

I think we could make an a priori case for the premise being false.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that climate change does not cause prostitution.

I'm having trouble laughing about this.  Crying seems more appropriate...

Looks Like We've Passed the Sunspot Peak...

It looks like we've passed the sunspot number peak for this cycle, and it was a lot lower than even the revised NOAA forecast:

Fewer sunspots means lower solar irradiance, something that (according to observational history, but not climate models) is closely correlated with colder climate.  We've had a colder-than-usual winter.  It will be interesting to see what our weather is like for the next 5 or 6 years, as this cycle progresses...

AGW Watch: Leaked IPCC Report Admits Solar Forcing and No Recent Warming...

As Anthony Watts says, this is a major bombshell.

The IPCC is in the midst of its process for finalizing and releasing AR5, its next report on anthropogenic global warming.  Alec Rawls is one of the IPCC “expert reviewers”, and he decided to break his confidentiality agreement with the IPCC and released the working draft.  You can read all about his reasons, and download the working draft itself, from Mr. Watts wonderful site WUWT.

I know of two big pieces of news in the leaked report, though I'm sure there will be more, as more people get to chew on the data.  The first one is illustrated in the graph (from the report!) at right: the IPCC is itself reporting that observed temperatures have not trended upwards since the late '90s, in direct contrast to the upward trends predicted by all of the IPCC's climate models.  Skeptics have been reporting this for five years, and until now the IPCC has been denying it.

Probably even more relevant, though, is the discussions in the draft report about solar forcing.  The IPCC scientists (some of them, at least) are reporting strong evidence for amplified solar forcing, even though they don't know the mechanism.  This is precisely what many skeptical scientists have been saying for years: that there is strong evidence that climate variations are caused (in large part, anyway) by variations in solar radiance.  Much of the evidence is observational: high correlation between solar radiance and global temperature.  Some is experimental, most especially the recent experiments (and related observations) about solar wind, cosmic rays, and cloud seeding.  The IPCC has heretofore resolutely denied that solar forcing was playing any part at all in climate change – this represents a radical revision of that position.

This is the first time a draft IPCC report has been leaked.  The first thought I had upon reading the news (and the report) was this: has this same sort of information been in prior reports, but then removed before publication?  That would be precisely the sort of thing a corrupt science bureaucracy would do to protect its own funding...

The World Isn't Ending...

Reading the lamestream media news reports about the recent East Coast heat wave, you'd think that the world was coming to an end.  Headlines trumpet things like “3,000+ Records Broken!”, and the text of the articles implies that nothing like this has ever been seen before.

Hogwash.

The graph below is courtesy of the indispensable Watts Up With That?.  It shows the number of heat records broken for each year since 1892.  This year isn't even going to be close to the top.  The early part of the last century (before all those carbon-emitting SUVs!) is clearly far “hotter” (at least in this limited sense) than the most recent decade.

Get a grip, folks...

The Trouble With Models...

Computer models of real-world phenomena all have the same weakness: the value of their output depends completely on the validity of the data and assumptions incorporated in the model.  Business folks are very familiar with this weakness, as it plagues the world of financial forecasting.  Climate models, I (and others) have long argued have the same problem – they're dependent on data and assumptions that have not been verified.

Today comes news of yet another such assumption: how heat is transported from inside the Sun to the outside (where it is radiated to the Earth).  This matters intensely to climate models, as their primary energy input is solar radiation – and if the models use the wrong assumptions, in particular, about variability of solar radiation, then...they'll just be wrong...

Quote of the Day...

From an interview with Roger Scruton in the Wall Street Journal:

Many of the people who brand themselves as climatologists are not in the first rank of scientific minds, you know? I'm not really entitled to say that. But you do have a sense that these are guys who are not particularly good at mathematical modeling, they're not particularly good at computer science, they're not particularly good at physics, not particularly good at chemistry, but who put all those together . . . [and] become an 'expert.'

The interview is wide-ranging and quite interesting for more reasons than just the quote above.  Read the whole thing...

Trouble with Models...

An excellent article about the dangers of relying on computer models to predict future events.  They had me at the introductory quote, one of my old favorites:

“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”
—Niels Bohr, Danish physicist (1885 – 1962)

AGW Skeptics Triumphant?

Several readers (Larry E., Steve W., and Jessi S.) passed this along.  I'm not sure how much to read into it just yet, but if it's verified it's certainly a very interesting piece of data.

The basic notion is a simple one: scientists have known for a long, long time that the heat energy striking the Earth from the Sun is eventually re-radiated back out into space.  This much is obvious from the fact that the Earth hasn't been heated to the point of incandescence (which it certainly would be if the Sun's energy wasn't re-radiated).

The question has always been, basically, how long is that energy “stored” on Earth before being re-radiated?  That time then determines how hot the Earth gets.

The computer models used by the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proponents makes a lot of assumptions about this critical factor.  The research at the link shows that one of the key assumptions – and one used by every AGW model – is dead wrong.  This means that the model's results are dead wrong.  And it also means that the model's projections of the impact of manmade carbon dioxide are dead wrong.

I want to see this research verified before I'll feel any sense of vindication.  But I am feeling some anticipation...

Hansen Near Exposure?

NASA scientist James Hansen is one of the most egregious self-promoters in the AGW movement.  Some ten years ago, his blatant posturings raised the first questions in my mind about the integrity of climate change science, and the AGW proponents in particular.

This morning I read that a watchdog group has filed suit against NASA, claiming that it is withholding documents that show Hansen has accepted over $1M in unethical compensation – from the same groups that profit by his public statements about AGW.  From the article:

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"Hansen's office appears to be somewhat of a rogue operation. It's clearly a taxpayer-funded global warming advocacy organization," said Chris Horner, a co-founder of The American Tradition Institute, which filed the lawsuit. "The real issue here is, has Hansen been asking NASA in writing, in advance, for permission for these outside activities? We have reason to believe that has not been occurring."

The lawsuit claims Hansen privately profited from his public job in violation of federal ethics rules, and NASA allowed him to do it because of his influence in the media and celebrity status among environmental groups, which rewarded him handsomely the last four years.

Let's hope the suit has some success, and we all get to see what this guy has been doing to climate science...

Is a New Ice Age on the Way?

Short answer: nobody really knows.

The news of some scientists predicting the possibility of a new “little Ice Age” broke a few days ago.  I didn't post anything right away, as I wanted to read up on both the original story and reactions to it.  Here's my summary, after reading a lot of articles:

• All the report really says is that what's being observed today looks an awful lot like what little we know about the beginning of the Maunder Minimum.
  
  
• The authors of the report then speculate about the possibility that this indicates we're about to enter such a period.
  
  
• It would take several years of consistently low sunspot counts before we could really say with any certainty that this was happening.
  
  
• The pro-AGW crowd is quite predictably reacting negatively to this potential destruction of their world view.  I'd expect nothing else.  But just because they're predictable doesn't mean they're wrong.

Debbie and I own property in Southern California and in Northern Idaho.  If we really did enter a new little Ice Age, I wonder what that would do to property values?  Idaho surely would become less attractive.  Southern California I'm not so sure about – it probably depends to a large extent about what reduced temperatures would do to rainfall...

Superstorms?

First they tell us to stand by for extended drought caused by global warming.  Then they tell us to stand by for extended drought and desertification caused by “climate change”.  Now they're warning us that we could have a “superstorm” that lasts for over a month and dumps over 100 inches of rain – based on historical records of such storms occuring before, most recently in the early 1860s...

Astrology or Science?

Nicola Scaffetta has posted an interesting paper over at Watts Up With That?  The paper presents a model for climate change that's driven mainly by a number of cyclical phenomena within the solar system.  Some of these phenomena (such as the distance between the sun and the earth) are not controversial; others are considered closer by many scientists to be closer astrology than to astronomy (such as spin-coupling between planets).  I don't fully understand the arguments about the controversial bits, and don't have time to dig into them today – but I'm intrigued by how closely his model backfits to measured data...

Watts Roundup...

In the space of just 24 hours, Watts Up With That? posts about how the Pacific Islands aren't really sinking, the arctic ice isn't really disappearing, and astronaut Harrison Schmitt bridles at the comparison between Apollo 13 and the BP response.

Extended Solar Minimum...

Even the mainstream scientific press is starting to talk about the very odd, extended solar minimum we're experiencing.  Next thing you know, they'll start wondering about its impact on climate!

AGW Loses at the Premier Formal Debate...

Lord Monckton (a well-known advocate for AGW skepticism) represented the “pro” side in a debate for this motion put before the Oxford Union Society:

That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change.

In that somewhat detached world of formal debate, this provoked a gasp heard 'round the world, as Lord Monckton was supposed to lose. Big.  Instead, he won, 135 to 110.

AGW skepticism (or even better, a more generally skeptic view) seems to be taking root even amongst the young, idealistic, credulous kids at school...

Would Global Warming Really Be All Bad?

Interesting piece over at Watts Up With That?...