Monthly Archives: January 2010

SEC Wants Corporations to Explain How They are Alleviating Global Warming

First it was the EPA moving forward to set-up regulations for controlling CO2 emissions.  And now,  another Executive Branch Commission is planning to make another end run around Congress by setting up a standard that every corporation must meet . This standard will require the corporation to explain how they are going to alleviate global warming.  This was a proposal by the Security and Exchange Commision to be discussed on Wednesday last  week.  Representatives Joe Barton and Greg Walden sent a letter to Chairman Shapiro asking for an explanation and rationale for this proposed rule.   They ask what statutory authority allows them to to this.  And as there is no Federal law on the subject of global warming, how does a corporation’s actions relate to  an investors safety and security?   So far  there is no response by the SEC, best I can determine. To read their full challenge to such rule making click here.


AGW Implodes-US Media Silent

In my  24 January blog, IPCC-The “fools gold” Standard?-UPDATED, I said that the US media were largely silent about the crumbling AGW theory.    The posting “Global warming science implodes overseas: American media silent”  in The American Thinker blog, explores the US media silence.   To read their posting, click here.

Its always nice to see confirmation.


IPCC-The “fools gold” Standard?-UPDATED

The Warmers say the IPCC climate report No. 4, is the “gold standard” for the global warming science and there can be no further argument. Now that report is suffering from two new revelation, which further damage its credibility.

In the past week, the IPCC found it necessary to disavow the glacier section of the report.  When issued in 2007,  the report said that the Himalayan glaciers would likely be completely  melted by 2035.  They were forced to admit that there was no scientific foundation for that  assertion.   And now we learn that the lead author of that section has this to say according to the Mailonline:

“Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”

That pretty much speaks for itself.  Read more of the Mailonline report here.

How many times have we heard from Al Gore, President Obama, Gordon Brown, Hugo Chavez, etc. about how global warming is causing natural disasters such as, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc.? Their proof  was the  2007 IPCC report.

The support for this assertion was a not peer-reviewed, unpublished paper.  From the Timesonline:

“The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC’s 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s”.

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: “One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend.”

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

To read more of the Timesonline report click here.

So the “gold standard “ seems to be the “fools gold standard”.

It has long been known that anything that conflicted with the theory of man-made global warming was never seriously considered by the authors of the IPCC report. Further use of less than scientifically veted but supportive to the AGW theory were used.  However, the media, in a show of complicity, never investigated.

UPDATE 01/25/10

Late yesterday, WattsUpWithThat posted “The scandal deepens–IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers.”  Watts says:

“Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.  A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day of looking.


Note that the discoveries of the IPCC deceptions are coming from the British Media and NOT the American Media.  At my local barbershop, a home of skeptism,  most have never heard of Climategate as there is only minimal reporting by our media.  Not that there are not many ripe targets for investigation such as our equivalents of the British CRU— The GISS and NOAA.


Northern Lights

When I was growing up in South Dakota,  the Northern lights fascinated me.

But now I live in the mid-Atlantic region and these lights are really a rarity. One has to rely on photos to see the beauty of these light displays. Thanks to the pick up of the Sun’s activity,  January is begining to have excellent displays of these lights. Take a pause from the daily discussion of AGW and look at some photos, from the far north, of the light displays.

To see them click here and page down to see the photos.


More on IPCC “Science” and UN “Ethics”

Two stories recently in the news impinge on one another. The first story is about the UN’s 2007 IPCC report which is the bible of the AGW movement and the other is about the Chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.

First.  The latest IPCC Climate Change Report, issued in 2007, stated that glaciers were melting rapidly and that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.  This astounding statement was viewed as a major determination by the IPCC but now we know that it was false.  From a report in the the following details how this got into the IPCC report:

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Timesonline further adds:

The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key data.

To read more click here.

The second story  is about Dr Pachauri  who is under scrutiny regarding his finances and the appearance that he may be using the IPCC dire reports to steer business to his company.  The Glacier story is a new lead. According to a posting by Roger Pielke, jr., Dr. Pachauri, Director of TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute) hired Syed Hasnain after the IPCC published the 2007 report.   Then Pachauri and Hasnain sought to raise funds for TERI to study Himalayan glaciers.   They, at least Hasnain, knew that the assertion in the IPCC report were unproven.   As Pielke adds:

Of course, neither Dr. Pachauri nor Dr. Hasnain ever said anything about the error when it was receiving worldwide attention (as being true) in 2007 and 2008, nor did they raise any issues with the IPCC citing non-peer reviewed work (which is a systemic problem). They did however use the IPCC and its false claims as justification in support of fund raising for their own home institution. At no point was any of this disclosed.

To read all of Pielke’s report  click here

Himalayan Glacier  Image  from


Rolling Stone Savages Skeptics

If you have read the  latest Rolling Stone magazine rant about global warming skeptics,  you probably are wondering how the two guys that wrote the article got that stupid.  The only way I could get my mind around their article was to think of the Salem witch trials.   As you know,  the Puritans believed that certain people were witches and it was the Puritan’s religious duty to rid them from the community.  So,  they hanged and crushed some of those convicted of being witches.

Well, the Rolling Stone belongs to another extreme religious group,  the church of  Anthropogenic Global Warming.  The witches they see are those that do not conform to their view and they do a “public hanging” of the people they believe are the worst of the skeptics.   The “dirt” they dig up on each person, would be  laughable,  if it weren’t so serious.

So far, Senator Inhofe of Ok had the funniest remark about this rant.  Inhofe was the seventh person discussed and he objected saying he was angry that they seemed to rank him no.  7 because he felt he deserved to be no. 1.

Anyway the Climate Skeptic blog has a brief summary of the article and some good advice for we skeptics going forward.   To read that blog , click here.


The Weakness of the AGW Theory–Part 3, The Great Global Warming Hoax

Physicist Jim Peden, in late 2007 wrote an article explaining why the theory of     Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), aka man-made global warming is a hoax.  The article achieved wide readership because Peden explains the science behind his assertion in a way that one need not be a physicist to understand it. The entire article is worth reading, but I think where he describes how CO2 absorbs the long wave IR being emitted by the Earth and what CO2’s impact is on the greenhouse effect are very well explained.  This starts at the “INTO THE LABORATORY, ITS TIME TO GET TO WORK.    And he finishes that section off with this statement:

“Now, you can sit back and give yourself a pat on the back, because you now know more pure physics of the atmosphere than a lot of so-called “climate scientists”, and likely know more than almost all of the non-scientist Popular Journalists and other writers churning out panic-stricken books and newspaper articles on the subject. And for sure, you now know a lot more than Al Gore.”

To read this posting by Jim Peden,  click here

For related postings see
Weakness of the AGW Theory –Part 2, Fact-based Climate Debate

Weakness of the AGW Theory


Weakness of the AGW Theory –Part 2, Fact-based Climate Debate

Dr Lee Gerhard,  retired Geologist,  believes it is crucial:

“..that scientists are factually accurate when they speak out,  that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas.”

He says there are things we know and they are:

• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.

• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.

• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.

• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.

• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

He also says we know a lot about Earth’s temperature changes:

• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.

• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.

• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.

• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.

• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.

• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.

• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years — extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.

• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.

• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.

Gerhard says that:

“The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.”

He concludes saying:

“I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics.”

To read all of Dr Gerhard’s comments  click here

to read more about the weakness of the AGW theory  click here and here


Ocean Heat Content – EPA Uses Computer Projections Rather Than Observed Data

Despite the fact that observed ocean heat content has not increased since 2002,  the EPA used computer projected ocean heat content to justify their Greenhouse Gas Finding.

The EPA published their response to comments in their Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Finding for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act.  The comments were solicited by the EPA as part as their “deliberation” .  By now you probably know that the  EPA found that greenhouse gases are a threat saying:

Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases–carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)–in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

With regard to comments about ocean heat content,   the EPA responded with this:

Several commenters (3187.4, 7031, 9877) argue that the recent plateau in ocean heat content (from 2003 to 2008) suggests anthropogenic warming is not occurring because it indicates that the climate system is not accumulating heat. The lack of heat accumulation, they state, demonstrates a failure of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to account for natural climate variability, especially as it relates to ocean cycles. They claim that the recent trends in ocean heat content suggest the Earth’s energy budget is not out of balance owing to GHGs, in contrast to the findings of Hansen et al. (2005).

Though the commenters refer to a recent plateau in ocean heat content, there are published papers which find the opposite, as mentioned in Volume 2 of the Response to Comments document. In fact, this work (von Schuckmann et al., 2009) indicates the global ocean accumulated (between the surface and 2,000 meter depth) 0.77 (plus or minus 0.11) watts per square meter of heat between 2003 and 2008, which is roughly consistent with the 0.86 (plus or minus 0.12) watts per square meter of heat (between the surface and 750 meter depth) accumulated between 1993 and 2003 as documented in Willis et al. (2004); and Hansen et al. (2005). These studies suggest the ocean has and continues to accumulate heat, contributing to an overall imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget, as further documented in two other recent studies by Trenberth et al. (2009) analyzing the period March 2000 to May 2004 and Murphy et al. (2009) (analyzing the period 1950–2004).

We have added the following text on this topic to Section 4(f) of the final TSD on this topic:

The thermal expansion of sea water is an indicator of increasing ocean heat content. Ocean heat content is also a critical variable for detecting the effects of the observed increase in GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere and for resolving the Earth’s overall energy balance (Bindoff et al., 2007). For the period 1955 to 2005, Bindoff et al. (2007) analyze multiple time series of ocean heat content and find an overall increase, while noting interannual and inter-decadal variations. NOAA’s report State of the Climate in 2008 (Peterson and Baringer, 2009), which incorporates data through 2008, finds “large” increases in global ocean heat content since the 1950s and notes that over the last several years, ocean heat content has reached consistently higher values than for all prior times in the record.

Thus, the TSD’s summary of the current state of the science on ocean heat content as reflected in the underlying assessment literature is reasonable and sound.

Roger Pielke, Sr, responds to the EPA by noting that the observed temperatures show no increase in ocean heat content and that the EPA’s relied on  Jim Hansen’s computer predictions of ocean heat content to arrive at their conclusions.

The observed accumulation of heat content using the baseline of  end of year 2002 is as follows


Year Joules
2003 0
2004 0
2005 0
2006 0
2007 0
2008 0
2009  (estimated) 0


Year 10^22 Joules
2003 0.98
2004 1.96
2005 2.94
2006 3.92
2007 4.90
2008 5.88
2009 6.86
2010 7.84
2011 8.82
2012 9.80

(The end of year 2002 as a baseline is significant in that 3000 Argo Buoy were in place in 2003 measuring ocean temperature and salinity.)

Pielke points out that :

Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should be approximately 6.86 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2009 than were present at the beginning of 2003.

For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 9.8 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next three years. This requires a heating rate over the next 3 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean of 3.27* 10**22 Joules per year, which corresponds to a radiative imbalance of ~+2.0 Watts per square meter.

Pielke adds that:

The EPA failed to discuss this discrepancy between observations and the model predictions. Despite what they wrote, the climate system, as represented by the upper ocean heat content, has not been accumulating heat over the last 6 years or so.

To read all of Pielke’s posting ,   click here

for other postings on ocean heat content

Ocean Heat Content


AGW-Where Is The Predicted Hot Spot?

The following posting by JoNova stands on its own.

The Missing Hotspot

The ‘Hotspot’ is crucial to the climate debate.

If greenhouses gases are warming the planet, that warming will happen first in the cold blob of air 8-12 km above the tropics. It’s freezing cold up there, but it ought to be slightly less freezing cold thanks to greenhouse gases. All 20-odd climate models predict warming there first—it’s the fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming, as opposed to warming by some other cause, like solar magnetic effects, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, or ozone depletion etc etc.

Look at A above, the greenhouse gas fingerprint is markedly different from the rest and dominates the overall predicted pattern in graph F. The big problem for the believers of AGW is that years of radiosonde measurements can’t find any warming, as shown in part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 of the US CCSP 2006 report


(A) Predicted changes 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000;

(B) Hadley Radiosonde record: Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP,, Chapter 5, p116, recorded change/decade, Hadley Centre weather balloons 1979-1999, p. 116 , fig. 5.7E, from Thorne et al., 2005.

Is there any way the missing hot-spot doesn’t fatally kill the greenhouse theory?

Perhaps we’re looking in the wrong spot and the hot-spot is lurking somewhere else?

If we are, that gets us right back to square one. The theory of greenhouse gas warming depends on finding a hotter spot of air above the equator… if that hot spot is somewhere else, the greenhouse theory itself collapses in a heap. It means either the greenhouse effect is not causing much of the recent warming, or the greenhouse theory is just plain wrong. AGW supporters are not asking this question because they can’t win either way.

Possibly we just can’t measure the air temperatures accurately enough to find the hot-spot?

Maybe, but we’ve been recording temperatures up there repeatedly for decades, and it’s not that the hot-spot is weak—it’s absent. There is no sign at all.

AGW says: Santer and Sherwood have found the missing hot spot.

Skeptics say: Santer uses statistics to show that the hot spot might be hidden under the noise. He hasn’t found any sign of warming–just the sign of fog in the results. Sherwood ignores the thermometers altogether and uses wind gauges to tell us the temperature. (Who’d a thought?!)

Full original blog entry here