The Great Global Warming Swindle...

[laughingwillow]

Blood in the water, er on the ice...

quote from below... Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was 'settled'....

.... Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term 'weather' that had nothing to do with 'climate', which was still warming....

... However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic 'multi-decadal oscillations' (MDOs). For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming.

But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world's climate from a 'warm mode' to a 'cold mode' and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles. 'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,' he said yesterday, 'and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -here.html

The mini ice age starts here
By DAVID ROSE

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world's most eminent climate scientists. Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013. According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this. The scientists' predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming 'deniers' or sceptics. However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.

Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was 'settled'.

Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago. Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz  Institute at Germany's Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start. He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September. Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: 'A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. 'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer. 'The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.'

As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a 'blip' of no long-term significance.

Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term 'weather' that had nothing to do with 'climate', which was still warming.

The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.

On the one hand, it is true that the current freeze is the product of the 'Arctic oscillation' – a weather pattern that sees the development of huge 'blocking' areas of high pressure in northern latitudes, driving polar winds far to the south. Meteorologists say that this is at its strongest for at least 60 years. As a result, the jetstream – the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain – is currently running not over the English Channel but the Strait of Gibraltar.

However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic 'multi-decadal oscillations' (MDOs). For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming.

But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world's climate from a 'warm mode' to a 'cold mode' and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles. 'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,' he said yesterday, 'and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.

'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.' Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.

But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise. Many of the consequences of the recent warm mode were also observed 90 years ago. For example, in 1922, the Washington Post reported that Greenland's glaciers were fast disappearing, while Arctic seals were 'finding the water too hot'.

It interviewed a Captain Martin Ingebrigsten, who had been sailing the eastern Arctic for 54 years: 'He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, and since that time it has gotten steadily warmer. 'Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended into the sea they have entirely disappeared.' As a result, the shoals of fish that used to live in these waters had vanished, while the sea ice beyond the north coast of Spitsbergen in the Arctic Ocean had melted. Warm Gulf Stream water was still detectable within a few hundred miles of the Pole.

In contrast, Prof Tsonis said, last week 56 per cent of the surface of the United States was covered by snow. 'That hasn't happened for several decades,' he pointed out. 'It just isn't true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.' He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world's media were preoccupied by fears of freezing. For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted 'Another Ice Age', saying: 'Man may be somewhat responsible – as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth.' Prof Tsonis said: 'Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.'

Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change 'denier'. There is, he said, a measure of additional 'background' warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles. 'This isn't just a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while' But he added: 'I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount. 'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.' Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with 'hate emails'. He added: 'People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I'm interested in is the truth.' He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.

The work of Profs Latif, Tsonis and their teams raises a crucial question: If some of the late 20th Century warming was caused not by carbon dioxide but by MDOs, then how much?

Tsonis did not give a figure; Latif suggested it could be anything between ten and 50 per cent.

Other critics of the warming orthodoxy say the role played by MDOs is even greater.

William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect.

Dr David Viner stands by his claim that snow will become an 'increasingly rare event' According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. 'Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,' he said. 'Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.'

But last week, die-hard warming advocates were refusing to admit that MDOs were having any impact. In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious 'Warmergate' leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become 'a very rare and exciting event' in Britain, and that 'children just aren't going to know what snow is'.

Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: 'We've had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn't change anything.

'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.'
The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion.

[laughingwillow]

Oops! Looks like they did it again......

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece

quote from above link: A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."

The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: "Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

[laughingwillow]

Lots-o admissions below that lead me to believe the public has indeed been misled in regard to man made global warming and that relevant data has been "misplaced."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nised.html

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By JONATHAN PETRE

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'.......

.....The data is crucial to the famous 'hockey stick graph' used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0fYPoLwE3

[laughingwillow]

OOPs.... They apparently did it again!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ct-siddall

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century...........

....Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion....

....In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

[cenacle]

I don't know if I would use the term "global warming," so much as climate change. And I don't see how this is such a controversial idea since humans change the climate all the time, when we farm land, clear woods for housing, enact wars that destroy whole areas. We send pollution into the air. We breed new kinds of plants and animals. We continue to grow in population in ridiculous numbers.

I don't dispute, LW, that some claims made about the environment are dubious, or involve vested interests that might just involved cooked statistics. But I do not believe this is always the case, nor that there are not some brilliant scientists making insightful observations and predictions. And I cannot believe that humans, as a huge presence on this planet, with all the industrial and technological activities we engage in, don't have an effect.

I believe this planet is alive, and that is the only reason we are alive on it. Inorganic planets without water and air and so on do not support life, much less the teeming millions of kinds of life this earth supports. I believe we affect the planet and that we often affect it poorly, with short-term decisions and indifference.

I believe we can be better caretakers of our Mother Earth, the being from whom we all come, and everything we know comes, and that we return to when our lives are over. This planet is home, every inch of it. It is unimaginably beautiful, and bountiful, and that we do not cherish and keep her, like we do our families and loved ones and possessions and human institutions, is a tragedy. Whether we are able to inhabit her for the next 50 or 50,000 years is less relevant to me than how we treat her each and every day. We are of this place, but we do not own it, much as many of us act the part, and worse the part of indifferent, abusive owners at that. We do not own this place even as each of us will live our whole lives here and pass on here. What set of human beliefs about the sacred would argue against our home not being so?

There must be more common ground that can be found among those who dispute these topics, and actions taken to preserve the planet's life and beauty. It is in our own interests, and it is the right thing to do.

[laughingwillow]

ccen: Global warming was the term used by Gore and his flunkies until the planet stopped warming. Now its climate change. However, the climate has done nothing but change since the planet was born. Their ENTIRE theory is FUCKED, imo.

Please don't confuse the belief above with the idea that we don't need to be good stewards of this planet.  We need to take care of this planet because its the only one we have. (Or the only one that will have us.)

On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in working with reality. Climate change science is in the process of officially being proven to be junk science, imo. The numbers and basic climate change models were based on lies and massaged data, imo. Scientists were paid to go along and provide results desired while those who disagreed were shunned and had funding cut off.

[cenacle]

I don't need a scientist to see how humans are currently affecting the planet, and have been for a long time. I arrived at this office walking down a paved street strewn with trash, passed by hundreds of cars spewing poisons into the air. Not too far from almost anyone is a factory of some kind with a cloud of black smoke coming from it. Where North America was once mostly forest it is now not. One can see these things with one's own eyes, smell them. I do what I can, in terms of recycling, and product purchase, and using public transit. But that is a small drop in the bucket.

I have no quarrel with Gore. I respect him. That said, science is the process of theory and proof, and then more facts, and another theory and another proof, etc. That's why we don't believe that the earth is the center of the universe anymore, or that there are only five planets in the solar system.

As far as legislation, I'm all for the kind that cuts the poisons we put in the air, or in the earth, or in our own bodies. But we can't even decide that ill or injured human beings should be cared for by doctors without ending up financially homeless. We do a shit poor job at caring for our own kind, and this is reflected by how we abuse and neglect nature and the planet as a whole.

The thing I keep coming back to is that we could live in balance with each other and with the rest of the world. It is possible. Humans are capable of great innovations for all kinds of works. We can build death camps, with efficient gas chambers; we can build electric cars that get 100 miles on a single charge. We can tend a stranger in a crisis, or step over his moaning body.

Given the mystery of the future, or what calamity may or may not happen, why chance it? Why  not put all of our resources into rejuvenating our race and our world? Because it's not important enough? Because it's too much work? Because God will take care of us? I don't know the answer, but I suspect that until something happens, a person's rise to great power, a catastrophe, something, things will shamble along as they are, with people arguing this way and that.

I've long believed the planet will outlive humanity, as it was here before our kind. My suspicion is that we will eventually overwhelm its resources by sheer numbers and abuse, and either die off, or launch in the stars, to use and abuse some other place. The hope I retain, because I need to have some hope to function, is that the balance of people who don't need things to be worse and worse will shift in greater numbers til action is taken, real action, beyond simply lowering one or another grave statistic, toward an honest reckoning with the fragility, mortality, and unspeakable beauty that this world still bears, despite all, and what good can yet come.

[JRL]

Well put Raymond as always. And for all you climate change deniers, conspiracy addicts, and fanatics of all stripes, what if you are wrong??

[laughingwillow]

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was "little evidence" for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made "substantive findings" based on little proof.

The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC's hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were "speculation" and not backed by research.

Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: "The IPCC's credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can't just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science."

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642

[dendro]

I agree with you, cenacle, that we need to stop polluting the earth. There are so many pollutants, and the job is huge.

Which is why it is an actual disservice to the planet and humanity to obscure and blunt our environmental efforts with this "global warming" hype.

The EPA, which allows amazingly high amounts of true toxins and pollutants into our environment daily thru their bad science and policy, has now identified carbon dioxide as a major toxic pollutant. This is ridiculous, and sick. Obama can't get a bill thru the congress, so he will use the EPA as his tool to whip us all into line. They will now gleefully use their extralegal, extrajudicial powers to regulate carbon dioxide production, and to tax us all out of existence. All in the service of their wealthy masters.

JRL, what if I am wrong about anthropogenic, carbon-driven global warming? What if the warmistas are right? Then we will prolly enjoy a return to the Medieval warm period, which was a halcyon time for mankind.

BTW, this is the same medieval warming period that the IPCC and the warmistas tried to send down the memory hole, with their crooked data sets and writings.

IPCC has totally discredited themselves, plain for all to see. They have sunk their own agenda, by doing and publishing bad data and junk science.