Category Archives: IPCC

Will There Be Global Famine in 2050?

Posted on August 28, 2011 | Leave a comment

A report authored by Dr. Craig Idso titled “Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050” asks the question ”Will we produce enough to adequately feed the world?” Idso says that researchers are estimating that global food production must increase by 70 to 100% to adequately feed 9 billion people in 2050.

Idso deals with  this question focusing on the world and also subgroups such as Europe, North America, Africa, etc. To do this, he compares forecast crop growth resulting from higher atmospheric CO2 and improved agricultural technology against the increased demand for food resulting from forecast population growth.

The data used by Idso is sourced from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to quantify the food crops, the UN’s IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC FAR) for an estimate of the atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2050 and the UN’s medium variant population projections for the year 2050.    Additionally he used the Plant Growth Database of CO2 Science to define the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on plant growth.  Finally he works out food production estimates that will come due to the “Techno-intel effect”.  This “effect” is the advancement in agricultural technology and scientific research that expands our knowledge or intelligence based—e.g., the Green Revolution/GM seed work, etc.

Crops

The FAO database lists 169 crops.  Idso uses 45 of those crops in his work as these 45 crops account for 95% of the world food production.  To provide greater understanding, tabled below are the top 5 crops that together provide more than 55% of the world crop food sources.

Specific Crop % Of Total Production
Sugar Cane 21.240
Maize (corn) 10.283
Rice, paddy 9.441
Wheat 9.372
Potatoes 4.871

              FAO Data Base for World Food Production 2009.

                                               Top 5 Crops

The Specific crops vary in their ranking from subgroup to subgroup.

Population

The UN provides the forecast 2050 world population of nominally 9 billion.  Idso adds:

Another concern with respect to future population is whether or not the use of medium variant data from the United Nations is too conservative. Indeed, the medium variant population estimate for the year 2050 has recently been revised upward from 8.9 to 9.2 billion persons. A more realistic estimate of future population may be to use the constant fertility variant, which is weighted more heavily on current population trends and which foresees a global population of 11 billion in 2050.

Atmospheric CO2

Based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s best median estimate of this number (derived from the A1B scenario, ISAMS, in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, see http://www.ipcc-data.org/ancilliary/tar-isam.txt), we find that we could expect an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of 145 ppm between 2009 and 2050.

Enhanced Growth Via Greater Atmospheric CO2 Content

In my last posting I discussed the results of a vast number of trials done to quantify the results of increased atmospheric CO2 content.  Click here to get more detail, but I have lifted a table from that posting which gives the reader a feel for the enhanced growth that results from increased levels of atmospheric CO2.

PLANT No. OF STUDIES DRY WEIGHT INCREASE %(Arithmetic mean)
Corn 20 21.3
Rice 188 35.8
Soy Beans 179 46.5
Wheat 235 32.1
Sugar Cane 11 34

 Effect of Atmospheric CO2 Increased 300ppm Over Ambient

 

Techno-intel

Providing seeds that can adapt to growing condition or seeds imbued with resistance to fungus or insects is accomplished by techniques such as mutagenesis and genetic engineering.

Wiki says this about Norman Borlaug, considered the Father of the Green Revolution:

During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations.[4] These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation.[5] He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.

From Wiki: 

Genetically modified foods (GM foods or GMO foods) are foods derived from genetically modified organisms, (GMOs). Genetically modified organisms have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. These techniques are much more precise[1] than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change.

Idso estimates that the likely increase in food production from 2009 to 2050 will be about 51.5%. Idso assigns 34.5% to Techno-intel and the remaining 17% to CO2 aerial fertilization. Note that the 51.5% is substantially less than the 70 to 100% increase believed by many experts to be needed.

Conclusions

Idso tables the results for the World, the Regions and the Sub Regions.  The calculated food supply has two cases.  Case 1 assumes that the increase in food supply is due only to Techno-intel.  Case 2 assumes that the increase is a result of both Techno-intel AND CO2 aerial fertilization.

World food supplies in 2050 will not be secure in Case 1 nor in the enhanced case 2.  For the Regions, Europe has a secure food source in Case 1 as well as Case 2. This can be explained by the expectation that Europe is the only Region where the population declines.  Africa, Asia, North America, Oceania and South America do not have secure foods supplies in Case 1.  In Case 2, Africa, Asia and Oceania  still do not have food source security.   North America and South America get a “maybe” in Case 2 as regard their food security.

Idso sums it up this way:

It is clear from the results obtained above that a global food security crisis is indeed looming on the horizon. If population projections and estimates of the amounts of additional food needed to feed the rising population of the planet prove correct, humanity will still fall short of being able to adequately feed the 9.1 billion persons expected to be inhabiting the Earth in the year 2050, even utilizing all yield-enhancing benefits associated with technological and intelligence advancements plus the aerial fertilization effect of Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 content.

So what can be done to deal with the projected food production shortfall? Based on the results described above, there are only three possible avenues to achieving food security in the future: (1) greater gains must be achieved in the techno-intel sector than presently forecasted, (2) benefits from atmospheric CO2 enrichment must be increased, or (3) world population growth must be slowed to reach a lesser value by 2050.

Abstracting Dr. Idso’s report is a perilous undertaking.   The report is 43 pages and this posting is about one tenth that size.  Such reduction can introduce errors or poor assumptions that are not in the full report and can only be chalked-up to me.

Idso’s report  indicates that the world will be better served to have a goodly supply of atmospheric CO2 that can do aerial fertilization of the World’s food supply.  As a skeptic of the CO2 theory of run-away global warming, I can comfortably support the idea that atmospheric CO2 has more benefits than drawbacks.  Further, GM crops are a major benefit.   I like this comment by Borlaug regarding critics of his work:

“some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They’ve never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels…If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they’d be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things”.[54]

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Models, crop yields, Environment, Famine, IPCC, photosynthesis, United Nations

Solar Cycle 24 Continues to Under Perform the Early Projections.

Posted on August 16, 2011 | 2 comments

Cycle 24 Sunspots count continues to underperform early forecasts.   Chief forecaster, David Hathaway, Ph.D., Heliospheric Team Leader, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama has frequently revised his forecast of maximum monthly average Sunspot count.  A look at the lowering of the NASA forecast over the years:

Before I pile it too heavily on Dr. Hathaway, most of the experts were as wrong as he was.  One of the few that accurately forecast Cycle 24 was Dr. Lief Svalgaard of the Helioseismic and Magnetic team of Stanford’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO),   Svalgaard predicted 75 as the maximum number in 2004 and has since revised it downward to 72.

Show below is the Cycle 24 recorded Sunspot monthly average numbers through July 2011 versus the current NOAA forecast of 90.

Before you begin to question my grasp of consistency in numbers, please be aware that the Sunspot number is measured several different ways.   The folks in business recognize this and have put together a team to try to bring about uniformity.  One of the more obvious questions is —are we reading more sunspots now because we have much better optics?  The following abstract from this program lays out some of the problems.

The Sunspot number (SSN) record (1610-present) is the primary time sequence of solar and solar-terrestrial physics, with application to studies of the solar dynamo, space weather, and climate change. Contrary to common perception, and despite its importance, the international sunspot number (as well as the alternative widely-used group SSN) series is inhomogeneous and in need of calibration. We trace the evolution of the sunspot record and show that significant discontinuities arose in ~1885 (resulting in a ~50% step in the group SSN) and again when Waldmeier took over from Brunner in 1945 (~20% step in Zürich SSN). We follow Wolf and show how the daily range of geomagnetic activity can be used to maintain the sunspot calibration and use this technique to obtain a revised, homogeneous, and single sunspot series from 1835-2011.

Where do we go from here?

Find and Digitize as many 19thcentury geomagnetic hourly values as possible

Determine improved adjustment factors based on the above and on model of the ionosphere

Co-operate with agencies producing sunspot numbers to harmonize their efforts in order to produce an adjusted and accepted sunspot record that can form a firm basis for solar-terrestrial relations, e.g. reconstructions of solar activity important for climate and environmental changes

To learn more about sunspot counting click here.

As the magnetic fields are what drive sunspots, here is a current look at Sun’s north and south magnetic fields:

Chart Courtesy of Wilson Solar Observatory

It is obvious that Cycle 24 is different from the Cycles 21, 22 and 23 that precede it.   The magnetic field strength is much weaker and angle of approach to the X axis (0 microTesla line) is very much steeper than that of Cycle 24. Click here, here and here for further discussion of the magnetic field.

How about a look ahead to cycle 25 and beyond.  I don’t know enough to have much confidence in this forecast Ed Fix, but David Archibald seems to think it is viable.  Click here for more info:

The green line is the solar cycle record from 1914 to 2010, with alternate cycles reversed. Solar Cycles 19 to 23 are annotated. The red line is the model output, from which the lengths of individual solar cycles in the mid-21st Century can be calculated.

Mr. Fix has Cycle 25 duplicating the current Cycle 24.  Cycles 26,and 27 are about half again as large as 24 and 25. Even so his forecast for Cycles through 28 are all considerably less active than Cycles 18 through 23.  Does this mean an extended global cooling?

cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, Climate Models, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, sun and climate

AGW Computer “Fails” Resource

Posted on July 31, 2011 | Leave a comment

Following several brief comments about another AGW scientist owning up to the weakness of the computer models, is a site that lists failed AGW climate computer models projections.  Remember it is these computer projection upon which rests the entire rationale for the manmade global warming theory,

Kevin Trenberth is “Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research”.  Trenberth has been a lead author for IPCC Global Warming Reports. He is also one of the Climategate gang.  In one of the hacked emails he sent to his compatriots he said:   “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”  (My emphasis)  He later explained that what he really meant is that the globe is still heating up but nobody can figure out where the heat is going.  Recently Dr Spencer and Dr Braswell seem to have explained this.   See here for their paper On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance  Roy W. Spencer, and William D. Braswell.

So we are talking about a major leader in the AGW theory crowd.  He recently has published a paper in “Climate Research”.  In that paper according to CO2 Science:

…..(he) compares the projections of state-of-the-art climate models with what is known about the real world with respect to extreme meteorological events related to atmospheric moisture, such as precipitation and various types of storm systems, as well as subsequent extreme consequences such as droughts, floods and wind damage. So what does he find?

 The C3 blog  summarizes that paper as follows:

Specifically, Trenberth takes issue with the climate models’ inadequacies in regards to precipitation. Such as:

                  “…all models contain large errors in precipitation simulations, both in terms of mean fields and their annual cycle, as well as their characteristics: the intensity, frequency, and duration of precipitation…”

                  “…relates to poor depiction of transient tropical disturbances, including easterly waves, Madden-Julian Oscillations, tropical storms, and hurricanes…”

                  “…confidence in model results for changes in extremes is tempered by the large scatter among the extremes in modeling today’s climate, especially in the tropics and subtropics…”

                  “…it appears that many, perhaps all, global climate and numerical weather prediction models and even many high-resolution regional models have a premature onset of convection and overly frequent precipitation with insufficient intensity,…”

                  “…model-simulated precipitation “occurs prematurely and too often, and with insufficient intensity, resulting in recycling that is too large…”

                  “…a lifetime of moisture in the atmosphere that is too short, which affects runoff and soil moisture…”

                  and finally, he has a NSS moment…”major challenges remain to improve model simulations of the hydrological cycle.”

Ok we skeptic were pretty sure that was the case.  But remember that group still wants us to bet the future on their models.

I want to lead you  to a treasure trove of AGW computer model “Fails”.  If you click HERE you will get a listing of computer models failures.

Here are some of the recent titles:

NASA Research Reveals Antarctica Ice Sheet Melt Just A Fraction of Climate Model Predictions

New Research: Experts Determine German Flooding Has Not Increased From Global Warming As Predicted

IPCC Prediction That Global Warming Would Cause More Wildfires Proves To Be Wrong

Last Week Had The Global Warming Alarmists Admit To Zero Warming Since 1998, Now An Admission That Models Don’t Work

Since 1990, IPCC’s Climate Predictions Have Been Wrong – Billions Wasted On Worthless Fortunetelling

A Spectacular Failure: Latest HadCrut & NASA Temperatures Significantly Below IPCC Climate Model Predictions

Hansen’s Global Climate Model In Total Fail: Predicted Ocean Heat Goes Missing

Look at the other links that take you to more good information.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Models, ClimateGate, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Ocean Acidification, Ocean heat content, United Nations

Skeptics Ahead on Science but Lag on Politics/Media

Posted on July 30, 2011 | Leave a comment

The Skeptics are winning the science battle but are still running behind in the political /media arena.  What can we do to help?

SCIENCE

Scientists are abandoning the man-made global warming  (AGW) theory in increasing numbers.  They are recognizing the obvious:  The skeptic’s science is based upon observationally based science whereas the AGWers theory is based on computer projections.

Observationally Based Science versus Computer Projections

Amazingly, the AGWers will often say that the facts are wrong because their computer comes up with different answers.  This is most recently illustrated with respect to the recent reports on global sea level. From a WattsUpWithThat posting:

A few months ago a widely-publicized article by Houston and Dean was published in the Journal of Coastal Research (and on your site), noting that although sea-level is rising; the tide gauge data does not show any increased rate of rise (acceleration) for the 20th and early 21st centuries.  This augmented by a >).”>recent paper authored by an Australian scientist as well.

Houston and Dean (2011) considered only tide-gauge records with lengths greater than 60 years, noting that shorter record lengths are “corrupted” by decadal fluctuations.

Rahmstorf and Vermeer (RV) had previously reported on sea level change using their computer-aided program that provided different results of those of Houston and Dean.  RV attacked the Houston and Dean entry.  Houston and Dean responded to the RV criticism by saying:

RV link sea-level rise with temperature using a simple linear relationship with two free variables of opposite signs that allow them to “fit” any smooth data set. However, they are curve fitting, not modeling physics, so the approach cannot be used to predict future sea level.

A recent workshop of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2010) considered the semi-empirical approaches of Rahmstorf (2007), Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009), and others and concluded, “No physically-based information is contained in such models …” (p. 2) and “The physical basis for the large estimates from these semi-empirical models is therefore currently lacking” (p. 2). Other recent studies show slowing or reversal of the sea level.  See

The AGWers Are Getting Desperate

For some 12 years, global temperatures have not shown any discernable trend upward to match the increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2.   At last the AGWers know the reason, its volcanoes or it might be China’s coal based power plant emission.   Certainly we can be grateful that the computers have resolved (well sort of) this issue.  So coal based power plants actually make the global temperatures cooler and all along we have been told just the opposite.

For more information read this link and if you want a laugh read this link.

POLITICS AND THE MEDIA

The Need For an Informed Public

For the nearly 10 years that I have been actively involved in discussions and reporting on global warming, I have always believed that the science was on the skeptic’s side.   In a status review of global warming prepared for some State Senators in 2003, I stated that being right about the science would probably not be enough to win this struggle with the AGWers.  For example, the taxing and regulating authority that would stem from enacting Cap and Trade legislation will drive the politicians.   I think the beginning of the end of AGW driven legislation will take place when the public began experiencing pain of the resulting financial burden.   But are we going to be reduced to third-world status as a nation before we can turn the ship of state around?

How can we avoid this national  destruction on the altar of the watermelon (red on the outside/green in the inside)  movement?

First principle should be that the people who are going to be asked to pay for these green programs be completely informed of the consequences of the regulations or legislation being enacted.  This is not happening now.

LEGISLATION

Let’s remember that the House of Representatives in 2009 passed legislation for imposing Cap and Trade on fossil fuel use.  The bill was over a thousand pages long.  The Democrat leadership pushed this massive attempt to bring the nation’s energy under the control of the Government without anyone fully understanding what was in the bill.  The committee chairmen said they did not know!!!!!!   In an attempt to mollify the unhappy conservatives, they agreed to have the bill read.  So those clowns hired a speed-reader.  I believe that a legislative rule should be enforced that requires no bill can be voted upon without a minimum of a week’s worth of legislative sessions following proposed law being published unless a ¾ vote in favor of suspending the rule is passed.   This would not impose a significant burden upon the members.  The objective would be to raise their constituents’ understanding and the legislators should not be afraid of doing that.    Fortunately, as you know, the Senate failed to pass companion Cap and Trade legislation and thus it was never enacted.

REGULATION

Regulations for Cap and Trade are being written by the EPA.  Yes, the EPA is writing regulations for legislation that could not get approval in Congress.  Part of the blame for this are five  of the nine members of the Supreme Court.

  Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Despite the knowledge that this legislation could not get passed in Congress and despite the fact that CO2 was excluded from the Clear Air Act, the Supremes gave the EPA the authority to determine if CO2 were a threat and if so, to write regulations to control it.

The EPA used the 2007 IPCC Global Warming report as their  science basis.  The EPA  asked for comments on their study and then they ignored any response that said that AGW science was badly flawed.  People within the EPA that expressed doubt were told to be quiet.  The EPA found CO2 to be a threat and began writing regulations.  These regulations are vast and growing.

There is a little irony here in that the environmentalists want all sources of CO2 to be regulated.  The EPA does not want to do that because the enormity of the ensuing burden.   Every furnace exhausts CO2, every hospital, every mall,  almost everything that makes our nation go would have to be monitored and reported.  The regulation overload will quickly result in demands for changes.  In fact I believe the EPA worries that it would result in legislation taking CO2 out of the Clean Air Act again.

Here again, the straightforward thing would be for your representatives to inform you of what the impact on them will be.  Congress should limit the damage the Supreme Court and The Executive (EPA) Branches do when they usurp the Legislatures prerogatives,   by passing legislations that restores the balance of powers.

Any other suggestions?

THE MEDIA

We all value the freedom of the press as guaranteed in the US Constitution. However the media, by and large, is supportive of BIG GOVERNMENT versus more individual freedom and responsibility. So they practice a form of soft censorship themselves by only reporting one side of the story.   One would expect better of them.  Although their domination of “what is fit to print” has been somewhat weakened by the ubiquitous Internet, it still is the primary input of news and information for most of the citizens of the US.  If our citizens would do less American Idol and pay more attention to what the politicians are doing, it would have a salutary effect on the their personal well-being and the nation’s well-being.

Surely some part of their misguided reporting of climate science is because they are not trained scientifically.  They apparently are too lazy or too intimidated to try to research the issues.  A science reporter from a newspaper in my area has obviously no curiosity or no understanding of what a millimeter is.  He reported about the danger of calving Antarctic Ice that would raise sea level several millimeters per year.  Recently he did a fairly straightforward report on the transfer of State Climatologist title from one PhD to another.  The one surrendering the title is a notable skeptic and frequent co-author of papers with other notables such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.   At the end of the report about the transfer, the reporter took a cheap shot at the skeptic saying that the skeptic was know to be a member of a group that was part of another group that once received money from Exxon.  If the reporter had any level of curiosity he could find out that the most of Exxon’s grant money is for groups that are working on alternative energy.  If the reporter believes funding by an advocate of a particular position is wrong, then why not then report on monies granted by Greenpeace, of the World Wildlife Fund to AGW scientists and groups. Secondly, the grants of money by AGW groups swamp the piddling amount the skeptics receive.  These grants are governmental and NGOs supplied and they total into the billions.  See these reports for further information about the distribution of monies.Here & here & here.

One suggestion is that you keep up with the skeptic blogs like WUWT, Ice Cap, Climate Depot, Heartland, Climate Audit, Science, etc and I hope, Climate Change Sanity and spread the information widely.

Also write to the newspapers.  Tell them when they are off base.  Suggest things they should look into.

If you have some thoughts on all of this, let me know.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, cap and trade, Climate Models, Energy Development, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, United Nations

Climate Models Not Ready For Prime Time

Posted on June 28, 2011 | Leave a comment

The preceding posting, Climate Modelers are Wizard of Oz’s Spawn,  noted that the backcasting used to prove the models,  was not scientifically viable/honest. I worked in systems operations in manufacturing facilities where solutions to problems were proposed and then tested to see if they worked in the real world.   The technique of  backcasting to fit an experience curve has been around for a long time. When the model seemed to match history, the  “solution”  resulting from that model was employed going forward.  Sometimes it worked and sometimes it did not work. In the real world, you have to test, test  and retest your premises to assess the confidence of the rightness of the solution.  The concept of proving your solutions is not the standard in the science of global warming climate modeling as far as I can tell.  And my view is that the global climate dynamic is vastly greater that any of the problems we were solving in the operating facilities, thus the likelihood of obtaining a high degree of certainty is problematic.

Lets look at a summary of a recent posting that lists 10 issues that demonstrates that the models are not ready for prime time. This is from The Hockey Schtick blog where more detail is provided in that posting and can be read by clicking here.

1,            IPCC admits climate models have not been verified by empirical observations to assess confidence

2            IPCC admits it is not clear about which tests are critical to verify and assess confidence in the models.

3            Of 16 identified climate forcings, IPCC admits only two have a high level of understanding. Most of the others are said to have a low level of understanding.

4            Of the two identified as having high level of understanding (greenhouse gases and positive feedback) they are actually not well understood with empirical satellite data showing sensitivity to doubling CO2 with feedback is only about 0.7°C which is a factor of 4 less than IPCC climate models.

5            Climate models falsely assume “back-radiation” from greenhouse gases can heat the oceans. In fact IR radiation can only penetrate the surface a few microns with all the energy used  in the phase change of evaporation–which in fact cools the oceans.

6            UV radiation is capable of penetrating the ocean to a depth of several meters. The IPCC models ignore UV.

7            IPCC is not certain whether clouds have a net cooling or warming effect even though it is shown empirically that clouds are many times more important than greenhouse gases.

8            Ocean oscillation can have huge effects on climate and these are not incorporated into the models.

9            The traditional climate models fail to properly reconstruct the correct amplitude of climate oscillations that have clear solar/astronomical signature.

10            Climate models continue to greatly exaggerate sensitivity to CO2 by 67%. Despite the climate modeler having admitted this, they are unwilling or unable to tweak the models to match observed temperatures.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Models, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, United Nations

Joanne Nova’s Guide to the Skeptic’s World.

Posted on May 13, 2011 | 1 comment

Many in our country believe in the theory of man-made global warming.  They are busy with their own lives and problems and don’t have time to get informed to make their own judgment.   Others have just left school, high school or college, where the “educators”—many ill informed—have been preaching the theory to them.   Moreover, they often believe this because the media really only prints articles which are supportive of that theory

Yet the tide is turning against those who want us to believe that we must act quickly to prevent a global catastrophe.   How is it possible then, that in the face of the media barrage, and the educators, more people are becoming skeptical of what they are being told?

One reason, besides our citizen’s inherent common sense, is the internet’s unpaid (most of them anyway) cadre of skeptics that are providing factual discussions on the theory.  This information allows them to look at both sides of the issue.    One of the very best is Joanne Nova—A brilliant and prolific writer.

Nova has a posting “New Here? The “ten second” guide to the world of skeptics.”  I guess she put quotation marks around ten seconds, cause it will take you longer than that to read through the posting .  But I can’t think of anything that will get you up to speed regarding  most of the issues around the theory of man-made global warming faster or more comprehensively.

She tells you who is outspending Big Oil and by how much.

She illustrates why the banking community is so gung ho about the theory.

She points out how unscientific  the “scientific” underpinnings of the theory are.

She discusses climate history.

Etc.

Her posting is full of links that support her position.  If you don’t read them on the first time through the posting,  do it  at the time of your  second or third reading .

After that, you will be better able to navigate the murky waters of the man-made global warming theory and dig deeper into the science of this issue.  I bet you will come down on the side of the skeptics as your knowledge matures.

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Energy Development, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, United Nations

SOLAR CYCLE 24–A Game Changer?

Posted on May 10, 2011 | 3 comments

The current solar cycle 24 might be a game changer in the global climate debate.   It is showing early signs of reaching the solar Maximum in two short years.  Solar Maximums on average occur some 5 to 6 years in to a typical 11-year cycle.

The Sun has a cycle of about 11 years from minimum to maximum and back to minimum magnetic activity.  This cycle can be observed by the numbers of sunspots formed on the surface of the Sun.  During a cycle, the sunspot numbers increase, flares are common and coronal mass ejections occur until the Sun’s polarity “flips”.   This usually is the point at which the so-called solar maximum is reached. The activity on the Sun begins to decrease.  The cycle eventually reaches a point where very few sunspots are observed.  This is the completion of a cycle.

The chart below shows the magnetic fields of several previous solar cycles and the current cycle 24.  The North polar field is nearing the zero on its way to swapping sides with the south polar field.  Note, also, that the magnitude of cycle 24’s field is not as large as the previous cycles.

Chart Source:   http//wso.stanford.edu

Cycle 24 has been a maverick.  Initially the solar cycle gurus said it would perform about the same as the previous two cycles—22 and 23.  However it did not seem to want to begin and when it did, it has under preformed expectations so significantly that the performance forecast has had to be lowered many times.   Cycle 24 has more in common with cycles of years ago that also exhibited reduced solar activity.  These cycles coincided with global cooling.

Galileo began counting sunspots in 1610.  Daily counting began  1749.   From 1645 to 1715, there were very few sunspots.  This period is known as the Maunder Minimum.   Few sunspots were visible during the period from 1790 until 1830. This period is known as the Dalton Minimum. Corresponding to the period of time that included the Maunder and the Dalton Minimums, the Earths climate was comparatively cool.  The climatic period, know as the “Little Ice Age” lasted from 1450 until 1820.  The chart below shows correlation between sunspots and the Minimums.

  (The chart shows non-systematically collected  sunspot numbers in red. Systematically collected observation spots are in blue.)
Chart courtesy of Robert A Rohde for Global Warming Art

Here is the current plot of sunspot count for cycle 24.   Also note how low the forecast of peak sunspot activity is compared to the previous cycle. Click Chart for clarity.

The “predicted values”  would indicate that the cycle 24 maximum will occur in 2013.   After a big jump in March,  the April count is heading down and so far the May sunspot count is rather low.

So, solar activity for cycle 24 is quite low compared to recent cycles.    But can we be sure that cycle 24 wont become very active?  No we can’t.  Can we be sure that if cycle 24 is short (less than 11 years) the climate will cool off?  No we can’t.    What we can say is that low solar activity appears to correlate with a cooler climate.

Why would a less active Sun result in lower global temperature?  The amount of radiation from the Sun to Earth does not vary much year to year.  No one knows for certain if the variation is enough to raise or lower global temperatures.  The Sun’s magnetic field weakens when the Sun is less active. Some theorize that this lets in cosmic rays and that these rays form low altitude clouds.  Low altitude clouds do lower the Earth’s temperature.  My philosophy is:  Even though the exact mechanism linking the Sun and global change has not been definitely established,  it is kind of like gravity–it is obvious.  If cycle 24 continues on its current track, we may see more confirmation that low activity correlates with cooler weather.  We will have to wait for several years to know.  Stay tuned.

cbdakota

3 Comments

Posted in AGW, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Radiation, sun and climate

10 Major Failures of the Model Based Virtual World View of Climate.

Posted on March 31, 2011 | Leave a comment

Joseph D’Aleo has developed a list of the “Ten Major Failures of So-Called Consensus Science”.  To develop this list, he analyzed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) based science.   Then he focuses on “how actual data compares to the consensus science, model based virtual world view of climate”

His ten issues are:

1. Warming is said to be unprecedented and accelerating. It is neither.

2. Global warming is not GLOBAL

3. Winters would grow increasingly warm

4. The entire Northern Hemisphere would experience less snow and snowcover

5. The arctic oscillation (AO) would become increasingly positive, aiding in the warming

6. Global warming would lead to a permanent or semi-permanent El Nino

7. Atmosphere will warm faster than surface (because that is where the heat trapping gases are).

8. Record highs and heat waves are increasing

9. Sea levels are rising at an increasing, alarming rate

10. Droughts and floods will worsen.

There are many other issues, he notes, but his concentration is on the “major findings, assessments or model predictions from the IPCC and other national climate centers and NGOs….”

The listing of the ten above are rather sketchy, but he provides convincing evidence of his convictions which you can access by clicking on the “See the analysis part 1 and part 2” at the bottom of  his posting which is accessible by clicking here.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Models, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC

Strip EPA of Carbon Regulation Authority

Posted on March 30, 2011 | Leave a comment

This week, when Harry Reid opened a small business bill to amendments, Mitch McConnell introduced a rider that would strip the EPA of its ability to regulate carbon.  It is considered possible that enough Democrat Senators will ally with the Republicans Senators to see that this amendment will pass. The vote is schedule this week and may happen tomorrow.

You all probably know that the Clean Air Act did not specify CO2 as pollutant but the Supreme Court after hearing arguments in Massachusetts vs. EPA ruled that if the EPA studied the issue and concluded that CO2 was a hazard, they could regulate CO2.   The Legislative branch of the Federal government was unable to pass legislation to regulate CO2, so the Supreme Court in a gesture too often seen, chose to step outside of their boundaries and in a 5 to 4 vote took on the legislative role which they do not have the justification to do.  In effect the Supremes passed Cap and Trade legislation, which has routinely been defeated in the Senate.  And worse, gave the Executive Branch carte blanche to write the regulations.

The Wall Street Journal’s posting -The Senate EPA Showdown,on this topic says:

But a vote for the McConnell amendment, which would permanently bar the EPA from regulating carbon unless Congress passed new legislation, is justified on democratic prerogatives alone. Whatever one’s views of Massachusetts v. EPA or climate science, no elected representative has ever voted on an EPA plan that has often involved the unilateral redrafting of plain-letter law.

The WSJ posting adds that the potential Democrat Senators that are leaning toward supporting the McConnell amendment are:

Democrats to watch will be Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Tom Carper (Delaware), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Jim Webb (Virginia), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) and John Rockefeller and Joe Manchin (West Virginia). All of them have been publicly critical of the EPA, and, not incidentally, most of them face a tough re-election.

The WSJ adds:

The McConnell amendment is one of the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the Senate docket in years. If Mr. Obama is intent on defending the EPA’s regulatory assault, then the least Senate Democrats can do is force him to defend his choices himself.

Get in touch with your Senator and urge he/she to vote for growth and job creation by joining the Republicans to pass the McConnell amendment.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, cap and trade, Energy Development, IPCC

BBC SCIENCE PROPAGANDA

Posted on January 30, 2011 | Leave a comment

Propelled by the Climategate email scandal, cooling global temperatures, total failure of the Copenhagen climate conference, many false and otherwise erroneous reports in the IPCC 4th report on Climate Change, etc. the public is becoming aware of the bill of goods that has been feed to them in recent years by the mainstream media, Al Gore, and politicians of all stripes who want to tax and regulate you. Polls show waning  support for draconian taxes and regulation  in order to cut fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

This past week, the BBC aired a program they produced titled “Science Under Attack”.   The objective of the program was to bolster the man-made global warming theory (AGW).

So how good was the BBC’s “Science Under Attack”?

A desperate and sleazy program according to Christopher Booker as told in his posting “How BBC warmists abuse the science”:

The formula the BBC uses in its forlorn attempts to counterattack has been familiar ever since its 2008 series Climate Wars. First, a presenter with some scientific credentials comes on, apparently to look impartially at the evidence. Supporters of the cause are allowed to put their case without challenge. Hours of film of climate-change “deniers” are cherrypicked for soundbites that can be shown, out of context, to make them look ridiculous. The presenter can then conclude that the “deniers” are a tiny handful of eccentrics standing out against an overwhelming scientific “consensus”.

The scientist picked to front the progamme was Sir Paul Nurse, a Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, now President of the Royal Society (which has been promoting warmist orthodoxy even longer than the BBC). The cue to justify the programme’s title was all the criticism which greeted those Climategate emails leaked from Sir Paul’s old university, East Anglia, showing how scientists had been manipulating their data to support the claim that temperatures have recently risen to unprecedented levels.

One of the two “deniers” chosen to be stitched up, in classic BBC fashion, was the Telegraph’s James Delingpole. He has spoken for his own experience on our website. Still worse, however, was the treatment of Professor Fred Singer, the distinguished 86-year-old atmospheric physicist who set up the satellite system for the US National Weather Bureau. We saw Nurse cosying up to Singer in a coffee house, then a brief clip of the professor explaining how a particular stalagmite study had shown temperature fluctuations correlating much more neatly with solar activity than with levels of CO2. This snippet enabled Nurse to imply that Singer’s scepticism is based on one tiny local example, whereas real scientists look at the overall big picture. No mention of the 800-page report edited by Singer in which dozens of expert scientists challenge the CO2 orthodoxy from every angle.

For those that attend to the Climate Change Sanity postings routinely  (see) will instantly spot how poor the programming was and how little about the subject, Sir Paul Nurse knows when your read the following Booker comments:

The most telling moment, however, came in an interview between Nurse and a computer-modelling scientist from Nasa, presented as a general climate expert although he is only a specialist in ice studies. Asked to quantify the relative contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere by human and natural causes, his seemingly devastating reply was that 7 gigatons (billion tons) are emitted each year by human activity while only 1 gigaton comes from natural sources such as the oceans. This was so much the message they wanted that Nurse invited him to confirm that human emissions are seven times greater than those from all natural sources.

This was mind-boggling. It is generally agreed that the 7 billion tonnes of CO2 due to human activity represent just over 3 per cent of the total emitted. That given off by natural sources, such as the oceans, is vastly greater than this, more than 96 per cent of the total. One may argue about the “carbon cycle” and how much CO2 the oceans and plants reabsorb. But, as baldly stated, the point was simply a grotesque misrepresentation, serving, like many of the programme’s other assertions, only to give viewers a wholly misleading impression.

You can read James Delingpoles discussion of the Nurse “gotcha interview” here.

For 10 years Peter Sissons was the BBC evening news anchor.   In his recently published memoirs, he says:

“The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent”.

The BBC and the Warmists desperation in producing a program like this is palpable and it argues strongly that the BBC has lost its integrity.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, cap and trade, Climate Models, ClimateGate, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, sun and climate, United Nations