NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) announced that October was the warmest on record, but they were wrong.

This follows a series of errors made by Dr James Hansen’s organization.

The reason for this latest error was that the data from Siberia showed that large portions of Russia had been up to 10 degrees warmer than normal, but it turned out the Russians had accidently used September’s data for October.

Meanwhile much of the Northern latitudes were experiencing unusually cold weather and considerable snowfall.

Then GISS committed another error by announcing it had found a hot spot in the Arctic, while satellite pictures were showing that Arctic sea ice was 30% greater than at this time last year.

Then a GISS spokesman said they didn’t have sufficient resources to exercise proper quality control over its data.

This is a shocking admission. The GISS data was used by the IPCC in arriving at its pronouncements about global warming. GISS is only one of four data sets tracking global warming, and consistently reports higher temperatures than do the other three organizations keeping temperature data.

How can the public trust the information about global warming that is published by GISS?

As a result of these blunders, Dr Hansen's methodology is again being called in question. “In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”

Source: Article by Christopher Booker, UK Telegraph, November 17, 2008

TSAugust

November 23, 2008

Every year the media hypes the hurricane season, attributing larger storms and greater losses to global warming.

This year’s current hurricane season is ending, so it’s worth looking at the history.

With the advent of a new Hurricane season, the media has been trumpeting how global warming has increased the number and severity of hurricanes.

The following table shows there have been periods of greater hurricane activity before the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. In addition, Dr. Chris Landsea, National Hurricane Center, has noted that many hurricanes went undetected before the advent of satellites.

“Of the hurricanes that reached the continental United States, there were 90 during the first half of the twentieth century and only 75 during the second half: An average of 7 major hurricanes reached the U.S. each decade during the first half and only 6 during the second half of the century.”

The insurance industry is clamoring for action to be taken to stop global warming because they have suffered large losses in recent years.

However, it was the increase in coastal populations that caused the higher insurance losses. In his testimony to Congress, Professor Lomborg pointed out that “the two coastal South Florida counties, Dade and Broward, are home to more people than the number of people who lived in 1930 in all 109 counties stretching from Texas through Virginia, along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.”

TSAugust

November 16, 2008

As blackmail goes, this is mind-boggling.

As a stipulation for China to agree to any action to cut CO2 emissions, China is demanding that developed countries pay 1% of their GDP to developing countries, including China.

For the Group of Seven developed countries it would amount to over $300 billion.

For the United States, it would amount to more than $130 billion of taxpayer money.

Gao Guangsheng, head of the climate change office at the National Reform and Development Commission, China’s main planning body, said that this "might not be enough.”

The money would be used to buy technology and equipment for cutting CO2 emissions.

So, not only will U.S. taxpayers have to shoulder the burden of billions of hidden taxes if Cap & Trade legislation is enacted, they must also fork over billions more to China and the other developing countries.

If we don’t, China won’t agree to any program for cutting CO2 emissions.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in October, joined in when he said “western nations haven’t lived up to their commitment for technology transfer and additional financing since the Rio Conference.”

This commitment might come as a surprise to most Americans.

Source: Financial Times, October 29, 2008.

TSAugust

November 9, 2008

Media reports have the ice melting all around the world.

But here are some interesting facts.

In the arctic, the National Snow and Ice Data Center forecast the possibility of an ice free arctic in 2008. As the accompanying chart shows, Arctic sea ice extent at its minimum in 2008 was greater than in 2007, and is already greater than in 2005.

See http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm for a larger image.

Copyright protected by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

Another chart shows the Arctic sea ice area and the standard deviation for readings taken since 1979.  Towards the end of October 2008 the actual area is approaching the limits of the standard deviation.

More information and a larger chart can be seen at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/22/sea-ice-approaching-the-edge-of-normal-standard-deviation/

In Antarctica, the ice coverage has been increasing. Temperatures have been declining for the past 50 years and the ice coverage has grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in 1979.

While the Larson ice shelf and the Wilkins ice shelf in Western Antarctica have collapsed, their collapse is best categorized by former Weather Channel Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo.

“The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof …We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear”

Sources:

IARC-JAXA Information System

Watts Up With That

TSAugust

November 2, 2008

The October 21^st PBS pseudo documentary claimed that CO2 was causing global warming and that it was imperative to cut worldwide CO2 emissions 60 to 80%by 2050.

Not mentioned in the program was that temperatures have not been rising in recent years.

The premise behind anthropogenic global warming is that CO2 emissions, since the mid 1800’s, have caused an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that this increase is responsible for global warming.

There is no question that atmospheric CO2 has climbed steadily since the mid 1800’s, but some scientists have questioned whether CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.

Interestingly, worldwide temperatures have remained steady for at least the past eight to ten years while atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase.

The following graph from NASA depicts worldwide temperatures since 1995. It would appear as though temperatures in 2008 are at the same level as in 1995. (The peak in 1998 has been attributed to el Nino.)

TSAugust

October 26, 2008

Is there a fingerprint for global warming?

The U.S. Science Change Program (CCSP) put forward a zonal temperature graph in 2006, derived from computer simulations, that purports to show how atmospheric temperatures should react with anthropogenic global warming.

See Figure 1.

This is the fingerprint of anthropogenic global warming.

Figure 1

Actual temperatures taken by balloons and satellite do not match the temperatures developed by the computer models. See Figure 2.

Figure 2

From this it can be concluded that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are not a significant cause of current global warming.

Notes:

1. The vertical axes are altitude in kilometers (right scale). The horizontal axes are North and South Latitudes.

2. Statistical distributions of the data, as shown in figures 9a and 9b of the source document, confirms the validity of the graphs used in this article.

Source:

S. Fred Singer et al, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

TSAugust

October 19, 2008

While visiting the Baltic countries this summer I heard former prime ministers and presidents say the Nazi’s were terrible, but the Russians were worse.

These countries sought protection in NATO, but one wonders whether these countries aren’t having second thoughts about their relationship with the EU.

The EU has proposed that these countries buy carbon credits at auction beginning in 2013 which will have severe consequences for countries that use coal for generating electricity.

Poland derives 95% of its electricity from coal and has attempted to have other Eastern European countries assist them in opposing the auctioning of carbon credits. Poland believes its cost for electricity will increase by 70% if it must buy credits.

Eastern Europe’s only alternative will be to use natural gas for generating electricity which will make Poland and other Eastern European countries more dependent on Russia.

After Russia’s invasion of Georgia, the EU has dropped its support of Georgia’s and Ukraine’s admission into NATO like a hot potato. With its push to cut the use of coal for generating electricity the EU seems to be throwing Eastern Europe to the mercies of Russia.

The EU did little to help Estonia when Russia launched a cyber attack against Estonia’s financial system and government in 2007.

Would the EU come to Eastern Europe’s rescue if Russia became more aggressive?

TSAugust

October 12, 2008

Over the past several years there have been repeated reports that the Gulf Stream could shut down and throw Europe into ice age conditions.

Researchers from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), in combination with others, have reaffirmed that the Gulf Stream is safe.

"It hasn't only been possible to show that the currents instead have maintained a surprisingly constant strength during the last 50 years, but we can also point out where earlier signs of weakness were misleading," said Steffen M Olsen of Danish Meteorological Institute.Concerns about the Gulf Stream came to the fore in December 2005 when the media reported that a study by Bryden et al had claimed the thermohaline circulation (Gulf Stream) had slowed by 30%.

This was refuted in 2006 by Christopher Meinen and two associates at the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami, that measured the Southward flow of water (millions of cubic meters per second) in the MOC [Meridional Overturning Circulation] between September 2004 and September 2005 and found no indication of a significant reduction in the strength of thermohaline circulation.

A second study by German scientist Friedrich Schott et al, measured the current over the Grand Banks and concluded, "Although the water mass characteristics show inter annual to decadal variations at those locations," "there is no sign of any MOC 'slowdown' trend over the past decade.”

With the DMI report, researchers have once again found the Gulf Stream to be safe and not in danger of collapse.

TSAugust

October 5, 2008

There is a new technology that can save consumers thousands of dollars while also reducing the need for new power plants.

But Big Brother, in the form of the California Energy Commission, tried to usurp the technology and, by its bungling, has cast a cloud over the technology. (It should be noted however, that this is the type of control proponents of Cap & Trade could deem necessary.)

The technology in question are meters installed in homes, offices and factories that record electricity usage by the hour, where rates also vary by the hour.

If electricity is used during peak hours the user will pay a higher price than if it is used during off-peak hours.

Even if the total amount of electricity consumed remains unchanged, the electricity generated during off-peak hour’s uses generators that might otherwise be left idle (or running below capacity.)

If electricity is consumed during peak hours, it could require the addition of new power plants. This would definitely be true if the demand is new, such as if Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PHEV’s) charged their batteries during daytime.

Big Brother attempted to insist that these new meters be controllable by the utility. For example, if Big Brother wanted to keep consumers from running their air conditioning units the utility could reset the consumer’s thermostat to a higher temperature. Let’s say the consumer set the thermostat at 70 degrees, Big Brother could change the setting to 80 degrees. The motivation behind Big Brother’s blunder was a desire to control CO2 emissions because of Big Brother’s view of global warming. “Big Brother knows best.”

Fortunately consumers became aware of Big Brother’s efforts and told Big Brother to change the proposed regulations for “programmable communicating thermostats.” But Big Brother never gives up, so consumers in other States will need to stay alert for attempts in their State to install meters that can intrude into their homes and offices.

The idea of using meters to allow consumers to choose when they want to buy electricity is excellent. It allows consumers to lower their energy bills while allowing utilities to defer investment in new power plants. But a meter allowing Big Brother to put its hand on the consumer’s thermostat is wrong. Unfortunately, it’s merely an early indicator of how far Big Brother will intrude into people’s lives to control CO2 emissions.

TSAugust

June 8, 2008

The Warner-Lieberman Bill, S2191 Climate Security Act of 2007, is going to be debated and possibly voted on this week (June 2^nd). (The bill was debated and defeated, probably for this year.)

The following information should be critical to understanding the appropriateness of this legislation.

S2191 will require that the United States cut its CO2 emissions 70% from 1990 levels by 2050, to 1,560 Million Metric Tons (MMT).

Current U.S. emissions are around 6,000 MMT.

The last time the United States emitted 1,560 MMT of CO2 was 1922 when the U.S. population was 110 million.

Looking ahead to 2050, the population of the U.S. is forecast to be approximately 440 million.

To understand the significance of these numbers it’s important to look at the per capita emissions of CO2.

U.S. per capita CO2 emissions:

1922 = 14.2 Tons

2004 = 20.3 Tons

2050 = 3.5 Tons

It is extremely difficult to see how per capita emissions can be reduced to 3.5 tons without crippling the U.S. economy and virtually destroying America.

As Carbon Folly demonstrates, only a combination of a huge expansion in nuclear power (400 new nuclear power plants by 2050) combined with a huge increase in electric vehicles (75% of all vehicles by 2050) can achieve CO2 emissions of  3.5 tons per person.

Naming this legislation the “Climate Security Act” is farcical in the face of our economic and technical knowledge.

June 1, 2008

TSAugust 

Coal Must be Good, May 4 2008

Europe is pushing Cap & Trade and Carbon Taxes in an effort to get the world to follow its example in setting targets for cutting CO2 emissions. But, it appears that Europe is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

While demanding that other countries adopt Cap & Trade regulations, Europe is scheduled to build around 50 new coal fired power plants over the next five years. Italy is converting an oil fired power plant to coal.

Meanwhile, here in the United States various States are attempting to prohibit the construction of new coal fired power plants. An unelected regulator in Kansas denied permits for a badly needed coal fired power plant and the Governor supported his move.

The Sierra Club and other so called environmental groups are picketing communities and legislatures to deny permits for new coal fired power plants. Sixty proposed coal fired power plants in the U.S. have been dropped. A few dozen more are stuck in the courts.

Meanwhile, China is building two new coal fired power plants every week. India is also building coal fired power plants.

Why is ‘Coal still King’ in Europe, China and India?

• It’s cheap.

• Europe has a 200 year supply of coal. China and the U.S. have a 400 year supply.

• There is no OPEC for coal: Coal is exported by many countries so market forces can keep the price relatively low.

Why should Europe build coal fired power plants while excoriating the U.S. for not cutting CO2 emissions?

May 4, 2008

TSAugust

There is more oil in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado than in Saudi Arabia. The obstacle to its extraction is that it’s encased in rock, known as shale.

Shell oil has undertaken a new process for extracting oil from shale and is conducting experiments in Colorado using its new “freezewall” technology.

They have already demonstrated they can extract the oil “in-situ” by heating the rock underground and then pumping out the oil that has been freed from the shale.

They are currently testing the “freezewall” to ensure that it isolates the area for heating and prevents the entry of water into the recovery zone. They will then test the integrity of the “freezewall” using warm water or steam to fracture the ice wall and then see how best to repair any break in the wall.

These tests will demonstrate the process is environmentally safe.

Unfortunately, Shell doesn’t currently plan to begin commercialization until the middle of the next decade.

A recent book, Gusher of Lies, only mentions shale oil once, and says shale oil is too constrained by price and capital to be an alternative oil resource for the United States. Shell is demonstrating that Gusher of Lies is wrong and that Shell is proving that shale oil is economically viable.

Gusher of Lies statements are doubly unfortunate because shale oil is a resource that could contribute to the United States becoming independent from foreign oil. (Independence from foreign oil will not affect the price of gas at the pump, as the price of oil is set by worldwide market forces. It does, however, allow for strategic independence and for improving America’s balance of payments.)

Shell has not said so, but the global warming activist’s desire to impose Cap & Trade regulations to deter the use of fossil fuels cannot but help slow down the development of this valuable resource.

April 27, 2008

TSAugust

A major concern of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been that ice on Antarctica would melt and cause oceans levels to rise: The IPCC has said human activity is causing global warming which could cause glaciers to melt. But there are other possibilities, including the latest -- volcanic activity.

Geophysicists Robin Bell and Michael Studinger from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a part of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, recently presented a paper showing how subglacial lakes could contribute to ice sheets sliding into the ocean and causing a catastrophic rise in sea level.

Most theories have focused on glaciers melting at the surface with the melt water draining into the ocean, but this ”subglacial”  theory has water accumulating under the glaciers which could cause them to slide rapidly into the ocean. This would be more dramatic and catastrophic than surface ice melt from global warming. Fast flowing ice streams in Antarctica have caused rapid movements of glaciers from the interior of Antarctica to the ocean.

A new theory, however, indicates that it isn’t global warming that’s causing ice to melt in Antarctica, it’s a string of volcanoes under the ice.

A chain of volcanic vent islands known as the Seal Nunataks may have been the cause of the Larson Ice Shelf breakup and may be causing glaciers to slide toward the ocean.

The accompanying NASA picture shows temperature trends from 1982 to 2004 for the Antarctic Continent. As can be seen, the Western edge of Antarctica has had rising temperatures while the bulk of Antarctica has had declining temperatures. The vast bulk of Antarctica has seen an increase in glacier thickness while the peninsula that juts far to the north has seen the loss of the Larson Ice Shelf and, most recently, the breaking away of the Wilkins Ice Shelf.

 (Both of these ice shelf’s are floating on water so do not contribute to sea rise when they melt.)

A recent discovery of an ancient volcano has brought the possibility of volcanic activity to the fore. Others have noted that Pacific Ocean currents could contribute to the warming along the Western edge of Antarctica.

If volcanic activity is behind the threat there is nothing mankind can do, at this juncture, to affect the amount of subglacial ice melt that might occur from the heat from the volcanoes. This is different than any threat from CO2 in the atmosphere that may be causing global warming.

Antarctica Temperature Changes, 1982 - 2004

Sources:

Science Daily

World Climate Report

NASA

 April 20, 2008

TSAugust

There are 1,600 people attending the latest United Nations soiree in Bangkok, trying to develop a strategy for a new Kyoto style agreement by the end of 2009. This followed the Bali meeting last December where a similar number of delegates from the UN and 190 countries, plus representatives from NGO’s, hammered out the “Bali Declaration.”

The Bangkok meeting has been eventful for three reasons.

1. Developing countries, led by the Group of 77 countries plus China (the G-77), have emphatically stated they will not accept binding targets for reducing CO2 emissions.

2. Japan has suggested the reference date be changed from 1990 to 2005. Japan believes, rightfully, that the 1990 date in the Kyoto protocol was set in a manner that favored European countries. (The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the collapse of Eastern European economies with resulting lower CO2 emissions in 1990. Additionally, the UK shifted from coal to North Sea natural gas for political rather than environmental reasons, and this also resulted in reduced CO2 emissions in 1990.)

3. China said developed countries should pay 0.5% of their GDP to developing countries for mitigating and adaptive strategies and technologies. This would be $66 billion that U.S. tax payers would pay China annually.

As a reference, $66 billion would have paid for all the oil we imported for three months during 2007.

When the conference concluded, a schedule was set for future meetings with contentious issues set aside for these future meetings.

Prodipto Ghosh, an Indian delegate, called the Japanese proposal for industry goals and a revised reference date a “huge protection scam,” while the G-77 refused to allow it to be included in the work plan. An August meeting in Ghana would address the Japanese proposals.

A June meeting in Bonn would discuss the transfer of clean technologies to developing countries from developed countries. Since the U.S. is in the vanguard of developing new technologies these transfers would largely be borne by the U.S.

There was much hope that a new administration in Washington would result in the U.S. acceding to the demands of the UN., specifically that the U.S. would agree to specific cuts in CO2 emissions while allowing developing countries, such as China and India, to avoid having to make firm commitments.

April 13, 2008

TSAugust

The Kyoto protocol has a provision where developed countries, such as in Europe, can buy Certified Emission Reduction (CER) or 'carbon credits' for every ton of CO2 reduced by projects in developing countries.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are classified as developing countries.

The UAE has just  established a formal process for creating CER’s under the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Now Europe can pay the UAE for its oil and also pay the UAE for CER’s.

The CER’s will be issued for such things as eliminating the flaring of gas and recovering and utilizing CO2 from the manufacture of fertilizer.

“Projects include energy efficiency, industrial process improvement, flare gas recovery and power plant upgrades.”

Now the UAE can get paid for making its operations more efficient: Something the UAE would have (or should have) done anyway.

A similar situation is emerging in Russia where European countries can buy emission credits from Russia when Russian oil and gas companies fix leaks in their pipelines.

The fact that Europe isn’t reducing its CO2 emissions and that the CER’s are based on actions that should have (or would have) been done anyway, allows the EU to try to meet its Kyoto targets without reducing its emissions.

March 2, 2008

TSAugust

The great depression of the 1930’s was started by “beggar thy neighbor” tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill is often mentioned as the catalyst that worsened the Great Depression. It provoked retaliatory measures by foreign countries.

Could Global Warming actually trigger a new depression? It certainly could if countries establish tariffs on so-called high CO2 content products such as steel, aluminum and concrete.

Europe is threatening to enact tariffs against high energy imports.

The Social Democrats in Germany are calling for sanctions on these types of goods.

"We have tried in the past and we will try again to introduce some kind of import duties for products from the U.S. and other countries that do not subscribe to the Kyoto Protocol," said the energy expert Claude Turmes, a European Parliament legislator and vice chairman of the European Greens.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has said Europe should "examine the option of taxing products imported from countries that do not respect the Kyoto Protocol.”

Though European Greens were singling out the United States, restrictive tariffs would also affect China and India who are major exporters of steel and other energy intensive products.

C. Boyden Gray, US ambassador to the European Union, said retaliatory steps could be taken against China and India if they refused to agree to limitations on CO2 emissions.

With threats emanating from all sides, the likelihood of restrictive tariffs increases.

Though it was the agriculture industry that triggered the “beggar thy neighbor” tariffs in the 1930’s, it could be high energy intensive industries that trigger the next great depression.

February 17, 2008

TSAugust

The UN hailed the announcement made by David McCormick, Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs, that the U.S. would establish a Clean Development Fund.

Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, called the news “a Marshall Plan for climate change.”

McCormick said the U.S. had already met with potential donors. The U.S. would be a lead donor.

Many developing countries such as China and India are currently using old technologies for generating electricity and for producing products, such as aluminum and steel.

The Clean Development Fund would provide money so that developing countries could install newer, more expensive technology.

McCormick said that by 2030 the difference in cost for newer technologies could be $30 billion. The fund the U.S. is proposing would pay for this difference.

De Boer said, "I see a number of economic and security issues emerging as a result of climate change which make it all the more imperative to come to grips with this issue in time."

The fund would come from major developed countries so that rich nations would help pay the cost of controlling CO2 emissions. Developing countries have consistently said that it was up to developed countries, such as the U.S., to pay for controlling emissions since it was they who pumped the CO2 into the atmosphere over the past century.

Not addressed by McCormick is whether improving the technology of companies in China and India will make it harder for U.S. companies to compete, and possibly cost Americans their jobs.

There is a pattern developing in Washington D.C. where climate change regulations and funding could become a burden on American tax payers.

February 10, 2008

TSAugust

It has not been widely reported, but it appears as though global warming has halted, or at least taken a vacation.

The global temperature has remained the same from 2001 through 2007, a period of seven years without increasing global temperatures.

In addition, British weather experts are predicting that global temperatures in 2008 will go down.

With global temperatures remaining constant or possibly declining, will it affect the theory that green house gasses are causing global warming?

There is little dispute that the earth has warmed about 1.3 degrees F over th