Hurricane "Global Warming" Irene

27 August, 2011 by

Just weather?

As we all know, any and all weather events can now be attributed to climate change. What did we do before the AGW scare? If there was a large hurricane it was just the chaotic nature of the planet’s atmosphere at work. Historical records would show that there were hurricanes in the past of similar intensity which would help to reinforce our conclusion – we never believed there was anything sinister at work.

How it has changed. Now we can blame anything and everything on global warming. We don’t need no stinking historical records. So it’s completely unsurprising that Hurricane Irene is naturally a product of an evil (sorry, harmless) trace gas emitted by prosperous and healthy economies:

Irene’s got a middle name, and it’s Global Warming.

As she roars up the Eastern Seaboard, everyone is doing what they should—boarding windows, preparing rescue plans, stocking up on batteries. But a lot of people are also wondering: what’s a “tropical” storm doing heading for the snow belt?

So far, so predictable. But then this:

Category 3 Storms have rarely hit Long Island since the 1800s; one was the great unnamed storm of 1938, which sent 15-foot storm waters surging through what are now multimillion-dollar seaside homes. (source)

Here is a list of some storms that hit New York City in the late 1700s and 1800s:

  • September 23, 1875
  • August 19, 1788
  • October 9, 1804
  • September 16, 1816
  • September 3, 1821
  • October 13, 1846
  • October 6, 1849
  • October 28, 1872 (source)

So what was so special about the 1800’s that meant that there were more storms then? Oh yes, that’s right – it was COOLER. So the mild warming of the 20th century has actually made such storms less frequent, the complete opposite of what is claimed.

As the Mythbusters boys might say: totally busted.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Reactions to CLOUD

26 August, 2011 by

Science at work


The various polarised reactions to the CLOUD experiment’s initial results demonstrates how the climate debate has become mired in politics, petty point scoring and one-upmanship.

What would a proper, impartial scientist say in response to yesterday’s news? I guess something like “these results are really interesting because they add to our understanding of cloud formation mechanisms in the atmosphere, which will add to our understanding and attribution of climate change. As a scientist untainted by politics or funding, I don’t object to the fact that these results may contradict or challenge my ideas about climate, my only goal is to seek the scientific truth.”

Yet what did we get? Hordes of alarmists desperately trying to rubbish and dismiss the experiment before the ink was even dry on the paper. Media organisations either ignored it, or reminded us all that it was all CO2’s fault, and nothing in this experiment changes any of that. How tragic.

Unfortunately, entire research departments are built on the wobbly foundations of CO2 being the primary driver of climate change (together with the attendant funding that such a view attracts), and that position must be defended from possible attack at all costs.

And no sensible climate sceptic would go further than saying that this is an interesting course of further enquiry, and confirms that there may be some climatological effect from galactic cosmic rays – and that there is still more to learn about the climate – duh. The commenter yesterday who claimed we were all rejoicing at “another nail in the AGW coffin” not only misrepresents the sceptic community, but paints our thought processes in the same light as those of the funded and politicised alarmists. They are not.

If there is anything that reaction tells us, it is that mainstream climate science is more politics than science.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

CLOUD experiment confirms cosmic ray action

25 August, 2011 by

Science at work

This experiment, carried out at CERN, was to test Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that cloud cover could be modulated by galactic cosmic ray intensity, which in turn is modulated by the Sun’s magnetic field. Stronger magnetic field, fewer cosmic rays reach the atmosphere, fewer clouds, therefore warming. Weaker magnetic field, more cosmic rays, more clouds, more reflectivity, therefore cooling. Nigel Calder reports:

Long-anticipated results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva appear in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature (25 August). The Director General of CERN stirred controversy last month, by saying that the CLOUD team’s report should be politically correct about climate change (see my 17 July post). The implication was that they should on no account endorse the Danish heresy – Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures.

Willy-nilly the results speak for themselves, and it’s no wonder the Director General was fretful.

Jasper Kirkby of CERN and his 62 co-authors, from 17 institutes in Europe and the USA, announce big effects of pions from an accelerator, which simulate the cosmic rays and ionize the air in the experimental chamber. The pions strongly promote the formation of clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules – aerosols of the kind that may grow into cloud condensation nuclei on which cloud droplets form. 

And Calder has some choice words on the treatment of Svensmark’s hypothesis:

For the dam that was meant to ward off a growing stream of discoveries coming from the spring in Copenhagen, the foundation was laid on the day after the Danes first announced the link between cosmic rays and clouds at a space conference in Birmingham, England, in 1996. “Scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible,” Bert Bolin declared, as Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As several journalists misbehaved by reporting the story from Birmingham, the top priority was to tame the media. The first courses of masonry ensured that anything that Svensmark and his colleagues might say would be ignored or, failing that, be promptly rubbished by a warmist scientist. Posh papers like The Times of London and the New York Times, and posh TV channels like the BBC’s, readily fell into line. Enthusiastically warmist magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American needed no coaching.

Similarly the journals Nature and Science, which in my youth prided themselves on reports that challenged prevailing paradigms, gladly provided cement for higher masonry, to hold the wicked hypothesis in check at the scientific level. Starve Svensmark of funding. Reject his scientific papers but give free rein to anyone who criticizes him. Trivialize the findings in the Holy Writ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Read it here.

UPDATE: This story is, naturally, missing in action in both Fairfax and the ABC, the latter of which chooses to report this instead:

“Study proves climate a trigger for conflict”

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Global sea level drops by 6mm – Flannery safe

25 August, 2011 by

Phew

Tim Flannery’s waterside property looks safe (for the moment at least) as a new paper shows global sea level dropped like a stone in much of 2010:

So what’s up with the down seas, and what does it mean? Climate scientist Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., says you can blame it on the cycle of El Niño and La Niña in the Pacific.

Willis said that while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year’s end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States.

Data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center’s twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) spacecraft provide a clear picture of how this extra rain piled onto the continents in the early parts of 2011. “By detecting where water is on the continents, Grace shows us how water moves around the planet,” says Steve Nerem, a sea level scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

But naturally, there is the required caveat at the end:

“We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise,” says Willis. “But El Niño and La Niña always take us on a rainfall rollercoaster, and in years like this they give us sea-level whiplash.”

Even so, this still puts the lie to alarmist claims that sea level rises are “accelerating”, since they have barely changed in the last 20 years of “warming”.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

"Un-Skeptical Science" author in line for Eureka prize

24 August, 2011 by

Fully un-sceptical

Having cleaned the coffee out of my computer keyboard after reading this, and the fact that John Cook has just been appointed to the University of Queensland Global Change Institute as a (wait for it) research fellow in climate change communication (see here), I sent the link to my friend Luboš Motl at The Reference Frame. Luboš has already debunked Cook’s alarmist nonsense here, and I thought he might have a few words to say about this latest story. I wasn’t disappointed:

This guy has no clue about climate science or atmospheric physics but he has gained some notoriety for his mass production of talking points meant to spread the climate panic and produce doubts about well-established scientific insights that show that there is no reason to be worried about climate change.

Enjoy it here.

UPDATE: The most ridiculous thing about sites like Skeptical Science is that the agenda dictates everything. Cook completely believes that CO2 is the culprit, and anyone who doesn’t agree is a filthy denier (he believes this so strongly he’s even written a book about it), and so every single article and rebuttal is slanted to achieve that end. Science that confirms his position is treated with respect, science that contradicts it is rubbished and dismissed. It’s pure propaganda.

Now your response may be, well ACM is the same. And to an extent that’s true, except for the fact that ACM is here to respond to the alarmism spun by sites like Skeptical Science. We didn’t start it. We’re not the ones advocating the wholesale abandonment of Western economic growth.

At least the above story explains why he does it – fellowships, and the attendant research grants, and prizes are a pretty good motivation.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Head slap: Coalition climate policy "racist" – Combet

23 August, 2011 by

Idiot. No other word, sorry.

No matter how low Labor sink in their smears of anyone that disagrees with their deceitful carbon tax, they still manage to amaze by pulling a real shocker out of the bag:

Federal Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has accused Opposition Leader Tony Abbott of having a racist climate change policy.

Mr Abbott has warned that Australian businesses buying carbon permits under an emissions trading scheme could be conned by unscrupulous international traders.

…

Mr Combet described Mr Abbott’s position as “economic xenophobia” in an address to the National Press Club.

“It sends the signal that it’s somehow dubious to trade with foreigners. It’s typical dog-whistle politics, trashing the commitment that’s existed for many years on both sides of politics to economic liberalisation and open trade,” he said.

“It is in effect a white carbon policy designed to harvest more votes no matter what the cost.” (source)

Greg, you are a copper-bottomed idiot, I’m afraid [and no, that isn’t an ad hom, because it is conclusion drawn from a statement which any rational person would consider utterly and completely insane – Ed]. The small facts that (a) the biggest carbon trading market, namely that in the EU, is mired in fraud and corruption, and (b) as part of the carbon tax package we will be sending billions of dollars to dodgy third world dictatorships to purchase “carbon credits” in order to meet hopelessly unattainable emissions reduction targets, seem to have somehow escaped him.

Face-palm. But I guess we should be pleased that Combet is so desperate he has descended to this level.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Permanent "El Niño" claims questioned

23 August, 2011 by

It's a boy/girl thing

From “The Science is Settled” Department. Another of the alarmists’ claims is that increasing temperatures will see the natural El Niño/La Niña cycles disappear in favour of a “permanent” and damaging El Niño, which may, amongst other things, lead to more long-term severe droughts in Australia.

However, new research into ancient clam shells appears to show otherwise:

Ancient fossilized clams that lived off the coast of Antarctica some 50 million years ago have a story to tell about El Niño, according to Syracuse University researcher Linda Ivany. Their story calls into question contemporary theories that predict global warming could result in a permanent El Niño state of affairs.

…

The El Niño phenomenon, which occurs every two to seven years, is characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the eastern Equatorial Pacific. El Niño can cause torrential rainfall in Peru, devastating drought in Australia, and generally wreak havoc on global weather. El Niño is the warm phase of a large oscillation in which the surface temperature of the tropical Pacific varies, causing changes in the winds and rainfall patterns. The complete phenomenon is known as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The prevailing theory predicts that rising global temperatures could cause the ENSO to collapse, resulting in permanent El Niño conditions, which could have a major impact on socioeconomic and ecological systems worldwide.

…

“The good news is that despite the very warm temperatures during the Eocene, the evidence from the clams and tree rings shows that the ENSO system was still active, oscillating between normal and El Niño years. That suggests that the same will be true in our future as the planet warms up again.”

Source.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Labor abandons its core vote

23 August, 2011 by

Albanese

… in favour of an urban green intelligentsia. Summed up by that front-bench schoolyard bully Anthony Albanese, ridiculing the Convoy of No Confidence:

“The Convoy of No Consequence outside. The Convoy of No Consequence, Mr Speaker. The Convoy of No Consequence, where a coupla hundred people gathered with no support from the mainstream organisations, the people who believe in one world government.” (source)

These are core Labor voters, battlers, truckies, hard working Australians who have been abandoned by their natural party, a party which now pours scorn on their petty complaints, and prefers the company of the inner city liberal green elite. The message is clear – traditional Labor voters are not wanted anymore.

And in return, those formerly loyal voters continue to abandon Labor, with the party’s primary vote back to its lowest ever: 27%.

Oh, how Labor will be punished. It’s really not a matter of “if”, but “when”.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

CSIRO mustn't criticise government policy

20 August, 2011 by

CSIRO uncovered

On its website, the CSIRO proudly claims to be “Australia’s national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in the world.”

What it doesn’t tell you, however, is that the results of such research must not conflict with government policy, as Dr Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist at the organisation, revealed at the recent carbon tax rally:

The original Scientists of the CSIRO were the best of their day and the CSIRO was a non-Government organisation working with quality science and how useful it was to Australia. (research)

In the 80′s, I noticed we were under increasing pressure to become more “Business like” and the doors were opened to “Management Consultation.”

Layer upon layer of management was created, some intersecting others.

You think that your tax dollars went towards research but a lot of it was devoted to letting them play their management games…. the CSIRO was sent to fancy business schools in the US and Europe and they didn’t learn one thing… 

Management learned how to bring the most senior climate scientist under their control. It was OK to think independently…as long as Management approved of it.

We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy. If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal.

We had now become a Government Enterprise. We were told by the Chairperson that we Scientists no longer worked for Australia, we had to learn that we worked for the CSIRO. (original YouTube video here)

We have always suspected that CSIRO was merely doing the government’s bidding with its endless stream of climate alarmism – and now we know. Science has nothing to do with government policy, it is independent of any extraneous influences, and its sole responsibility is the investigation of scientific phenomena, analysis of data, developing and testing hypotheses and advising governments – not meekly following them.

Therefore the inevitable conclusion is that CSIRO isn’t doing science. It’s doing politics. In which case, why does it still exist?

UPDATE: Readers have helpfully reminded me of the saga of Dr Clive Spash, back in late 2009, which gives weight to the claims of Dr Raiche. The CSIRO tried to block publication of a report critical of the then Emissions Trading Scheme. Spash eventually resigned. Read the stories on ACM here, here and here.

[Thanks to No Carbon Tax.]

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

More alien nonsense

19 August, 2011 by

Science fiction

Thinking about the alien invaders story some more (although I have no idea why), it becomes obvious that the entire premise is flawed anyway.

Even assuming that “aliens” can detect our changing atmosphere, the information would travel at the speed of light to the alien planet/spaceship, which must then travel at a fraction of the speed of light to reach Earth.

The closest star with a known planetary system is 15 light years away (see here), or in old money, 142 trillion kilometres (142 with twelve zeros). Voyager 1 is currently travelling at 62,000 km/h away from Earth, and even at that speed would take 260 thousand years to travel 15 light years. So even assuming our environmentally conscious aliens:

  • live on the closest planetary system to our own, AND
  • have been monitoring the atmosphere of a rather small, rocky planet orbiting a rather ordinary star, AND
  • have the technology to detect a 100ppm increase in CO2 from Earth’s emission spectrum, AND
  • have the same useless climate models we have here, AND
  • have the misfortune to count among their number the alien equivalent of James Hansen, who finds this treatment of a foreign planet abhorrent, AND
  • set off immediately on receiving this shocking information, intent on saving the Earth, AND
  • have the technology to travel at even 100 times as fast as the fastest human space vehicle ever, AND
  • are able to transport the numbers of invaders and weaponry required to subdue nearly 7 billion Earthlings,

they would still not arrive for at least 2,600 years.

And these researchers call themselves “scientists”? Actually, it has given me an idea: perhaps we could send all our climate alarmists off in a capsule to save some extrasolar planets instead, and leave the rest of us alone. Isn’t that a nice thought?
Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:
«Previous Page
Next Page»