Climate Research needs Re-direction

Letter to the Editorforbes

27th October 2014

Written by Viv Forbes of

Governments are running huge deficits, but still spend billions on climate research especially trying to model the effect of the atmosphere and its trace of carbon dioxide on surface temperature. Benefits are hard to find. It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the driver of weather or climate.

Around the world there are five official weather data-bases, about 14 weather satellites, 73 climate computer models, and thousands of academics receiving grants and attending never-ending climate conferences. Much of this torrent of public money is now focused on trying to torture a climate confession out of one normally unnoticed and totally innocent trace gas in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide.

The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.

Earth’s mighty oceans cover 70% of the surface. Evaporation of water and convection in the atmosphere transfer large quantities of solar heat from the surface to the stratosphere. This process creates clouds, rain and snow and also forms low pressure zones which are the birthplace for cyclones and hurricanes. Wind direction and strength are related to sun-generated convection in the atmosphere, the transfer of solar heat from the equator to the poles, and the Coriolis effect of the rotation of the earth. Carbon dioxide plays no significant part in these processes.

Oceans also conceal most of the volcanic ring-of-fire and are home to huge numbers of volcanoes, many of which are active. The mighty weather-changing ENSO/El Nino starts with a pool of warm water in the eastern Pacific. Carbon dioxide plays no part in creating such hot-spots, but periodic eruption of undersea volcanoes may do it. We know less about the floor of the oceans and their volcanoes than we do about the surface of Mars.

What is referred to reverently as “climate research” is mainly just grubby advocacy supporting the political war on carbon. Why are we still funding scientists who believe that “the science is settled”? If they believe that they know the answers, what are they are doing with their research funds?

The community is getting little benefit from atmospheric research and climate modelling and that money should be redirected to more productive areas.

Half of “climate research” money should be spent on improving the ability of public infrastructure to survive natural disasters.

The remaining funds should be spent on real climate research – mapping the floor of the oceans, with particular reference to locating active volcanoes; and investigating how volcanism, solar variations and cycles of the sun, moon, planets and solar system impact long-term weather forecasts and future climate. This work should preferably be done by contracting private operators; and the climate models in public hands should be handed over to practicing meteorologists to see if they are useful for short-term weather forecasting.

Viv Forbes,

Rosewood   Qld   Australia

For those who would like to read more:

73 UN Climate models are wrong:

Where Was Climate Research Before Computer Models?

Where Was Climate Research Before Computer Models?

Oceans important in past Climate Changes:

Past Climate Change Was Caused by the Ocean, Not Just the Atmosphere, New Rutgers Study Finds

Super volcanos forming beneath Pacific Ocean:–100-million-years-erupts.html

Massive Hot Spot in Iceland:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joel O'Bryan
October 26, 2014 3:40 pm

For the climate “establishment”, this will be met with……. crickets. ….
Far, far too much money on renewable energy industries and carbon tax bonanzas is at stake (via tax subsidies and regulatory fiats) from the crony capitalists to allow Climate Change to die quietly.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 26, 2014 11:01 pm
Reply to  Mkelley
October 27, 2014 12:19 pm

Look at the bright side, you can always buy a share of Berkshire and participate in the fleecing. Yes, Buffett probably does have the power to influence policy; and no, it’s not good that he does. But the system isn’t going to change any time soon and you can’t blame the guy for taking full advantage of it. At least he doesn’t hide what he’s doing; it’s all right there in the Annual Report.

Reply to  Mkelley
October 27, 2014 12:39 pm

And besides, if the system were different, we wouldn’t all be getting rich from the monthly checks we receive from “big oil”. 😉

October 26, 2014 3:45 pm

“What is referred to reverently as “climate research” is mainly just grubby advocacy supporting the political war on carbon. Why are we still funding scientists who believe that “the science is settled”? If they believe that they know the answers, what are they are doing with their research funds?”

parochial old windbag
Reply to  TransportbyZeppelin
October 26, 2014 10:53 pm

Devastatingly good point.

Joe Crawford
October 26, 2014 3:45 pm

Sure, but good luck on selling it to the true believers and their puppet masters.

October 26, 2014 3:53 pm

Currently climate science™, has become a bloated political monster that provides nothing of benefit at great cost. It threatens the traditional scientific method and provides ammunition to those who would attack freedom and democracy. Given the undeniable failure of climate modelling to predict climate, we should stop throwing good money after bad.
How many climate scientists do we really need to research real, not imaginary risk of future change so we can sensibly plan for adaptation? I would say 100 would do it initially. All they would be doing is trying to get an accurate picture of global weather during the LIA. Currently the picture is limited to areas inhabited by peoples with recorded language at the time. We need to build a global picture, and only after than make contingency plans for limited cooling. There is no need for the UN, WMO or IPCC to be involved as they have proved unfit for purpose and cannot safely be re-tasked.

October 26, 2014 3:55 pm

“What is referred to reverently as “climate research” is mainly just grubby advocacy supporting the political war on carbon.”
Amen brother, amen. This was a very well written and persuasive article. Thanks for it.
The tiny, tiny effect of CO2 on climate matters was worth about twelve cents worth of grant funding. The effect of the ocean on climate matters should get much, much more funding. (and there are so many, many other factors as well — some we probably don’t even know about yet)

Bill Illis
October 26, 2014 4:09 pm

The funds should be cut-off now. We have enough studies about the CMIP5 climate model forecasts of increased drought and increased rainfall.
We should just be measuring what the real climate is really doing and no further climate model studies are required. Satellites, data gathering, real objective statisticians is where the funding should go now.
There is good chance that the Republicans will win both houses in the upcoming elections. Climate science needs new funding parameters and this would be a good time to bring that in.

Reply to  Bill Illis
October 27, 2014 4:18 am

All climate model runs that project the future state should not be allowed past peer review.

The Key Role of Heavy Precipitation Events in Climate Model Disagreements of Future Annual Precipitation Changes in California
Climate model simulations disagree on whether future precipitation will increase or decrease over California, which has impeded efforts to anticipate and adapt to human-induced climate change……..Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter. These results are obtained from 16 global general circulation models downscaled with different combinations of dynamical methods…

Abstract – 1994
Naomi Oreskes et al
Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences
Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. This is because natural systems are never closed and because model results are always non-unique. Models can be confirmed by the demonstration of agreement between observation and prediction, but confirmation is inherently partial. Complete confirmation is logically precluded by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and by incomplete access to natural phenomena. Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic…….
In some cases, the predictions generated by these models are considered as a basis for public policy decisions: Global circulation models are being used to predict the behavior of the Earth’s climate in response to increased CO2 concentrations;…….
Finally, we must admit that
a model may confirm our biases and support incorrect intuitions. Therefore, models are most useful when they are used to challenge existing formulations, rather than to validate or verify them. Any scientist who is asked to use a model to verify or validate a predetermined result should be suspicious.

October 26, 2014 4:15 pm

Can’t argue with that.

Reply to  catweazle666
October 27, 2014 5:47 am

Absolutely, yes she can.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
October 26, 2014 4:20 pm

The “Ebola Epidemics” in NJ and NY seem closely linked to fear-science like climate-science.
I wonder if the US Ambassador to the UN will be quarantined when she returns from her trip to West African countries to assess the Ebola out-brakes there.
Let’s watch.

Reply to  masInt branch 4 C3I in is
October 27, 2014 11:13 am

It is definitely the same sort of thinking. Not to minimize the disturbing character of Ebola, but the flu is both immensely more infectious and has in the past been vastly more deadly.

October 26, 2014 4:24 pm

The CAGW meme and by extension the climate and energy policies of most Western Governments are built on the outputs of climate models. In spite of the inability of weather models to forecast more than about 10 days ahead, the climate modelers have deluded themselves, their employers, the grant giving agencies, the politicians and the general public into believing that they could build climate models capable of accurately forecasting global temperatures for decades and centuries to come.
The modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex:
Models are often tuned by running them backwards against several decades of observation, this is
much too short a period to correlate outputs with observation when the controlling natural quasi-periodicities of most interest are in the centennial and especially in the key millennial range. Tuning to these longer periodicities is beyond any computing capacity when using reductionist models with a large number of variables unless these long wave natural periodicities are somehow built into the model structure ab initio
The IPCC climate models are further incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First, that CO2 is the main climate driver. Second, that in calculating climate sensitivity, the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a positive feed back effect. Third, that the GHE of water vapour is always positive. As to the last point, the feedbacks cannot be always positive otherwise we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. For example, an important negative feed back related to Tropical Cyclones which is not included in the modelshas been investigated by Trenberth, see:
Temperature drives CO2 and water vapour concentrations and evaporative and convective cooling independently. The whole CAGW – GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause. Unless the range and causes of natural variation, as seen in the natural temperature quasi-periodicities, are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to even begin to estimate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. In fact, the IPCC recognizes this point.
The key factor in making CO2 emission control policy and the basis for the WG2 and 3 sections of AR5 is the climate sensitivity to CO2. By AR5 – WG1 the IPCC itself is saying: (Section
“The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations ”
In plain English, this means that the IPCC contributors have no idea what the climate sensitivity is. Therefore, there is no credible basis for the WG 2 and 3 reports, and the Government policy makers have no empirical scientific basis for the entire UNFCCC process and their economically destructive climate and energy policies.
It is time to move away from the IPCC outputs and reports as a basis for discussion of future climate and impacts .The entire UNFCCC circus has no basis in empirical reality and needs to be stopped before it does more damage to the reputation of science and the world economy.
For forecasts of the probable coming cooling based on the natural 60 and 1000 year quasi cycles seen so clearly in the temperature record and using the 10Be and neutron count data as the best proxy for solar activity go to several posts at
Much more likely successful forecasts can be produced at a tiny fraction of the IPCC cost merely by using common sense and staying closer to the empirical data than do the fanciful, politically driven , assumptions of the IPCC modelers,

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
October 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Dr. Page,
I would argue on the basis of empirical experiment that the very foundation irrational assumption was that for an average of 240 w/m2 solar radiation the surface without atmosphere would be at 255K.
That 255K figure comes from treating the surface as near blackbody where e=a. But 71% of the surface is SW translucent / IR opaque ocean. This should be treated as a selective surface not a near blackbody.
From empirical experiment –
For SW translucent / IR opaque (material A) compared to SW opaque / IR opaque (material B) with both materials having equal IR emissivity and total watts for both constant or intermittent SW illumination being equal, the results of empirical experiment are clear –
1. If materials are solid, constant SW illumination will result in close surface temps for A & B with average temp of A higher than B
2. If materials are solid, intermittent SW illumination will result in surface temps for A higher than B, with average temp of A also higher than B.
3. If materials are liquid and convect, constant SW illumination will result in surface temps for A higher than B, with average temp of A higher than B.
4. If materials are liquid and convect, intermittent SW illumination will result in higher temperature differential (both surface and average) between A & B than condition 3.
5. If materials are liquid and convect, intermittently SW illuminated and deeper than condition 4, temperature differential between A & B will be greater again than condition 4.
There is a GHE on our planet, but it is in the ocean not atmosphere. If the surface temp of “planet without atmosphere” should be 312K instead of 255K, what does that say about the net effect of our radiative atmosphere?

John Boles
October 26, 2014 4:36 pm

I love the poster with this story, BE QUIET… that made me laugh, it really captures the mood of the message. I can laugh now, because FINALLY the tide is turning and we are winning.

Just Steve
Reply to  John Boles
October 26, 2014 5:17 pm

Winning what, exactly?
If you believe simply overehelming the opponent, and in unison the huddled masses, with scientific facts will win the political battle, you don’t understand progressives…..and they control the halls and corner offices of federal agencies and academia, where the REAL decisions are made.
Progressives began concentrating on inserting themselves into those positions starting back in the late 1800’s, understanding that if you control the bureaucracy you can advance your agenda, regardless of who wins those pesky elections.
Progressives are by definition statists. Radical environmentalism is the new home of communists and socialists, their fellow world travellers. Do the math….you may win a battle here and there, but the war is a long ways from over.

Just Steve
Reply to  Just Steve
October 26, 2014 5:26 pm
Or, just blame Wisconsin. It’s long and political in nature, but an excellent read.

Mike Smith
Reply to  Just Steve
October 26, 2014 6:02 pm

This bothers me too.
However, life will not be easy for the progressives in power when a majority of the plebs view the whole climate change meme with contempt and derision. And I don’t think we’re far from that point.

Reply to  Just Steve
October 27, 2014 12:34 am

Excellent. But the plot goes back further, to 1773, or back 3,000 years. You decide.
The global warming/climate change scare scam is designed to give the impression of a global problem needing a global govt to solve it. That’s the backdrop, plain & simple.
It’s not just big state academics or politicians behind it, it’s the money men & the huge corporations.
Rothschild : “If I control the money, I care not who writes the laws.”
By which he meant that if he had control of the money, he could buy control of the media & the politicians.
The Fed & the Bank of England control the West’s money & media.
Google : 6 corporations own the media.
Yes we’re winning a small battle, the war is far from finished.
Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr.
Written 1954, relevant today.

October 26, 2014 5:13 pm

Here is the breaking news, “Climate – Changes” Now all of you paid academics, go and get a job worthy of an educated human being.

October 26, 2014 5:43 pm

Great poster.
There can be no question that climatology, as a science, has suffered a setback scince it got hijacked by Hansen and his acolytes twenty five years ago. When they are swept aside, the field can progress again. But right now, they are still in control, though their grip is loosening.

October 26, 2014 5:45 pm

“climate research”…..LOL…..they can’t even define what climate is

Reply to  Latitude
October 26, 2014 6:48 pm

Actually, IPCC defines climate as weather averaged over thirty years. I would think it would take few thousand to establish a climate.

October 26, 2014 5:53 pm

US Govt. controlled radio is even now broadcasting some sort of ‘debate’ between a climate kook who thinks oil will destroy all life on the planet vs. some mild mannered oil exec who has granted most of the lunatic’s assertions. Until industry stands up and rejects the bs from rent seeking apocalyptic fools like the one spewing on the radio now, this won’t improve.
Industry should shut off all greenpeace, and other extremist contributions- dry them up and break them. They should vigorously audit all academic recipients to see that their huge support is being spent on ethical research.

Reply to  hunter
October 26, 2014 11:25 pm

“Auditing academic recipients” sounds like a great start. It worked in the case of Al Capone.

Reply to  Tim
October 27, 2014 12:42 am

Guess what’s never been audited ?
The Fed & The Bank of England, a consortium of private banks in charge of the money supply of the Western World.
Ron Paul tried for 20 of his 23 years as a Texas Senator, but failed to secure an audit.
Who runs America ?

October 26, 2014 6:25 pm

Feynman said it best, “If the facts don’t support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong”.
We now have 18+ years of real-world observations of no “global warming” (satellite data – not that adjusted surface-station crap) at the same time atmospheric CO2 has risen about 10%.
Clearly, the notion that CO2 is the big “control knob” on surface temperature is bogus
End of story.
I get increasingly annoyed at “skeptical scientists” and politicians that want to discuss “smarter ways” to reduce carbon emissions/pollution. Ferchrissakes, dummies, the experiment has been run. CO2 is not pollution, is not dangerous, and is [in fact] beneficial to life on earth.
Give the money back to taxpayers!!

October 26, 2014 6:30 pm

surely this was worth a few dollars in research grants! LOL
26 Oct: CarbonBrief: Robert McSweeney: New study strengthens link between Arctic sea-ice loss and extreme winters
Declining Arctic sea-ice has made severe winters across central Asia twice as likely, new research shows. The paper is the latest in a series linking very cold winters in the northern hemisphere to rapidly increasing temperatures in the Arctic.
But the long-term picture suggests these cold winters might only be a temporary feature before further warming takes hold…
The authors of the study agree, saying:
“The frequent occurrence of cold winters may be a temporary phenomenon in a transitional phase of eventual global warming.”…
(Mori, M. et al. (2014) Robust Arctic sea-ice influence on the frequent Eurasian cold winters in past decades, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2277)

Reply to  pat
October 27, 2014 4:26 am

life is certainly so much easier when you can play head you lose , tails I win, but its not science
and once again we can ask what ‘disproves ‘ AGW for these people Or are we dealing with the stance that says that disprove is impossible because its unquestionable truth , straight out of religious dogma or political fanaticism ?

October 26, 2014 6:33 pm

It will only change in the USA when the government changes deja vu…..

October 26, 2014 6:34 pm

The closed-mindedness, ignorance and stupidity of the article and comments in this ‘blog’ are mindbogling in their ludicracy. Take your heads out of the sand, and open your eyes to what is actually going on around you, around the World as a whole. Of course we are experiencing anthropomorphic global warming. We must act, now. We are losing the very thing that keeps us alive, that is bio diversity. The natural world.
Oh, what’s the use.

Reply to  bensab3
October 26, 2014 8:52 pm

You forgot \sarc

Reply to  bensab3
October 26, 2014 8:57 pm

Or of course you could explain to the scientists the cause of the pause in the warming trend, They seem to be having trouble with that.
Or tell the CSIRO that they are wrong.
‘Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.’
Just think a pollutant that is benefiting the planet.

Reply to  bensab3
October 26, 2014 10:06 pm

The biosphere is thriving because of CO2, ben. That’s an irrefutable fact.
That you don’t see it is proof your head is in the sand; that your eyes aren’t opened; and that you don’t see what’s going on around you.
CO2 is this world’s friend, not its enemy. Acting against the biosphere is stupidity because we are part of that biosphere.
We are experiencing and responsible for anthropomorphic biosphere expansion and biodiversity on a global scale and we should absolutely be proud of it.
It’s what keeps us all alive!
But if you’re against it, you’ve been brainwashed and your ideology is proving useless and could actually be construed as dangerous, even criminal.
Again, that’s a fact.

Reply to  bensab3
October 27, 2014 12:22 am

“We are losing the very thing that keeps us alive, that is bio diversity. ”
Go to the Category box in the sidebar, about 35% down this page, type “e”, click on “extinction,” and you’ll see rebuttals to the idea that species are threatened.

Reply to  bensab3
October 27, 2014 6:18 am

You couldn’t be that ignorant!
CAGW was a SWAG and progressive’s actions prove it’s just a farce, period.
One doesn’t drive an SUV if you believe the CO2 scam.
One doesn’t own several large houses if you believe the CO2 scam.
One doesn’t fly around the world in a private jet if you believe the CO2 scam.
One doesn’t gather thousands of protesters in one location in you believe the CO2 scam.
One doesn’t chop down trees and ship the wood overseas if you believe the CO2 scam.
One doesn’t stop a pipeline yet continue to ship oil by rail if you believe the CO2 scam.
And that’s how they all act, just like me they don’t believe the CO2 scam, either.
They just LIE like they believe it.
Follow the money, every time.
The money tells the truth.

Reply to  mikerestin
October 27, 2014 7:10 am

And the biggest nail in the coffin: One doesn’t fight nuclear energy like it’s the worst thing out there if you believe the CO2 scam–you embrace it along with glorious future it would bring for mankind.

Reply to  bensab3
October 27, 2014 10:31 am

Any biologist or ecologist who is honest will tell you that increasing CO2 is increasing global photosynthesis.
Global crop yields are increasing. Some of the increase is due to CO2.
Loss of green areas due to local urbanization is not caused by CO2

October 26, 2014 6:54 pm

The political point is not the climate or any effects of CO2 thereon. Climate and changes are simply an excuse for the politics. Totally removing any credibility of the current climate change hypothesis from everyone’s mind will not effect the politics, only the publicly professed excuse for the politics.

October 26, 2014 6:54 pm

97% of scientists say that Ebola is cause by a virus, but they are wrong. They say that just to get funded. All research should be stopped on Ebola.

Reply to  trafamadore
October 26, 2014 8:20 pm

Are you a natural born idiot? Or did you have to, like, practice?

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  dbstealey
October 26, 2014 9:55 pm

I’m guessing natural born idiot.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 27, 2014 6:24 am

Natural Born idiot with extensive brainwashing’s got my vote.
So, tell us tra, what happened to you?

Reply to  trafamadore
October 26, 2014 9:54 pm

Research on Ebola won’t help a bit if the government in charge of our safety is acting stupidly.
And so far, they’ve acted stupidly.

Reply to  RockyRoad
October 27, 2014 6:35 am

Maybe trafamador is in charge of the mismanagement of the ebola problem?
trafamador, do you have the head progressive’s phone number?
Can you get them to stop flights from west Africa?
Are you waiting for a few million black people to die, first?
If you can’t starve them to death you must do whatever you can, I guess.
Are you trying to lessen the burden on you and Mother Gaea?
I think your attitude sucks.
People like you are evil.

Reply to  trafamadore
October 26, 2014 11:07 pm

What difference does research make if the FDA is too bureaucratic to approve the results?
Nobel Laureate microbiologist Joshua Lederberg noted, “The single biggest threat to man’s continued dominance on the planet is a virus.” The second-biggest threat: a federal culture that rewards the delay of medical progress.
Ultimately, Congress must change the FDA’s mission and bureaucratic culture. Reviewers shouldn’t be allowed to use science to keep new technologies from doctors and patients.
We must force the FDA to focus on accelerating innovation and stop “protecting” us to death.

Reply to  Mkelley
October 27, 2014 12:51 am

The US govt has the patent on Ebola, & the military have weaponised it.
Look into this site :

Reply to  Mkelley
October 27, 2014 5:11 am

Ebola has been in Russia and the USA for some time now. Secret weapons research. One lab technician died of Ebola in Russia some time back. She was covered in bleach powder and buried.
Accidents in labs working with Ebola and Anthrax.

M Courtney
Reply to  trafamadore
October 27, 2014 2:12 am

There is lots of evidence that ebola is a virus. We’ve identified it
It spreads like a virus.
It behaves as predicted.
There is no comparison with cAGW.
The fingerprint for that was the Tropical Hotspot – notably not identified.
It is not global in impact – The Antarctic is not losing ice like the Arctic. That’s not like cAGW.
It does not behave like the expectation – it stopped warming.
You are spreading disinformation about ebola. This is dangerous and callous.
There is a lot of evidence that ebola is a virus.
There is no evidence that AGW is dangerous.

Reply to  M Courtney
October 28, 2014 1:02 am

The similarity, M Courtney is that both are a Govt manufactured scare.
Ebola being really deadly.

Reply to  trafamadore
October 27, 2014 9:13 am

I’m listening. If you have some insights please share them.

October 26, 2014 7:11 pm

The direct research budget this year for “Combating Climate Change”, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is currently $2.7 BILLION with over half of it going to NASA.

October 26, 2014 7:13 pm

I also meant to mention that you can buy just about any consensus you want with $2.5 billion dollars.

October 26, 2014 7:15 pm

climate research is great!
March 2000: Independent: Charles Onians: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community…
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said…
well, now we have:
27 Oct: Independent: Steve Connor: Global warming ‘will make our winters colder’
Britain can expect twice as many severe winters as usual over the coming decades, according to a study supporting the counterintuitive idea that global warming could lead to colder weather in some parts of the world…
Colin Summerhayes, emeritus associate of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, said: “This counterintuitive effect… makes some people think that global warming has stopped. It has not. Although average surface warming has been slower since 2000, the Arctic has gone on warming rapidly throughout this time.”…
and the MSM wonders why it has lost all credibility!

Reply to  pat
October 27, 2014 2:07 am

& when CO2 the deadly plant food pollutant is not the bogeyman, & the CIA requires Putin in that role, the BRIT MSM obliges.
Hilarious, if it wasn’t so serious.
Ex CIA director William Colby : “We own everyone of significance in the Major Media.”
An hilarious photo of 6 major Brit daily newspapers, all with anti-Putin headlines.
MSM controlled much ?
Which is why excellent sites like this exist & are so valuable, of course.

October 26, 2014 7:23 pm

It would take me all of ten minutes to make this so after I was sworn in as POTUS.

average joe
October 26, 2014 7:27 pm

I tend to vote moderate middle of the road, with a slight liberal bias in that they seem to be the more caring group, basically the lesser of the evils, but I place high value on integrity. The cagw crowd wreaks of dishonesty and ulterior motives and I am angry about all the money being poured into that pit. I will be leaning strongly republican for the near future. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are many middle-of-the-road types feeling the same way now, which could allow republicans to take a strong majority and force some major funding changes for all this climate crap. Their utter refusal to publicly debate this science that has been paid for by the tax payers makes my blood boil, I would happily vote to have climate research funding cut from billions to millions per year, with zero funds going towards models that are demonstrably false. I would like to see more candidates publicly promoting slashing this funding, that would likely get my vote.

george e. smith
Reply to  average joe
October 26, 2014 10:14 pm

Well Joe, you know what happens to you in the middle of the road. You end up getting squished by something you couldn’t be bothered paying attention to. Once in a great while, you become famous by accident; like the armadillo, with the yellow lane stripe down its back.
And if you think that “liberals” (or let’s say Democrats) are the more caring group; then you clearly haven’t been paying attention, so watch your back, as you meander down the middle of the road, unable to frame a rational argument, for or against anything. Something is gaining on you.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 27, 2014 6:50 am

Hillary and Obama were both against gay marriage when they ran for office.
Liberals could have passed Obamacare when they had the legislature and POTUS.
They could have legalized marijuana and released non-violent pot offenders from jail.
They could have given amnesty to millions.
They could have corrected the injustices of housing and education.
They could have raised taxes on the rich.
They did none of these things and instead worsened the economic and racial problems.
What good have you seen from “the more caring group, basically the lesser of the evils”?

October 26, 2014 8:01 pm

Had only those who call themselves “experts” of “climate” understood that they are way away from science using IPCC:s and such “definitions” as a raw-model for their so called research and/or analyse.
Three basic axioms in Theories of Science:
* In Theories of Science it’s never ever possible to prove a thesis right. Only to falsify a thesis
This follows of the most important axiom in Theories of Science:
Each time/period in history needs to rething and revaluated old accepted theories and thesis from new “days” advancing analyse methods and/or new facts brought to the “table”.
* It only takes one colored dot to make a white paper non-white.
You can’t say anything about a field you haven’t analyzed the premisses for. That’s a “grey” field in Science. Only of you checked all premisses and found them true for the purpose they have been used, it’s possible to say that the Thesis leds up to the presented conclusion and that the conclusion can be judged as sound. But it only takes one single premiss not being found true when analysing for the full conclusion to fall.
* In Science consensus is impossible to “reach” only possible for a group of scientists to reach a consesus AMONG them. Two different things.

October 26, 2014 8:03 pm

Modern government makes more sense when you realize their definition of “we, the people” is equivalent to “we, the people who work in government”. Nobody else matters. Nothing else matters. We, the NGW*, need to just shut up, keep paying our taxes, and follow directions. Businesses, you know, don’t create jobs, and businesses are not created by hard working people. We know this because Hillary and Barak have patiently told us so. Every successful thing in this life is the result of good and gracious governing by the best minds ever gathered to herd the largest mass of humanity in history. Another way to look at it is that in relative quantities, never have so few done so little for so many.
*Non-Government Workers

October 26, 2014 8:05 pm

“mapping the floor of the oceans, with particular reference to locating active volcanoes”
Heh – as if volcanoes several km deep in the ocean is gonna have any effect on the climate. The oceans are warming from the top down right now, not from the bottom up!
Without climate research we wouldn’t know this:
Global warming has doubled risk of harsh winters in Eurasia.
Severe winters are more likely over the next few decades due to climate change melting Arctic ice and sending freezing air south, according to new research
The risk of severe winters in Europe and northern Asia has been doubled by global warming, according to new research. The counter-intuitive finding is the result of climate change melting the Arctic ice cap and causing new wind patterns that push freezing air and snow southwards.
Severe winters over the last decade have been associated with those years in which the melting of Arctic sea ice was greatest. But the new work is the most comprehensive computer modelling study to date and indicates the frozen winters are being caused by climate change, not simply by natural variations in weather.

Reply to  Martin
October 26, 2014 9:02 pm

‘The counter-intuitive finding is the result of climate change melting the Arctic ice cap and causing new wind patterns that push freezing air and snow southwards.’
You should be glad then that last year wasn’t one of those years.

Don Perry
Reply to  Martin
October 26, 2014 9:18 pm

Citing The Guardian is like citing a prostitute for moral guidance.

Reply to  Don Perry
October 27, 2014 1:04 am

Except that the prostitute probably has higher morals 😉

Marilynn in NorCal
Reply to  Martin
October 26, 2014 10:54 pm

Martin, you scoff at the idea that eruptions of molten rock deep in the ocean can heat the water, but you believe that air circulating above the ocean is raising the temperature? Quite a stretch…
And think about your will-o-the-wisp terminology: “doubled risk,” “more likely,” “computer modelling… indicates.” Nothing certain, settled or reproducible real time in the real world.
Everything you said in your post has been spewing from the AGW camp for years, and every single point has been countered by credentialed scientists. (Sorry, I don’t have the time to post links other than this site.) The scary thing about believing the lies is that it gives more steam to the globalist Agenda 21 program. If climate change activism simply consisted of people planting trees and riding bicycles more I’d smile on it, but the “solutions” being plotted out in high places are costly, anti-human and offer no remedy to their imagined CO2 dilemma.
BTW, I’m not a fan of fossil fuel for other reasons. I am an advocate of varied, local solutions to energy production, including improved building materials and methods to control our internal environments using much less energy than current standards require.

Reply to  Martin
October 27, 2014 12:32 am

October 26, 2014 at 8:05 pm
“Without climate research we wouldn’t know this:
Global warming has doubled risk of harsh winters in Eurasia.”
Indeed, without climate scientists we would never have heard about that. BTW I think it’s nonsense; and it’s not even a prediction. Fire them and sue them for the money back.

Reply to  DirkH
October 27, 2014 4:35 am

Actually, sounds about right to me for “climate research”….
First off, it says weather is what they are really studying, not climate.
Second, it says “warmer is colder” that is just about as smart as all the other spew.
And yes, without “climate research” we would never “know” that warm is the new cold… or maybe that’s “cold is the new warm”… I forget, comrade, what was the Political Officer Guidance this morning?….

Reply to  Martin
October 27, 2014 1:52 am

“Severe winters are more likely over the next few decades due to climate change melting Arctic ice and sending freezing air south, according to new research”
During the last interglacial the Arctic Ocean was ice-free, but high-latitude winters were much milder than today. There was larch forest growing north to the Arctic Ocean in Siberia. Hippopotamus lived in Yorkshire, Water buffaloes on the Rhine and macaques in Bavaria as well as tapirs and capybaras in Florida.
Doesn’t sound like very cold winters to me.

Reply to  Martin
October 27, 2014 1:57 am

Volcanos heating water with 71% of the surface of tyhe earth covered with this amazing molecule? Yeah I am sure has no effect at all. Maybe the fact that the US navy mapping te ocean floor during the cold war didn’t confirm the teory of [plate tectonics. Or the fact that as a result of this mapping it was discovered that the bedrocks magnetic “signature” flips regularly confirming the theory that the Earth magnetic poles flip. Nah…just CO2 doing all that nasty work heating the deap ocean from the air.

Reply to  Patrick
October 27, 2014 2:00 am

LOL I really should wear my glasses, I am clearly no good at touch typing.

Reply to  Martin
October 27, 2014 5:14 am

Comrade Martin:
Put your finger to your lips, comrade. Snow and ice are not part of the plan.

Reply to  Martin
October 27, 2014 7:53 am

When David Suzuki, Barrack Obama, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Al Gore, each lower their CO2 footprint to equal mine, we can talk about world wide reduction and saving the planet.
I guess we’re all damaging the planet at the level we each believe is okay for us to do.
I believe the earth is exactly as it should be because if I believed it was not, I would change my individual actions.
What do you do?

October 26, 2014 10:51 pm

“It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the driver of weather or climate.”
Take C02 effects and radiative transfer out of a weather model and see the nonsense you will get.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 27, 2014 1:07 am

Well, left in they seem to be nonsense as well, so take your pick … either way the models are proven to be nonsense, albeit highly sophisticated and precise nonsense.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 27, 2014 1:14 am

Try to take out water and convective cooling instead and see what happens (you might get a fairly good model of the martian atmosphere)

Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 27, 2014 3:45 am

Put CO2 and radiative transfer into a weather model and see what sort of nonsense you get:
A climate model.

parochial old windbag
October 26, 2014 11:04 pm

Ignorance + self-righteousness = 97% of our problems.
And that’s settled.

October 26, 2014 11:12 pm

Lockheed-Martin announced this:
–(Reuters) – Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready for use in a decade.–

October 27, 2014 12:34 am

Look at this (read carefully) a Google news search for”Global Warming” Today:
Search Results
Global warming has doubled risk of harsh winters in Eurasia …
The Guardian-13 hours ago
The risk of severe winters in Europe and northern Asia has been doubled by global warming, according to new research. The counter-intuitive …
Global warming ‘will make our winters colder’
The Independent-4 hours ago
Global Warming Will Lead to Warmer Winters, Study Says
Guardian Liberty Voice-19 hours ago
Eco-Freaks Blame Global Warming for Colder Winters
Dallas Blog (blog)-2 hours ago
Arctic ice melt seen doubling chance of harsh winter in Europe
BusinessWorld Online Edition-4 hours ago
The 4th one is actually true and then other 5 are also true. I think you should try and keep a screenshot of this (origina) for posterity

October 27, 2014 12:53 am

My priorities for climate research:
1. A long-term globally co-ordinated programme to study solar cycles and -emissions, geared toward making medium-term predictions of future impacts on earth, thereby increasing preparedness for potential adverse events.
2. A long-term globally co-ordinated programme into upper atmospheric energy transfers and chemical reactions, understanding how solar and cosmic inputs, allied to earth-derived inputs, can modulate global weather drivers (including jet stream patterns, arctic vortices etc etc), leading to medium-term predictions of specific seasonal climate events which will impact adversely on human civilsations.
3. A long-term globally co-ordinated programme into oceanic drivers of medium term climate modulations, including earth core energy sources, oceanic conveyor belts, photosynthetic factories etc and their effects on key weather drivers such as Monsoons, ENSO events, polar ice extent modulations etc etc.
4. A long-term regionally co-ordinated set of programmes monitoring the effect of human activities on regional climate patterns, focussed particularly on humus creation and retention, water retention within soils and subsequent groundwater level increases, involving community planners, construction industries, agriculture and forestry sectors, climatologists and ecologists.
5. A globally co-ordinated set of programmes to gather, maintain and make available for further research a set of scientifically rigorous, politically neutral, internationally exhaustive databases of climate data for solar-, atmospheric-, oceanic- and land-based climate data.
6. A globally co-ordinated programme to improve measurement methodologies for climate data acquisition, including the development of more accurate, lower cost instrumentation suites capable of operating across the ranges of temperature, incoming radiation levels, snow depths, rainfall levels and oceanic depths as appropriate.
7. A local/regional set of programmes designed to stress test communities and regions against whichever climate/earth-altering events are deemed appropriate threats to local humanity, economies and infrastructures.
This is the sort of thing that organisations with the global reach of the world bank and the UN should be sponsoring. The thing is: I’m not sure how many people actually trust them to do it ethically, responsibly, honestly and scientifically, rather than grubbily, pollitically, fraudulently and corruptly.

October 27, 2014 1:46 am

Cogeneration can certainly reach very high efficiencies (>90%) but suffers from an ineradicable fault when it comes to electricity generation: the amount of electricity is completely determined by the amount of heating needed, which means that virtually no electricity can be produced in summer. Trur, it is possible to keep producing electricity and dump the excess heat into a river, or cooling tower, but in that mode the plant has much lower efficiency than an ordinary steam turbine or CCGT plant. Sweden has implemented cogeneration for about 50% of all buildings, which is getting close to the pratical limit (there are limits to how far you can pump hot water with reasonable losses, particularly to small villages or single farms), but this contributes only about 10% of electricity generation.

Stephen Richards
October 27, 2014 2:12 am

At first glance I thought the title said “re-education”.

October 27, 2014 2:24 am

A look at the political & financial realities behind the global warming/climate change scare scam ?
Judge for yourselves.
Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr.
Written 1954, relevant today.

Anarchist Hate Machine
October 27, 2014 3:58 am

So Global Warming is going to warm the arctic ice and melt it, that is, make it above freezing, then send this air that was once cooler but is now warmer, but still somehow freezing, south, where it will stay freezing on it’s entire journey…

October 27, 2014 4:47 am

When discussing climate change, and when you are trying to find their causes, many participants are looking for solutions in some models you set in your PC and expect the PC to teach them and tell them all a lot more than they know about uzriocima climate change.
All that is tossed around so far in the millions of pages of paper is not even close to what the true causes of climate change.
All this evidence, theories, sketches, monitoring of various phenomena in the sun and our planet, only minor effects were the main causes of these changes, which to date no one on the planet is not detected properly, in accordance with the laws of nature.
I see we have some interest in this crowd, too much and yet not proven anything properly. What it means. ? It is a simple proof that no one is on the right track. This path is the knowledge of natural law and respect for their power.
Here, here, and this is not the first time that many ask that they show me the way to go to present the true causes of these climate changes. But there is an underlying cause, I do not want to publish a solution without a contractual obligation with a powerful institution that can accomplish this very important task.
That’s how you only have on this site VUVT that you have no interest and do not be afraid of something, which forbids you to work without interest and pressure from some unknown factors, this enigma could be quickly resolved. I claim to possess the basic information of the true causes of climate change. None of you have to believe, or is it not enough to nowadays about it is not exactly proven anything and why no one looked back to listen to those who have not yet had the opportunity to give their opinion. I see from all the discussion about what it does and how you can see the same from what I would put forward, but you do not want to hear.
Explain why? I am available and I expect at least two words that either of you uttered about this my proposal.

October 27, 2014 10:41 am

This Viv Forbes piece should be required reading for all politicians everywhere. The benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere are overwhelmingly real. The so-called “dangers” are overwhelmingly false.
The entire “global warming” issue is just another dimension of the disease of political corruption extending into science.

October 28, 2014 1:58 pm

The biggest single change that needs to occur in climate research is the one that needs to happen with all academic studies used to make policy — quality control.
I left this comment at Climate Audit only to have it sent to moderator purgatory. Why I can’t imagine. The comment is a response to someone who reqrets that error-filled studies can only be addressed one at a time.
“It doesn’t necessarily need to be one by one. Anyone familiar with the work of McKitrick and McCullough, John Ioannides, the Amgen and Bayer experiences with replication (or rather non-replication of papers), and the general criticisms of people like Matt Briggs, Daniel Kahneman [in psychology] and others can see that there is a growing crisis regarding quality in academic studies. Perhaps society can adopt the arguments that McKitrick makes and begin to require quality control be observed whenever research is used to formulate public policy.
Instead of putting the onus on critics to show a study is flawed, we should require those who wish to use a study to make policy to show that it is of good quality.”
[I guess Steve Mc thinks this is radical stuff?]

October 29, 2014 12:21 am

A wonderful article.
It is also time that common sense prevailed over the IPCC’s notion of “back-radiation” whereby CO2 absorbs heat energy from the hot ground and supposedly “back-radiates” some of that heat energy to the ground, adding more warmth to the ground, resulting in more heat from the ground, resulting in more water evaporating into the atmosphere – the positive water vapour feedback mechanism.
This IPCC notion goes contrary to the first and second laws of thermodynamics (laws of nature), with which the IPCC’s pseudo science is not compatible.
It must never be forgotten that the air does not make the warm ground warmer. The sun heats the ground, the ground heats the air, the hot air rises (convection), and is replaced by cooler air. Always remember, carbon dioxide is not a source of heat. The sun is.
Thanks to NASA’s SABER instrument on its TIMED satellite, we now know that carbon dioxide and nitric oxide act as a natural atmospheric thermostat and are the two most efficient atmospheric coolants.

October 29, 2014 5:50 am

For those who are trying to convince mankind that CO2 is the main culprit and cause of global warming and climate change on our planet, I suggest one simple solution for all the people, how to protect yourself when the temperature increases, as when it is cold. Simply make a space-suited for everyone and fill them with CO2, and with yourself, and you have a little bit of oxygen for each case. The wrapper around us in a space suit will warm us free of charge for all time low temperature, and do the same with the premises in which we work and live. You must still find a way to collect CO2 from the atmosphere into containers and to be shared on sites like gas for heating. But it would be desirable to do so themselves for those who think that CO2, a monster that changed the climate of the country.
You need to educate people to understand, that the relations of the planets and the sun and the underlying causes of holders of all possible changes and developments in and around us. Who does not believe it, these will continue to waste too much paper and money and the time inventing and proving some non existing phenomena ostriches have no basis in natural law.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights