This is a familar set of issues in one article. – Anthony
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Environment: The solar wind is slowing, but Al Gore is still spewing hot air. The Oscar winner is promoting civil disobedience to stop energy and economic growth as the first U.S. emissions cap-and-trade program begins.
Speaking before Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative, junk science advocate Gore called on young people to take the law into their own hands because the climate, he claims, is a-changin’. He told the gathering in New York City that “the world has lost ground to the climate crisis” and the time for action is now.
“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” Gore said to loud applause.
His comments come two weeks after a British jury acquitted six Greenpeace activists accused of causing property damage at a power plant. The jury felt the “protest” was acceptable because the “protesters” feared the plant would contribute to global warming.
Luddites of the world, unite!
On the same day Gore spoke, scientists involved in NASA’s Ulysses project reported that the intensity of the sun’s solar wind was at its lowest point since the beginning of the space age – one more indication that the sun, the biggest source of energy affecting the Earth, is getting quiet.
The weaker solar wind appears to be due to changes in the sun’s magnetic field, but the cause is unknown. Sunspots, which normally fluctuate in 11-year cycles, are at a virtual standstill. In August, the sun created no visible spots. The last time that happened: June 1913.
The results of the Ulysses spacecraft’s mission, according to Jet Propulsion Laboratory project scientist Ed Smith, show that “we are in a period of minimal activity that has stretched on longer than anyone anticipated.”
The consequences for Earth are enormous. The lack of increased activity could signal the start of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event that occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century. It leads to extended periods of severe cooling such as what happened during the Little Ice Age.
It may already be happening. The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.
The climate is changing, but not in the direction Al Gore thinks. As the Earth demonstrably cools under a weakening sun, a 10-state coalition on Thursday held the nation’s first carbon allowance auction to deal with a warming trend that may have ended a decade ago.
They will impose a minor league version of the Lieberman-Warner economy-killing cap-and-trade rationing system in which emissions are limited by a progressively lowered cap. Emission permits are auctioned off by government, making it a cap-and-tax system. Permits can be traded or sold between companies like baseball cards.
The Lieberman-Warner bill would mandate emission cuts of 44% below 2007 levels. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it would cost as much as $3 trillion a year in lost GDP in an economy of roughly $14 trillion. It dwarfs the current financial crisis. But then, it’s for a good cause – right, Al?
The New York-based Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, launched Thursday, strives to freeze CO2 emissions through 2014 and then gradually reduce them to 10% below current levels by 2018. The states participating are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Like its bigger cousin, it’s a job- and growth-killing plan in a time of economic crisis. As the sun slows and the Earth cools, it’ll mean higher energy prices during colder and snowier winters.
Al Gore’s hippie legions may have to wear their winter coats.
Smokey
That graph turned out to be invalid … A few days ago I posted a story highlighting the drop in water vapor in the atmosphere which initially looked like the entire atmosphere due to a labeling issue by ESRL, but turned out to be only at the 300 millibar height and not up to 300mb as the ESRL graph was labeled.
JP.
John Philip (06:19:32) :
The central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).
At best it is only an estimate which only lives in the theory and used in climate models. The 2.5 factor is unpoven in the real world of observed data. The 2.5 factor is nothing more than figrue to “balance the book” between CO2 and temperatue. Anything based on the CO2 theory with the amplification by a factor of 2.5 is pure speculation.
CO2 is now 35% higher than it has been throughout the period for which we have ice core proxies, some 650K years, yes?
Even if true (which I doubt), so what? C02’s warming effect is logarithmic. The first 20 ppm of C02 has more warming effect than the next 400.
In fact, the higher C02 is, the better it is for plants, and of course for us.
At the end of the day all that planet gore and IPCC have is a dud graph, models filled with fudge factors that work on bad theory and some natural earth warming of less than 1 deg C for the last 150 years.
The planet is cooling and will most likely continue to cool making their propaganda even less palatable….i will enjoy watching them fall.
John Philip, 16:22
I was not trying to convince you on the error of your beliefs:), you are of course free to hold them.
I was trying to tell you that the poll was biased, because even I, strongly convinced that the IPCC is off on a limb, would answer in the positive in that poll.
Yes, ten years are enough. Why, they were even enough for Hansen in 1988 to jump on the warming bandwagon and strongly shout at congress. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
8 locations are enough if they are random and not cherry picked. A model that cannot predict whether irrigation or drainage will be needed the next ten years should be trusted for the next 100?
There is a very good mathematical reason why any linearized models as these GCM models are, will diverge from reality when applied to real data. If you know mathematics, follow this:
The GCM models make grids (boxes) of the atmosphere and apply linear approximations to the solutions of SOME of the differential equations that have to apply at the boundaries. Let us ignore SOME.
It is very well known that coupled differential equations lead to chaotic systems. This is because the beats of the different solutions that are pushing and pulling in mathematical reality can unpredictably build up enormously, or disappear ( the seventh wave, the 100th lightning,…). This means that linearity in any modeling can be reasonably applied for a limited number of time steps before the true nonlinear nature of the solutions explodes. These same models are used to predict the weather for next week, with different boundary conditions than when they are turned climate. It is evident for even non mathematical people that the time stepping of the models fails after ten days or so.
When the meteorology models are turned into climate models, i.e. even more linearization of the true solutions by applying many more average values at boundaries, this stepping problem does not disappear; the approximations will inevitably fail after some steps because the true solutions are drastically not linear. They do not fail in a week because of the averaging, but they do fail in ten years.
Now SOME, like the PDO. I have read the paper of Keenlyside et al, they are trying to include some of the SOME to save the sinking boat and keep up the AGW mantra. It cannot be done. The only solution is to go the chaos way, as Tsonis et al have done in a limited way ( PDO and the Atlantic Oscillation) in a fairly recent paper using neural nets for the modeling. Complexity is a subject that crosses over all scientific disciplines and is at the frontier of research at the moment. I have a hard time understanding the tools ( I am retired and follow interesting lectures in my region) but I think it is the only way to go for weather system modelings.
I was not trying to convince you on the error of your beliefs:)
Why not?
What LBJ said about J. Edgar Hoover:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,906808-4,00.html
(Third paragraph.)
But then, I’ve always been a bighearted soul. #B^1
Few years ago Michael Crichton wrote this: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
Unfortunately since then we can see more and more phenomena related to the AGW theory and environmentalism that resemble the pattern of nazism upheaval in 20-30’s. Today again powerful geopolitical interests are using the science as a vehicle to indoctrinate the brains of young people. Hopefully the interests of the rising Third World will stop the consequeses of the AGW madness on global scale but the Western World is endangered – the history of Germany doesn’t tell good news for any state which follows blindly the AGW doctrine.
John Philip (16:55:17) :
“Smokey
That graph turned out to be invalid … A few days ago I posted a story highlighting the drop in water vapor in the atmosphere which initially looked like the entire atmosphere due to a labeling issue by ESRL, but turned out to be only at the 300 millibar height and not up to 300mb as the ESRL graph was labeled.
JP.”
mislabeled, not invalid.
Quoting from a later and more thorough examination:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/
“So, what do these time series tell us?
To begin with, what atmospheric moistening is believed to have occurred is at altitudes basically well below the surface altitudes of the major ice shields, Greenland and the East & West Antarctic and much of Earth’s land surfaces.
Secondly, the atmospheric region of most interest from a weather/climate perspective appears to be on a drying trend, contrary to that expected under the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis.
Simply eyeballing the time series suggests the 1977 Pacific phase shift is a much better fit with changes in trends than is the steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Bottom line is that the regions climate models are programmed to expect atmospheric moistening are not actually doing so, making either the models or the atmosphere wrong. ”
Thus the fourth point: that the huge humidity feedback driven by anthropogenic CO2’s tiny contribution, predicted by the models, is invalidated.
” Actual IPCC Projected
1990 0.162 0.162
2000 0.397 0.322
2007 0.404 0.443
I’ve used the 5 year mean for the actual, except for 2007 where I’ve used the annual figure. The IPCC projected for 2007 is interpolated from the linear trend. The actual 2007 is just 0.039C below the projected, (versus a measurement uncertainty of 0.1C). Where have I gone wrong?”
In the eye of the beholder.
Have a look at the following figure which is from AR, not TAR (moving goal posts)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg
Forget about the IPCC spaghetti. Does the temperature trend look like anything sharply rising and catastrophic?
It is the IPCC lines that make the eye think of runaway heating, and the data does not comply.
You want to see rising, you see it. I want to see stability and I see it , except as Lucia has analyzed statistically, stability is what the data are saying and not rising. It is easy to fool the eye.
Is it possible that the GW fanatics are rushing to implement their “solutions” so that they can claim credit for the global cooling ?
Anne:
Thanks for the assist. With your answer to my test post from my home computer on the screen I was able to demonstrate to the local IRM folks that 1. my system at home worked just fine & 2. the one right here on my desk did NOT! they tracked down a system update that had taken me off the tracks..so…everything fixed! Thank You!
cdl
Reply: Glad you are back with us at home and office. Hopefully no one was banning WUWT at office. – Anne
The more crap that Algore spouts, the hotter under the collar I get.
Is that contributing to “Global Warming”? His new Global Warming
avocation reminds me of a bit by the late George Carlin called
“Occupation Foole”.
I don’t have to ask what people would have said if a Conservative suggested anything like civil disobedience.
Is anyone even paying attention to these Wing Nut AGW people. With 1/2 of america worried about havting to eat cat food during their retirement, Global warming is the last thing on their mind.
I’m just asking, mind you, so please don’t shoot the messenger, but what is the cite information for the 0.7 degree decline, the bringing us back to 1930, etc.? When I go to the Goddard site, I see a totally different summary from them for 2007. See the following:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Sam (06:45:47) :
“I’m just asking, mind you, so please don’t shoot the messenger, but what is the cite information for the 0.7 degree decline, the bringing us back to 1930, etc.? When I go to the Goddard site, I see a totally different summary from them for 2007. See the following:
GISS is playing its own ture. Also note that it is annual points. The .7 drop is in the following plot, where monthly points are shown
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/gisstemp_aug_20081.gif
also have a look at this:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg
If you wait a bit the updated for september will come here , as soon as the institutes publish their numbers. GISS is the last, as they do a lot of back corrections before they publish.( change old data by mysterious algorithms).