Monthly Archives: July 2009

Where Does the AGW Money Come From?

If you claim to represent a grass roots movement, but in fact are in the pay of someone to make it look like a grass roots movement,  a new term is  being used and it is “astroturfing”, or a fake grass roots movement.

 An English blog site has taken on the AGWers that continually say that the “deniers” are astroturfers because they are funded by Exxon and other corporate interests.    I guess it is unsurprising that the media cares little that the AGW movement gets huge sums of money from government and industry.  The last estimate I saw was a figure of about $5 billion in grants, study moneys etc from governments.  And if you look at the Pew Center’s group of companies that support the AGW movement, you would wonder how any honest person could point a finger at skeptics.    The blog, Climate Resistance wrote an article in January of this year that looks at some of the money flow that supports the AGW movement.  It shows how some of the supporters  that claim to be above the fray  are plugging their companies that benefit from all the AGW hype. The blog sums up the story as follows:

The environmental orthodoxy is a tangled web of corporate interests, policy-makers, -movers and -shakers, academics, NGO’s and activists – all pushing in the same direction. Which would be just fine if the idea had been tested democratically. But it hasn’t. We’ve said it many times… environmentalism has not risen to prominence through its own energies: it has not developed from a mass movement; it isn’t representative of popular interests. It is useful only to various organisations that have otherwise struggled to justify themselves over the last few decades. The political parties have bought it. Various ‘radical’ organisations have bought it. Large sections of the media have bought it. Academic departments and funding agencies have bought it. Little wonder that corporate interests have been able to jump upon the bandwagon and play their hearts out for personal financial gain.

To read the whole blog,   click here


SPPI Monthly CO2 Report

The June  SPPI CO2 Report has been issued.  This  monthly report, edited by Christopher Monckton, is the best place to find all of the usual “markers” of the state of global climate change.  You will find the latest charts for atmospheric temperature, ocean temperature, atmospheric CO2 levels,  sea level, Arctic and Antarctic ice extent, solar activity, and more.  In addition it has informative discussions of CO2 induced acidification of the oceans, why the computers programs overstate future global temperatures, etc.  

It is evident from these charts that global warming continues to be global cooling.   To look at this report click here


Ocean Heat Content

The AGWs are taking much more interest in ocean heat content, it seems, now that the global atmospheric temperature continues to decline.  Logically,  ocean heat content is a more rational measure of global warming.

Measurement of ocean temperature has been limited to surface measurements, primarily.  But the recent deployment of the ARGO Buoys should allow the determination of ocean heat content with an accuracy previously not possible.  By the end of 2003 over 3000 buoys were dispersed in the oceans around the world. The buoys measure ocean temperature and salinity.  They descend to 2000 meters and then rise to the surface.  Once on the surface they transmit the salinity and temperature data to satellites.  Simultaneously the satellite pinpoints the location of the buoy.  The results to date show a slight cooling of the Earth’s oceans.  The following chart is taken from the data provided by the international group that manages the ARGO program.

nino3_4_atlasTo learn more about the ARGO program see

But getting back to ocean heat content, a recent entry by William DiPuccio  in Roger Pilke, Sr.’s  blog, “Climate Science” discusses ocean heat content.   Highlighted are some of his thoughts about ocean heat content versus air temperature a metric:

“Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis?”   William DiPuccio

Despite a consensus among scientists on the use of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW, near-surface air temperature (referred to as “surface temperature”) is generally employed to gauge global warming.  The media and popular culture have certainly equated the two.  But this equation is not simply the product of a naïve misunderstanding.  NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), directed by James Hansen, and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change, have consistently promoted the use of surface temperature as a metric for global warming.  The highly publicized, monthly global surface temperature has become an icon of the AGW projections made by the IPCC.

However, use of surface air temperature as a metric has weak scientific support, except, perhaps, on a multi-decadal or century time-scale.  Surface temperature may not register the accumulation of heat in the climate system from year to year.  Heat sinks with high specific heat (like water and ice) can absorb (and radiate) vast amounts of heat.  Consequently the oceans and the cryosphere can significantly offset atmospheric temperature by heat transfer creating long time lags in surface temperature response time.  Moreover, heat is continually being transported in the atmosphere between the poles and the equator.  This reshuffling can create fluctuations in average global temperature caused, in part, by changes in cloud cover and water vapor, both of which can alter the earth’s radiative balance.

Hype generated by scientists and institutions over short-term changes in global temperature (up or down) has diverted us from the real issue:  heat accumulation.  Heat is not the same as temperature.  Two liters of boiling water contain twice as much heat as one liter of boiling water even though the water in both vessels is the same temperature.  The larger container has more thermal mass which means it takes longer to heat and cool.

Temperature measures the average kinetic energy of molecular motion at a specific point.  But it does not measure the total kinetic energy of all the molecules in a substance.  In the example above, there is twice as much heat in 2 liters of boiling water because there is twice as much kinetic energy.  On average, the molecules in both vessels are moving at the same speed, but the larger container has twice as many molecules.

Water is a more appropriate metric for heat accumulation than air because of its ability to store heat.  For this reason, it is also a more robust metric for assessing global warming and cooling.  Seawater has a much higher mass than air (1030 kg/m3 vs. 1.20 kg/m3at 20ºC), and a higher specific heat (4.18 kJ/kg/°C vs. 1.01 kJ/kg/°C for air at 23°C and 41% humidity).  One kilogram of water can retain 4.18x the heat of an equivalent mass of air.  This amounts to a thermal mass which is nearly 3558x that of air per unit volume.

Some level of time lag will enter into the direction, up or down, that will be evidenced in ocean temperatures.  Thus it would seem likely that now that the temperatures are on the decline, it might be years before any change in direction will be seen.

To read all of DiPuccio’s entry click here

For more on this ocean heat content

Ocean Heat Content-EPA Uses Computer Predictions Rather Than Observed Data


Satellite Temps for June 09

The University of Alabama-Huntsville manages a satellite system that measures global temperature.  These measurements are much better than the land based measurements because the satellites cover more of the Earth’s surface and are not subject to the typical errors that plague land based measurements systems. The satellite system has been in operations since 1979.

The oceans represent about 3/4ths of the Earth surface.   The land based do have some  ocean temperature  measurements  but nothing like the satellite coverage.  The raw data from the  land based measurements are mostly readjusted by the managers of those systems.  This could be an invitation to make the  final numbers come out to satisfy your biases.  

The June 09 numbers show decline in the temperature anomaly.   It is consistent with the downward trend of global temperatures in this decade.  

To view the satellite temperature record view


Cosmic Rays and Climate

Enough of politics for a while. Lets look at climate science. Henrik Svensmark has postulated that cosmic rays provide a mechanism to form clouds and if these clouds are low clouds, they will result in cooling. The cosmic rays are valved in or kept out of our atmosphere by the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field which extends to form the interplanetary field. A strong field limits the cosmic rays and a weak field permits entry. Currently the Sun’s magnetic field is the lowest ever measured by our satellites. see

While it looks like Svensmark is correct,  there are those who disagree with his work.  A CERN team lead by Jasper Kirkby are planning on expanding the research into the formation of clouds by galactic cosmic rays.   (Cosmic rays are really not “rays” but are particles blasted out from exploding stars [supernova see ]).

Kirkby is a British experimental particle physicist with CERN in Geneva.  He says that the Sun and the Earth’s climate are interlinked.  But the mechanism is not fully understood.  His team hope to establish or refute the connection between cosmic rays and the Earth’s climate.

There are two exhibits, both well worth your time to examine.  The first is a video presentation Kirkby made that takes you through the evidence of Sun and Earth’s climate connection and the planed experiments to look at cosmic rays and climate. The video presentation is one hour long.  See it here.  The  charts he used for the video presentation are the second exhibit and can be seen here . The charts take less time and they are much easier to read than seen on the video.  But I suspect that your understanding of the Earth and Sun interconnection will not be very complete without Kirkby’s explanation.


DARK AGES REDUX-Cap and Trade Bill Details

Steve Spruiell and Kevin Williamson wrote a piece for National Review Online titled “A Garden of Piggish Delights”.   They have gone through the 1300 page Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill and have listed the top 50, main provisions in the bill.  As we know, no one who voted for (or against –hooray  them) it had read the bill when they voted.  So I suspect they might be somewhat surprised and enlightened if they read this summary.  And more to the point EMBARRASED!!!!

 As a teaser, the following are some of Spruiell and Williamson highlights:

  • Eighty-five % of the carbon permits will not be sold but rather given away to utility companies, etc..  The sale of these permits begins in earnest in about 10 years.
  • Some of the monies derived from the permit sales will go to build capacity to reduce  deforestation in developing countries.
  • Projects receiving grants from this legislation must implement Davis-Bacon union wage rules.
  • The farm state Representatives agreed to vote for this bill when agribusiness was exempted from Cap and Trade controls.
  • The bill directs the EPA to ignore the real environmental impact of ethanol and other biofuels.
  • And there are guarantees for loans to build ethanol pipelines.
  • Obama can enact tariffs on any country that fails to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions.   Think China, India, Brazil and Mexico when you read “any country”.    Remember what Smoot-Hawley  high tariffs did to the world economy during the 1930’s.
  • Utilities must supply 20% of their power from renewables by 2020.  Nuclear and Canadian hydro power generated electricity do not qualify as renewable.
  • The EPA is to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trucks, buses, boats, airplanes,  and other mobile sources. 

To read the whole thing,  click here