Inauguration day and climate change politics


Inauguration day 2005:  35 °F Mostly cloudy with some sunny breaks.  Northwest wind 14 mph. Around 1″ of snow lay on the ground. More inauguration day weather history is available here
By Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard
There is much speculation about the weather on Tuesday, January 20th, which is the inauguration day of president Obama. Particularly it is being conjectured widely on the blogosphere that a colder than normal day might have some chilling effect on climate change thinking in Washington. After all, it is not unlike politicians to grasp onto ancillary topics and use them as the focal point for forming opinions.
For example, as reported here, The last time Dr. Roy Spencer testified before Congress, committee chair Barbara Boxer appeared more interested in discussing Rush Limbaugh than she did in discussing science.  That is not necessarily a sensible way to weigh trillion dollar policy decisions.
Here is another example. When Dr. James Hansen testified before Congress in June, 1988, on the topic of global warming, Senator Timothy Wirth took several deliberate steps to make sure that the room was oppressively hot.  This excerpt below is from a PBS Frontline interview:
TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day? TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.
That is going to be a lot tougher now, after two more decades of unprecedented global warming.
As of Saturday morning, NCEP is forecasting severe cold along the East Coast for the end of the month, and well below normal temperatures for the inauguration of president Obama.  Perhaps the chill will freeze out some the early political rhetoric in Washington?  Some prominent members of Congress now claim that they can legislate the climate, which requires that they also are able to control volcanoes, ocean circulation patterns, and solar activity.
Here is the NCEP CONUS temperature forecast for now to election day:

Click for a larger image

One wonders though, it the weather patterns were shifted west to east in the anomaly graph below, and we had a warmer than normal inauguration day in Washington, would it provide lawmakers with a personal confirmation bias much like that day in June, 1988?

conus-temp-anomaly-jan17-25

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Politics, Weather. Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to Inauguration day and climate change politics

  1. Shawn Whelan says:

    In his first speech today Obama brought up the warming Earth as one of the great dangers America faces right along with the wars and the economic meltdown.

  2. Richard deSousa says:

    I’m praying for a blizzard on January 20, 2009…. :)

  3. Brian D says:

    It’s been one heck of a winter here in the Upper Midwest, and it looks to continue, even into early spring IMO. “Classic” is a good adjective. Doesn’t seem like much of a coincidence that solar mins help produce stout winters around here. Obviously there are more factors than that, but it’s a piece of the puzzle IMO.

  4. Eddix says:

    Maybe Obama can have an ice skating party as part of the celebration on lake Erie since it is now frozen over.

    http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/Great_Lakes/5_Lake_Composite/East_Composite/el090115color.jpg

    http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nh_snowcover/

    REPLY: Better look at that top link again, at full magnification, the white area has dash marks in it, indicating the center of Lake Erie is ice free. A truly bad choice of color scheme on their part. – Anthony

  5. Rick Sharp says:

    Unfortunately a Washington blizzard on the 20th will be used as an example of “climate change”. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t wouldn’t enjoy watching it from here in So Cal.

  6. Benjamin P. says:

    I am certain that one cold winter should be enough evidence to draw meaningful conclusions.

  7. Eddix says:

    Im not seeing any white area, only blue and no dash marks. Lake Erie is the bottom one right? I’m from the Northwest.

  8. Steve Moore says:

    I expect that Big Al will be in attendance, so the “Gore Effect” might play a role.

    It would be too delicious to see the new President wax eloquent on the subject of Global Warming with snowflakes piling up on his head.

  9. Stan Needham says:

    Too bad they didn’t hold the inauguration in northeastern Indiana during the last 3 days. Thursday, Friday and today yielded lows of -13, -18 and -14 respectively. I can’t recall how long it’s been since we’ve seen a string like that. The last time it hit -18 was in December, 1989.

    One would truly hope that with the financial and credit crisis, climate change legislation will be put on the back burner (pardon the pun).

  10. Ed Scott says:

    Obama Inaugural A CO2 Disaster About to Happen

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7645

    Celebrities, politicians, and bigwigs using 600 private jets will produce 25,320,000 POUNDS of CO2

    Personal vehicles could account for 262,483,200 POUNDS of CO2

    In the parade, horses alone will produce more than 400 POUNDS of CO2

    It would take the average U.S. household 57,598 years to produce a carbon footprint equal to that of the new president’s housewarming party

    It is interesting that the folks that claim to be the best, most mean and green, tree hugging, global warming priests around are going to be responsible for this conflagration of globalony destruction.

  11. Richard Sharpe says:

    Shawn Whelan:

    In his first speech today Obama brought up the warming Earth as one of the great dangers America faces right along with the wars and the economic meltdown.

    You have to understand that politicians must pander to their constituencies. That does not mean they are going to do anything specific, simply connecting with those who put them into power.

    Would you go to a Rolling Stones or [insert your favorite group here] concert if they never played Sympathy for the Devil and Satisfaction and [insert list of your favorite songs here].

  12. No white left when I looked. Lake Erie has a bit of blue, which is not quite ice free. But it’s about 90% frozen, according to the chart. Give it another week? It rarely freezes over completely, though it’s the shallowest of the five.

  13. Mike says:

    We should not confuse weather with climate. It’s disingenuous to mention the cold wave in the East if you do not also mention the record warmth in California.

  14. Terry says:

    Better look at that top link again, at full magnification, the white area has dash marks in it, indicating the center of Lake Erie is ice free. A truly bad choice of color scheme on their part. – Anthony

    Anthony: I think you may be mistaking either Lake Huron or Lake Ontario for Lake Erie.

  15. Mike D. says:

    Note that at her Senate confirmation hearing for Sec State, Hillary Clinton declaimed, “Climate change threatens our very existence.”

    http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=258213

  16. kim says:

    When James Hansen is finally debunked, Tim Wirth will rot in Hell.
    ==========================================

  17. Ed Scott says:

    The Coming Green Tsunami

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7660

    Despite the record-breaking extreme cold that is freezing the Midwest and dropping temperatures close to 50 below in spots, the incoming Obama administration continues to appoint, enlist and enable global warming warriors in the highest echelons of government.

    Hillary promised that she would shape foreign policy that would fight climate change.

    Lisa Jackson to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and Nancy Sutley to be chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. Jackson tells the committee that cutting emissions of toxic chemicals and pollution that contribute to global warming will be among the new administration’s top environmental goals.

    Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick to be U.S. energy secretary, said Tuesday that he will tackle the threat of global warming by seeking a cap-and-trade system to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which would require power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities to buy and sell pollution permits to spew global warming emissions. Translation: redistribution of wealth from wealthy countries to poor countries.

    Bureaucrats at the EPA are chomping at the bit, eagerly paving the way for more regulation over ever increasing segments of the economy by seeking to have WATER VAPOR classified as a pollutant. This would result in government control over such common activities as watering the lawn, or using a hot tub or swimming pool. Even breathing.

    Imagine, the government could soon regulate any conceivable activity under the rubric of either harming the environment or endangering national security.

    Another cause for alarm is the fact that all the proposed solutions to this faux crisis just happen to coincide with every issue dear to liberals: i.e.: more government, more regulation, wealth distribution, population control, and global governance.

  18. Ric Werme says:

    Eddix (11:25:39) :

    Maybe Obama can have an ice skating party as part of the celebration on lake Erie since it is now frozen over.

    http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/Great_Lakes/5_Lake_Composite/East_Composite/el090115color.jpg

    REPLY: Better look at that top link again, at full magnification, the white area has dash marks in it, indicating the center of Lake Erie is ice free. A truly bad choice of color scheme on their part. – Anthony

    Anthony needs to look again. Lake Ontario (eastmost lake) has a big area of open water, Lake Huron (to the NW) does too. Lake Erie (south) is a mud puddle with a maximum depth (or is that average depth?) of only 30 feet and is the first to freeze.

    However, the blue patch north of Erie is only < 1/10 coverage, so there might still be some kayaking if anyone needs practice for a trip to the North Pole someday.

  19. Ed Scott says:

    For those of you who read the Alice Goretex impression of the cause(s) of the crash of Flight 1549, with a “grain of salt,” Time had an article by a “real” journalist on the true cause of the crash.
    ————————————————————
    The Flight 1549 Blame Game

    http://www.icecap.us/

    “When word first broke that the remarkable Hudson River emergency landing of US Airways Flight 1549 was caused by a flock of Canadian geese, two thoughts immediately occurred. One – Somehow PETA would focus more on the agony of the geese that were sucked into both of the plane’s jet engines than the safety of the 150 passengers and five crew members, perhaps even suing US Air and hero pilot Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger for animal cruelty.”

    “And Two – Somehow, somewhere, global warming would be blamed.”

  20. ew-3 says:

    Looks like Gore Bay is frozen fast. Perhaps this is an omen.

  21. philincalifornia says:

    Shawn Whelan (10:51:46) :
    In his first speech today Obama brought up the warming Earth as one of the great dangers America faces right along with the wars and the economic meltdown.
    ———————————–

    I wonder if the word “warming” was reintroduced with some careful thought. It’s probably easier to defend than anthropogenic climate change … for now at least.

    Did he say what the great danger was ?? Maybe I should get a transcript.

  22. tty says:

    Nope – That is Lake Ontario. Lake Erie is essentially all frozen, though there is still a small area of mostly open water in the eastern part.

  23. Mongo says:

    The “weather” in England didn’t stop their Parliment from enacting stupid legislation. Why would anyone believe that committed AGW advocates change their minds, despite conditions?

    And – when was the last time our Congress really ever made informed, rational legislation of this import? Personally, I think “never” is my response. Don’t hold your breath. Short of reality, we are a disastrous course led by people who claim to be intellectuals. You have to wonder how such hubris could ever survive the light of true scrutiny.

  24. Eddix says:

    Okay maybe Lake Erie is not frozen over, hard to tell what blue means on the map, less than one tenth of an inch means what? No ice or really thin ice.

    So to be on the safe side for the inauguration lets move the ice skating party to the Bering sea ice. It is bigger than it has been in over 30 years.

    http://aprn.org/2009/01/13/sea-ice-in-the-bering-sea-causes-problems-for-crab-fishermen/

    Down load the audio and listen, good stuff.

    PS This years series on “Deadliest Catch” ought to be interesting.

  25. RICH says:

    Perfect timing. Please allow me my part in helping to raise global warming awareness.

    - Sea levels are NOT rising. They are actually decreasing in some areas. Our previous sea level rise had only been at a rate of 1-2 mm per year.

    - The polar bear population is increasing. Polar bears should not be on the endangered species list if they are thriving.

    - Antarctica is expanding. Hi, is this thing on?

    - Solar cycle 23 finished eerily quite. Solar cycle 24 will likely be short lived. This will most certainly effect our climate.

    - We are still setting record cold and snow conditions, despite a 40% increase in CO2. Keep in mind that these records are also short lived.

    - The planet has been warming for the last 10,000 years. The Great Lakes are a result of retreating glaciers.

    - 0.01% CO2 has zero toxic effects on human beings. 0.01% CO2 has has zero toxic effects on the rest of our biosphere.

    - Despite all of this “dirty” pollution in our atmosphere, the snow is-as white and prestine up here in New Hampshire. The White Mountains are truly spectacular.

    - Our planet is a particle, if you will, which absorbs the sun and cosmic energy. Our biosphere and atmosphere are a result of this ‘initial’ absorption, feedback.

    - If you sprinkle soot over snow, the snow melts more quickly because of the particles absorbing the suns energy. The snow melts more quickly because of black body radiation and NOT liner amounts of CO2. Radiation generated from the earths absorption of the sun (not gas) is what causes the ice to ‘climate change’ to water. This now welcomes water into our atmosphere and biosphere which will then help to create and sustain life.

    - Any sun absorbing region, including water, is what initially warms the oxygen and nitrogen on earth. Co2′s role is truly microscopic.

    So relax and take a DEEP breath. See you’re gonna be fine. The planet is not unstable nor is it in peril. The planet is behaving as it should. It’s the people who are unstable.

    It’s time to wake up folks. We are now a socialist nation. The Fall of Rome. Greed and corruption have decayed our political and economic structure, leading to a collapse in the banking system.

    We did it to ourselves from within. It’s the people who failed the system. Oversight was there, but guidelines for the system were ignored. It’s the people who failed the system.

    Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were commisioned by congress to offer substandard and subprime loans to under qualified borrowers. This was known as wealth or credit distribution. Massive defaults occured which lead to a partial collapse in the housing and banking system. Wealth distributions failure played a key role in our current economic debackle.

    But please never mind all of that. Focus on what’s in front of you. The poor polar bears. You people amaze me. Please read from the top again if this did not register.

  26. Mike says:

    Lake Erie freezes over almost entirely every winter because how shallow it is. Currently it is not 100% frozen over but it is close.

    Lake Ontario on the other hand usually does not freeze over entirely because of its depth. Some shallow areas and bays will freeze over.

    Here is a link displaying the current ice cover from GLCFS (Great Lakes Coastal Forecasting System) http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/glcfs.php?lake=l&ext=ice&type=N&hr=00

  27. Dan Lee says:

    Its not about science, and it hasn’t been about science for a long time.

    Its about concentration of power and control. Its about the right to arm-twist just about any behavior by any group or industry that pops up on the political radar.

    The ability to legislate whatever you please against whomever is in your way, based on “regulation” of a naturally occurring molecule, is a prize so valuable that it will have to be pried from their grasp with a crowbar.

    The worst blizzard in history could bury the inauguration in snow and it wouldn’t change a thing. Its not about the science, and it is certainly not about the weather.

  28. pyromancer76 says:

    Ed Scott:
    “Another cause for alarm is the fact that all the proposed solutions to this faux crisis just happen to coincide with every issue dear to liberals: i.e.: more government, more regulation, wealth distribution, population control, and global governance.”

    A serious problem today is the misuse of a most important political and philosophical concept, “liberal”. So-called “conservatives” hurl the word as an epithet — and an epitaph for those so labelled. They are ignorant and are creating great difficulties for thinking Americans about our traditions what liberalism means.

    A “climate change” analogy is to call computer models, dictating global warming, that cannot predict much of anything, “science”, and hurling the epithet “denier of proven, accepted science” at scientists.

    In fact, liberalism represents hard-won freedom from authoritarianism (especially of the religious kind, historically speaking) born of the Enlightenment. Those who are about to take over the Executive Branch tend to be from the left-authoritarian-progressive branch of the Democratic Party; liberals have been excluded. Liberals are in favor of freedom, transparency, accountability, limited government, the rule of law, capitalism, personal responsibility, educated citizens — AND SCIENCE.

    Many who profess to be conservatives today, but eschew religious authoritarianism, actually are carrying the mantle for classical liberalism.

    I thank Anthony for this blog so that conservative-liberal commitment to accurate data, transparent data bases, open discussion/debate regarding the variety of strongly held views, and respectful dialog can thrive. Anthony, you have created a phenomenaon here; your blog — the entire community — seems to be at the cutting edge of a science being born.

  29. Retroproxy says:

    It doesn’t matter how many years of global cooling we’ve had or might have, or that it’s plainly obvious that the sun and oceans control our climate. This new Socialist regime is hell-bent on destroying our fossil-fuel based economy and controlling the lives of the American people. It must know CO2 is harmless. It must know that despite continually rising CO2 emissions none of the catastrophes touted by the fraudulent IPCC, Gore, Hansen or Schmidt will transpire. We’re witnessing pure corruption and evil. How far will this new regime go? A new ice age might be the only thing to stop this madness.

  30. Jeff Wiita says:

    Hi Anthony,
    Could I get some back ground on Steven Goddard?
    What is his education?
    I don’t place a lot of weight on PhD, MS, or BS, but some people do.
    Thanks for the information. I really like his guest posts.

  31. Harry says:

    Preaching to the choir Rich.

  32. Richard P says:

    Why is does it appear that everything is skewed to the warm side? I live near Cedar Rapids, IA and by the map above we should be up to 4F warmer than average. I just checked the NWS forecast and compared it to climate data and we should average about .8F cooler over the period.

    It just seems that anytime you read about a forecast, record setting event, or a myriad of weather or climate issues, everything is skewed either to emphasize the warmer temps, or pretend as if the colder temps do not exist. I know this is anecdotal and maybe I am having selection bias as well. But, when you look at individual forecast and data sets most everything I have encountered has showed a positive bias. Unless there is a systematic error this should not be the case.

    You can only fudge the figures only so long until reality sets in and cannot be explained away. Maybe this will be the start of that intrusion. I do not wish for it to be so cold that people will be injured. There will be many in attendance with little experience in cold weather. NWS is predicting a high of 32F 10F lower than normal. It should make for an interesting event.

  33. Mikkel says:

    Hey guys
    Dont worry everyone. For sure the ‘fourth-estate’ will apply scrutiny and reason to politics proposed and pursued and prevent even the US subcoming to agenda driven and feel-good politics as we have it in Europe.
    [/sarcasm]
    On the ‘nicer’ side at least Obamas plan for windenergy involves tax-deductions rather than direct government spending and 10-year subsidies as we see it in Denmark and Europe in general. Quite different effects on economics and if it must be certainly the lesser of two evils.

    Also congrats to Anthony and guestwriters for the best science blog award. Also to commentators for an in genreal positive tone without to many ad-homs and ‘loud’ language. Part of what makes this blog enjoyable to read.

  34. Frank Ravizza says:

    I’d like to see a blizzard chill the Obaministration rhetoric on “climate change” on inauguration day. Unfortunately, Weather.com is forecasting a partly cloudy high of 30 deg F.

  35. Glenn says:

    Check out the ice in the Hudson, from the first picture in this article:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/nyregion/18plane.html?ref=nyregion

  36. Steven Goddard says:

    Jeff Whita,

    I’m glad you like my ideas.

    Answering your question, I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in science and engineering. I have no formal training in climate science and am not a climate scientist. I have no affiliations with any energy industry, and receive no compensation for my writing, other than a couple of articles I wrote for The Register last year. I have been interested in greenhouse gas warming since I first heard about it nearly 40 years ago. This is mainly a fun hobby for me, and my interest is to make sure that the public hears the “other side of the story.”

    I consider that any good scientist is naturally a skeptic, and as the late, great Michael Crichton said “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

  37. Jeff Wiita says:

    Thanks Steven ;-)

  38. Leon Brozyna says:

    @ Dan Lee (13:48:02) :

    The worst blizzard in history could bury the inauguration in snow and it wouldn’t change a thing. Its not about the science, and it is certainly not about the weather.

    Exactly. AGW proponents have had years of conditioning where every weather event would prove AGW. Even David Archibald’s prediction for May 2009 {the largest May anomaly in roughly 25 years} won’t change the course set by the Obama administration. See:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdf

    You can’t fight a belief system with facts or proofs; they will proceed with their belief system and impose it as they see fit.

  39. J. Peden says:

    pyromancer76:

    A serious problem today is the misuse of a most important political and philosophical concept, “liberal”. So-called “conservatives” hurl the word as an epithet — and an epitaph for those so labelled.

    Fwiw, I feel your pain, but have gotten over it by simply distinguishing between “Faux Liberals” and “Classical Liberals”, which I think covers what’s going on currently in propagandistic politics, as you have perhaps also intimated in your post above.

    The word game involved in keeping the term “liberal” in broad use while actually changing what it entails politically and functionally to what is not “liberal”, so as to confuse people who still want to be called and vote for “Liberals”, is an old and well-known propagandistic trick.

    I can’t describe myself as an “environmentalist” anymore, either, as a result of the same tactic being employed by controllist propagandizers, who know exactly what they’re doing and think that confusing word meanings aids them in achieving control.

    Or consider the attempt of the AGW “Climate Scientists” to redefine what “science” is while still trading on what it used to mean and still is, while not actually practicing science themselves.

    It’s reprehensible and irritating, but understanding what is being done to words by such propagandists does help us see what we Classical Liberals are up against.

  40. Shawn Whelan says:

    Richard Sharpe

    You have to understand that politicians must pander to their constituencies. That does not mean they are going to do anything specific, simply connecting with those who put them into power.

    I find it kind of humorous that this President elect who fashions himself after Lincoln would consider the warming Earth one of the 3 greatest threats to our existince. Lincoln was facing a Civil War not worried about some imaginary event that is not even occuring. Somebody should tell Obama that if you don’t fudge the data the Earth is in a cooling trend despite the huge increase in Manmade CO2.

  41. crosspatch says:

    According to this map Lake Erie has “open water” in the center but not necessarily ice free.

  42. crosspatch says:

    “Global Warming” caused plane to land in Hudson according to Time Magazine.

    Just goes to show how ridiculous the issue has become as a political agenda item.

  43. Roger Knights says:

    “This new Socialist regime is hell-bent on … controlling the lives of the American people.”

    It’s Global Marming!

    (From “schoolmarm.”)

  44. Steven Goddard says:

    In today’s Guardian, Dr. Hansen warns Mr. Obama that he only has four years to save the world from runaway global warming.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

    Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration, he added.

    Interesting that climate cycles now coincide so closely with election cycles.

  45. Steven Goddard says:

    Mike,

    You said “We should not confuse weather with climate.”

    Convincing the Congress to confuse weather with climate was the primary purpose of the Wirth/Hansen hot weather stunt in 1988. That is the point of this article.

  46. M White says:

    “The worst blizzard in history could bury the inauguration in snow and it wouldn’t change a thing. Its not about the science, and it is certainly not about the weather.”

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/

    Remember “The Day After Tomorrow”

  47. Willem de Rode says:

    Maybe the reduction of CO2 emissions is not so bad. Maybe it wan’t help anything for bringing the climate back to little ice age conditions. But C02 emissions are always accompagnied with some other, really dangerous co-emissions (e.g. benzene, soot, fine dust,…..)
    If a CO2 emission reduction also reduces these dangerous substances in the air we need to breath, then we are taking large steps forwards !

  48. Smokey says:

    More Hansen alarmism. Quick, somebody get the hook: click

  49. Bruce Cobb says:

    Willem de Rode:
    Maybe the reduction of CO2 emissions is not so bad. Maybe it wan’t help anything for bringing the climate back to little ice age conditions. But C02 emissions are always accompagnied with some other, really dangerous co-emissions (e.g. benzene, soot, fine dust,…..)
    If a CO2 emission reduction also reduces these dangerous substances in the air we need to breath, then we are taking large steps forwards !

    This type of thinking is fallacious, and is an argument AGWers frequently use. We have made great strides in this country in reducing air pollution. Of course, more could be done, and will be. But, there are a number of problems with focusing on C02, which isn’t pollution, instead of actual pollution, which make the air unhealthy to breathe. Many of the things being considered, such as CCS, and geoengineering, in addition to being costly will have no environmental benefit whatsoever, and could even be harmful. While we should continue to investigate, and where possible, implement alternative energies such as wind, solar, geothermal, etc., it should be done carefully, and with full consideration of the economics involved. Nuclear power should definitely be on the table, though the alarmists don’t seem to like nuclear, which is hypocritical. Energy independence is one other positive outcome of this. The alarmists want to frighten us into this, though, saying we need to do it immediately, because of the “climate crisis”. That would be a huge mistake. Nothing positive can ever come from acting out of fear, especially a misplaced and completely unfounded one. Finally, and perhaps the biggest reason many of us fight against AGW is Science and Truth, which have become victims of the AGW behemoth.

  50. Ed Reid says:

    Hansen needs to update his “schtick”. The US is no longer the globe’s largest CO2 emitter; China now holds that distinction. Also, 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record.

    However, his concept that the US must play the “Pied Piper”, and that the rest of the world’s nations would cheerfully follow our lead, is farce. Many of the rest of the world’s nations would cheerfully watch us attempt to change the climate and comment on the grandeur of our efforts, though likely also commenting on their inadequacy and ineffectiveness.

    I am still waiting for a definitive statement on the level of CO2 emissions reductions required to halt the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations; and, for a plan to achieve those reductions globally. However, I am not holding my breath, even though that would reduce CO2 emissions.

  51. Walt says:

    Is there a temperature history for the Presidential Inaugurations?

    REPLY: Yes, see the link under the photo – Anthony

  52. Walt says:

    Yes, see the link under the photo

    D’oh! That’s what I get for ignoring the the second half of the caption. Thanks. Too few points to really make a trend line — without throwing out the highest and the lowest scores from the Romanian judges, er, Reagan years.

  53. Steven Goddard says:

    If everyone in the United States quit breathing, driving, eating, etc. the total reduction in CO2 emissions (25%) would be much less than what Dr. Hansen requires. Europe and Asia will also euthanise themselves, in order to reach the stated goals.

  54. Shawn Whelan says:

    Obama
    “Only a handful of times in our history has a generation been confronted with challenges so vast. An economy that is faltering. Two wars, one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely. A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil.”

    The speech
    http://i.usatoday.net/news/TheOval/Obama-in-Baltimore-1-17-2009.pdf

  55. Ric Werme says:

    M White (02:28:08) :

    “The worst blizzard in history could bury the inauguration in snow and it wouldn’t change a thing. Its not about the science, and it is certainly not about the weather.”

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/

    Remember “The Day After Tomorrow”

    Why? The director and Whitley Streiber hoped the movie would inspire public debate about global warming. It didn’t, near as I could tell. I did my part, see http://wermenh.com/2016.html .

    If Anthony had this blog back then perhaps I would have finished the page, but the science in the movie is so poor we’d all be laughing at it.

  56. RICH (13:31:01) :
    - Solar cycle 24 will likely be short lived. This will most certainly effect our climate.
    I don’t think so, on both counts,

  57. Steven Goddard says:

    I’m not sure I would rate the threat of CO2 quite as high as nuclear war with the Soviet Union, WWI, WWII, Stalin, Hitler, Communism, the Great Depression, or Polio, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion …..

  58. crosspatch says:

    “In today’s Guardian, Dr. Hansen warns Mr. Obama that he only has four years to save the world from runaway global warming.”

    I noticed exactly that same article and was going to say something about it.

    What is so ridiculous is the scale of emissions and what the US can really do about it. For example, China has surpassed the US as the worlds largest carbon emitter. In order for the US to make any measurable difference in global CO2 emissions, we would have to make CUTS in emissions that are at least equal to the growth in emissions from China and India. And that is just to maintain emissions at the current level. Now if you want to have real reductions, you must reduce beyond that. The only way to have real reductions in energy consumption is to shrink the economy.

    So what they want to do is “save the world” (Hansen’s words, not mine) on the backs of the US citizens while the rest of the world conducts business as usual. It is sheer idiocy.

  59. crosspatch says:

    Opps, forgot another point I was going to attempt to make. Most of the largest US companies will simply move offshore if US regulations become too onerous. They will not succeed in reducing emissions, they will simply succeed in moving the emissions to a different place. But that might be part of the global strategy of “wealth redistribution”.

  60. RICH says:

    Hi Leif,

    “I don’t think so, on both counts”

    Well… you are the expert. Please explain sir, in laymans terms please.

  61. crosspatch says:

    “I’m not sure I would rate the threat of CO2 quite as high as nuclear war with the Soviet Union, WWI, WWII, Stalin, Hitler, Communism, the Great Depression, or Polio,”

    Unless you are James Hansen. If Obama doesn’t do anything in the next four years, Hansen’s world as he knows it may indeed be at grave risk. It all depends on perspective, I suppose.

  62. Glenn says:

    “Unless you are James Hansen. If Obama doesn’t do anything in the next four years, Hansen’s world as he knows it may indeed be at grave risk. It all depends on perspective, I suppose.”

    Hansen’s world will be at grave risk either way, so to speak.

  63. kim says:

    I have a hint, but only a hint, from Chu’s responses at his confirmation hearings that he’s already moderated some of his positions in the short term. I guess a lot depends upon with what integrity he and other members of the climate and energy team re-evaluate ongoing temperatures and understanding of climate processes. Then again, maybe the hint I got was him just making convenient political speech.

    I don’t trust Carol Browner any further than I could throw an Ice Bear. I think she’d be willing to bend science in the furtherance of politics, and she wants to enslave us all.
    ===============================

  64. kim says:

    RICH (12:55:59)

    I shouldn’t presume to speak for Leif, but my belief is that Cycle 24 will be weaker, in sunspot numbers, but may well be normal in length. There is presently no mechanism to link sunspots to climate, its change or its global temperature. I believe there is a link, but some people, you know, scientists, like to see a mechanism before they are convinced.
    ================================

  65. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Shawn Whelan (10:28:19) :

    Obama
    “Only a handful of times in our history has a generation been confronted with challenges so vast. An economy that is faltering. Two wars, one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely. A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil.

    The speech
    http://i.usatoday.net/news/TheOval/Obama-in-Baltimore-1-17-2009.pdf

    I think that you forgot to mention that the above statement seems to be a classic non-sequitur.

    I.e. How does “a warming planet” come from an “unsustainable dependence on oil”?

  66. David S says:

    Politicians being politicians are not likely to be deterred from their mission by an uncooperative reality.

  67. Shawn Whelan says:

    I.e. How does “a warming planet” come from an “unsustainable dependence on oil”?
    Only liberals can understand such things.

  68. Jack Simmons says:

    Graeme Rodaughan (16:25:40) :

    Shawn Whelan (10:28:19) :

    Obama
    “Only a handful of times in our history has a generation been confronted with challenges so vast. An economy that is faltering. Two wars, one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely. A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil.”

    The speech
    http://i.usatoday.net/news/TheOval/Obama-in-Baltimore-1-17-2009.pdf

    I think that you forgot to mention that the above statement seems to be a classic non-sequitur.

    I.e. How does “a warming planet” come from an “unsustainable dependence on oil”?

    If global warming is caused by unsustainable oil consumption, we have no problem. Anything unsustainable will soon end, by definition. As oil consumption ends, so will the purported results, global warming.

  69. Lindsay H says:

    Politicians always cover their collective asses, once the economy really goes into a recession, and the unemployment queue’s get real long, western political leaders will discover suddenly that its actually cooling and turn it to a political purpose , and say reduced use of coal and oil is the reason , see Hansen Stern & co were right after all, they got the models a bit wrong! . But with the increasing cold starting to kill people on the dole or a benefit, who can no longer afford heating, wont it be intersting to see how these new climate appointees react.
    They will start to quietly to take the advice of the sceptics they have so despised, at political direction of course, and AGW will quietly slide off the radar.

    Interesting times ahead !!

    Great to see WUWT out blogs Real Climate 7.6 million to 6.9 I just wish someone would edit the rubbish on their their RC wiki entry.

  70. RICH says:

    Kim,

    Thanks for the info. I absolutely agree there is a link. Thinking there isn’t one… can only give way for the possibility.

    “Last (year), Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as ‘a drop in the bucket.’ Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to ‘stock up on fur coats.’

    He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.”

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

    An inactive sun and we are setting recod cold and snow? Nope, no solar connection there :)

    “but some people, you know, scientists, like to see a mechanism before they are convinced.”

    Some scientists are so preoccupied with all the knowledge they paid for, they tend to lose focus on the big picture. Ever see a brilliant person who lacks a little common sense? I am related to a couple of phd’s who fit that mold :)

    Have a good one.

  71. anna v says:

    weather report from Yahoo for tomorrow in Washington DC:
    # Today: Variable clouds with snow showers. Temps nearly steady in the low to mid 30s. Winds N at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of snow 50%. Snow accumulations less than one inch.
    # Tonight: Snow flurries early. Then partly cloudy overnight. Low 21F. Winds NNW at 5 to 10 mph.
    # Tomorrow: Occasional snow flurries developing. High near 30F. Winds NNW at 10 to 20 mph.

  72. anna v says:

    Kim and Rich:

    This discussion of how much the small changes in energy input from the sun affects the climate is an ongoing one.

    I see two possibilities of resolving this:

    1) If it can be established that the albedo is correlated with the galactic cosmic ray flux. A small change in albedo can make a large change in energy input on the surface of the earth. The toy model of Junkscience.com shows that http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html .
    I used it to calculate temperatures from the albedo link somebody gave a while ago, and the trend follows reality.

    2) A chaotic model, where on the repetitive and persistent large insolation changes of the seasons ( 7% or so) the small excess of .1 percent repetitively might build up in the oceans’ heat capacity influencing PDOs and ENSOs and the rest of the alphabet soup. ( like a resonance build up from small inputs)

  73. Ron de Haan says:

    Via link from: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/01/norm-kalmovitch-in-ccnet.html

    Norm Kalmanovitch in CCNet:

    “Apart from common sense, the only other aspect totally absent from the global warming debate is “global warming” itself. There is talk of emissions reductions, carbon trading, and even drowning polar bears; but there is no talk about actual current global temperature increases with the continuous increase in global CO2 emissions.

    The December 2008 temperature data confirms that 2008 was the coldest year of the last decade, adding one more year to the cooling trend that started after 2002.

    Common sense would dictate that after six years of cooling with only one year, 2005, being warmer than the previous year, the “global warming” debate would be over and the world would now be debating “global cooling” in earnest.

    Apparently common sense was never part of this debate even when the globe was actually warming. Clouds block about 20% of the 1368 W/m2 of solar radiation. If cloud cover decreased and only blocked out 19% of the solar radiation or cloud cover increased and blocked out 21% of the solar radiation these 5% changes in cloud cover would equate to 13.68 W/m2 of either heating or cooling.

    AGW is based on computer models that attribute forcing of just 3.71 W/m2 to a doubling of CO2 from the 280 ppmv, and somehow this is more likely to drive climate than a 5% change in cloud cover.

    The actual physical properties of CO2 interacting with the thermal spectrum radiated by the Earth, dictate that far less than 10% of this 3.71 W/m2 is even physically possible. Remarkably, the world is committing economic suicide, starving the poor and ignoring real pollution problems, because an environmentalist lobby has convinced the world leaders that it is more likely that 0.371 W/m2 from CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic warming of the Earth, than 13.68 W/m2 from a 5% increase in cloud cover can cause serious cooling of the Earth.

    The global climate models all state that we should be on a warming trend. The global temperature data sets all show that we are on a cooling trend.

    The debate is now called “climate change” to avoid any reference to global temperature and the issue is somehow elevated to a level of such great importance that countries are actually debating whether to adhere to the dictates of the Kyoto Protocol for the purpose of stopping the now non-existent global warming, or save their countries economies using “Kyoto unfriendly” energy sources.

    Norm Kalmanovitch P.Geoph
    Calgary Canada”

  74. Ron de Haan says:

    The deniers know that the political decision making process can be influenced by physical circumstances.

    Their advice for Obama is not to refer to any AGW/Climate Change policy standing outdoors during a snow storm!

    Not so for the IPCC and WorldWatch teaming up to put the “heat” on Obama.
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/ipcc-teams-up-with-worldwatch-to-attack-obama-4888

    I call this attempt “perfect timing”.

  75. Ron de Haan says:

    From Alan Sullivan, Fresh Bilge, http://www.seablogger.com/?p=12649

    Postmodern Faith
    Monday, 19 Jan 09, weather

    “It’s snowing in Washington, DC as a very strong disturbance passes at upper levels. The temperature is well below freezing, and light snow should continue much of the day. A couple of days ago I mentioned that some models projected the formation of a vigorous coastal low. It appears such a development is commencing. Tomorrow the snow will be racing northeast into New England, but flurries may continue, and it will become very blustery as the departing storm tightens the pressure gradient over the mid-Atlantic region. Winds from the NNW will sweep the west-facing Capitol stairs, where the ceremony will be held. Streets and sidewalks will remain icy unless salt is used liberally.

    It would not be wise for Obama to make any reference to “global warming” or the vaguer “climate crisis” on such a day. He’ll look like a damn fool. But he probably has some list of challenges in his text, and he probably won’t edit out any reference to a central tenet of his postmodern faith. Heaven help us if some break in the rushing low cloud sends a shaft of sunshine onto the stage when Obama speaks. The media will announce the Second Coming, but I’ll be thinking about the Book of Revelation”.

  76. RICH says:

    Anna,

    Undoubtedly albedo plays a key role.

    It would be impossible to build a model based on chaos and expect any degree of accuracy. Isn’t this what current climate models are based on, chaos?

    Thanks for the link.

    “The science against carbon, is science achieved through carbon.”

    -Rich Gele’

  77. Doug says:

    Of course the evil part about the AGW folks is that as temps continue to fall, they will simply exclaim “See! Replacing all of your incandescent bulbs with CFLs *is* paying off!” No matter what happens, hot or cold, they will spin it to their advantage. If Obama installs a switch in the White House, and flips it at his leisure, he can — and no doubt will — claim credit for whatever climate patterns he chooses to praise. No doubt his 2012 campaign slogan will be “better weather through more and better legislation.”

    Costa Rica sounds better with each passing day.

  78. Sekerob says:

    Richard deSousa (10:59:54),

    the prayers were heard from the other side too so Obama will be in a bullet proof glass house, heated and all. Weather forecast for Washington is about freezing point. It’s winter, so seems not to be exceptional.

  79. Ron de Haan says:

    Willem de Rode (03:48:50) :

    “Maybe the reduction of CO2 emissions is not so bad. Maybe it wan’t help anything for bringing the climate back to little ice age conditions. But C02 emissions are always accompagnied with some other, really dangerous co-emissions (e.g. benzene, soot, fine dust,…..)
    If a CO2 emission reduction also reduces these dangerous substances in the air we need to breath, then we are taking large steps forwards !”

    Willem de Rode,
    Today the KNMI has presented a report stating that the number of days with fog in Europe has reduced significantly since 1980.

    The cause for this is the clean air.

    The number of days with fog will stay constant now because we do not have (much) more possibilities to make the air cleaner as it already is.

    There is one set back. Because of the clean air the temperature rises and the scientists stated that this effect was responsible for 5-10% of the rise in temperatures over the past years.

    If you look at engine development it is nice to look at the Rolls Royce V8 engine that was introduced in 1959.
    “The process of evolving the engine has been gradual and continuous; by 2006 the final 1959-specification engine components had been replaced; the twin-turbo 6.75 L engine produced over 150% more power and torque than at the beginning of its life, it had a 40% better fuel economy, and produced 99.5% less exhaust emission”.

    We have seen similar developments with coal fired power plants, jet-engines steel factories, cement mills etc. etc. and now enjoy “clean air, even in the cities.

    The fine dust that is measured however is not caused by emissions.

    It is caused by the wear and tear of break pads and tires of cars and trucks, a totally different problem which will be solved with the introduction of new materials (ceramic brakes and new wear proof tire materials).

    Therefore using the argument of reducing CO2 in order to reduce other sorts of pollution is a joke.
    It is like giving your car a car wash when your house is on fire!

    It also undermines the factual discussion weather CO2 is causing AGW yes or no, and if it is necessary to eliminate the basic energy system of our industrialized economies by reducing CO2 emissions.

    I don’t think so.

    To think that CO2 emissions have the potential to stop or delay an ice age is as absurd as your arguments to reduce CO2.

  80. Sekerob says:

    Ron de Haan,

    Read that KNMI news elsewhere. The same news carried in the UK Telegraph. Of course this paper slipped on the numbers and boosted the effect to 10-20% instead.

    Follow up question then is: What about clean pre-industrial air? Any traces of temps then? Also the Atmospheric Brown Clouds, mitigating currently, if taken out, and the Chinese coal plant stacks cleaned up could contribute considerably.

  81. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Jack Simmons (20:32:11) :

    If global warming is caused by unsustainable oil consumption, we have no problem. Anything unsustainable will soon end, by definition. As oil consumption ends, so will the purported results, global warming.

    Jack, My thoughts exactly – someone needs to acquaint the speech writer with basic logic.

  82. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Somewhat OT,

    A general thought wrt the argument from authority.

    Subject expertise does matter when arguing science, however the following (IMHO) applies to the notion that Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Global Warming.

    When arguing matters of science, a strong understanding of the data, experimental techniques, theories, etc of a given field would be necessary to participate.

    When uncovering a lie, hoax, fraud, etc, the key necessary characteristics are logic, honesty and persistance.

    While not everyone has a PhD in Climate Science, nearly everyone has a capacity for logic, honesty and persistance.

  83. MattN says:

    Tomorrow for DC: High of 31, chance of snow, NW winds 10-15 mph with 25mph gusts.

    I will DIE laughing if he mentions global warming. Just DIE laughing….

  84. Roger Sowell says:

    Ron de Haan (16:21:00) :

    It [dust] is caused by the wear and tear of break pads and tires of cars and trucks…

    It appears that hybrid-electric and fully electric vehicles will reduce the dust created by brake pads on vehicles. Under normal braking, such vehicles use friction brakes only at the last bit of stopping, and use the vehicle’s momentum to generate power which slows the vehicle until the friction brakes take over. Also, an emergency stop will activate the friction brakes.

    The delivery truck hybrid system by Eaton uses hydraulics rather than electric motors, but the effect on reducing friction brake usage is similar.

    Another plus for hybrids and EVs.

  85. anna says:

    RICH (12:18:23) :

    It would be impossible to build a model based on chaos and expect any degree of accuracy.
    :). Have you noticed that nature is built on this chaos and manages to solve all the equations and propagate into the future everything, most of the time not catastrophically? The implementation of chaos and complexity theory in climate is in my opinion the only way to go, to get a handle on what is happening in climate. Chaos and complexity theory are a vigorous field of study over many disciplines, from biology to climate and I am sure that eventually human collective intelligence will be able to get good results for climate.

    See . Tsonis et al have tried to model the climate with a neural network, the paper can be found here http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf
    From their abstract: “This is the first time that this
    mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of
    synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of
    the size and complexity of the climate system.”

    Isn’t this what current climate models are based on, chaos?
    No. Climate models are models where the earth atmosphere is gridded into cubes and approximations of deterministic thermodynamic equations are used for time step propagations and boundary conditions. The problem with their approach, IMHO, is that they are mainly basing their equations on first order approximations and averages, whereas the true solutions are highly non linear and diverge from the approximations after a number of time steps.

  86. Lance says:

    This thread made me re-posting my sheit posted on-line and working on thru 2008, sorry (Hope this is not looked on as spam) it’s nothing to do with MR Obama( I hope for the best), just his policies and AGW.

    “The weather/climate science world have abandoned the second rule of thermodynamics and hands on science for computer modeling . Modern scientists with a lack of science knowledge.

    AGW(manmade greenhouse gas) can only be observed in a “isolated system (closed)” and earth “IS” an “OPEN SYSTEM”.

    CO2 holds heat in a Closed system, once you “OPEN” the lid, the law doesn’t work. When you open up the lid, heat and gas escape, and it’s gone into the atmosphere. Hot goes to cold case closed, the second law.

    The AGW CO2 was calibrated/concluded using a “CLOSED” modeling system, so what came first, the Chicken Little or the co2 egg?

    I’m hearing and reading from some in the so called weather sciences saying the sun heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere heats the earth. And this is how their theory on how greenhouse gas was formed, by keeping the heat trapped in.

    WRONG!

    If this were true, there would be a heating of major per potions in the atmosphere and there isn’t much, only about .01c. Only heating seen in the atmosphere is on their computer model and they can’t explain this phenomena, thus came the idea of using CO2. The real world doesn’t work like their model, they have to thrown out the laws of physic and become rapped up(or lazy) with using computer modeling.

    Have they forgotten or become void of why these models don’t really work? I honestly think they thought they were right and have had one of the biggest scientific brain farts EVER. . Also using erroneous and left out data like Medieval Warm Period (about 800–1300) and the Little Ice Age (about 1400–1850) , CO2 levels being several times higher through ice core samples and a mountain of growing evidence of bad science is troublesome and suspect to say the least.

    Sun heats the ground and the other 75% of our planets surface, “WATER”.

    This heated water evaporates into a gas, rises and is seen mainly as water vapor. Some forming into clouds and come back to earth as rain, the rest goes up into the atmosphere including the HEAT and it’s gone. No trapped gas except for the heat from the planet that my get trapped by cloud cover. And then lost into the atmosphere at night, too begin the whole process again when the sun comes up the next morning. And agian, the sun heats the surface, cycles around with weather patterns, heat and gases go back up into the atmosphere and out into space. There’s also a million other things that effect circulation and distribution of heat and gas we don’t even know about.

    An open system brought to you by real nature weather science.

    Relax, it’s just the Sun!

    A real measurable thing in the sky, something you can observe and keep records of and correlate with weather patterns. The only thing, to predict future weather they may need to create a model!

    Unlike the AGW modeling what breaks a law of physics, and has you believing something they can’t prove.

    At least with the sun modeling, I can feel it, see it and it comes on regular intervals, like everyday! Hehe!

    There’s no man made global warming, there’s galactic warming from the sun.

    Happy Obama day, I have more to post

  87. Allan M R MacRae says:

    Lavish, wasteful parties like the Inauguration seem inappropriate and undignified – can we call this one an Obamination?

    Here are some constructive suggestions for consideration after the party is over and the real work begins.

    I doubt this treatise will be seriously considered by the new administration, but my Energy Strategy for America, while oversimplified, has the benefit of valid climate science and energy expertise. Also, I have a solid track record of being correct on such matters.

    Published November 15, 2008 at
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ANENERGYSTRATEGYFORAMERICA.pdf

    Good luck America, and God Bless!

    Regards, Allan

    ————————————————————-

    AN ENERGY STRATEGY FOR AMERICA

    by Allan M.R. MacRae

    The USA has two daunting problems – the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression; and President-Elect Obama’s energy policies, which will severely deepen the economic crisis.

    Obama stated in a San Francisco Chronicle television interview that he wants to implement an aggressive CO2 cap-and-trade system that could bankrupt coal companies. He further stated that energy prices will necessarily skyrocket. Obama believes that global warming is a critical issue, and he supports the use of solar energy, wind power and biodiesel. To his credit, Obama also supports a market approach and technological development.

    In 2007, US primary energy consumption consisted of oil (40%), natural gas (25%), coal (24%), nuclear (8%) and hydroelectricity (2%). As a percentage of total proved reserves of fossil fuels, the US holds just over 2% of the world’s oil, 3% of natural gas, but almost 29% of global coal. http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622

    Energy projects have been constrained due to fears of catastrophic global warming, allegedly caused by increased atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels. However, global warming is just not happening anymore. For the last decade, average global temperatures have not increased. Since January 2007 all global warming has disappeared, as average temperatures plummeted to 1979 levels – when accurate satellite measurements began.

    http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

    Global cooling is now occurring and is expected to continue for the next twenty to thirty years, due to the recent shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm to cool phase.

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/implications_of_pdo_and_nao_shifts_and_global_climate_in_upcoming_decades1/

    Despite shrill claims of ice cap melting, Arctic sea-ice extent is now at its highest seasonal level since modern satellite measurements began in 2002 – more evidence of global cooling.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    For decades, the US has experienced a huge balance of trade deficit, due primarily to high oil imports. Energy self-sufficiency has been the goal of recent US Presidents, without success.

    There is now an opportunity to address both these serious challenges, by rejecting global warming myths and creating an energy strategy based on true, verifiable facts.

    Here is the outline of a responsible and economic Energy Strategy for America:

    1. Reject CO2 taxes and cap-and-trade measures used to “fight global warming”. Examine the satellite data, the only accurate global temperature measurements in existence. Climate Dyslexics please note: The Earth is cooling, not warming. Global cooling should last for twenty to thirty years and could be severe.

    2. Generate much more electrical energy from abundant US coal reserves. Use existing technologies to control real atmospheric pollution from SOx, NOx and particulates, but do not control CO2. In the future, if CO2 sequestration becomes economically attractive (for enhanced oil recovery) or is proved necessary (in the unlikely event that global warming becomes a real problem), retrofit the coal plants with expensive CO2 recovery equipment at that time.

    3. As rechargeable battery technology continues to improve, electric and gasoline-electric light vehicles will become commonplace. The power infrastructure already exists to fuel this fleet, and refueling can be done during off-peak periods, when power plants are underutilized. This major change in the light vehicle fleet will shift energy consumption from foreign oil to domestic coal.

    4. Re-examine corn ethanol and wind power, which do not work economically or effectively. Corn ethanol for motor fuel requires huge ongoing subsidies and severely distorts food prices. Wind power also requires big subsidies, and almost 100% backup with conventional power generation. Wind power can also cause critical instabilities in the electric power grid. Conduct a full-life-cycle energy balance on corn ethanol, wind power, biodiesel and solar energy, and also examine the environmental demands and pollution associated with these so-called “green” technologies.

    5. Re-examine hydrogen. It is an energy medium, like electricity, but if implemented would require a huge new hydrogen infrastructure to be built at great cost, for no environmental or energy gain.

    6. Avoid energy subsidies, especially ongoing operating subsidies, which distort economic decisions and create expensive industrial and environmental boondoggles. Wind power and corn ethanol may prove to be two such costly mistakes.

    Instead of skyrocketing energy prices, this Energy Strategy for America will result in lower costs, improved balance of trade, and in time could even provide energy self-sufficiency for the USA.

    _______________________________
    Allan M.R. MacRae is a Professional Engineer and writer on energy and the environment. In 2002 he predicted in a newspaper article that global cooling would recur. He does not work in the coal industry, accepts no compensation for his writing and holds no coal investments.

  88. MattN says:

    Roger, I read a piece in Car And Driver about that system on UPS trucks. It works amazingly well. Unfortunately, the equiptment adds at least 2000lbs to the weight of the truck, so it may not be all that practical for a passenger car. And it’s LOUD, apparently

    But it is neat, works well, and really increases mileage on those delivery trucks.

  89. Jeff Alberts says:

    Sekerob (15:16:15) :

    Weather forecast for Washington is about freezing point. It’s winter, so seems not to be exceptional.

    Yeah, might even be a bit warm. Of course you can subtract 5-8 degrees for the surrounding suburbs.

  90. Jeff Alberts says:

    Crap, the second para was mine.

  91. Jeff Alberts says:

    MattN (18:55:21) :

    Tomorrow for DC: High of 31, chance of snow, NW winds 10-15 mph with 25mph gusts.

    I will DIE laughing if he mentions global warming. Just DIE laughing….

    He won’t, he’ll mention “climate change”. Besides, 31 is not cold for DC in January. 10f would be cold.

  92. tallbloke says:

    Jeff Alberts (08:56:24) :

    MattN (18:55:21) :

    I will DIE laughing if he mentions global warming. Just DIE laughing….

    He won’t, he’ll mention “climate change”. Besides, 31 is not cold for DC in January. 10f would be cold.

    Well, he didn’t use either of those two phrases, but he mentioned that one of the challenges facing America is:
    “The specter of a warming planet.”

    The Merriam Webster dictionary has these definitions

    1 : a visible disembodied spirit : ghost
    2 : something that haunts or perturbs the mind : phantasm e.g. the specter of hunger

    Discounting (1) let’s look at (2) and the definition of the given synonym ‘Phantasm’.

    1: a product of fantasy: as a: delusive appearance : illusion b: ghost , specter c: a figment of the imagination
    2: a mental representation of a real object

    So, a carefully chosen word which gives something to both sides in the debate? Or is Obama hedging his bets here and fence sitting here ?

    I’m happy that Obama has stepped back from talking about ‘a warming planet’ as a matter of fact, and has referred instead to ‘the specter of a warming planet’, an altogether less definite object. He’s a shrewd player, that’s for sure.

  93. anna says:

    tallbloke (10:13:25) :

    Yes, I immediately searched his speech for “warm” and “green” and “envir” and only warm came up in the phrase you quoted:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_obama_text

    With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense,

    The context is also important “roll back” is less arrogant than “stop”. The beginning of the next sentence is also a hedge.

  94. AKD says:

    “With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.”

    Perhaps WUWT’s recent award was in partial recognition for its important contribution to the goal of rolling back the terror and dread currently associated with global warming.

  95. RICH says:

    Anna,

    “Have you noticed that nature is built on this chaos and manages to solve all the equations and propagate into the future everything, most of the time not catastrophically?”

    Absolutely! God works in amazing ways. But “most of the time” is subjective only to those who recognize it to begin with. There is no begining and there is no end, for time is irrelevent in the highest of power.

    “Chaos and complexity theory are a vigorous field of study over many disciplines”

    Again, isn’t this what models are based on? Chaos? Complexity?

    Who is to say that an asteroid will not strike the earth? Or what what about the onset of war, plague, or famine? We are using computers to foretell the outcome of our life, our climate, and our planet. However it is humanly impossibly, despite great achievements in science, to account for all of the known and unknown variables. And even by focusing strictly on CO2, there is clearly no conscensus as to what the outcome will have on humanity.

    Super computer models predicitng our future, is man made prophecy. And most likely… false.

    Have a good one.

  96. Jeff Alberts says:

    Well, he didn’t use either of those two phrases, but he mentioned that one of the challenges facing America is:
    “The specter of a warming planet.”

    So he’s confirmed it. AGW is a phantom menace.

  97. Jeff Alberts says:

    Absolutely! God works in amazing ways. But “most of the time” is subjective only to those who recognize it to begin with. There is no begining and there is no end, for time is irrelevent in the highest of power.

    Wow, that was scientific.

    NOT!

  98. tallbloke says:

    anna (10:53:32) :

    tallbloke (10:13:25) :

    Yes, I immediately searched his speech for “warm” and “green” and “envir” and only warm came up in the phrase you quoted:

    Well, not quite. he also said:

    “Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.”

    The “subject to data and statistics” is a caveat it seems to me, another indicator ,in my opion, that he is aware that AGW theory isn’t written in stone. Otherwise, he would have said “confirmed by data and statistics”.

    Interesting insight into Obama’s thinking, or the usual politician’s weasel words?

  99. RICH says:

    “Or is Obama hedging his bets here and fence sitting here?”

    I “hope” he is fence sitting. But with tipping points, Gore, and Hansen blowing in the wind, he is bound to fall off that fence and into the environmentalists backyard.

    600 private jets touched down and $150 million was spent for this party. That’s quite a footprint… especially for hypocrites.

  100. RICH says:

    Jeff Alberts,

    “Wow, that was scientific… NOT!”

    :o [yawn]

    Alberts, will time exist when man is gone? And perhaps you could use your expertise in science and explain the beginning and end, you contemptuous know it all. And you want to criticise me, buddy boy?

    “So he’s confirmed it. AGW is a phantom menace.”

    Really, he confirmed it? How, pray tell, did he ‘confirm’ anything?

    “Besides, 31 is not cold for DC in January. 10f would be cold.”

    Not exactly. 31F is cold for DC and below average.

    Anything else Jeff?

  101. tallbloke says:

    Well, we should know fairly quickly how much of the 1 trillion package will be spent on infrastructure projects in traditional big employment sectors such as public works construction and how much he’s going to sink into Gore’s pocket via Kleiner Perkins backed clean-tech startups.

  102. E.M.Smith says:

    Jeff Alberts (12:29:08) :
    Absolutely! God works in amazing ways. But “most of the time” is subjective only to those who recognize it to begin with. There is no begining and there is no end, for time is irrelevent in the highest of power.

    Wow, that was scientific. NOT!

    Jeff, could you perhaps denigrate the beliefs of others a bit less?

    While I am somewhere on the agnostic / atheist spectrum, my spouse is very religious. We get along and it works for her. One thing I’ve come to appreciate out it all is that some of the best science has come from religious people. Einstein comes to mind as does Darwin. Yes, that Darwin. Read his book as originally published, it is in admiration of what he saw as God’s work.

    While some dogmas make a wall between science and God, the Bible does not, nor do most other religions. (Last I looked; Shinto, Buddhist, & Muslim scientists existed, among others.)

    The original (by RICH, I think), to which you responded, reminded me of a very interesting (especially from a science perspective) book:

    Is a fascinating book that manages to bring the Genesis story and our understanding of the science of the beginning of time and space into agreement. (He looks at times arrow from the beginning of the big bang before time dilation. Calibrated to that scale, the 6 days of Genesis have things happening on the same scale as our scientific understanding…)

    Yes, time dilation and relativity. So maybe there is just a bit more ‘science’ in the notion of time being a relative thing and having less meaning viewed from the other end of times arrow than you were seeing…

    I, as just one agnostic/atheist speaking, found the original posting gratifying and a reminder of the science of the beginning of time. However created.

  103. RICH says:

    E.M. Smith,

    Thank you for your insight and recommendation, one that I will certainly consider.

    As a former agnostic, I understand the difficulty one has in seeing the light that shines through the prism of God. Perhaps I deserved a bit of criticism, as I have recently been short to people with opposing points of view.

    Some form of payback I suppose? Anyway, I would like to share my thoughts on, dare I say, God, logic, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news.

    What a great website.

    Be GREEN all… but do not emit GREENhouse gas. Doesn’t this seem strange to anyone? IMHO, I find this completely illogical.

    And speaking of Einstein…

    “I know not with what weapons world war III will be fought, but world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

    Any quotes from the discoverer of quantum mechanics on the ‘dangers’ of carbon dioxide?

  104. Jeff Alberts says:

    E.M.Smith (17:17:44) :

    Jeff, could you perhaps denigrate the beliefs of others a bit less?

    Not when they’re just spouted out for no good reason. Sure, my statement added nothing to the discussion, but neither did the one I responded to.

    I, as just one agnostic/atheist speaking, found the original posting gratifying and a reminder of the science of the beginning of time. However created.

    Sorry, I found to to be bunk. So I said so.

  105. Bill Junga says:

    After hearing all the alarmism about CO2 and reading about the “green ball ” at the inauguration yesterday I think I will have for lunch today the “global warming” special. That is lots of hot fried baloney, with refried beans in hot sauce served on a bed of chilled finely chopped iceberg lettuce and for dessert, melting watermelon sherbet as in “red on the inside,green on the outside. All serve on recycleable dinnerware and flat, cheap imitation Champagne for a beverage.

  106. RICH says:

    Alberts,

    Whenever you are ready, please feel free to debunk…

    “There is no begining and there is no end”

    Good luck.

  107. tallbloke says:

    I’m kind of amazed this thread isn’t the hot potato du jour. The western world looks to Capt America for a beacon of light in the darkness, a cool hand to mop the fevered brow of the overheated world, and our american contributors have almost no comment on BO’s words.

  108. Jeff Alberts says:

    tallbloke (14:25:10) :

    I’m kind of amazed this thread isn’t the hot potato du jour. The western world looks to Capt America for a beacon of light in the darkness, a cool hand to mop the fevered brow of the overheated world, and our american contributors have almost no comment on BO’s words.

    That’s because we hear all the rhetoric every election, from all the politicians, and really they do very little of what they promise. I’m sure most of the time they mean well, but very rarely deliver. And from my perspective, I don’t think he can “fix” the things he says he wants to.

  109. Roger Sowell says:

    Tallbloke, Re President Obama’s inaugural address and administration’s new tone.

    I am purely speculating here, but we know that President Obama has received highly classified briefings in the past few weeks that, I suspect, have caused a certain CHANGE in his thinking. I certainly HOPE so.

    One such briefing is underway even as I write this, with the top military advisors. I look for certain softening of his stance following this meeting, too.

    It is this way with all new Presidents, especially if they were not previously a vice-President. The information is just too classified, there is no way as a U.S. Senator he would know. Using Truman as an example, “We have an atomic bomb that can do WHAT?????”

    As I frequently debate with my friends and colleagues, President is not a popularity contest. Many of my liberal friends believe the President (Bush in particular) should make/(have made) more popular decisions, those that would garner accolades from the U.S. population and from around the world. I remind them that Roman emperors went down that road, and look where it took them!

    The fact is, that none of those groups have access to the information the President has, so his decisions based on that information may very well be for the best, yet not be pleasing to those groups.

    And that, IMHO, is why a President should be elected based on attributes like character, judgment, crisis-management, clear-thinking, and not just rhetoric or star appeal. A rare President has good attributes and star appeal, and the older I get, the more it appears that John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were the only two in my lifetime. One democrat, one republican.

  110. Doug says:

    In today’s headlines, Obama has declared:

    “In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.”

    Does this mean that Mann will finally be forced to reveal his source code for his infamous work? Does anyone in our camp intend to test The One on his proclamation anytime soon?

  111. tallbloke says:

    Roger Sowell,
    I have long thought the same of British Prime Ministers. They get taken on one side by ‘Sir Humphrey’ the day they arrive at Downing St for a briefing and emerge with less idealistic principles. I do like Obama’s tone and apparant character. Time will tell.

  112. beng says:

    All hail the new ObamaNation!

  113. Robin Guenier says:

    You may be interested in this story from the excellent Harmless Sky about how the BBC’s Newsnight manipulated Obama’s speech to make it sound far closer to their climate change agenda than it really was:

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=147

    I know from personal experience that the BBC’s sound engineers are very skilled at playing around with a recording to make what is said fit their story. Humble people have to learn to live with it. But the US President – that’s serious!

  114. Steve Brown says:

    The comments at the end of the article are of interest.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7837791.stm

Comments are closed.