Letter to the Editor
27th October 2014
Written by Viv Forbes of carbon-sense.com
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:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17
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:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2277413/The-supervolcano-forming-Pacific-wipe-life-dont-panic–100-million-years-erupts.html
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/04/is-a-supervolcano-being-born-deep-beneath-one-of-earths-oceans-new-reserach-says-yes-.html
Massive Hot Spot in Iceland:
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.
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
“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.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/26/global-warming-has-doubled-risk-harsh-winters-eurasia-research-finds
‘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.
Citing The Guardian is like citing a prostitute for moral guidance.
Except that the prostitute probably has higher morals 😉
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.
Martin
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.
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?….
“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.
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.
LOL I really should wear my glasses, I am clearly no good at touch typing.
Comrade Martin:
Put your finger to your lips, comrade. Snow and ice are not part of the plan.
When David Suzuki, Barrack Obama, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Al Gore, et.al. each lower their CO2 footprint to equal mine, we can talk about world wide reduction and saving the planet.
…crickets…
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?
“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.
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.
Try to take out water and convective cooling instead and see what happens (you might get a fairly good model of the martian atmosphere)
Put CO2 and radiative transfer into a weather model and see what sort of nonsense you get:
A climate model.
Ignorance + self-righteousness = 97% of our problems.
And that’s settled.
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.–
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015
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
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.
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.
At first glance I thought the title said “re-education”.
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.
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…
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.
Nikola
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.
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. http://climateaudit.org/2009/02/18/mccullough-and-mckitrick-on-due-diligence/
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?]
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.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solarstorm-power.html
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.