The case of the missing heat

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation. – Jeff Tollefson

View original post 1,239 more words


Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true
.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

•••

No introduction needed to this Driessen masterpiece, other than to say the article sums up nicely how modern environmentalism has nurtured a regime of government funded, pseudoscientific endeavour that has fuelled man-made global warming hysteria.

via TownHall.com

A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude

Paul Driessen | Nov 23, 2013

2013-11-18T130504Z_1_CBRE9AH10CS00_RTROPTP_3_CLIMATE-TALKS-COAL

Editor’s Note: This article was co-authored by Dennis Mitchell.

Earth’s geological, archaeological and written histories are replete with climate changes: big and small, short and long, benign, beneficial, catastrophic and everything in between.

The Medieval Warm Period (950-1300 AD or CE) was a boon for agriculture, civilization and Viking settlers in Greenland. The Little Ice Age that followed (1300-1850) was calamitous, as were the Dust Bowl and the extended droughts that vanquished the Anasazi and Mayan cultures; cyclical droughts and floods in Africa, Asia and Australia; and periods of vicious hurricanes and tornadoes. Repeated Pleistocene Epoch ice ages covered much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-thick ice sheets that denuded continents, stunted plant growth, and dropped ocean levels 400 feet for thousands of years.

Modern environmentalism, coupled with fears first of global cooling and then of global warming, persuaded politicians to launch the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its original goal was to assess possible human influences on global warming and potential risks of human-induced warming. However, it wasn’t long before the Panel minimized, ignored and dismissed non-human factors to such a degree that its posture became the mantra that only humans are now affecting climate.

Over the last three decades, five IPCC “assessment reports,” dozens of computer models, scores of conferences and thousands of papers focused heavily on human fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, as being responsible for “dangerous” global warming, climate change, climate “disruption,” and almost every “extreme” weather or climate event. Tens of billions of dollars have supported these efforts, while only a few million have been devoted to analyses of all factors – natural and human – that affect and drive planetary climate change.

You would think researchers would welcome opportunities to balance that vast library of one-sided research with an analysis of the natural causes of climate change – so that they can evaluate the relative impact of human activities, more accurately predict future changes, and help ensure that communities, states and nations can plan for, mitigate and adapt to those impacts. Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case.

In autumn 2013, Nebraska lawmakers budgeted $44,000 for a study of climate cycles and natural causes – avoiding additional speculation about manmade effects. Several Nebraska researchers rejected the idea, saying the budget was insufficient and they would not be interested unless human influences were made part of the study. They would not compromise their integrity or let politics dictate their research, they said. Ultimately, the project was cancelled in favor of yet another study of human influences.

Integrity is an important concern, especially when so many scientists have accepted far larger sums for research that emphasizes human causes, including some at Penn State, Virginia, George Mason and other institutions associated with the IPCC and EPA. Such grants have brought us “studies” connecting “dangerous manmade global warming” to dwindling frog populations, shrinking Italian pasta supplies, clownfish getting lost, cockroaches migrating, and scores of other remote to ridiculous assertions.

It is essential that some studies now begin to assess, understand and calibrate the powerful, complex, interrelated natural forces that drive climate fluctuations, cycles and changes. Only then will we be able to discern and separate significant human influences – and begin to predict why, when, how and where Earth’s climate is likely to change in the future. Even $44,000 would have enabled these accomplished Nebraska researchers to examine existing scientific papers and prepare a valuable report on natural factors that would help to put human influences in context. Only such comprehensive knowledge will enable us to predict, prepare for, mitigate and adapt to future climate variations with sufficient accuracy.

American taxpayers alone are providing billions of dollars annually for research focused on human factors, through the EPA and other government agencies. The universities and other institutions routinely take 40% or more off the top for “project management” and “overhead.” None of them wants to derail that gravy train, and all fear that accepting grants to study natural factors or climate cycles would imperil funding from sources that have ideological, political or crony corporatist reasons for making grants tied to manmade warming, renewable energy and related topics. Peer pressure, eco-activist harassment, politically correct posturing, and shared ideologies about fossil fuels, forced economic transformations and wealth redistribution via energy policies also play a major role, especially on campuses.

Racial and sexual diversity is applauded, encouraged, even required, on campuses, as is political diversity across the “entire” spectrum from communist to “progressive.” But diversity of opinion is restricted to 20×20-foot “free speech zones,” and would-be free speech practitioners are vilified, exiled to academic Siberia, dismissed or penalized – as “climate skeptics” from Delaware, Oregon, Virginia and other institutions can testify. Robust debate about energy and climate issues is denounced and obstructed.

As The Right Climate Stuff team points out, we cannot possibly model or distinguish human influences on climate change, without first understanding and modeling natural factors. But solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces are dismissed in the corridors of alarmism. Even the adverse effects of climate change and renewable energy policies on jobs, economic growth, human health and welfare, and bird and bat populations receive little attention. Sadly, science has been subjected to such tyranny before.

When Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo found that science and observations did not support Ptolemy’s clever and complex model of the solar system, the totalitarian establishment of their day advised such heretics to recant – or be battered, banished or even burned at the stake. Today’s climate models are even more clever and complex, dependent on questionable assumptions and massaged data, unable to predict temperatures or climate events, and employed to justify costly energy and economic policies.

The modelers nevertheless continue to enjoy fame, fortune, power and academic glory – while those who question the garbage in-garbage out models are denounced and ostracized. Continue Reading »

•••

UPDATE

via Scotland on Sunday

2203368453

Screen Shot 2014-01-12 at , January 12, 8.53.39 pm

Gerald Warner: Global warming’s deranged disciples

by Gerald Warner 12 January, 2014 

CLIMATE change is real and it is happening very fast. The climate of opinion, that is, regarding the rapidly imploding fantasies of the global warming alarmists.

After a decade in which sane commentators have been angered and frustrated by the purblind adherence to the warmist superstition by followers of the Al Gore cult – prominent among them our own esteemed First Minister and President for Life Designate – the whole climate change scam has finally degenerated into a joke, provoking widespread derision.

That has not deterred the climate Gnostics, sustained by their mystical insight into inner truths hidden from sceptics (“deniers” in their language of anathema) and, increasingly, from scientists who have not taken the IPCC shilling. The cultists can rely on the support of politicians since non-existent global warming furnishes the pretext for all-too-existent and exorbitant taxes, which is what the whole myth is all about. Thus, during discussion of the recent floods in the Commons last week, David Cameron was prompted by the Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron to attribute the problem to climate change. The Prime Minister dutifully replied: “Colleagues across the House can argue about whether that is linked to climate change or not. I very much suspect that it is.”

That statement was overdue as it was seven weeks since he had been reported as telling his colleagues “We have to get rid of the green crap”, an exceptionally long period for Dave to entertain a consistent opinion. Unfortunately, Owen Pat­erson, the Environment Secretary, refused to endorse his leader’s view. Then the Met­eorological Office intervened to contradict Dave: “At the moment there’s no evidence to suggest that these storms are more intense because of climate change.” That was a significant development because formerly the Met Office could be counted upon to support climate alarmism. Clearly it is now conscious of reputational damage and is hedging its bets.

It is not alone. Very subtly, unobtrusively, other institutions and individuals are backing away from the discredited orthodoxy of warmism. The process began some time ago when the Royal Society declared its switch to a more neutral stance in the climate debate. Scientists not committed to the cause by financial considerations are growing aware that the imposture is disintegrating so fast it could achieve Piltdown status within their own career spans. It is a measure of the bogus nature of the alleged climate crisis that the last time warming occurred there was a majority Tory government in office under John Major (“Oh, yes!”). Continue Reading »

•••

More Driessen :

Climate Money Related :

Climatism Related:


Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming

Climatism comment : The information pertaining to this excellent Dr Tim Ball piece; The Club Of Rome, Maurice Strong, UNEP, UN, The IPCC and Agenda 21, are as vital to the topic of ‘anthropogenic’ global warming as are any of the ‘sciences’.

They are most definitely not mutually exclusive.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Global Warming was just one issue The Club of Rome (TCOR) targeted in its campaign to reduce world population. In 1993 the Club’s co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote The First Global Revolution stating,

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

They believe all these problems are created by humans but exacerbated by a growing population using technology. Changed attitudes and behavior basically means what it has meant from the time Thomas Malthus raised the idea the world was overpopulated…

View original post 1,948 more words


The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon
the emergence of a new faith in the future.
Armed with such a faith, we might find
it possible to resanctify the earth.

– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

•••

A MUST-SEE debunking master-class of the global warming agenda, by Roy W. Spencer PhD, former NASA climatologist and climate expert…

•••

Global Warming as a 21st Century Religion

Peter Lilley – Huffington Post UK – Politics – 22 June 2013

G.K. Chesterton said that “when people stop believing in orthodox religion, rather than believe in nothing, they will believe in anything”. One of the ersatz religions which fills the void in recent years is belief in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming. It claims to be based on science. But it has all the characteristics of an eschatological cult.

It has its own priesthood and ecclesiastical establishment – the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; they alone can interpret its sacred scriptures – the Assessment Reports; it anathematises as ‘deniers’ anyone who casts doubt on its certainties; above all it predicts imminent doom if we do not follow its precepts and make the sacrifices it prescribes.

What most clearly distinguishes the Catastrophic Global Warming cult from science is that it is not refutable by facts. As Parliament enacted the Climate Change Bill, on the presumption that the world was getting warmer, it snowed in London in October – the first time in 74 years. Supporters explained “extreme cold is a symptom of global warming”!

The Met Office – whose climate model is the cult’s crystal ball to forecast centuries ahead – has made a series of spectacularly unreliable short term forecasts: “Our children will not experience snow” (that was 2000, before the recent run of cold winters), a barbecue summer (before the dismal 2011 summer), the drought will continue (last spring before the wettest summer on record). Now they say that rain and floods are the new normal. But – hot or cold, wet or dry – global warming is always to blame.

Alarmists are reluctant to admit that the global surface temperature has not increased for 16 years, despite CO2 emissions rising far more than predicted. They wave this inconvenient truth away with the non-sequitur that this decade is the hottest since records began, so the world is still warming. If you climb a hill and reach a flat plateau you are higher than before – but the plateau is flat, not rising. When cornered, global warming alarmists assert that the current pause is simply the result of unspecified ‘natural variations’. That implies that the pronounced warming over the previous 25 years may have been amplified by ‘natural variations’ in the other direction. In which case, the likely temperature rise for a given increase in CO2 may be less than previously estimated or required to produce the threatened doom. Continue Reading »

•••

A HISTORY OF CLIMATE AND RELIGION :

Deep within human nature there are certain types of people who yearn for catastrophe, they yearn to have significance in their lives believing that theirs is the time when the chickens are coming home to roost and everything is going to go tits up.

300-500 years ago, during the Little Ice Age, some 50,000 Europeans were tortured & executed for “Weather Cooking”.

Dr. Sally Baliunas (Staff Astrophysicist, Harvard Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics) discusses the history of people’s reactions to extreme weather.

Climate skeptics were seen as witch collaborators during the 16th century.

h/t to Real Science

•••

Related :

Climatism Links :

•••

Afterthought

Upon seeing Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” I became a firm believer in man-made global warming. However, my belief took an abrupt u-turn when I viewed “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. This excellent documentary provided a concise, and profoundly more ‘scientific’ narrative in rebuttal to Gore’s political alarmism.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full) :


Winter 2013 Forecasted To Be Longest In History For Britain, Worst in 60 Years

Climatism comment :

 


Rate Of Sea Level Rise Is Decelerating, Not Accelerating As CO² Rises

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

•••

Jo Nova analyses a new paper that shows the rate of global sea-level rise has slowed since 2004.

via JoanneNova.com.au :

A new paper shows that sea levels rose faster in the ten years from 1993-2003 than they have since. Sea levels are still rising but the rate has slowed since 2004. This does not suggest that the missing energy from the atmosphere has snuck into the ocean, but rather that the oceans and the atmosphere were both warming faster in the 1990′s, then as coal power ramped up in China and billions of tons of CO2 was released, both the atmosphere and the ocean did not gain more energy per year, but less. That message again — something else appears to be the main driver the climate, not CO2.

Their highlights include:

  • The global mean sea level started decelerated rising since 2004.
  • Deceleration is due to slowdown of ocean thermal expansion during last decade.
  • Recent ENSO events introduce large uncertainty of long-term trend estimation.

This paper discusses and graphs total sea level rise, steric sea level rise and the global mean ocean mass. The Steric Sea Level is the part of the rise due to warming and salinity changes, so it best represents changes in ocean heat content. The total rise also includes water coming or going due to changes in glaciers, run-off, ice,  evaporation and rain. GRACE data measures only the changes in gravity, which is caused by changes in water mass. Jason/Topex altimeter satellites measure the total sea-level changes and the steric component is calculated from the altimitry and GRACE data. I chose only the steric sea level graphs here, but the total sea level graphs and ocean mass graphs are also available in the paper.

All this comes with the caveat that inasmuch as most experts accept that seas were rising by 3mm a year in the 1990′s, the raw satellite data showed next to nothing until it was adjusted. Hence the rate changes discussed in this paper could be an artefact of those adjustments. Sea levels might not have slowed their rate of rise, it may be that it was not rising very quickly in the first place, and is still not rising very fast. Either way, it doesn’t support the theory that pumping out CO2 makes much difference.

That said, the change is most obvious in Figure 1b.

Figure 1b The global mean steric sea level (GMSL) with the ending date changing from 1 to 24 months earlier relative to December 2012 (bottom panel, thin lines end with the color from red to yellow). The IMFs of each time series, corresponding to the high-frequency noise, the annual
cycle, the interannual variability, and the trend function (see text), are given as the colored lines in the panels from top to bottom, respectively. The ensemble mean of the IMFs on the different time scales during 1993-2010 are given as the thick black solid line in each panel. The colored bar in the third panel is the normalized Nino 3.4 index with arbitrary amplitude. The statistical confidence interval of the trend function is given by gray shadow in the bottom panel. The data is in units of cm.

The details of the rate of change:

The intrinsic trend of the [Global Mean Sea Level] GMSL derived by EMD exhibits an accelerated rising period during 1993-2003 with mean rate 3.2±0.4 mm/yr and a decelerated rising period since 2004 with the rate about 1.8±0.9 mm/yr in 2012.

Here’s the clincher… the cause of the change in the rate was mainly due to the shift in the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation):

Comparison between the [Global Mean Sea Level], the global mean steric sea level, and the global mean ocean mass indicates that the decreasing of the rising trend is mainly due to the stalled ocean heat content which started in the early 2000s, when the PDO switched from the warm polarity to cold polarity…

The changes are apparent in figure 5b below — this is the average steric sea level rises before and after 2003. A large section of the central Pacific seems to have shifted from gaining heat before 2003 to losing heat in the last decade.

Figure 5b. Mean trend of the steric sea level rise during (top) Period 1 (1993-2003) and (bottom)
Period 2 (2004-2012).

..

Over the last 20 years the oceans have been gently expanding sometimes at faster rates and sometimes slower. Note this graph is the rate of the change in the rate… not a simple graph of the rate itself.

Figure 2. The instantaneous rate of interannual variability of (b) the global mean
steric sea level, i.e. the first-order time derivative of third IMFs shown in Figure 1.

Of interest:

“The regression of the global sea level and the global steric sea level on their corresponding third IMFs (Figure 3) shows very similar ENSO-like patterns. Notice that the sea level can adjust to changes in the ocean mass within a matter of days through barotropic waves travelling at speeds of order 200 m/s [Lorbacher et al. 2012], the spatial pattern of the ocean mass change on the interannual time scale is nearly homogeneous in the world ocean. This indicates that the spatial pattern of the internanual variability of the GMSL should be attributed to the steric sea level change, while the amplitude is dominated by the change of the ocean mass.”

H/t To The HockeySchtick

REFERENCE

Chen, Feng, Huang (2013)  Global Sea Level Trend during 1993-2012,  Global and Planetary Change online 13 November 2013. [abstract]

•••

Climatism comment :

Despite 35% of all human CO² emissions, since 1751, emitted in the last 15 years, three key climate indicators continue to defy the “Global Warming” hypothesis:

  1. The rate of global sea-level rise has slowed since 2004
  2. There has been no atmospheric temperature rise over the last 15 years
  3. Ocean temperatures remain flat since 2004

It appears something else is the main driver of climate, not CO².

•••

Sea Level Related :

Ocean Related :

Climate Related :


Shock News : UN Climate Delegates Unaware Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true
.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

•••

•••

There has been no statistically-significant Global Warming for 17-23 years despite 35% of all human CO² emissions, since 1751, emitted in the last 15 years.

Satellite temperature records on six different data sets show that there has been no atmospheric global warming since 1998 or any statistically-significant warming for between 18 and 23 years. A distinct lack of any warming evident, despite a dramatic rise in industrial greenhouse gas emissions over the same period:
SIX DIFFERENT DATA SETS - GLOBAL TEMP

WoodForTrees.org 

Peer-Reviewed studies that confirm the lack of any recent global warming :

•••

“The Oceans Ate My Global Warming”

With no rise in atmospheric temps over the past 15-17 years, the latest bluff in climate alarmism is that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding at the bottom of the oceans. However since 2003, 3000+ ARGO satellite buoys which descend to depths of 2,000 metres, continually recording ocean temperatures, have not detected a rise in ocean temps either.

Kevin Trenberth theorises that missing heat takes a dive into deep oceans. “The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries [and where lamentably, there are no reliable temperature measurements].  But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air.” Yet sea surface temperatures and the upper heat content didn’t increase over the last decade by enough to account for the “missing heat” that those greenhouse gas emissions should have trapped in the Earth’s climate system but couldn’t be found. (via Forbes)

screen-shot-2013-09-06-at-september-6-1-13-12-pm

Upper Ocean Heat Content Anomaly – NOAA

screen-shot-2013-09-06-at-september-6-1-20-23-pm

Global Marine Argo Atlas

•••

UPDATE

Shock News : UN Climate Delegates Unaware That The World’s Temperature Data Has Been Tampered With.

UPDATE

The Very High Price Of NOAA/NASA Data Tampering | Real Science

Related :

Quote Source – The Green Agenda


State Of The Climate Report

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe
.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

•••

Topics That Won’t Be Discussed By Global Warming Climate Alarmists Any Time Soon :

Sea Level Rise

UPDATE

UPDATE

•••

Evil human’s 12 parts per million CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is clearly having a catastrophic impact on Gaia Mother Earth. The science is settled, the debate is over, anyone who disagrees is a denier and a flat-earth terrorist….

But seriously, what more is required of mother nature to prove that humans 3% contribution to atmospheric CO2 (versus her 97%) is NOT having the ‘catastrophic’ impact on our climate that we are brainwashed into believing? In fact, in nearly every case, the *opposite* is happening, to what the global warming alarmists, fear mongers, climate profiteers, rent-seekers and complicit media preach to us daily.

Settled Science?

•••

UPDATE

SHOCK NEWS : Ice cores show atmospheric COvariations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes

H/t to Real Science

•••

Afterthought :

If the human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is 3%, how much should Mother Nature pay for ‘wrecking’ the climate?

•••

Related :

Quote Source : The Green-Agenda


This Scam Is Over – Put A Fork In It

UPDATE

 

 

Annoying Idea Circulating Among SkepticsPosted on October 23, 2013 by stevengoddard

  • Several skeptics have made claims that the CO2/greenhouse effect curve is in something called the “linear region” where the energy balance scales linearly with CO2. While there is some tiny grain of truth to this, it is nearly irrelevant. Eighty percent of the current CO2 portion of the greenhouse effect occurs in the first 50 PPM, and 400 PPM is well past the knee of the curve. Going from 400 PPM to 550 PPM will have only a tiny effect on the energy balance in the atmosphere. There is no crisis – just incompetent government scientists. See graph here

Real Science

The last remaining hope for alarmists was the Arctic ice scam. That is now dead, but they will continue to lie about it like the do with temperature, sea level, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, ocean pH, etc.

All they have left is data tampering, fake ad hoc theories and meaningless statements of increasing certainty. It is time for global warming to go down the Piltdown Man hole of scam science – where it belongs.

View original post


If the ABC wants to stop bushfires, it could cut the crap and donate half its budget

 

 

If the ABC wants to stop bushfires, it could cut the crap and donate half its budget.