Monday, February 18, 2008
Global warming alarmists knew cooling was coming, were hoping to secure restrictions on economic activity first
Not only is this the real and impending threat, but solar activity has been low for several years now, and sharp global cooling is already being detected. At the same time, the current lull between 11 year solar cycles is unusually quiet and long, reminiscent of earlier downturns in solar activity that led to dramatic global cooling.
It seems certain at this point that we are in for at least a substantial dip in global temperature. In addition to the weak sun and the already falling temperatures, this winter's record snow cover is reflecting an unusual amount of solar radiation back into space, and we are also in the middle of a major La Niña event (where cold pacific waters rise to the surface).
Warming hysteria is religion, not science
If global cooling is known to be the real and impending danger, why is it that even with the onset of cooling, most climatologists are raising hysterical alarms about global warming? Because they are not actually concerned about global temperature at all. They are environmental religionists who believe that human economic growth is gobbling up the natural world.
Blaming late 20th century warming on fossil fuel burning was just an opportunity for these religionists to try to impose restrictions on economic activity, and in that way “save the planet” from human encroachment. Global warming alarmism never did have anything to do with climatology.
If only the sun had stayed aboil for one more solar cycle, the religionists would have succeeded. When the inevitable cooling did come, it would still pull the curtain off of their global warming hoax, but by then it would be too late. Economic restrictions would already be fixed in place, under UN bodies that the religionists control.
Alas, it was not to be. The fake bride was almost to the altar, but mother nature put her foot down on the bridal veil, leaving the hairy ogre standing in front of the congregation in his stuffed bra and BVDs. Fake minister Al Gore must be furious, but to no effect. Their game is up.
Even a temporary dip in global temperatures will be enough to expose the scare about human and CO2 based global warming as a fraud. There hasn’t been any dip in CO2, so a dip in temperature will explode the alarmist claim that global temperature is CO2 driven.
Sleeping like a baby
SOHO sunspot scan, 2-18-2008. Scientists have been waiting almost a year for solar cycle 24 to begin. A blip in August 2006 and a blip in January 2008 raised hopes, but all remains quiet. [A peep on 2/25/08. Wake up dragon.]
If we are lucky, solar cycle 24 will still fire up soon and solar activity will regain its 20th century intensity, giving us a reprieve from the next ice age, hopefully for hundreds of years yet. One NASA prediction scheme suggests cycle 24 ought to be strong, despite its slow start. Solar dynamo theory, in contrast, predicts a weak cycle 24 (p. 14).
Either way, long term solar cycles are predicted to bottom out in 2030 and 2200, and it is certainly possible that serious cold is coming up fast. (Solar "conveyor belt" theory predicts that the drop off will come in cycle 25.) What is certain is that whatever happens, global temperature will be a function of solar activity, compared to which even very large changes CO2 have a negligible effect.
The geological record proves that 20th century warming was driven by solar activity
Past levels of solar-magnetic activity can be measured in the geologic record by the isotope residues of Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR). High levels of solar wind block GCR from reaching earth, so the GCR isotope signatures serve as a proxy for solar activity.
Temperature also leaves a geologic signal in the form of temperature related isotopes. These geologic records have been examined going back thousands of years, and on every time scale, the level of GCR “explains” statistically about 90% of contemporaneous temperature variation. (The geological evidence is amassed for laymen in Fred Singer’s 2007 book Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 years, but none of this is new to professional climatologists.)
Between 1940 and 2000, solar activity was at the highest levels seen in the geologic record. Given the known effect of solar wind on global temperature, that means that late 20th century warming was driven largely if not entirely by high levels of solar activity, and every climate scientist in the world knows it.
What? You mean THIS makes a difference? Who’da thunk it?
The leading theory says that it is the GCR rather than the solar wind that directly affects global temperature. High energy Galactic Cosmic Radiation ionizes the atmosphere, inducing the formation of clouds that reflect sunlight back into space. Under this theory, the warming effect of the solar wind is indirect. By sweeping away some of the GCR, the solar wind in-effect blows the clouds away, giving the earth a sunburn. (See Henrik Svensmark’s 2007 book The Chilling Stars.)
But whatever the mechanism, the geologic record leaves no doubt that 20th century warming was due almost entirely to high levels of solar activity. Five years ago the geologic evidence that the solar wind drives global temperature was just beginning to mount. Now it is overwhelming, but the religionists are doing their best to suppress it. So close to their goal of using warming hysteria to impose draconian economic restraints, they are not about to admit that human activity has negligible effects on climate.
There is NO evidence for CO2 driven warming
While the geologic record provides clear proof of the effects of solar activity and GCR on global temperature, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the geologic record for CO2 ever having any significant effect on temperature. Maybe if you go way back to before there was plant life to gobble up the CO2, allowing CO2 to reach a hundred times what it is today, but not since. Carbon dioxide is plant food, so the advent of plant life made CO2 levels self-moderating. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the lusher the biosphere grows. Our burning of fossil fuels has created one of the lushest biospheres that planet earth has ever seen.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so additional CO2 will trap some heat, but apparently not enough to have any significant effect on global temperature, probably because it traps the same wavelengths of infrared as the much more abundant water vapor. In his Nobel Prize winning movie, A Convenient Lie, Al Gore points to the correlation over the last 650,000 years between CO2 and temperature, but neglects to mention that increases in CO2 lag behind the increases in temperature by about 800 years. CO2 is not driving temperature, but is driven by it. As periods of high solar wind warm the oceans, the oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere.
One ineluctable prediction of the greenhouse gas theory of 20th century warming is that the greatest warming would occur in the lower troposphere (the bottom eight miles of atmosphere). This is where greenhouse gasses do their heat-trapping work. The warmed up lower troposphere would in turn warm the surface.
In this sequence, the lower atmosphere, being the source of warmth for the surface, would
Too bad that CO2 does not have more of a warming effect. On the cusp of the next ice age, it would be nice if all of our fossil fuel burning could afford us a bit warmer jacket of insulating atmosphere, but apparently there is little we can do to warm ourselves up in this way. It is going to get cold, and while quite a bit more warming would have been perfectly benign, cold is brutal. Cold is actually something to worry about.
The original climate science fraud: Stephen Schneider
In the 1970’s when the earth seemed to be cooling, Dr. Stephen Schneider, now at Stanford, blamed cooling on human burning of fossil fuels. Particulates were blocking the sun, he suggested, calling for dramatic pullbacks in human population and economic activity. (Schneider’s 1976 book The Genesis Strategy is an apocalyptic neo-Malthusian fantasy.)
When the temperature signal changed from cooling to warming in the early 80’s, Schneider again blamed the human burning of fossil fuels, and again called for drastic restraints on economic activity. As cooling becomes apparent this year, expect him to again blame cooling on fossil fuel burning, and again call for drastic restraints on economic activity.
In 1997 Senate testimony, Schneider objected to any presumption that the warming of the earth after the Little Ice Age (1600-1850) was natural:
…we know that humans started changing the land surface and started changing the atmosphere, which we began to do significantly in the 18th Century, so we cannot actually rule that potential influence out yet.Dr. Schneider’s fellow global warming alarmist, Dr. Eric Barron of Penn State, jumped in to clarify their position:
The objection occurs when [it is said that] the world is bouncing back from an unusually cold period. It's just as possible, because of the way natural variability works, that it was in the midst of bouncing to an even colder century and therefore we have an even bigger problem than we're thinking.Schneider and Barron correctly identified the only possible circumstance in which fear of global warming could conceivably be rational. They know that for the last million years the earth has alternated between ice ages of about 100,000 years and interglacials of 10-12 thousand years. Our current interglacial started about 11,500 years ago so it is reasonable to think that at any time, natural temperature effects could carry us into the next ice age.
If Schneider’s speculation is right--that if not for human interference the next ice age would already have started--then human warming influences really are dominating natural influences, and if they remain unchecked, they really could create runaway warming. But this speculation is absurd. We know what the main natural driver of global temperature has been doing since the little ice age. Solar activity has been through the roof!
Telling the Senate that natural forces might have been in the cooling direction since the Little Ice Age was professional malfeasance, but this was the only way it could possibly make sense, on the geological eve of the next ice age, to worry about humans causing the observed global warming, so this is what Schneider pretended.
Schneider stated his attitude towards scientific honesty in a 1989 interview with Discover Magazine:
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.This calculated dishonesty does not apply only to the magnitude of alarmist claims, but also to their direction. The alarm that Schneider is looking to raise is not over any particular climate change. Neither cooling nor warming actually matters to him. The alarm he wants to raise is over human activity.
Original climate science fraud #2: James Hansen
Other leading climate religionists indulge in similar demagoguery. A later but more central figure is NASA climatologist James Hansen, who took the global warming scare public by testifying to congress in 1988 that:
global warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.Hansen just assumed that whatever warming was taking place was due to human release of CO2. That was bad enough in 1988, before the effects of solar weather on global temperature had been much studied, but Hansen was still pulling the same scam in 2005, when competing theories of natural warming were well established.
When ocean temperature data amassed in 2005 showed a warming trend, Hansen declared the data to be a “smoking gun” that proved human production of CO2 was heating the earth. In fact, the data did absolutely nothing to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic warming. Hansen deliberately misrepresented the implications of the data in order to advocate for his actual objective:
[Hansen] calculated the energy retention could be eliminated only by halting all human-caused emissions of methane or by somehow removing half of all the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere.Of course this prescription would require drastic curtailment of human economic activity, which in Hansen’s mind is what justifies all the disinformation. Hansen couldn’t care less about the minuscule temperature effects of CO2. His goal is to stop economic advance from gobbling up the earth.
As Ronald Baily put it in his 1993 book Eco-Scam:
Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism. (p. 80)
How did the field of climatology come to be dominated by environmental religionists, glad to promote what has at this point become a full fledged hoax? There have always been plenty of environmental religionists in academia, but Al Gore is the one who gave them billions of dollars to play with, while excluding all “contrarians” from his largesse. As vice president over the eight years when global warming hysteria first made climate science a funding priority, Al Gore allocated every dime. This was his portfolio as President Clinton's climate science czar. With over ten billion dollars to spend (a huge amount for academia), Al Gore created the current climate science industry almost from scratch, transforming what had been a small backwater discipline into a juggernaut of his own framing.
The funding amounts have since multiplied several times, all of it channeled through the religious ideologues that Al Gore originally empowered, men like NASA scientists James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, two of the most self-conscious frauds in the history of science, all for what they truly believe to be the best of all possible reasons: saving the environment from human economic activity.
Of course they are wrong about that too. These men are not economists, and their neo-Malthusian presumptions are childishly ignorant. The absolute best thing for the health of our natural environment is economic growth. As we advance economically, we learn to do more with less, and the quickest way to get that advance is to have more babies, because it is people who create advance.
In addition to being neo-Malthusians, “green” ideologues are also against economic liberty. They see capitalism as placing private gain ahead of public interest. But what is really gobbling up the environment, where it is being gobbled up, is lack of capitalism. Despoilation occurs in those places where property rights are not existent or not enforced, creating what has long been known as “the tragedy of the commons.” No one has an economic incentive to preserve commonly held resources like the oceans because, without ownership, no one can capture the value of the preserved resource. Their only incentive is to grab what they can today, leaving none for tomorrow.
You can’t find an economist in the America who supports the socialist stupidity of the environmental religionists, but because they pretend they are doing climate science instead of economics they are able to get away with it.
How the alarmists pull off their fraud: the omitted variable
When a regression model is “fit to the data,” the explanatory power of any omitted variables will get attributed to any correlated variables that are included in the model. This “omitted variable” problem has long been used by dishonest ideologues to practice statistical fraud. A prominent example is income studies purporting to show that women earn less than equally qualified men.
Such “advocacy statistics” are generated by leaving out important explanatory variables that are correlated to sex, such as hours of work. Since women on average work substantially fewer hours than men, the effect of fewer work hours on income gets misattributed to sex.
Properly done studies show that, when variables like hours of work are accounted for, women actually make more than similarly qualified men, just as one would expect in a society where there is tremendous legal pressure to grant preferential treatment to women. Yet the fraud has been effective. Feminists have succeeded in using their phony “advocacy statistics” as a club to push for yet more legal advantages, and their media allies keep up the fraud by only reporting the statistically biased studies.
This is exactly what is happening with claims of human caused global warming. The alarmists simply leave the dominant natural effect out of their models. The UN’s IPCC model, constructed by NASA climatologists James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, and their cronies, includes direct solar effects (changes in luminosity) but explicitly excludes indirect solar effects (the solar wind) on the grounds that the impacts of this solar weather are too speculative to warrant inclusion.
The exact mechanism may be speculative, but the existence of some such mechanism is not speculative at all. Far more speculative is the theory that climate is driven by CO2, for which there is absolutely no evidence. Variations in GCR “explain” statistically 90% of all global temperature variation, and it is omitted as speculative. CO2 “explains” 0% of temperature variation statistically, yet it is included.
Hansen and Schmidt know full well the statistical consequences of this bias. Solar activity and CO2 have both reached historic highs in recent decades. When indirect solar effects are omitted, the warming due to these effects gets misattributed to the concurrent increase in CO2, which Hansen and Schmidt then project forward to create their false alarm. Pure statistical fraud.
They pretend to be using super-sophisticated climate models to determine which explanation is supported by the evidence--man made warming or natural warming--when in fact they are rigging their models in the most obvious way to fraudulently attribute natural warming effects to CO2. (My commentary on the 4th IPCC report, tracing the omitted solar variable through their analysis, here.)
For the last several years, the CO2 warming climatologists have been offering the most absurd evidence against the endlessly documented GCR-temperature link. They look at brief periods where the cosmic ray count is rising (due to diminished solar wind) and claim that if the GCR-temperature link were real, this should cause temperature to fall. As British climate religionist Mike Lockwood put it last year:
Since about 1985,… the cosmic ray count had been increasing, which should have led to a temperature fall if the theory is correct - instead, the Earth has been warming. … This should settle the debate.Rasmus Benestad, a crony of NASA frauds Hansen and Schmidt, made similar claims in 2004 and 2007. If warming since the 1960’s was due to the absence of cloud inducing GCR, said Benestad, then GCR should have shown a downward trend during the period when temperature was rising, but it didn’t.
Morons. Nobody can be that stupid. It is the levels of solar activity and GCR that matter, not whether they are going up or down. Solar activity jumped up to “grand maximum” levels in the 1940’s and stayed there (averaged across the 11 year solar cycles) until 2000. Solar activity doesn’t have to keep going up for warming to occur. Turn the gas burner under you pot of stew to high and the stew will heat. You don’t have to keep turning the heat up further and further to get heating!
This is how intentionally oblivious our climate religionists are. Anything to avoid acknowledging the obvious, even pretending they don’t know the difference between level and trend. They are self-lobotimized logical idiots, speaking as the voice of science.
But it hasn't continued to get even more furious. THAT can’t cause warming!
What we would actually expect to see from fluctuations between very-high and medium-high solar activity is not fluctuations between warming and cooling, but fluctuations in how rapidly warming occurs. To examine these fluctuations, Henrik Svensmark constructed a temperature record with the warming trend taken out. The remaining temperature “anomaly” (showing whether warming was faster or slower than average) correlates well with solar activity and GCR:
Svensmark graphic (via the reference frame ), shows impressive correlation between GCR and the temperature “anomaly,” which abstracts from the temperature trend (.014K/decade), the North Atlantic Oscillation, El Nino, and volcanic aerosol effects.
This fine degree of correlation between GCR and the rate of temperature change is nuance. No nuance is necessary to comprehend the basic correlation between solar-activity and temperature, consistent over many thousands of years, as confirmed by hundreds of studies of the geological record (with no doubt about which is causing which).
Academia and the press--our primary information industries--are dominated by people who think that it is moral to avoid and suppress the truth in order to advance what they presume to be right or in their interest. Somehow it does not dawn on these moral imbeciles that because they avoid the truth, their presumptions about what is right can only be wrong.
Supposed scientists in academia are doing the exact same thing with the Islamic symbolism in the Flight 93 memorial, covering up the Mecca orientation of the giant Crescent of Embrace by telling the public and the Families of Flight 93 that there is no such thing as the direction to Mecca!
Will global cooling wake the rest of society up to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of our left-wing elites? What greater shock could there be than to discover that this supposed “scientific consensus” on human-caused global warming was all a self-conscious lie?
The duped had better wake up, because the liars never will. No matter how much harm the Gores and the Hansens and the Schneiders do, they will never feel any compunction, because they never see themselves as acting for any but the best purposes: their presumptions about which side they should be on. Such is the banality of evil: willingly blind and morally self-satisfied about it.
California Democrats want to introduce climate change into the state's high school science curriculum. Hurry up and say “yes,” Republicans, because as soon as the cooling earth is common knowledge, Democrats will be spinning madly to cover up this left-wing debacle. Include climate science by law, and by the time it goes into effect, the unavoidable subject matter will be the global warming hoax. Awesome.
August 26, 2004
Global warming alarmists still running gov. bureaucracy
January 28, 2005
Greenhouse alarmists fight the new sunspot understanding
February 11, 2005
Is Realclimate part of the "reality based" community?
April 21, 2005
Earth Day 2030: "A new eye blinked open upon the world"
April 30, 2005
NASA global-warmist James Hansen is a LIAR
February 14, 2007
My commentary on the draft IPCC report, submitted last spring
I have refenced you post here: An epic post on the Hoax of Global Warming.
If anyone wants to invite readers to view their own related writings, feel free, but please do so by posting a link, not your entire discussion.
Yehuda's concatenation here.
# posted by Blogger Cthulhu : 3:31 AM "
It would appear you didn't read the article which I thought put it in simple enough terms: That it is not TREND but LEVEL that is important. Or as stated in the article: “Solar activity jumped up to “grand maximum” levels in the 1940’s and stayed there (averaged across the 11 year solar cycles) until 2000. Solar activity doesn’t have to keep going up for warming to occur. Turn the gas burner under you pot of stew to high and the stew will heat. You don’t have to keep turning the heat up further and further to get heating!”
The quoted paragraph was prefixed by: “Nobody can be that stupid. It is the levels of solar activity and GCR that matter, not whether they are going up or down.” Obviously in this case Alec Rawls was incorrect – or to quote Vizinczey “Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it. “
2 things I would like to add
1) It’s great you pointed out the lie by the alarmist in that changes in solar output will only have an immediate and instantaneous effect, ignoring the cumulative effects. There are of course many buffers to instant changes (most notable of course is the oceans which are heat sinks), so even if the sun peaked in the 1940's and held steady at high levels it's going take the Earth years and decades for the full changes to totally manifest themselves.
If the sun high activity was responsible for the warming, what we would expect is the earth to slowly warm up, taking decades to reach a warm plateau.
And is that is exactly what we've seen. Because even though CO2 levels have continued to increase in the 21st century, the temperatures peaked in the 1990's and have since leveled off.
2) As for the Global warming religionists eating crow, don’t count on it no matter how cold it gets.
Because you can never underestimate the ability of these people to lie. Remember there are trillions in $$ and a religion at stake.
Just look at 2007, the oceans cooled (That's 75% of the "global" in global warming right there), Antarctica froze to record levels, and whole southern hemisphere suffered through one of it's worst winters in a century and it seemed every week there was news of record cold or snow somewhere.
Yet despite that, they claim 2007 was the 5th warmest year recorded, or even worse that fraud James Hansen at the GISS claimed 2007 was the 2nd warmest year (though to give credit where credit is due, even most alarmist & the press didn't take him serious on that one)
The simple fact is even if it does get colder, they can and will just lie. Even during the Little Ice Age there were still heat waves, El Niños, hurricanes and droughts, so all they have to do is to continue highlight the warm/extreme events while dismissing/ignoring the cold ones and the press will never challenge them and the sheepe will still buy it.
Another words, no matter how cold it gets, expect the data to be altered to show global warming is still going on. Even though we will grow colder they will continually say higher and higher records are being set.
I hate to say it but a cooling event like between 1945-1976 or even the cool temps of the late 1800's - early 20th century won't do, it's probably going to have to take a Maunder Minimum type climate to discredit AGW in most people's brainwashed eyes.
The alarmist critique of the solar/GCR theory assumes that with any change in the level of solar activity, temperature instantaneously changes to the long run equilibrium temperature that current solar/GCR conditions would lead to if they were maintained indefinitely. Of course they know that that assumption is wrong. It is just another self-conscious deception, like omitting the solar/GCR variable from their general circulation models, then pretending that the models are telling them that warming is coming from human rather than natural effects (when it is actually they who are telling this to the models).
I never cared about global warming, and it's awesome to finally see a nice cold ass winter. It's early March here in Wisconsin and we had -14F yestermorn. I used to think global warming wasn't really a true effect because, from a thermodynamic sense, H2O has as many degrees of freedom as CO2 does, and there's a giant vat of H2O on this planet. In other words, it should be an equivalent greenhouse gas, more or less, to CO2, methane, etc., specifically because it's in such great quantity.
Anyway, please do tell, what about peak oil? I found Colin Campbell's, "The Final Energy Crisis" fascinating. There's a lot of statistical wiggle in that book, a lot of exposure of lies- a lot of error theory, so to say.
Could you write an essay on it, please? It's way more doomsday than global warming ever would have been. The book is full of data and well written, but the question always remains whether anyone is telling the truth about reserves, costs, etc.
No peer-reviewed scientific paper concludes that the sun is entirely responsible for the lastest warming trend.
Better start reading some real science!
1- Consensus has no place in science. If the majority of people give me an incorrect, but identical, answer to a physics problem as often happens when they copy each others work. The answer is still wrong.
2 - It seems clear to any analyst, that the points made above by many scientists and thinkers, regarding H20 and solar levels have been ignored,misinterpreted, or worse sandbagged. In fact the exceedingly small percentage of manmade greenhouse gases as part of the overall percentage of greenhouse gases has always been a point of deliberate analytical obfuscation by those wishing to make a point.
3 - I used to work with scientists at both NOAA and NCAR in Boulder who were responsible for developing models used to predict climate. They were, and are, such unwieldy beasts, based on assumptions about assumptions (this is so because if they don't make assumptions the computations will not converge). Because of this almost any outcome can be observed if one fiddles with enough variables. It is clear to any numerical analyst that you can fit any data if you have enough fitting parameters; extracting physics from such messes however, is almost always nigh on impossible. The current modeling results are at best candy, a steady diet of which will rot your brain.
4 - I have heard more than one climate evangelist state that whether global warming due to man made greenhouse gases is true or not its too risky not to say that it is.
5 - The entire anthropological global warming thing seems to me to be the hijacking of science to service another agenda. Therefore, it seems appropriate that an economist, a physicist, and in fact anybody who can critically think should present valid criticism. Hiding behind titles and papers does not refute logical argument and is in fact the refuge of the intellectually vapid.
6 - Just because someone writes something in a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it true. I have read thousands of papers. At least 50% of which had errors at some level, and 25% which were just flat out wrong. It is important to realize that the peer review process typically involves leaders in a field and if that field has a significant error it will not be uncovered by peer review, because it is taken as fact by the peers.
In other words, a consensus among people whose view is unwavering and inheritantly biased is nothing but the three letters than "consensus" begins with. (A con if you are not paying attention)