January 2008

What will the world look like in a century? Imagine asking that question in 1900. And in 1800. The world would have changed in so many dramatic ways, that any economic and environmental predictions would have been worthless.

That’s the problem that we face with the climate doomsayers. They can spin out scenarios day after day, but there is little reason to believe the underlying economic and other assumptions.

So far the computer models have proved inadequate to the task. More research has come forth demonstrating that the models predict more warming than we have so far seen. If they can’t get the last three decades right, why does anyone believe that they will get multiple decades, or longer, in the future right?

Explains Drew Thornley, Texas Public Policy Foundation, writing for Heartland Institute's Environment and Climate News:

Computer models that form the basis for future global warming predictions have projected significantly more warming in recent years than has actually occurred, concludes a comprehensive new scientific study.

“A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions,” published in the December 2007 International Journal of Climatology, is the latest study to cast doubt on the efficacy of climate modeling. Climate scientists David H. Douglass, John Christy, and S. Fred Singer analyzed 22 climate models and found their predictions at odds with actual warming over the past 30 years.

No Human Fingerprint

Most of the models predicted significant middle- and upper-troposphere warming, yet actual warming was minimal.

Douglass and his colleagues write, “Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.”

Christy, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contributor, noted in a December 6 press statement, “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. Satellite observations suggest that greenhouse models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Models Don’t Reflect Causes

Many top climate scientists point out climate models are incapable of handling confounding factors such as cloud cover and water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas), thus distorting climate predictions.

Additionally, they note, the models do not reflect the actual causes of warming. Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, says the models used by the IPCC and other alarmists assign too much warming resulting from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, rendering the models’ predictions inaccurate.

Singer writes, “Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role of water vapor. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940-75), nor for the observed patterns of warming. For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.”

The issue of climate change warrants continuing research. But there is no compelling reason for panic, jumping off an economic cliff to forestall a future unlikely to ever occur.

In earlier posts, we observed that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth claimed that “Dr Thompson’s thermometer” confirmed Michael Mann’s hockey stick, but, when analysed, what Gore described as “Dr Thompson’s thermometer” merely proved to be Michael Mann’s hockey stick mis-identified. No wonder it resembled Mann’s hockey stick – or, to use the phrase more common in climate science, no wonder there was a “remarkable” resemblance.

Recently we’ve seen Pierrehumbert’s hysterics over at RC about Courtillot’s misidentification of a solar series. I’m sure that all of you recall similar hysterics from Pierrehumbert calling Al Gore out on this error. You don’t?

Hu McCulloch of Ohio State University now writes about a recent encounter with Lonnie Thompson, the serial ice core non-archiver:

On January 11, Lonnie Thompson gave a talk on Climate change at Ohio State. After his talk, I asked him if the graph identified by Al Gore as “Dr. Thompson’s Thermometer” in his book and film was really based on his ice core research.

Thompson admitted that an error had been made, and even had a slide ready that showed the data of the Mann Hockey Stick plus Jones instrumental data that Gore’s figure was based on, alongside an average of dO18 z-scores from 6 of his Andean and Himalayan ice cores, similar to the 7-series graph that appeared in his 2006 PNAS article. He stated that he recognized the error right away, and even sent Gore (and Mann, as I recall) an e-mail pointing out the mistake.

When I pressed him if it wouldn’t be appropriate to make a more public announcement, given the high-profile nature of the error, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, his wife and co-author, stood up and offered that it was Gore’s error, not theirs, so that they had no responsibility for it, and that in any event there was no forum in which to make a correction.

I suggested that since OSU’s Byrd Polar Research Center has a website with a News page, it would be trivial and virtually costless to post a press release clarifying the matter for the millions of readers and viewers of Gore’s book and film who are not on Thompson’s e-mail list.

“Gore’s error”. “No responsibility.” “No forum”.

Here’s a picture from the OSU website. See if you can find Waldo. Ohio State University press releases have also stated that Thompson was an adviser to Gore for the documentary. Thompson’s online CV says that he was on the “Science Advisory Board” for Inconvenient Truth prior to its release in April 2006. So he was on the Board but he didn’t bear any responsibility. Sure, Lonnie. Sure, Ellen.

Gore used the term “my friend Lonnie Thompson” and Thompson doesn’t know how to correct the error. Sure, Lonnie.

“No responsibility.” “No forum”. No shame.

Kucinich 1, Alarmists 0

by Julie Walsh on January 15, 2008

David Freddoso notes that MoveOn doesn’t think the media pay enough attention to global warming…pause, wait for laughter…because they haven’t asked presidential candidates about it, possibly even less than they’ve asked about UFOs.

IMHO, that’s an easy one.

Remember when USA Today ranked the top 25 stories of the past 25 years?  Was “the greatest threat facing mankind” one of them?  Nope, not any more than Al Gore ran for president on the issue.

Reporters covet their credibility as much as the next guy, and are aware that their consumers, like political consumers, know full well the tricks, deceptions and non-truths the press peddles in order to gain attention.  And that that’s what “global warming” coverage is, not an announcement of a grave threat.  Consumers may stand for moving stories about charismatic megafauna and things melting, but UFOs are a punchline; “global warming” is still at that uncomfortable stage where in this context folks wouldn’t be all that sure you’re kidding, and would be a little concerned about your priorities if you weren’t.

Companies and private consumers will continue paying an annual DKK 2.6 billion in greenhouse gas taxes despite already paying a similar levy to the EU.

Amid harsh criticism from businesses, private consumers and government ally the Danish People's Party, Kristian Jensen, the tax minister, openly admitted that the greenhouse gas levy was a source of income for the state and no longer an environmental measure.

In a sign of growing concern about the impact of supposedly “green” policies, European Union officials will propose a ban on imports of certain biofuels, according to a draft law to be unveiled next week.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Today the Associated Press examines how environmental activists are engaged in an unprecedented push to prevent utilities from building new coal-fired power plants, because of the threat from global warming:

The offensive against coal is emerging as a pivotal front in the global warming debate as environmental groups file lawsuits and administrative appeals against the companies and put lobbying pressure on federal and state regulators….

"Our goal is to oppose these projects at each and every stage, from zoning and air and water permits, to their mining permits and new coal railroads," said Bruce Nilles, a Sierra Club lawyer who directs the group's national coal campaign. "They know they don't have an answer to global warming, so they're fighting for their life."

Undoubtedly removing such "railroads" and trying to replace them with inefficient and insufficient sources of generation, when demand for power will only increase, will lead to a train wreck:

Industry representatives say the environmentalists' actions threaten to undermine the country's fragile power grid, setting the stage for high-priced electricity and uncontrollable blackouts.

"These projects won't be denied, but they can be delayed by those who oppose any new energy projects," said Vic Svec, vice president of the mining and power company Peabody Energy….

Environmental groups cite 59 canceled, delayed or blocked plants as evidence that they are turning back the "coal rush." That stacks up against 22 new plants under construction in 14 states — the most in two decades.

And they're not stopping there:

Nilles said the Sierra Club spent about $1 million on such efforts in 2007 and hopes to ratchet that figure up to $10 million this year.

 

 

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch 

My absurd battle with the Maryland Department of the Environment persists, after requesting way back in September all their records related to their dealings with the Center for Climate Strategies. Maryland has been uniquely obstructionist and ornery in their handling of my inquiry, far more so than any of the other 20 or so states I've dealt with so far.

Today, after several back-and-forth exchanges in which the department first alleged their documents were privileged; then did not exist; then did exist but were only 12-pages long, I now have gotten the real answer, sort of: There are 3700 pages responsive to my request, but it is going to cost me $1,381.40 cents to obtain them. This is the answer Red Maryland blogger Mark Newgent got a while back, so now I guess I finally rate the equivalent of an in-stater (I'm in North Carolina).

Knowing there were many records, I requested explicitly at least twice that the documents be provided in electronic form, most likely on a CD. So especially of note is a worksheet MDE attached to their response, which shows how they reached their estimate for putting together these public documents. They said the cost for their time in researching, reviewing and compiling was $44, but the "duplication costs" account for $1,337.40.

That must be a solid gold, diamond-studded disk. I'm sure they only want the best for Maryland taxpayers!

Leaders of Canada's Arctic Inuit people denounced U.S. environmentalists on Monday for pushing Washington to declare the polar bear a threatened species, saying the move was unnecessary and would hurt the local economy.

Scientists have long envisioned the Cretaceous "super-greenhouse" period, the era some 90 million years ago when crocodiles roamed the Arctic and the temperature of tropical oceans soared to 98 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees warmer than they are today), as a sort of anti-Ice Age. Yet my research reveals a dramatic drop in the sea level during those years — a telltale sign that glaciers were forming somewhere on the planet.