Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball
The major goal of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was to prove that a human caused CO2 increase created global warming. They produced the false proof in Working Group I Report “Climate Change; The Physical Science Basis.” This became the unquestioned assumption for the Working Group II Report “Climate Change; Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.” This Report identified all the negative effects of warming, like a cost/benefit analysis that only considers the cost. Most of the alarmist press releases and resulting media stories emanate from this Report. They inevitably paint an unrelenting picture of doom, destruction, and death.
The pattern takes a variety of forms usually based on a press release. I call them ‘template’ releases, prepared by an agency with a political agenda that identifies a ‘global problem.’ They leave gaps in the story so local media can insert examples and tailor the story for their region.
One occurred recently and appeared in the Yorkshire Post (May 27, 2016) under the headline, “Heritage sites threatened by climate change: ‘Urgent need’ to limit temperatures.” It is sensationalist, speculative, and contradicts all the evidence. Similar articles appeared in many media outlets. In this case, the ‘template’ story came from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), with appeals to authority provided by co-contributors, UNESCO and UNEP.
The story, however it is tailored for local consumption, indicates ignorance or deliberate avoidance of the facts, or both. It is advocacy, not journalism. The originators of the story display ignorance of climate and climate change. They apparently don’t understand entropy, the gradual decline into disorder. They don’t know the difference between conservation,
the repair and prevention of deterioration of archaeological, historical and cultural sites
and preservation
the state of being preserved, especially to a specified degree.
You can artificially maintain a Heritage site, but that acts against the natural order of decay. At some point, it becomes a replica. The media people, I won’t call them journalists because they simply repeat the ignorance, don’t check the facts or confirm the claims, so they become accessories after the transgression. For all involved, it starts with a failure to realize the inanity of the supposition that climate change is new.
The Yorkshire article refers to several Heritage sites including, the Statue of Liberty, Venice, and the Galapagos Islands, but they insert Stonehenge for local flavour. The list is a bizarre mix of geographic and human-made features, supposedly to imply the startling information that nothing is immune from the ravages of climate change, that is the ‘new’ IPCC discovered climate change.
The reality is all these sites are part of a world in which climate changes all the time. It always has, and always will, and past changes were much more dramatic The supposition that climate change is different because of human activity is a creation of the IPCC. Unfortunately, the media people don’t know this because their research was inadequate. They added to the already inadequate and biased research of the “expert,” Adam Markham, (B.Sc. Zoology, the University of Wales at Swansea), Deputy Director of Climate and Energy for UCS.
Prior to joining UCS in 2013, Mr. Markham was president of Clean Air-Cool Planet, a non-profit organization he co-founded in 2000 to promote innovative community-based solutions to climate change in the Northeast. Previously, he directed World Wildlife Fund’s climate campaign, leading WWF’s international climate team at the 1997 Kyoto Conference.
They call it climate change, but they don’t realize that this term replaced global warming. It occurred when atmospheric CO2 continued to increase while temperatures stopped increasing. As T. H. Huxley said,
The great tragedy of Science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
The evidence required a re-examination of the science. Instead, it triggered a change in the label. A 2004 leaked Climatic Research Unit (CRU) email from the Minns/Tyndall Centre on the UEA campus said,
“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”
Swedish Chief Climate Negotiator Bo Kjellen replied,
“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”
The point is their real concern is the threat of global warming – a possible increase of 2°C. A little research would reveal that Stonehenge was built during the Holocene Optimum when global temperatures were as warm, if not warmer, than today.
The structure developed through six stages between 3000 BC and 1520 BC. Figure 1 shows that period plotted against the Northern Hemisphere temperature determined from Greenland ice cores. The average temperature for the Stonehenge active period is between 1.5 and 2.5 C warmer than at present.
Figure 1
H. H. Lamb wrote about the climate transition, in this case a warming, that,
There may well be implications about warm climate and less stormy winds than now in the seafaring enterprises of earlier people in northern waters in late Neolithic and Bronze Age time…There was shipping from Cornwall and perhaps from Britany, to Scandinavia and probably also to the Mediterranean, as early as about 2000 B.C; and the megalithic monuments were established about that date, or in some cases a few centuries earlier, in western and northern Britain and in Denmark, south Sweden and Norway as well as Stonehenge.
Figure 2 is an illustration of the Ring of Brodgar a henge in the Orkney Islands that lie in northern waters. Nearby is the Neolithic village of Skara Brae that was occupied for 600 years after 3200 BC (Figure 3). The village midden has bones of deep sea fish, but there is no evidence of boats. They were likely wood frame covered with leather hides, like other Celtic boats, and did not survive.
Figure 2; Ring of Brodgar, Orkney Islands
Source: The Author
Figure 3; Skara Brae, Orkney Islands
Source: The Author
Pollen Analysis for the Orkney’s shows the presence of trees at the time of Skara Brae.
There is also evidence to suggest that woodland communities in Orkney were more diverse, and therefore that a wider range of resources was available to Neolithic people, than has previously been assumed.
Figure 4
Source: Professor J.C. Ritchie, with permission.
These indicators of warmer conditions in high latitudes are reinforced by the Spruce Tree (Picea Glauca) shown in Figure 4. The stump is radiocarbon dated at 4940 (±140) B.P. It is located100 km north of the current tree line on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula, Canada. The current treeline is coincident with the 10°C summer isotherm, and it is reasonable to assume that relationship hasn’t changed. The tree in Figure 4 is larger than those found at the current treeline, so it appears the actual tree line was further much north. Regardless, average annual temperatures were at least 2-3°C warmer than at present.
So, the supposedly endangered Neolithic sites, including Stonehenge, were created because global temperatures increased and provided the agricultural base necessary to create free labour. For the next 2000 years’ temperatures continued warmer than today. Then change came again in the form of cooler temperatures. As Lamb noted talking about the woodlands in Orkney,
Though there was some decline of these woodlands from as early as 3500 B.C to 3000 B.C. onwards more rapid decline, which has been variously attributed to increased wetness, soil acidification and the beginnings of bog growth, possibly also stronger winds, or to all these things, occurred between 2600 B.C. and 1600 B.C.
You can see the decline in temperature (Figure 1) to levels lower than those of the Little Ice Age (LIA).
The ‘template’ article is an unbridled and ignorant exploitation of the false claim that climate change is new and global warming is due to human production of CO2. At the end of the article, Mechtild Rossler of UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre is quoted,
“Globally, we need to better understand, monitor and address climate change threats to World Heritage sites.”
The IPCC claim they did just that and concluded that the world is going to get warmer. If anybody involved does comprehensive research, as proper science and journalism require, they will find that the evidence doesn’t support that claim. They will find that the temperature record is manipulated to create a false story. The world is getting cooler and will continue to cool, thus putting different pressures on the Heritage sites than those they anticipate. Everybody is preparing for warming as a result of governments and the media accepting the IPCC findings.
The builders of Stonehenge began with wood henges but switched to stone because wood doesn’t last long as climate changes. They counted the costs and the benefits of stone versus wood. They knew more than the buffoons who exploit fear for personal and political agendas. Sadly, it is often as basic as preserving a job. As Upton Sinclair notes,
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
A major problem in today’s world is not just the transgression, but the lack of accountability.
(Disclaimer: I was born near Stonehenge. Whenever it said “religion” on a government form, I wrote Druid. This might bias my view of this misuse and abuse of my central temple.)
Thank you, another of many archeological remnants of when it was warmer. Evidence is also at lower latitudes, but higher elevation. The Rocky Mtns in Colorado have many tree remains hundreds of feet in elevation above the current tree line.
That’s interesting . I’d be curious if you could give any locations . Some pictures , much less ages , would be nice to see .
When I look out at the north side of Pikes Peak , I’m always struck by how relatively constant and sharp the tree line is across the expanse .
http://cosy.com/images/y14/SunnyDay%26Horse780.jpg
If you are in Colorado, you understand we already have snow down to 9,000 feet, that’s below treeline. The earliest I could take pictures would be next summer. If Trailridge is still open, a drive up there is revealing.
Well it isn’t Colorado, but
Late-Holocene paleoclimate and treeline fluctuation in Wyoming’s Wind River Range, USA (2014)
Christopher Morgan, Ashley Losey and Lukas Trout
https://www.unr.edu/Documents/liberal-arts/anthropology/cmorgan/Morgan et al 2014 – Wind River Treeline.pdf
“it appears that treeline was approximately 100 m higher in elevation and covered an additional 1 km of horizontal distance for approximately a millennium, 1800–800 cal. yr BP”
And a good reminder that most of the bad things that happened due to climate change were in a cold phase, and what a crock Mann and Marcott are on temperature reconstruction.
UCS = Union of Con Scientists
I’m pretty sure you could draw the same analysis with the rise and fall of the Amerindian populations as well. The Indian mounds in Florida could provide useful data in that realm, I would think.
That cold snap between the Roman and Medieval warm periods, running from about 1,500 to 1,100 years ago, marks a key archaeological transition period in California north of the Tehachapi mountains. The beginning marks a catastrophic population decline in the Sierra Nevada accompanied by a reversion a much more mobile subsistence pattern. The end marks the undisputed appearance of the cultures that occupied Central and Northern California at historical contact. The break is much less distinct in Southern California.
In England the major treat to the heritage sites inland and to local records centres is the lack of funding and Govt disinterest,(coastal sites especially in Scotland are indeed at risk and there is a rescue project going on at the moment , but they would have been at risk with or without climate change).
In Lancashire 5 heritage museums have been closed , including 2 working textile museums of international standing , and 30 libraries shut , with the contents of the reference sections being sold off or sent to incineration- according to local talk (hopefully not true , but quite believable).. The historic records archives are also at risk and are not being maintained and the story in Cheshire is similar.
What is undeniable is that there is a lack of money from central Govt . What is also undeniable is that there are significant reserves of frackable oil and gas beneath Lancashire and Cheshire which, if exploited, could turn round the finances of these counties.
However such is the power of the BBC and the local Green organisations, and such is the timidity of the central Govt that this will never happen.
Yet the PM is going to ratify the Paris agreement next month , apparently, leading to a further outflow of money that we do not have, to organisations over which we have no auditing power, to pursue an objective which few in the UK consider to be very crucial.
In case you are wondering , yes I live in Cheshire and yes I would support local fracking.
WOW, a real freethinker glad to meet you
I think past tree-lines and fossil trees are 1,000 times more compelling evidence than the tree-ring research.
Good post … a small typo “the actual tree line was further much north” MUCH FURTHER … now I suspect farther is the actual correct word but only because of this & I honestly don’t know:
“Further” Versus “Farther”
The quick and dirty tip is to use “farther” for physical distance and “further” for metaphorical, or figurative, distance. It’s easy to remember because “farther” has the word “far” in it, and“far” obviously relates to physical distance.
For example, imagine Squiggly and Aardvark are flying to a galaxy far, far away, but Squiggly gets bored and starts mercilessly bugging Aardvark. “How much farther?'” he keeps asking in despair.”
Did you hear that? Squiggly used “farther” because he was asking about physical distance.
If Aardvark gets frustrated with Squiggly, which he surely will, he could respond, “If you complain further, I’m going to shoot you out the airlock.”
Aardvark used “further” because he isn’t talking about physical distance, he’s talking about a figurative distance: the extent of Squiggly’s complaining.
You can artificially maintain a Heritage site, but that acts against the natural order of decay. At some point, it becomes a replica..
excellent
I agree Latitude.
Apparently the IPCC just “discovered” the natural order of decay. And are blaming it on humans….which they have already proclaimed do NOT belong to the natural order of anything, and are thus an unnatural infestation.
Or you could spend several times it’s value to just model it’s decay!
Energy acts against entropy. Humans are agents of order, we apply energy to organize otherwise disordered things and we may make an effort to preserve that order. It’s unnecessarily cynical to claim maintenance is an insult to natural decay.
Not just humanity. Beaver dams? Anthills? Bird nests? Spider webs? A lot of animals expend considerable time and energy constructing and maintaining orderly structures that are useful to them.
All to make their lives better than nature would provide. Sounds a lot like man using energy from fossil fuels.
How does one “artificially maintain” anything? An attempt to stave off the ravages of the elements may be futile but it seems to me not artificial. Artificially maintain, is undefined in the article or elsewhere as it refers to human constructs or even natural wonders. I need the definition of the term by those using it.
A replica is not as good as having the original to study. In the same vein a replica to study is infinity better than nothing.
You can even re-construct one, as seems to be the case with Stonehenge: “How They Rebuilt Stonehenge 50 years ago”, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/12/330623.html?c=on
The vast majority of the MSM are nothing more than stenographers. And the people, or at least those that didn’t recently fall off the turnip truck, are on to the biased media “fact checker” game.
http://thehill.com/media/298747-poll-voters-dont-trust-media-fact-checkers
“The major goal of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was to prove that a human caused CO2 increase created global warming.”
This is wrong in so many ways.
1) Real science doesn’t prove things, it falsifies hypothesis. You never accept the null hypothesis, that is already a given, the Null is the accepted theory, the Null is the status quo.
2) If this was a real science, the starting point would be would be demonstrating that the variation in temperature over the past 50 and 150 years is different from the previous 15k years of the Holocene. Using that scientific method approach, the null hypothesis of man not causing climate change would not be rejected.
3) Government’s shouldn’t have an objective of proving something to justify policies, the unbiased science should drive policy, policy should not drive the science.
co2islife, over 6 years ago I read a NOAA article selling the “CO2 causes global warming” meme. It had one of those decadal average bar charts of temperatures for the CONUS. It indicated there had been no appreciable warming from the 1930’s through the 1980’s.
I had a few discussions with the NOAA representative about the lack of warming over that period in light of increasing CO2 concentrations. He said that the current thought was that pollution kept temperatures down and that, after the U.S. Clean Air Act kicked in in the 1980’s, a cleaner atmosphere allowed CO2 to warm the CONUS. Although skeptical at the time, I moved on with my life.
Last year I took notice of the “hiatus” and started wondering again. I found WUWT and other blog sites, read IPCC and Federal Government documents and came away with deep misgivings about official climate dogma in line with your item 3).
Specifically, the IPCC AR5, U.S. Climate Assessments and EPA Endangerment Finding are all clumsy propaganda and poorly written at that. They all attempt, in one way or another, to: 1) confuse recent weather events with climate; and 2) justify IPCC climate models by using meaningless comparisons. They are written to confuse issues and conflate facts with speculation by using sleight-of-hand and other dishonest writing techniques.
This video clip puts it all into perspective: This documentary was way way way ahead of its time.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=1h2m8s
Irrational Political Control Corps=IPCC
Inter-Governmental Panel On Climate Change = IGPOCC.
In your attempt to be specious you missed the point. The IPCC set out to prove the AGW hypothesis precisely because it is not real science. They didn’t even consider the null hypothesis.
Hi Tim, although it sounded that way at first, as I read it, Co2islife is not disagreeing with your statement but is saying that it is so wrong for the IPCC or governments to do this.
Great article by the way. I’ve bookmarked it for future reference. 🙂
Dr Ball, I was trying to reinforce your comment. We agree…100%.
FWIW, as recently as 2002, there were palm trees on Orkney Island. That July, I saw and photographed a pair that straddled the entrance of a driveway leading to a private home on the north side of the main road between the east end of the island and Stromness, as our tour bus passed by.
techgm
are you sure they were Palms, not Cordyline australis? Cordylines grow well in England, they can tolerate snow conditions very well
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=cordyline+australis&view=detailv2&&id=DAA56561642EB5664F12EC73CC64E791677735EA&selectedIndex=0&ccid=TEQHCvTr&simid=608047811281357037&thid=OIP.M4c44070af4eb6110cf3c97ac49970900H0&ajaxhist=0
Warren: Or even Nikau? Germination outdoors might be another thing.
“was to prove ”
The above is in your first line. As I recall, the goal was to promote this as accepted wisdom and, thus, was only used to constrain or exclude folks and research that did not fit the agenda.
That is why this post, nicely done as it is, will not be on interest to those that do agree with the agenda.
Indeed. ‘proving’ climate change was not and never has been within the remit of the IPCC. Its terms of reference are to report on the impact and magnitude of man made climate change
Not to question its existence
“Figure 1 shows that period plotted against the Northern Hemisphere temperature determined from Greenland ice cores. The average temperature for the Stonehenge active period is between 1.5 and 2.5 C warmer than at present.”
Some of the very warmest periods for NW Europe were between roughly 2800-2400 BC, and the 8th century AD, which were among the coldest periods on GISP. And there have been recent finds of a submerged village settlement off the Isle of Wight from around 8.2-8.0 BP, growing wheat, and a Harappan culture expansion in the same period.
The Minoan culture flourished from around 2800 BC, why should the period of their demise around 1200 BC be referred to as the Minoan Warming? also when the British were generally living in hill forts.
These are the early arrivals in line for the forthcoming global carbon tax gusher. Bring your sleeping bag and chairs for the line but leave your brain at home.
The major threat to the Statue of Liberty is galvanic corrosion, since it’s a copper skin over an iron core. Funny that none of the top ranked articles via google cite this problem, they all list climate change, or the occasional wacko who calls in a bomb threat.
I’ve wondered if one could wire with a counter electric charge against galvanic corrosion. Does anyone do this?
They use a technology called sacrificial anodes on ship hulls and in bridges. I don’t know how such a thing could be applied here, however.
Yes, it is used to counter corrosion of buried pipelines, amongst other things.
I believe this technique, applying a negative charge to the hull, is used in a lot of steel ships. It’s cheaper than using sacrificial anodes.
No evidence that warming is related to fossil fuel emissions
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2845972
“Adam Markham…directed World Wildlife Fund’s climate campaign, leading WWF’s international climate team at the 1997 Kyoto Conference.”
Prince Phillip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
Guilt by association.
@naggme: Phillip, an ex-wartime naval officer, also does irony well.
Screeching headlines: The glaciers of Glacier National Park are melting! They’re ALMOST GONE!
The glaciation that once covered Glacier National Park melted away about 12,000 years ago. The glaciers that are now melting away formed sometime during the last 8,000 years, growing to their greatest extent during the Little Ice Age.
Yes, it’s true. Climate changes. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
No one seems to get that part, and it both simple and obvious. That alone tells us everything about alarmists. They don’t care.
You know what would make me afraid? Walking out on the open plains of Eastern Oregon near the Columbia River as the ice dam that created Lake Missoula was about to burst. Climate science of today has intentionally restricted its perspective so as not to destroy its own biased hypotheses. Time for them to get back to being true geologists.
Or at least watch Ice Age III with their kids?
Thank you, an excellent brief overview of the state of the “global warming/climate change” scare campaign, and how it is promulgated, in the context of one fascinating misdirected attempt to apply. Logic, quotes, and photos all very enjoyable.
Ring of Brodgar (Fig. 2) has a specific connection to a number often mentioned on the pages of this blog.
It was apparently designed to observe so called ‘lunar standstill’, which takes place every 18.5 years; this was ‘demonstrated’ on the site itself and shown in a recent BBC science series.
We have not yet reached a new equilibrium on the Internet where fact checking balances and shifts the point of contention against the rate of urban legend spawns in the CAGW populism and their handlers.
It’s not just the internet. Peer review in many areas of “science” is grossly defective, to the extent that the science is not advancing at all. In many cases, including climate studies, the science is going backward.
“The structure developed through six stages between 3000 BC and 1520 BC.”
So why did it stop then if you reckon that warm in Greenland is warm for the UK too?
There is evidence, disputed of course, that Stonehenge was an astronomical observatory and calendar/predictor of eclipses. If this is indeed so, then development would have stopped when it no longer worked as intended, due to the axial precession of the planet.
Which nothing to do with the climatic point I was making, and sounds rather strained.
It actually sounds like an excellent explanation to me.
But of course, astronomy and climate are not the only forces that shape human history. Unfortunately, we don’t have written records of whatever struggles, invasions, epidemics etc. took place in England during that period.
“Fact Checking” in the lefty media is itself a tool applied against truth by out of contextual usage and measured against corrupted facts. You see a lot of this in the MSM in current presidential race. When Hillary was accused of raising the birththingumee in 2011(?), the “fact checking” took the form of getting her former campaign manager on the screen telling us that the issue was raised in an email with some photo of little Obama in Moslem head gear, by a “volunteer” organizer of some district in the Midwest who was fired. The lady wasn’t apparently just a pamphleteer.
Gary,
“When Hillary was accused of raising the birththingumee in 2011(?)…”
It was in 2008, when Ms. Clinton was running against Mr. Obama.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
I suppose that applies to Richard Alley who appears [to me] to be firmly in the warmist camp.
Alley wasn’t a long while back but he got involved in Greenland work. At that point his views changed
What did he do? Notice the ice was melting? As it has been for thousands of years?
“For all involved, it starts with a failure to realize the inanity of the supposition that climate change is new.”
I usually respond like this – ‘What were you guys calling this phenomenon eight years ago?’
One of the city councilors of the town where I live said to me in a conversation about journalists ” ils sont les pires putains du mond” ( they are the worst whores of the world). Since this time I refer to them so.
Fact Check sites were at first somewhat factual, but that quickly changed (witness Snopes progression toward the left). The left found they could then insert opinion in these fact sites and now they are all but useless. The same is true of search engines and other related internet services. Try it yourself. Google ‘fascism definition’ and you will see the words ‘right wing’ added to the definition. The older definitions do not try to add a political leaning to the definition of a word that has a negative connotation. This is why, in spite of being a total ass, Trump needs to win this election. The left needs to see that people won’t fall for their constant flow of tainted information. At least enough of us won’t fall for it anyway.
I’ve now decided that voting for Trump will mean acquiring a hazmat suit. They just don’t make large enough clothes pins.
So what have you got to lose? Everything if HRC gets in, appoints judges and commands everyone’s bank account to continue O’s legacy – you would be voting for 500 Million solar panels. Trump is a lousy politician but he will do a good job of the economy, he’ll surround himself with knowledgeable people, as he seems to be doing. You don’t need a warm fuzzy president. You need someone who is going to pi55 off a hundred million people who are going along like zombies in the dismantling of America. The institutions that have been corrupted including scientific, academic, K-12, anti-American UN, China, EU, etc and the restorations required to EPA, the military, NASA, infrastructure, economy, etc. urgently require an outsider, warts and all.
But again what is our idea of “non hazardous”? The left has no lack of lists of dire straits it wants to “save” us from and it is pretty hypocritical of it to complain that the right points out dire straits too.
The suit may yet be needed, though, to guard against the acid attacks from the left.
Let me get this straight , Ayres rock the Grand Canyon etc etc are all a result of climate change ,
The world will get warmer to argue otherwise is ignorance bliss , after all when our sun dies isn’t it supposed to expand enough to roast the earth .
But nothing to worry about for a few billion years yet .
We now have irrefutable proof making man-made CO2 is deadly. And CO2 is good for plants. /sarc
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/marijuana-labs-spawn-lethal-explosions-across-the-country/
http://lingas.com/hot-topics/how-much-propane-do-my-appliances-use/
http://www.titancontrols.net/products/co2-devices/ares-10-burner-co2-generators.aspx
Nymex futures price of natural gas for delivery in January 2017 averaged $3.38/MMBtu,
so many lies in that reefer madness article…
Global warming/Climate change: The belief that the world as it is now should remain in stasis, no increases or decreases in temperature, no changes in rainfall, snowfall, hurricane numbers and size, tornadoes, droughts, etc. All extinctions should cease immediately. The Global Average Temperature must not vary more than 1 to 2 degrees over centuries. This is completely anti-science, since evolution clearly states such changes are a part of the natural order. Yet the believers in global warming/climate change claim to be the actual scientists. Not likley.
Soooo ignorant. Don’t you realize that we live in a Mary Poppins world – Practically Perfect in Every Way!¡! 😉
I completely agree. A few degrees up or down in a century is by no means climate changing. From year to year in any region, the average temperature in that year can be up or down several degrees making for either very warm summers or extreme cold winters. Like my area, Chicago, Illinois, despite these up and down years, we have a very distinct spring, summer, fall and winter. Climate wise, nothing has changed or is changing at all. I’m a bit more harsh against these so called climate scientists as con artists and frauds.
Hahahaha-ha……you’re funny!😂😂😎
Nice to see Dr. Ball maintains a wry sense of humor when tempest-tossed in a sea of madness.
The CRU Mails
Like an Aristophanes satire, like Hamlet, it opens with two slaves, spear-carriers, little people. Footsoldiers of history…
From: Adam MarkhamTo: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, n.sheard@uea.ac.uk
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
Cc: mrae@wwf.org.au
Hi Mike,
I'm sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF
Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they've said to me so
far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular,
they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events
beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50%
of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a
particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public
splash on this they need something that will get good support from
CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is:
"The Question of Significance" by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999,
p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam
http://www.di2.nu/foia/0933255789.txt
If the IPCC had encountered any real evidence that CO2 affects climate then they should have come up with an exact figure for the climate sensitivity of CO2. In their first report the IPCC published a wide range of “possible” values for the climate sensitivity of CO2. Only one value can be the correct value. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same range of values that they published in their first report. So after more than two decades of investigation the IPCC has learned nothing that would allow them to narrow their range of guesses one iota. They have also ignored scientific reasoning and evidence that would suggest that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really a small number if not zero.
Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary radiant greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller than the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principles and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive than Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science
I am at a loss. Why do the climate modelers, especially Gavin Schmidt, not address the lower-than-modeled humidity levels in the upper atmosphere? I’ve read the laughable exercises in trying to insert heating in the upper atmosphere. Otherwise, silence.
It leads one to distrust the supposed experts.
In the atmosphere, CO2 is only 0.03 % and out of that fossil fuel is again around .03 %. How can it have such a huge impact on the climate of earth? It is the first starting point I became skeptic about CO2 theory.
Most of the comments revolve around the media writers being duped by scientists/experts/politicians/posers. I believe the media owners are getting exactly what they bought and expect their workers to toe the ideology line.
Belief in AGW is in turn a matter of psychology… self affirming obsessions.
Phil, RoHa – we don’t get fooled again.
Druid. 3000 BP. And no mistletoe findings.
“A druid (Welsh: derwydd; Old Irish: druí) was a member of the educated, professional class among the Celtic peoples of Gaul, the British isles, and possibly elsewhere during the Iron Age.”
“The start of the Iron Age proper is considered by many to fall between around 1200 BCE to 600 BCE,”
No comment to Stonehenge in celthic folktales.
http://www.worldoftales.com/Celtic_folktales.html
badest fake theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Druidism
My fault: 3000 BC = 5000 BP.
You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
thank God! the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
(Humbert Wolfe, 1930)
The US and British governments lied about Iraq. The MSM uncritically promoted those lies.
The French, British, and US governments lied about Libya. The MSM uncritically promoted those lies.
Now the US and British governments are talking about Syria. And the MSM seems to believe them.
Anyone who depends on the MSM (of any country) to know what is going on in the world is refusing to learn from experience. Sixty-plus years of reading the newspapers has taught me that the only really truthful bit is the comic strips.
The best bet is to read the blogs and news sites run by tin-foil-hatted conspiracy theorists who are too loony to be bribed or threatened. But be critical. The lizard people might not be as bad as they are made out to be.
“Nearby is the Neolithic village of Skara Brae that was occupied for 600 years after 3200 BC (Figure 3). The village midden has bones of deep sea fish, but there is no evidence of boats. They were likely wood frame covered with leather hides, like other Celtic boats.”… Just a minor point: Skara Brae was abandoned nearly 2000 years before the Iron Age in Britain, which is the period sometimes referred to as ‘Celtic’. Do you mean, like other Neolithic boats?
The major goal of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was to prove that a human caused CO2 increase created global warming.
Has their ever been a bigger straw-man opener? I know you have an agenda Tim, but sheesh, you gotta do a better job than that to camouflage it. Or are you entirely content to preach to the choir?
From their page
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.
The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific…
Whether you think its just a massive UN funded hoax or not, please…
Well, Tony, maybe you ought to look at this from Wikipedia:
“The IPCC produces reports that support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change.[5][6] The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system”.[5] IPCC reports cover “the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”[6]”
And:
“The aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:[6]
Human-induced climate change,
The impacts of human-induced climate change,
Options for adaptation and mitigation.”
Sounds predetermined to me. Anthro all the way!