Friday, August 28, 2009

Technology Can Fight Global Warming

Here's an alternate viewpoint on globull warming. Lomborg is widely known as a critic of the hysteria and science associated with the topic. He's been very outspoken over the years and is worth listening to. Article courtesy of the WSJ.

Technology Can Fight Global Warming

Marine cloud whitening, and other ideas.

We have precious little to show for nearly 20 years of efforts to prevent global warming. Promises in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to cut carbon emissions went unfulfilled. Stronger pledges in Kyoto five years later failed to keep emissions in check. The only possible lesson is that agreements to reduce carbon emissions are costly, politically arduous and ultimately ineffective.

But this is a lesson many are hell-bent on ignoring, as politicians plan to gather again—this time in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December—to negotiate a new carbon-emissions treaty. Even if they manage to bridge their differences and sign a deal, there is a strong likelihood that tomorrow's politicians will fail to deliver.

Global warming does not just require action; it requires effective action. Otherwise we are just squandering time.

Chad Crowe

To inform the debate, the Copenhagen Consensus Center has commissioned research looking at the costs and benefits of all the policy options. For example, internationally renowned climate economist Richard Tol of Ireland's Economic and Social Research Institute finds that a low carbon tax of $2 a metric ton (1.2 tons U.S.) is the only carbon reduction policy that would make economic sense. But his research demonstrates the futility of trying to use carbon cuts to keep temperature increases under 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), which many argue would avoid the worst of climate change's impacts.

Some economic models find that target impossible to reach without drastic action, like cutting the world population by a third. Other models show that achieving the target by a high CO2 tax would reduce world GDP a staggering 12.9% in 2100—the equivalent of $40 trillion a year.

Some may claim that global warming will be so terrible that a 12.9% reduction in GDP is a small price to pay. But consider that the majority of economic models show that unconstrained global warming would cost rich nations around 2% of GDP and poor countries around 5% by 2100.

Even those figures are an overstatement. A group of climate economists at the University of Venice led by Carlo Carraro looked closely at how people will adapt to climate change. Their research for the Copenhagen Consensus Center showed that farmers in areas with less water for agriculture could use more drip irrigation, for example, while those with more water will grow more crops.

Taking a variety of natural, so-called market adaptations into account, the Carraro research shows we will acclimatize to the negative impacts of global warming and exploit the positive changes, actually creating 0.1% increase in GDP in 2100 among the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In poor countries, market adaptation will reduce climate change-related losses to 2.9% of GDP. This remains a significant, negative effect. The real challenge of global warming lies in tackling its impact on the Third World. Yet adaptation has other positive benefits. If we prepare societies for more ferocious hurricanes in the future, we also help them to cope better with today's extreme weather.

This does not mean, however, that we should ignore rising greenhouse-gas emissions. Research for the Copenhagen Consensus Center by Claudia Kemfert of German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin shows that in terms of reducing climate damage, reducing methane emissions is cheaper than reducing CO2 emissions, and—because methane is a much shorter-living gas—its mitigation could do a lot to prevent some of the worst of short-term warming. Other research papers highlight the advantages of planting more trees and protecting the forests we have to absorb CO2 and cut greenhouse gases.

Other more speculative approaches deserve consideration. In groundbreaking research, J. Eric Bickel, an economist and engineer at the University of Texas, and Lee Lane, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, study the costs and benefits of climate engineering. One proposal would have boats spray seawater droplets into clouds above the sea to make them reflect more sunlight back into space—augmenting the natural process where evaporating ocean sea salt helps to provide tiny particles for clouds to form around.

Remarkably, Mr. Bickel finds that about $9 billion spent developing this so-called marine cloud whitening technology might be able to cancel out this century's global warming. The benefits—from preventing the temperature increase—would add up to about $20 trillion.

Climate engineering raises ethical concerns. But if we care most about avoiding warmer temperatures, we cannot avoid considering a simple, cost-effective approach that shows so much promise.

Nothing short of a technological revolution is required to end our reliance on fossil fuel—and we are not even close to getting this revolution started. Economists Chris Green and Isabel Galiana from McGill University point out that nonfossil sources like nuclear, wind, solar and geothermal energy will—based on today's availability—get us less than halfway toward a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100.

A high carbon tax will simply hurt growth if alternative technology is not ready, making us all worse off. Mr. Green proposes that policy makers abandon carbon-reduction negotiations and make agreements to seriously invest in research and development. Mr. Green's research suggests that investing about $100 billion annually in noncarbon based energy research could result in essentially stopping global warming within a century or so.

A technology-led effort would have a much greater chance of actually tackling climate change. It would also have a much greater chance of political success, since countries that fear signing on to costly emission targets are more likely to embrace the cheaper, smarter path of innovation.

Cutting emissions of greenhouse gases is not the only answer to global warming. Next week, a group of Nobel Laureate economists will gather at Georgetown University to consider all of the new research and identify the solutions that are most effective. Hopefully, their results will influence debate and help shift decision makers away from a narrow focus on one, deeply flawed response to global warming.

Our generation will not be judged on the brilliance of our rhetoric about global warming, or on the depth of our concern. We will be judged on whether or not we stop the suffering that global warming will cause. Politicians need to stop promising the moon, and start looking at the most effective ways to help planet Earth.

Mr. Lomborg teaches at the Copenhagen Business School and is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" (Knopf, 2007.)

Monday, August 24, 2009

Eco towns get green light despite local opposition

More from the Times Online. More eco facism. The British socialists are trying to ram this down the throats of the citizens even in the face of fierce local opposition. But then, what does it matter what the people want? The government always knows best. I sure as hell hope the eco nazis here aren't paying attention. We're likely to wind up with some eco towns that nobody wants too. These people that are pushing this crap are insane.

Ministers gave approval yesterday for the building of four “pioneer” eco-towns and insisted that at least 10,000 homes would be in place by 2016 in the face of local opposition.

Despite the depth of the recession and fierce local protests, John Healey, the Housing Minister, approved sites in Oxfordshire, Norfolk, Cornwall and Hampshire. The chosen developers for Gordon Brown’s flagship programme will each be able to bid for part of a £60 million pot of extra cash.

Rural campaigners warned that the zero-carbon developments would threaten greenfield sites and local wildlife. There were also concerns that without more public transport, the extra traffic would increase rather than reduce pollution.

The successful bids, all backed by Conservative local authorities, are: Rackheath, Norfolk; Whitehill Bordon, East Hampshire; North West Bicester and the China Clay Community near St Austell, Cornwall. The Government has dropped plans to develop more controversial sites such as Western Otmoor, near Oxford — opposed by Tim Henman’s father, Tony — Ford, West Sussex, and Pennbury, Leicstershire.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England cautiously welcomed the Government’s decision to scale back its orginal shortlist of 15 sites. “From a list of deeply worrying and unsustainable locations the Government has chosen to go with the least damaging, which is enouraging,” said Kate Gordon, the organisation’s senior planning officer.

The Conservatives accused the Government of presiding over an “eco-con” that was mired in controversy. “All the low-flush toilets in the world can’t make dumping a housing estate on green fields somehow eco-friendly,” said Grant Shapps, the Shadow Housing Minister.

Marliyn Metcalfe, head of Bordon Area Action Group, which opposes the scheme in Whitehill Bordon, said: “It beggars belief that another 15,000 people would not damage the surrounding wildlife, that we could all survive on the same amount of water used now, and that doubling the population would produce no more carbon omissions than Bordon today,” Ms Metcalfe said.

All four in the first wave will be expected to have a zero-carbon school by 2013, and parks, playgrounds and gardens will make up 40 per cent of the towns. At least 30 per cent of affordable housing will be required, with one member of each working couple expected to work in the town.

Biomass fuel, solar panels, insulation, water recycling and double glazing are expected to save a typical home £200 to £500 a year. The homes will also have gadgets such as electronic bus timetables on the walls.

Quangos blackball ... oops, sorry ... veto ‘racist’ everyday phrases

From the Times Online. More political correctness from our friends across the pond. What is it with these people? Do they think we actually give a rat's ass about these terms? Do they think we associate right hand man with racism? They're just nuts. They just want to interfere with our freedoms. They want to impose their twisted values on us. Its all about control. WTF is a Quango anyway? I suppose I could Google it but I'm too lazy.

It could be construed as a black day for the English language — but not if you work in the public sector.

Dozens of quangos and taxpayer-funded organisations have ordered a purge of common words and phrases so as not to cause offence.

Among the everyday sayings that have been quietly dropped in a bid to stamp out racism and sexism are “whiter than white”, “gentleman’s agreement”, “black mark” and “right-hand man”.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day”, according to documents released under freedom of information rules.

It points out that certain words carry with them a “hierarchical valuation of skin colour”. The commission even urges employees to be mindful of the term “ethnic minority” because it can imply “something smaller and less important”.

The National Gallery in London believes that the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” is potentially offensive to women and suggests that staff should replace it with “unwritten agreement” or “an agreement based on trust” instead. The term “right-hand man” is also considered taboo by the gallery, with “second in command” being deemed more suitable.

Many institutions have urged their workforce to be mindful of “gender bias” in language. The Learning and Skills Council wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it, while the Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic.

Advice issued by the South West Regional Development Agency states: “Terms such as ‘black sheep of the family’, ‘black looks’ and ‘black mark’ have no direct link to skin colour but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black. Equally, certain terms imply a negative image of ‘black’ by reinforcing the positive aspects of white.

“For example, in the context of being above suspicion, the phrase ‘whiter than white’ is often used. Purer than pure or cleaner than clean are alternatives which do not infer that anything other than white should be regarded with suspicion.”

The clampdown in the public sector has angered some of the country’s most popular writers.

Anthony Horowitz, author of the Alex Rider children’s spy books, said: “A great deal of our modern language is based on traditions which have now gone but it would be silly — and extremely inconvenient — to replace them all. A ‘white collar worker’, for example, probably doesn’t wear one. An ‘able seaman’, under new regulations, could well be neither. ‘Spanish practices’ can happen all over Europe. We know what these phrases mean and we can find out from where they were derived. Banning them is just unnecessary.”

Marie Clair, spokeswoman for the Plain English Campaign, said: “Political correctness has good intentions but things can be taken to an extreme. What is really needed is a bit of common sense.”

Friday, August 21, 2009

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

Hey, I thought this whole globull warming thing was settled. But those renegade scientists keep the denying thing going. And look! This one is from that bastion of liberal think, MIT. That's in Massachusetts. Home of Teddy (Chappaquidik) Kennedy, Barney (Banking Queen) Frank and the haughty John Kerry. If he's an elitist then he must be right.

Oh well. Take a look below. Its a long dry read but interesting nonetheless.

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

August 18, 7:39 AMPortland Civil Rights ExaminerDianna Cotter

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.

Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.

The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.

- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009

If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.

Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.

Graph A

Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data that has been doubled from observed data, it is overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether. As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009, that solid red median line is going down, indicating global cooling.

Graph B

As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pièce de résistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.

The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth’s system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO2 which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO2 cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.

The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.

Graph C

Observed reality vs. erroneous computer predictions:

The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. -
Lindzen & Choi (2009).

For the sake of making the above graphs clear in their meanings, the term ?SST stands for Change in Sea Surface Temperature measured in Kelvin (A unit of temperature like to Celsius and Fahrenheit), and is a measurement of change in sea temperatures. A -1.0 number would indicate cooling, a zero reflects no temperature change, and a +1.0 would indicate an increase in temperature.

?Flux, The Vertical line in these graphs, measures the change in the amount of radiation released by the planet in the infra-red spectrum, heat in other words. From zero to +6 shows more heat radiated out into space. From zero to -6 shows less heat being radiated into space.

0 change in ?SST equals 0 change in ?Flux or no change. Less infra-red heat radiation going out into space should correlate to cooler sea surface temperatures, as there is less heat available to radiate out. More heat radiating out appears when sea surface temperature increases have occurred and more heat is available to radiate. Heat is radiated out into space as seas warm, and this overall maintains a climate equilibrium, This is proven by the ERBE graph in Graph C above as well as the other graphs presented in this article, which are based on observed data, not computer models.

Graph D

The 3300 Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world’s oceans since late in 2003 have shown a slight cooling of the oceans over the past five years, directly contrary to the official theory that any “global warming” not showing in the atmosphere would definitely show up in the first 400 fathoms of the world’s oceans, where at least 80% of any surplus heat would be stored. Source: ARGO project, June 2009.

All of this data leads to the conclusion that the UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so far off the mark as to be laughable. The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly do not match the IPCC theory, which means that the theory is incorrect.

What this data does tell us is if CO2 concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data. The UN theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead wrong.

The UN/IPCC have been using models that give a result that allow them to tell Nation States they must reduce and cap Carbon Emissions or the earth’s climate will warm by a devastating 6 degrees F. When in reality, more heat is simply radiated out into space as the ERBE OBSERVED DATA (Not a computer model) PROVES.

The United States House of Representatives has passed a Carbon tax (Cap and Trade) as have other governments in Europe, based on these completely erroneous models.

There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.

Either way, the world has been the victim of some very bad science. The results of which can be seen in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease in standard of living for those citizens living there (Taxing Carbon designed to fail.), all with little or no effect on emissions globally.

Perhaps this will finally end the attempt by the Obama Administration as well as congress to tax a substance that trees need to survive, the very air we exhale thousands of times a day.

Thank you Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Dr. Miklós Zágoni, Dr. Mike Fox here in Oregon, and a great many other Scientists the world over, who decided to look at facts, instead of playing with models. Science is based on data, facts not theories. They took the facts, and let the theory write itself. The IPCC took theories and tried to cherry pick only the details that fit, and in the end failed to do even that.

Public policies should also be based on facts, not on unproven and in the end disproven theories. The United States and indeed the world is in the debt of these and other scientists, who relied on data and facts to describe our world and its climate! We are in their debt!

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Who's To Blame For Globull Warming?

This as reported by CNN. Not only are we who live now to blame for globull warming but also early man. How early? Try 5000 - 7000 years ago. Unbelievable. Is there no one on the planet innocent when it comes to climate change? Nope. Not now and not way back when. Shame on us all. And to top it all off, early man prevented an ice age!! Stinkin' bastards!

Study: Global warming sparked by ancient farming methods

By Shelby Lin Erdman
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

(CNN) -- Ancient man may have started global warming through massive deforestation and burning that could have permanently altered the Earth's climate, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Virginia and the University of Maryland-Baltimore County.

The study, published in the scientific journal Quaternary Science Reviews and reported on the University of Virginia's Web site, says over thousands of years, farmers burned down so many forests on such a large scale that huge amounts of carbon dioxide were pumped into the atmosphere. That possibly caused the Earth to warm up and forever changed the climate.

Lead study author William Ruddiman is a professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a climate scientist.

"It seems like a common-sense idea that there weren't enough people around 5, 6, 7,000 years ago to have any significant impact on climate. But if you allow for the fact that those people, person by person, had something like 10 times as much of an effect or cleared 10 times as much land as people do today on average, that bumps up the effect of those earlier farmers considerably, and it does make them a factor in contributing to the rise of greenhouse gasses," Ruddiman said.

Ruddiman said that starting thousands of years ago, people would burn down a forest, poke a hole in the soil between the stumps, drop seeds in the holes and grow a crop on that land until the nutrients were tapped out of the soil. Then they would move on.

"And they'd burn down another patch of forest and another and another. They might do that five times in a 20-year period," he said.

That slashing and burning on such a large scale spewed enormous amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and warmed the planet, the study says.

Ruddiman has studied and researched the idea of ancient man contributing to climate change for years now. And he's endured plenty of criticism over his theories.

Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, California, is among those who disagree with Ruddiman. He said Ruddiman is "exaggerating the importance of early man."

Caldeira told CNN that while ancient farmers may have played a tiny role in climate change, "it just wasn't a significant factor."

He added, "There are actually studies showing if you cut down forests for farmland, you actually cool the planet, because of the glare from the cleared land."

Ruddiman and study co-author Erle Ellis, an ecologist with UMBC, acknowledge that some models of past land use show it's only been in the past 150 years -- with a huge population explosion, the onset of the Industrial Age and the rise of fossil-fuel burning -- that global warming has accelerated.

But Ruddiman said, "My argument is that even at the beginning, they just used much more land per person, so even though there weren't that many people, they used enough to start to push these greenhouse gas concentrations up."

Ruddiman's research also argues that the Earth was on its way to another ice age 10,000 years ago and that ice sheets were already forming in northern latitudes when ancient man started his slashing and burning method of farming.

Uh-Oh --- World Temperatures Drop

Global temperatures continue to drop. No relief in sight. If you're a globull warming alarmist then this is not good news. If you're undecided or an unbeliever then this is worth checking out. Courtesy of

Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate

WASHINGTON — Has Earth's fever broken?

Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

That's given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change. The skeptics argue that the current stretch of slightly cooler temperatures means that costly measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions are ill-founded and unnecessary.

Proposals to combat global warming are "crazy" and will "destroy more than a million good American jobs and increase the average family's annual energy bill by at least $1,500 a year," the Heartland Institute, a conservative research organization based in Chicago, declared in full-page newspaper ads earlier this summer. "High levels of carbon dioxide actually benefit wildlife and human health," the ads asserted.

Many scientists agree, however, that hotter times are ahead. A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.

"The preponderance of evidence is that global warming will resume," Nicholas Bond, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, said in an e-mail.

"Natural variability can account for the slowing of the global mean temperature rise we have seen," said Jeff Knight, a climate expert at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, England.

According to data from the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala., the global high temperature in 1998 was 0.76 degrees Celsius (1.37 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average for the previous 20 years.

So far this year, the high has been 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit), above the 20-year average, clearly cooler than before.

However, scientists say the skeptics' argument is misleading.

"It's entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of cooling superimposed on the long-term warming trend," said David Easterling, chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

"These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability," Easterling said in an essay published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in April. "It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."

Climate experts say the 1998 record was partly caused by El Nino, a periodic warming of tropical Pacific Ocean waters that affects the climate worldwide.

"The temperature peak in 1998 to a large extent can be attributed to the very strong El Nino event of 1997-98," Bond said. "Temperatures for the globe as a whole tend to be higher during El Nino, and particularly events as intense as that one."

El Nino is returning this summer after a four-year absence and is expected to hang around until late next year.

"If El Nino continues to strengthen as projected, expect more (high temperature) records to fall," said Thomas Karl, who's the director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville.

"At least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year currently on record," predicted Jeff Knight, a climate variability expert at the Hadley Centre in England.

John Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who often sides with the skeptics, agreed that the recent cooling won't last.

"The atmosphere is just now feeling the bump in tropical Pacific temperatures related to El Nino," Christy said in an e-mail. As a result, July experienced "the largest one-month jump in our 31-year record of global satellite temperatures. We should see a warmer 2009-2010 due to El Nino."

Christy added, however: "Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous, and our policy makers need to know that . . . We really don't know much about what causes multi-year changes like this."

In addition to newspaper ads, the Heartland Institute sponsors conferences, books, papers, videos and Web sites arguing its case against the global warming threat.

The skeptics include scientists such as Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who thinks that climate science is too uncertain to justify drastic measures to control CO2. He calls the case for action against global warming "silly" and "grotesque."

Others go further. For example, Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University in Bellingham, thinks the world is in a 30-year cooling phase.

"The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling," Easterbrook said in a talk to the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco in December.

Monday, August 10, 2009

It's All Your Fault! China Emits More CO2 Than the US But We Should Suffer!

More tripe from our friends at the Guardian, UK. Oh the humanity!!! The West must suffer more because of climate change and the US most of all. Talk about a guilt trip. These idiots even have the equivalent of Gore's movie (Inconvenient Truth). Its called The Age of Stupid. Catchy title. The plan is to show it in schools ala Gore's tactics. Indoctrinate the young.

Its really interesting when you read the last line.

"What we are beginning to witness is a whole new set of rules for economics, based on rationing resources."
That's right. More rationing. Ration energy. Ration healthcare. Its enough to make you puke.

UN climate change deal needs more sacrifices by West, John Prescott warns

Vital UN climate change talks in Copenhagen are likely to collapse unless rich nations agree a "social justice deal" built around equalising emissions per head in each country, according to the former deputy prime minister John Prescott.

Speaking to the Guardian, Prescott admitted that the formula would require far greater sacrifices by rich nations, especially the US. Prescott, one of three politicians to broker the original UN climate change deal in December 1997, is to become deeply involved in trying to ensure there is a successor to Kyoto.

He met leaders of Barack Obama's climate change team in Washington a fortnight ago, and is due to travel to China on 8 September at the same time as Lord Mandelson, the business secretary. He will be given an honorary professorship at Xiamen University for his work on climate change.

Prescott will also stage an international conference from 28 September on the principles of a deal for Copenhagen, to be opened by Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and addressed by Al Gore. The conference, organised by the Council of Europe, will have 65 states present.

Prescott is also going to lead a Gore-style campaign in schools in October showing the film The Age of Stupid, starring Pete Postlethwaite, portraying a devastated planet in 2050 owing to world leaders' failure to act on climate change.

Prescott says: "What I fear is that Copenhagen is a much more difficult nut to crack than Kyoto, far more countries are involved, and we nearly did not succeed at Kyoto. It took a last-minute fix. There are going to be real difficulties, even among the rich countries themselves."

He is doubtful that the EU member states will even stick to the commitments they make. "For a deal to work it has to have a formula that has an element of equity and social justice in it that reflects the state of each country's industrial development and its emissions per capita."

China now emits more carbon than America in absolute terms, owing to the size of its population, but in per capita terms the US emits four or five times as much. Prescott warns: "Rich countries are showing great reluctance to face up to the reality of what rationing carbon means for levels of growth and prosperity in their countries. It is going to be a fundamental change."

The EU has committed itself to an 80% cut by 2050 and a 20% cut by 2020. The US Senate is due to pass a cap-and-trade bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions by only 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. But even this proposal, regarded as far too little by China and India, is meeting fierce resistance from the US coal industry, which is pouring cash into a lobbying campaign to weaken the resolve of Democrat senators. Prescott says: "From speaking to the Americans I can already see it is clear that they are going to have difficulties even meeting the European target. The steel and coal companies are financing the same kind of campaigns against Copenhagen as they financed against Kyoto.

"What is vital is that America and China come to an agreement, and at the heart of that will be an arrangement on the coal industry. China depends for 70% of its energy on coal, and the US still has a massive coal industry. Coal is still going to remain at the heart of global energy. A realistic agreement will have to recognise coal. You cannot shut it down.

"The west is going to come up with big money on how to finance alternative energy in the developing countries, including clean coal. We have got to crack clean coal technology. China and India are going to want to know how many billions the rich countries are going to put aside to help them make their carbon contributions. That will be one of the big tests at Copenhagen. The fact is that the west has poisoned the world and left continents like Africa in poverty. The west will have up to stump up the cash for clean technology."

Both Chinese and Indian climate negotiators have recently again refused to offer any targets to cut their emissions. They are insisting that the EU and the US commit themselves to 40% cuts in emissions by 2020 against 1990 baselines. Neither the US nor the EU are anywhere near this position.

Prescott says any agreement cannot be based on 1990 levels for developing countries. "They did not have industrial development at that stage, so we are fighting for the principle of an objective based on carbon tonnes per capita. That is the fairest way forward."

Copenhagen, he argues, will represent a major infringement on free market economies, even though it will use market mechanisms such as cap and trade to set a price for carbon through rationing.

"What we are beginning to witness is a whole new set of rules for economics, based on rationing resources."

Cloud ship' scheme to deflect the sun's rays is favourite to cut global warming

Courtesy of the UK Telegraph. These ships are a bargain at US $9 billion. Timeline calls for deployment within 25 years. Oooooohhh. Can't wait. Will we be able to ski behind these boats? Can you say Three Hour Tour? Who was hotter? Ginger or Maryanne? What about Mrs. Howell. She looks pretty good considering all that dough. Just thinking out loud.

Ships with giant funnels which travel the world's seas creating more clouds to deflect the sun's rays could help cut global warming, say scientists.

'Cloud ship' scheme to deflect the sun's rays is favourite to cut global warming
The unmanned ships would be directed by satellite to areas with the best conditions for increasing cloud cover

The "cloud ships" are favoured among a series of schemes aimed at altering the climate which have been weighed up by a leading think-tank.

The project, which is being worked on by rival US and UK scientists, would see 1,900 wind-powered ships ply the oceans sucking up seawater and spraying minuscule droplets of it out through tall funnels to create large white clouds.

These clouds, it is predicted, would reflect around one or two per cent of the sunlight that would otherwise warm the ocean, thereby cancelling out the greenhouse effect caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions.

The unmanned ships would be directed by satellite to areas with the best conditions for increasing cloud cover, mainly in the Pacific and far enough away from land so as not to affect normal rainfall patterns.

Other ideas, such as sending mirrors into space by rocket to deflect the sun's rays, and scattering iron powder into the seas to boost CO2-absorbing plankton, have been dismissed as unfeasible or too expensive.

According to The Times, The Royal Society is expected to announce that the decade-old cloud ship plan is one of the most promising.

The Copenhagen Consensus Centre, which advises governments on how to spend aid money, examined the various plans and found the cloud ships to be the most cost-effective.

They would cost $9 billion (£5.3 billion) to test and launch within 25 years, compared to the $250 billion that the world’s leading nations are considering spending each year to cut CO2 emissions, and the $395 trillion it would cost to launch mirrors into space.

At present, British and American teams are seeking funding to launch sea trials. The US team has been boosted by a donation of several hundred thousand dollars by The Carnegie Institute, while the British team, led by John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Manchester, and Stephen Salter, an engineer at the University of Edinburgh, is working with a Finnish shipping company, Meriaura.

Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen think-tank, is hosting a conference in Washington DC next month at which a panel of Nobel laureates will vote on the most cost-effective solution.

He believes the schemes could prove that there are better ways of addressing climate change than simply reducing CO2 emissions.

“The space sunshade is really just science fiction but cloud whitening ships deserve serious scrutiny,” he told The Times.

“We need to have a debate about all of the options, not just the politically correct one of reducing CO2."

Another scheme considered by the Copenhagen Consensus Centre is one to mimic the effects of volcanic eruptions in shielding the sun's rays with a chemical haze and creating a global cooling effect that can last for over a year.

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 sent billions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide and other particles into the atmosphere which reduced global average temperature by about 0.5C. The eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia in 1815 saw 1816 become known as the year without summer.

Scientists have proposed various ways of emitting such particles into the atmosphere, including using squadrons of air tanker potentially based in the Arctic to protect the polar ice cap.

However, the scheme would cost $230 billion and could not be reversed, unlike the cloud ships scheme.

Hey, How's That Global Warming Thing Working Out?

It's been a crappy summer here in Chicago this year. At least as far as the weather goes. It must be that global warming thing, right? Maybe if it was really summer. But ..... its been cold here. Feels more like Spring or Autumn. Want to know more? See below.

Jackets in July? What's in store for August?

Last month is the coolest on record for an Illinois July in 85 years.

Researchers at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign said the average temperature for the entire state in July 2009 was 70.4 degrees. That's more than 5 degrees below normal.

The previous record, set in July 1924, was 71.5 degrees.


In Chicago, this July came in 7th since records were kept. However, that rating needs further explanation, according to ABC7 meteorologist Phil Schwarz, because of changes in the way the temperature was recorded.

"Until 1942 the observation was near the lake, so if you got any wind it was cool," said Schwarz. The observation was then moved inland.

"(This July's) the second coolest since the site moved inland from Midway and then to O'Hare," said Schwarz.

The observation remains at O'Hare now. But, had there been an even playing field- without the change in observation sites- Schwarz thinks Chicago could have come close to a record low, too.

"It's the second coolest in 100 years," said Schwarz, who also said Chicago's records go back into the 1800s-- further than most cities.

There are normally at least five days where the temperatures hit 90-degrees or higher across the state. Most of Illinois did not see any temperatures that high in July.

Researchers say the cool down resulted in lower energy demand and poor growing conditions for some farmers.

Will the cool down continue?

"While August started off cool, things start to heat up by this weeekend," said Schwarz.

Meanwhile, statewide precipitation was 1.1 inches above normal in July, at 4.9 inches.

Globull Warming Legislation Will Bury The Economy

This is a must read from the Heritage Foundation. See a sample below. Go here for the rest of the article. The thrust of the article is a projection of the impact on the economy from passage or the Waxman-Markey bill (aka Cap & Tax). Its well researched and an easy read. Pass it on.

August 6, 2009

The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
Center for Data Analysis Report #09-04

After a truncated debate and last-minute changes, the House of Representatives narrowly passed climate-change legislation on June 26, 2009, designed by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA). The 1,427-page bill would restrict greenhouse gas emissions from industry, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas.

Since energy is the lifeblood of the American economy, 85 percent of which comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels, the Waxman-Markey bill represents an extraordinary level of economic interference by the federal government. For this reason, it is important for policymakers to have a sense of the economic impact that accompanies any environmental benefits.[1]

Analysis by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA) makes clear that Waxman-Markey promises serious perils for the American economy for the years and decades ahead. Waxman-Markey requires arbitrary and severe restrictions on the current energy supply and infrastructure. These restrictions can be met only through large-scale deployment of still-undeveloped or uneconomical technologies and alternative energy sources. In addition to the direct impact on consumers' budgets through higher electric bills and gasoline prices, the resultant increase in energy costs will reverberate throughout the economy and inject unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production. It would suppress economic activity and reduce employment, especially in the manufacturing sector. Virtually all costs would eventually filter down to the American people.

Waxman-Markey extracts trillions of dollars from the energy-using public and delivers this wealth to various groups--some of whom may be more deserving than others, and some who are simply better at lobbying. That could mean low-income households in an attempt to compensate them for sharply higher energy costs, or regulated industries that have effectively lobbied for compliance assistance. In any event, cap-and-trade allowances are a tax and would be the largest tax increase in recent history.