August 21, 2014

Ignoring and ‘explaining’ the pause in global warming

While the climate cult continues the drumbeat of doom, they still cannot explain why global warming has “paused”

Back in their glory days of  2007 the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their fourth assessment report on global warming. Here is what they had to say about the short-term outlook on global temperatures:
For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7} …
So the IPCC unequivocally claimed that their models, regardless of which CO2 scenario used, projected that temperatures would rise at a 0.2 C pace for the next two decades. To put that in perspective according to the IPCC the actual per decade increase in global temperatures for the period 1970-1998 was .17 C. This means that the IPCC was projecting an accelerating increase in global temperatures of .03 degrees for the next two decades beyond what it had been the previous two decades.
That was their projection. They even went so far as to maintain that there was already so much CO2 in the climate system that just maintaining it at 2000 levels would still result in a 0.1 C per decade increase. Which is telling yet irrelevant since they also knew  that CO2 was not being maintained at 2000 levels. At the time of the IPCC’s 2007 report atmospheric CO2 levels had increased from 369.14 ppm in January of 2000 to 382.49 by January of 2007.
How do you square that official projection with this statement by Kevin Trenberth a lead author of that report who in 2009 wrote,  “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth was not talking about a one or two-year blip in the global warming narrative, he was talking about what was then over a decade long slowdown in global warming and which now has reached a 17 year “hiatus.”
It is obvious that the “scientists” who for decades were promoting the theory of man-made global warming knew that it wasn’t (warming) while they promoted the idea that it was. At least not anywhere near the “catastrophic” levels they want us to believe.
Between 1998 and 2012 global temperatures  increased at a per decade rate of 0.04 C  or one fifth of the IPCC projection (-.16 C) and decelerated from earlier warming by 0.13 C. So not only did the globe not warm as the IPCC predicted it would, it has not even kept pace with the previous warming, by a long shot.
In 2013 as it became increasingly obvious that global warming was not indeed happening and the scientific branch of the climate cult frantically began to make excuses for their failed projections and some in the cult were feeling, well misled.
David Shukman, Science editor at the BBC and a lifelong member of the cult who for years vociferously and without hesitation had promoted the idea that man’s emissions of carbon dioxide were a harm to the planet wrote the following (emphasis added):
On top of that, the scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected.
This is new – at least to me. It is common sense that climate change would not happen in a neat, linear way but instead in fits and starts.
But I’ve never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before.
But our jilted cultist went even further. Not only did he complain about this lack of “transparency” by his fellow members of the cult he actually hinted at the possibility that the foundation for their well crafted belief structure might be flawed.
But what about another possibility – that the calculations are wrong?
What if the climate models – which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming – exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?
Leading up to the great admission that global warming had paue, nowhere in all the released studies or countless press releases had there been any mention of a “pause” or future pause in global warming. All the charts released showed a linear rise in temperatures corresponding to increased CO2 emissions....
Read entire article at BBN

August 15, 2014

Climate change: the null hypothesis


Despite the fact that the globe has not warmed in over a decade the climate change “cause” marches on

United Nation's Climate Change Conference|Photo Credit Flicker
United Nation’s Climate Change Conference | Photo Credit Flickr
One of the reasons I titled my column on climate change “Global warming and common sense” was that when you apply common sense to almost any story or proposition of the global warming narrative it begins to fall apart, it makes no sense.
All you have to do to see how out of whack the narrative is, is to understand the prostitution of what is referred to as the  null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.
The ‘null’ often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon.
From the beginning in the global warming narrative this common statistical and scientific practice was turned on its head. The”null” hypothesis when it comes to man-made global warming would be that the warming we were experiencing at the end of the twentieth century was natural. The scientists and activist who blamed the warming on fossil fuel use were proposing the “alternative” hypothesis.
But almost immediately the climate change cult was able to flip this and make their version of man-made the “null” and “natural” climate change the alternative. For proof of this it is no more difficult than reading the charter of the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which defines its role as:
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
This statement which created the IPCC, is from 1988. I am sure that many people have the misconception that the IPCC was established and operates to prove man-made global warming, but that is not the case. The IPCC began with the “null hypothesis” that there was man-made global warming and more importantly that it was a risk. In other words the IPCC was formed with express purpose to inform the world of the dangers of man-made global warming, that is their role.
In addition; all of the IPCC’s multi-national bureaucratic framework is tied into the United Nation, with all its multifaceted agendas and interests. With all of this techno-bureaucratic self-interested coagulation, nature did not have a chance. But nature does not exist or conform to the dictates of multinational organizations despite what lengths they may go to distort nature’s reality.
Consider this statement from the “godfather” of global warming, James Hansen back in 2012
The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.
That “flat” rate of temperature increase has not changed and in fact most scientists agree that it has been going on much longer. Last year the Economist a publication that previously had taken the alarmist view of global warming admitted, well, the obvious.
Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.
Despite all the “explanations” for this, and there are many, the fact is that the global warming predicted by the climate change cult has not happened. Which leads to this very simple yet vitally important question; If temperatures have remained flat over the past fifteen years or more, what about all the stories over the past decade and a half about the negative effects of global warming on well….everything?
Today (8/15/2014) at least fifteen years after scientists admit temperatures stopped rising, I read at CNBC -“Is climate change key to the spread of Ebola?” Now common sense would answer obviously not since global warming stopped or to use the cult’s terminology “paused” when Bill Clinton was president but here we are told.
Some scientists believe global warming—and the subsequent increase in extreme weather—could be a factor behind in the virus’s ascendance.
Who are these scientists? Don’t they read the Economist?
If there has been no global warming  than all the dire events blamed on it are either total fabrications or the result of some other cause, like nature. Consider this from the once prestigious National Geographic titled; “Effects of Global Warming Signs Are Everywhere.”
Well when you attribute everything to something that is not actually happening, then I guess you can find signs everywhere, can’t you? They go on an alarmist tangent about all that is happening to our world while temperatures have been “flat” for over a decade.
The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between. Globally, the mercury is already up more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius), and even more in sensitive polar regions. And the effects of rising temperatures aren’t waiting for some far-flung future. They’re happening right now. Signs are appearing all over, and some of them are surprising. The heat is not only melting glaciers and sea ice, it’s also shifting precipitation patterns and setting animals on the move.
They tell us that some of these things are happening now, among the examples I found interesting was this:
Spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.
Spruce bark beetles may have boomed in Alaska, but it has nothing to do with global warming, Alaska has cooled over the past 15 years. But you wouldn’t expect the National Geographic to have their facts correct now would you? Not when the narrative is so much more dramatic.
How many stories have you read in the past decade about something being caused by global warming? Hundreds? Thousands? You know all those increased diseases, those endangered species, those droughts, the excessive flooding, the heavier snowfall, more tornadoes , hurricanes. All those thousands upon thousands of article written about what global warming was causing, not in the future but now, those articles are to put it mildly…. bogus.
As bogus as the theory itself.
Now you see the corner the narrative has now been painted into. If the scientific community has to finally admit that temperatures, despite their best efforts to fudge them, have remained flat, then everything they have attributed to “climate change” can not be true.
But unfortunately “climate change” has become the null hypothesis. In fact the very terms “climate change” or “global warming” have taken on new meanings. One automatically assumes that when these terms are used they mean man-made. The fact that there has been no global warming for seventeen years is  irrelevant, climate change meaning man-made is the accepted reality. Society is living within a lie which everyone, even its benefactors, admits is a lie yet we go on as if it is the truth.
Josef Goebbels the NAZI propagandist nailed it when he observed
“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
It would seem that with repetition and psychological understanding, the climate cult has been able to manipulate society into believing cold is hot; where bitter winters are the result of global warming and all climatic conditions are the result of man’s burning of fossil fuels. Whatever the change, your modern lifestyle is responsible for it, feel guilt and follow us-sucker.
So ingrained into our educational and popular belief structure is the idea that we are endangering ourselves and the planet through the use of fossil fuels that the human race is willing to ignore reality to expunge ourselves from a false sense of guilt foisted on us by fools pretending to be wise.
Climate projections suggest that, thanks to human activity, we will likely see an increase in extreme weather events, disruptions to agriculture, loss of livelihoods and displacement of people.
Do you believe?
Ignore the pause join our cause!


August 13, 2014

Climate Change and the great ‘known unknown’

Despite declarations of certainty, the science of “climate change” is a great unknown.

Storm Clouds|Photo Credit J.D.Brown
Storm Clouds|Photo Credit J.D.Brown

The last in a three-part series; read part one and two.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously coined the phrase “known unknowns.” He said:
There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.
Science pretty much operates in the “known unknown” realm. Occasionally but very rarely unknown unknowns reveal themselves out of the blue but for the most part science is an investigation of the known unknown of the physical universe.  When it comes to climate science and the “theory” of man-made global warming, the largest known unknown of all is clouds and the part they play in the Earth’s climate, specifically the effect they have on this modern-day menagerie called climate change.
In the previous article of this series we discussed  the possibility of a new explanation for the “modern warming period” which suggests that more intense  solar winds during periods of heightened solar activity block the natural and normal flow of cosmic rays bombarding the Earth’s atmosphere. It is proposed that these cosmic rays are responsible for the formation of or increased formation of clouds.
As Eigil Friis-Christensen has pointed out
The evidence has piled up, first for the link between cosmic rays and low-level clouds and then, by experiment and observation, for the mechanism involving aerosols. All these consistent scientific results illustrate that the current climate models used to predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics.
Is this important? According to the UN’s IPCC, the supposed scientific gold standard on all things having to do with man-made global warming, it is the most important known unknown of all.  The IPCC admits that they do not have an understanding of clouds and more importantly, clouds are not being adequately modeled in their simulations – which are used as the basis for their alarmism.
From the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (FAR).
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedback amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
Putting aside that “belief” is not proof, this “uncertainty” and “limited knowledge” of clouds is a very big deal. Putting aside the new research with cosmic rays, that the climate cult does not actually understand a critical component of the theory which they claim is conclusive is nothing short of fraud. Because if they do not understand clouds then they cannot really forecast the climate.
Dr. Roy Spencer explains:
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
As with much of the climate change cult’s theory on global warming the obvious must be ignored in order that the elaborate house of cards of convoluted hypothesis and assumptions can be portrayed as being conclusive. But even the climate science community knows that they cannot ignore their own ignorance when it comes to clouds.
Again from the IPCC’s FAR report:
The modeling of cloud processes and feedbacks provides a striking example of the irregular pace of progress in climate science. Representation of clouds may constitute the area in which atmospheric models have been modified most continuously to take into account increasingly complex physical processes. At the time of the TAR clouds remained a major source of uncertainty in the simulation of climate changes as they still are at present.
As Klaus-Eckard Puls, Vice President of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), has observed:
Only a few people in the climate discussion are aware that CO2 is not the main driver, and that most of the warming is assigned to the dubious amplification mechanism. CO2 by itself only has a warming potential of 1.1°C per atmospheric concentration doubling. It is only through the theoretical assumption of the up-to-now poorly understood amplification mechanism that the warming gets catapulted by the IPCC to 2.0-4.5°C per CO2 doubling, mainly through water vapour and clouds.
All the studies that are conducted, the warnings given, the policies enacted the entire edifice of climate changeology from windmills to ethanol, from polar bears to melting glaciers are dependent on that foundation being true. If not then everything is built on sand. If the unproven “amplification” component of the enhanced greenhouse effect theory is not valid, everything that has happened as the result of the theory is based on false science as is being shown by the 17 year pause in the projected warming......

Read entire article at BBN

August 8, 2014

The climate change cult’s outer space threat

Despite the claims of “consensus,” scientists the world over are studying an intriguing new theory on climate change: read part one here

The cosmic ray climate change connection
Cosmic Rays | Photo Credit Wikimedia Commons
In our last article, we noted that Sir William Herschel initially believed that more active solar activity in the form of sunspots would “weaken” the sun’s energy making the Earth’s weather less “mild.”  As a result of this he believed that sunspots would hurt crop yield. However with investigation he found the exact opposite was true, the less active sun actually showed  smaller crop yields while the more active sun showed greater crop yield. A similar thing happened to a future Nobel Laureate in physics, Victor Hess.
Like the “obvious” conclusion that Herschel made about sunspots, the conventional wisdom up until the early twentieth century was that the closer you were to the Earth’s surface the higher the radiation levels would be. Since Earth was the source of radiation it was believed that as you moved away from the surface the radiation levels would begin to dissipate. Hess sought to prove or disprove this theory. He did this by ascending in a balloon on multiple occasions and taking measurement with an electrometer.
Surprisingly he found that rather than decreasing with increased elevation, radiation increased the higher into the atmosphere he ascended. Hess theorized that some sort of energized particles were entering the atmosphere from space, and he was right.  In 1925 another scientist Robert Millikin confirmed Hess’s discovery and in 1936 Victor Hess and Carl David Anderson who discovered positron and the muon in the newly discovered “cosmic rays” were awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics.
Cosmic rays are really not rays at all but high energy particles whose sources of origin are varied but are suspected to be  particles formed as stars explode as supernovas. These particles are constantly bombarding the Earth from all directions. The Earth, indeed the solar system is moving within this ever flowing stream of highly charged particles that Hess discovered which we call cosmic rays.
One of the mysteries of Herschel’s connection between sunspots and wheat crops is  how can sunspots have any bearing on Earth’s climate if the amount of energy reaching the Earth remains relatively constant? Over the years astronomers and scientists have discovered that one thing which does happen when the sun is more active and that is solar “winds” are stronger.
Increased sunspot activity frequently accompanies an increase in the outflow of matter from the Sun in the form of a “solar wind”. Charged particles in this wind can interact with atoms in the upper atmosphere and sometimes wreak havoc with our communications systems.
But its possible and a growing body of scientific evidence is mounting that there is a connection between sunspots and Earth’s climate.
In 1991 before the global warming phenomena had totally corrupted the science community by turning everything it touches into a political contest, two Danish scientists Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen published a paper. The paper was the product of years of research on the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures.  In a way it was a continuation of Herschel’s sunspot to price of wheat connection.
A few years later, another Danish scientist, physicist Henrik Svensmark who had investigated the possibility that cosmic rays could play a part in cloud formation teamed up with his fellow Danish scientists and an alternate theory on global warming was proposed. In the years since many scientists from around the world have joined the investigation into the connection between cosmic rays and Earth’s climate, which these Danish scientists initially proposed.
The basic theory is this:
The Earth is under constant bombardment by these cosmic rays; however the Sun’s magnetic field deflects cosmic rays away from Earth. Therefore when the Sun is very active the increased solar winds deflect more of the cosmic rays away from the Earth, conversely when the Sun is “quiet” more of the cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere. In other words when the sun is active (sunspot activity) it protects the Earth from these cosmic rays. This part of the theory is not all that controversial.
The real question is whether cosmic rays are ionizing molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere attracting other molecules to create the aerosols around which water vapor forms to create cloud droplets. Because as we shall explore in the final post of this series, clouds are  extremely important and the great unknown in the climate change debate.
Serious research is, finally, being done on this possibility that cosmic rays could help or even be responsible for cloud formation .  If this connection is proven  then the entire climate change narrative will virtually collapse.
But the link between sunspot activity and climate is, well shall we say interesting.  In 2010 a Finnish research team did a study on long-term solar activity, long term meaning the last 12,000 years a very good summary of which you can find at the excellent Watts Up With  site.  Among the more interesting conclusions the scientist come to in their study is this:
 The sun spends about 70% of its time at moderate magnetic activity levels, about 15 – 20% of its time in a grand minimum and about 10 – 15% in a grand maximum. Modern solar activity corresponds to a grand maximum.
The graph from their research recreating solar activity over the past 12,000 years bears this out.

Read more at BBN

August 7, 2014

Climate change: The First Denier

Sir William Herschel|Photo Credit Wikimedia Commons
Sir William Herschel|Photo Credit Wikimedia Commons

The first in a three-part series on an alternative explanation for “climate change”

One common sense fact in the global warming debate has to do with the unyielding and undeniable timeline of history. On that timeline there is a rather definite beginning and progression of what is known as the Industrial Revolution and the beginning and increase of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
In fact the entire foundation of the global warming theory depends on this beginning of man’s emissions of CO2. But this historical fact works both ways because if you argue that mankind’s emissions are the primary driver of the warming world then you also are admitting that any climate changes prior to those increased emissions cannot be the result of man’s influence.
For years the climate cult has attempted to portray the Earth’s climate as being rather benign until mankind’s influence destroyed the tranquility. This narrative flies in the face and denies the historical record and even their own research.
There is a very simple reason why it is necessary for the cult to reinforce this narrative because to admit that climate changed prior to man’s emissions is to bring another “actor” into the global warming debate thus depriving CO2 and humanity sole responsibility for the “emergency.” If you are blaming man-made greenhouse gasses for the “crisis,” it does not serve your purposes to point out that there have always been periods of changing temperatures on Earth. After all who is to say that what caused previous changes is not occurring now?
Sherlock Holmes famous advice that “..when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth,” only works if you first eliminate the impossible. The climate science community not only did not eliminate the impossible they reached a conclusion by ruling out the obvious.
One of history’s greatest if lesser known scientists was the German/ English astronomer Sir William Herschel,  Sir William among many great scientific achievements in a very long and distinguished life discovered the first planet not known to ancient man, Uranus. He also determined that the sun emitted light from beyond the visible spectrum and discovered that coral were animals and not plants. However, what he first noticed in 1801 is what sets the cult’s teeth on edge. He wrote,
it seems probable that some temporary scarcity or defect of vegetation has taken place, when the sun has been without those appearances which we surmise to be the symptoms of a copious emission of light and heat…
He was speaking of sunspots and he was the first to observe that for some reason sunspots affected crop yield. Herschel initially thought sunspots deprived the sun of energy and heat and thus would cool the Earth causing lower crop yield.
The Nature of the Sun, I am now much inclined to believe that openings [sunspots] …. may lead us to expect a copious emission of heat, and therefore mild seasons . . . A constant observation of the sun with this view, and a proper information respecting the general mildness or severity of the seasons, in all parts of the world, may bring this theory to perfection or refute it if it be not well founded.
Interesting isn’t it that until the global warming scare, humanity has always equated warmer weather as being good and colder weather as being bad.
Intrigued by the possibility of a way to predict weather or even crop yields, Herschel continued his investigation by studying Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” which included a section on yearly wheat prices.
From his investigation he deduced that in periods when prices were high it was because the crops yields were low due to poor growing seasons, i.e., bad weather. Herschel then compared these findings to the record of sunspots during the corresponding time periods. To his surprise he found that low sunspot activity yielded low crop yield, which was the exact opposite from what he had expected. But William Herschel had made a direct if not yet understood link between the Sun’s activity and the Earth’s climate.
Now common sense, not to mention volumes of historical records, testify to the fact that prior to the Industrial Revolution there were periods of abundance and periods of scarcity brought on by changing climate. Even well into the Industrial Revolution, before anyone claims that man had influenced the climate through greenhouse gas emissions, there was America’s  great Dust Bowl era of the thirties.
Although the 1930s drought is often referred to as if it were one episode, there were at least 4 distinct drought events: 1930–31, 1934, 1936, and 1939–40 (Riebsame et al., 1991). These events occurred in such rapid succession that affected regions were not able to recover adequately before another drought began.
No one that I am aware of is claiming that the droughts of the 1930′s had anything to do with the Model T. History is filled with examples of changing climate patterns all over the globe which obviously could not in any way be connected to man-made emissions.
To put it plainly, something caused the climate to change before we started driving cars now didn’t it?....
Read my entire article at BBN
After Herschel’s discovery and actually going back to the dawn of the human race, man has had a pretty good idea what causes climate to change and it has little to do with carbon dioxide. The problem is that in spite of the fact that everyone realizes that the sun is the primary driver of the Earth’s climate, nobody had been able to explain how it could control global temperatures.