Blog: Scientist confesses he made up polar bear population estimates

This link will take you to one of the more illuminating articles of the year concerning the global warming issue. The message is that data is fabricated to allow access to the billions of dollars available for climate reasearch. This takes me back to the mid 1970’s when global cooling was the theme. (It now seems that was the correct theme as long term tree ring analysis shows a 2000 year cooling trend!!) I read that when the warming theory arose, it was because scientists were not able to make any money on cooling, so they wanted to try warming.
The competing theories were, for cooling, that particulates in the air blocked sunlight causing cooling, and, for warming, CO2 in the air trapped heat causing warming` From there, the battle was launched with the warmist faction prevailing. The image of drowning polar bears won over the polar bears are colder arguments. Of course, people would not buy the colder argument, although they did buy the argument that polar bears, that can swim fifty miles or more, were drowning. Ignorance is a large part of the warmist program. It is like Professor Gruber describing Democratic voters as ignorant, and these are the same people.
This ignorance allows warmists to deny the fact of no warming for 20 years by convincing themselves that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. Just think about that for a ininute. A thermal unit of heat trapped by co2 in the atmosphere, dives into the ocean and moves down (even though heat rises) several thousand feet to “hide.”  Of course, this violates several of the laws of thermodynamics but that would not bother a warmist believer, embracing their religion. The other facts ignored and lies embraced by them are well known.  
This article shows one warnist theorist admitting his lie. There will be more. Michael Mann??
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html

Al Gore’s Climate Change CO2 Claims Are Erroneous

I was in a debate yesterday over Climate Change, or Global Warming, or whatever the idea that atmospheric CO2 causes temperatures to rise is called today. I say “atmospheric” because CO2 is present in the oceans in huge amounts.  My argument was based on Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” book and movie that showed graphs showing the results of the Vostok Ice Core analysis that, he said, proved his case, when, in fact, it destroyed his claim.
A link to this analysis is here http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth.
It shows that temperature, the “effect,” says Gore, precedes CO2 increases, the “cause,” sometimes by a century or so.  Of course, that can’t be the case. There is a simple answer to why temperature increases from solar activity increases CO2 in the atmosphere. It is due to the process of “out-gassing.”   When a liquid is heated, its capacity to hold gases is reduced and gases are released into the atmosphere. When liquids cool, the process is reversed and gases are absorbed again.  The simplest explanation is often the best, so there you have it. Look at the article for more on this subject.
The folks I was debating with took offense to this argument and attacked me from several angles. None scored by the way. I was wondering why they would react in this way and have concluded that where I am talking about the science of climate change, they were talking about their religion. What can I say?
By the way, Gore had a very hard time with this fact of “out-gassing” and attacked the Ice Cores themselves and then admitted that the relationship between temperature and CO2 was complicated. His own evidence disproves his theory, and it’s not complicated. .
You may not read about this in the media, but you have it here.  

The Global Warming Hoax: Watch “International Conference on Climate Change” on YouTube

I was introduced to climate change in 2006, about the time the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” appeared. I was immediately struck by the Hockey Stick Graph fraud and the claimed connection between temperature and co2, the suggestion being that co2 caused temperature to rise, but the graph shown indicated that co2 increases followed temperature rises. Even Gore said “the relationship is complicated.”
As to the Hockey Stick Graph, I pointed out that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had been eliminated.  The speaker was not amused by that as I was supposed to accept this hoax. As to the warming and co2 connection, having the effect, temperarture rise, come before the cause, co2, was baffling. It just can’t be. That is like saying that umbrellas cause rain! Furthermore, the fact that temperature rises would cause co2 to increase is due to “out gassing,” that phenomena of gas escaping from warming liquids, like the oceans, is a scientific fact. The alarmists claim that 97% of scientists agree and etc. That is also a hoax that has been debunked repeatedly. You can look that up.
In addition to these myths, I was struck by how co2, the basis of life on earth, was supposed to be poison (says the EPA). It is a very small part of the atmosphere. How small? There are about 3.5 molecules of co2 in 10,000 parts of the atmosphere. A rise to 4 molecules per 10,000 was said to be disaster. Who are they kidding, I thought? Well they are successfully kidding the politicians and a declining portion of the population. The major drive here is the $7billion dollars given to academia to “Prove” climate change, global warming, and other permutations of the hoax.
There are other scares promoted here, coastal flooding, more flooding, more drought, more hurricanes,(there have been fewer) and etc. The glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years and that’s a good thing. If they were growing, thats a sign of an ice age and that is big trouble.  Remember, there has been no warming for17 years, how’s that for an inconvenient truth?
The impetus for this fraud is political power. Scare the people, pass restrictive laws, then claim the earth is saved and we did it, hence permanent political and police power. The goal is power and money, I think it will fail in the long term but we will suffer in the short term.
UPDATE: The International Monetary Fund has just urged higher taxes on oil, natural gas and coal in the 156 countries it works with. The money goes to government.
The link below is to a scientific review of the climate issue and is short and to the point. Take a look.

Link from Powerlineblog.com
International Conference on Climate Change: http://youtu.be/HLZElcvkEDs

The Climate Controversy Explained in Detail.

My friend, John Hinderaker has posted this complete, and I assume, accurate account of climate history since the last ice age. Curiously, I was looking at the data since the last ice age earlier this week to gain a prospective on the fallacy of the recent federal report on climate change. Simply stated, the threats and alarms raised by that report have no basis in fact. That the current co2 level, less than .0004% of the atmosphere, is far below ice age levels, .001% to .002% of the atmosphere, debunks the threats.

This article makes the simple observation that it is the presence of “greenhouse gases” that make the earth habitable, for without these heat retaining gases, solar heat would escape to space, as it does on the moon. Furthermore, the sea level rise predicted by the federal report is impossible as the only source of water is locked in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and these ice sheets survived the co2 levels during the ice age.  

The complete article, from powerlineblog.com, is below. 

WHY GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM ISN’T SCIENCE

Science is not a set of dogmas, and it is not a pronouncement by a committee. It is a method. Richard Feynman, perhaps the world’s most eminent physicist, put it this way:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based entirely on models, which are programmed by their creators to predict disaster. But we know for a fact that the models are wrong, because they disagree with reality. When the facts collide with a theory, the facts win.

At Watts Up With That?, Don Easterbrook applies the scientific method to the recently-produced National Climate Assessment (NCA). The NCA predicts all kinds of awful consequences from a hypothetical rise in temperature that is based exclusively on models, not on observation. Easterbrook finds that the NCA fails the test of reality. Here are a few examples.

NCA assertion: “Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the United States over the next few decades.” “By the end of this century, a roughly 3°F to 5°F rise is projected under a lower emissions scenario, and a 5°F to 10°F rise for a higher emissions.”

Facts: How do we check the validity of this prediction? Well, we can look at comparisons of previous computer model results to recorded satellite temperatures. Figure 2 shows Roy Spencer’s plot of 44 of the latest climate models versus satellite measurements. As his graph shows, the models were not even close to the real measured temperatures. The obvious conclusion here is that the models failed miserably, a fact admitted to by the IPCC in their latest report.

clip_image004

2. NCA assertion: “It has been known for almost two centuries that carbon dioxide traps heat.”

Facts: That’s not the question—it’s not if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it’s how much is there in the atmosphere (Fig. 3) and how much can it affect climate? CO2 makes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse gases (Fig. 4) and coupled with the fact that the atmospheric concentration has changed only 0.0065% since recent warming began in 1978 (Fig. 3), there is no way that this miniscule amount can have any significant effect on climate. Water vapor accounts for ~95% of the greenhouse effect and computer modelers put a large arbitrary water vapor factor in their computer programs, claiming that if CO2 increases, so will water vapor. But that isn’t true—atmospheric water vapor has been declining since 1948 (Fig. 5), not increasing, so modelers who put a water vapor driver in their programs will not have a valid output.

This is a critically important point. Everyone agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (That’s a good thing; the Greenhouse Effect makes life on Earth possible.) The problem from the hysterics’ point of view is that doubling the tiny concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would, without more, have only an insignificant–and in fact, beneficial–effect on the Earth’s climate. The Earth would become a greener and slightly warmer place. (It is ironic that “greens” are obsessively hostile to the very substance–carbon dioxide–that makes the Earth green.) The hysterics admit this, so their models are programmed to amplify the effect of increased CO2. They hypothesize positive feedbacks, most notably by assuming that increasing CO2 will lead to a higher concentration of water vapor. The supposedly baleful consequences of burning fossil fuels are mostly indirect; they derive primarily from the feedbacks, not from the CO2.

But, as Easterbrook says, we know that this assumption is false. Carbon dioxide levels have been increasing for some decades now, and that has not led to an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. On the contrary, as Easterbrook notes, atmospheric water vapor has declined since 1948. So, once again, the alarmists’ models are simply wrong.

Let’s conclude with the NCA’s predictions about sea level rise. For some reason, more liberals seem to make fools of themselves over the idea of a rising sea level than anything else. You see pictures of the Statue of Liberty, up to her waist in water. California’s Governor Jerry Brown recently had to retract a dumb comment about needing to move LAX because the present location will soon be under water. The whole thing is a fantasy:

NCA assertion: Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. The future scenarios range from 0.66 feet to 6.6 feet in 2100. This recent rise is much greater than at any time in at least the past 2000 years.

Facts: During the last Ice Age (~10-20,000 years ago), vast areas of continents were covered with ice sheets up to 10,000 feet thick. [Ed: That’s almost two miles.] There was so much water tied up in these ice sheets that it caused sea level to drop about 120 meters (400 feet). 11,500 years ago, the climate changed abruptly, warming at rates up to 20 °F in a century, bringing the Ice Age to a very sudden end. The ice sheets melted at an astonishing rate, causing sea level to rise sharply. We know the chronology of this sea level rise (Fig. 21), so we can calculate the rate of sea level rise as the ice sheets melted. Sea level rose 50 meters (160 ft) between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago. That’sa rate of sea level rise of 4 feet per century, during a time when gigantic ice sheets were melting from warming of tens of degrees per century.

clip_image044

Figure 21. Sea level over the past 12,000 years.

The authors of the NCA report (and NOAA) want us to believe that sea level may rise as much as 6.6 feet by 2100 (86 years from now), a rate of sea level rise of 7.7 feet per century! That’s about twice the rate at which sea level rose while the huge Ice Age ice sheets melted under warming of tens of degrees per century. So where do the so-called scientists of this report think all this water will come from? Those huge Ice Age ice sheets no longer exist, so the only possible source is melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets? How likely is it that a 0.006% rise in CO2 is going to melt a significant portion of the Antarctic ice sheet? Probably zero to none. Why couldn’t the so-called scientists who authored the NCA report do the simple math? If they had even read the literature, this analysis has already been published (Morner, 2010).

The East Antarctic ice sheet (the major Antarctic ice sheet with ice up to 15,000 feet thick) first appeared in the Miocene, 15 million years ago. Throughout most of the Antarctic ice sheet history, global CO2 levels were 1000-2000 ppm (compared to present 400 ppm), so the recent miniscule rise of CO2 is peanuts compared to what it has been. So even doubling, tripling, quadrupling, or quintupling of CO2 would still be well below the levels of most of the ice sheet’s history and the ice sheet survived those quite nicely.

I am sure most people don’t realize how low contemporary CO2 levels are. We are living in a carbon-deprived era. CO2 levels have been 15 times higher than they are at present without any runaway warming, or any other adverse consequence.

The Antarctic ice sheet is continuing to grow, not melt, and sea ice is presently at an all-time high (Fig. 22). The average daily temperature in Antarctica is –58° F, so to get significant ice to melt would require raising the average daily temperature from -58 to +32 ° F (melting point of ice), plus another ~10 ° F, a total warming of +100° F. Not likely!

clip_image046

Figure 22. Antarctic sea ice is presently at an all-time high, about a million square kilometers above average.

Another way to look at the ridiculousness of the NCA predicted sea level rise is to compare their predictions with history sea level rates. The rate of sea level rise from 1900 to 2000 was 1.7 mm/yr (~7 inches per century) (Fig. 23). Figure 24 shows a comparison of the sea level rise over the past century with the NCA predicted sea level rise. The huge difference is impossible becausethere is no source of water for the NCA predicted rise.

clip_image048_thumb

Figure 23. Sea level since 1700 AD

clip_image050

Figure 24. NCA sea level rise prediction compared to projecton of sea level rise over the past century.

Global warming alarmism fails the test of science. The alarmists’ models generate one false prediction after another. When a model is falsified by experience, we know that the model is no good. A bad model cannot be a basis for predicting the future, or for making decisions about public policy. Global warming alarmism is not science. It is, rather, an industry fueled by billions of dollars that the world’s political class showers on climate “scientists” to compensate them for producing silly projections of doom. The political class needs the predictions of doom to justify its own grab for more power and money, and certain compliant “scientists” are happy to oblige. Money talks, but it doesn’t necessarily produce good science.

Two Curious Items on Christmas Eve

‘Tis the season to be jolly!!.

Early this morning, and it was -11 in Minneapolis, I noted that the LA TImes had decided that it would no longer print what it calls “denier” letters. This refers to “Climate Change Deniers,” of course. This is because the “alarmists,” those who embrace the climate change religion, are being defrocked by the facts of the real world. The simple fact is that there has been no warming for 17 years and there is evidence that we are moving the the opposite direction.

I am old enough to remember the debate about cooling and warming that raged in the 1970’s. The two sides in those days claimed either that polution and gases, (greenhouse gases were a new discovery) were causing the cooling of the earth because sun light was being blocked, or that the same polution and gases were causing warning because of the newly created “greenhouse” effect. The cooling crowd said that a new ice age may be upon us, but no one really cared because glaciers move at, well, glacial speed. So let’s not be too concerned if a glacier starts towards us that will not get here for 1000 years. However, the warmists figured out that if they could convince us that we were all going to burn up, well, they could make money on that, and make money, they have.

So how did the alarmists scare so many people? The simple answer is that they manufactured so called evidence and the media figured out it could get readers, watchers, and listeners, if they could scare people. (WCCO radio in Minnesota built its franchise on weather alerts during the Summer when it would interrupt programming with severe weather warnings. My Aunt Mildred, visiting from Massachusetts, was afraid to go outside most days.) The biggest lie was the Hockey Stick Graph that tried to show rapid, extreme temperature increases during the 20th century. I first encountered the Hockey Stick at a Dartmouth Alumni luncheon when a fellow alum and alarmist lawyer presented it to us. I was sitting in the back of the room, yet, I, and several of my pals all screamed when we saw it. We history majors screamed because the medieval warm period and Little Ice Age were missing, the economics majors screamed because the graph had a 1000 year X axis and a 1.5 degree Y axis, and the math majors screamed that the formula used would give an uptick no matter what data was used. This was my first indication that the entire global warming scheme was a fraud. More followed; fraudulent tree ring data, doctored temperature records and all the time billions of dollars flowing to those who espoused and embraced the warming littany.

The current literature shows that there is no warming, and the IPCC and East Anglia data, shown to be a fraud, supports that idea. Faced by the prospect that the spigot of cash may be turned off, the alarmists have turned to what they know best-media management. This is why the LA TImes decided to stop publishing “denier” letters. The last hope they have of taking political control is to muzzle those who know the truth.

The ultimate goal of the alarmists is to pass legislation severly limiting co2 and then wait a few years and proclaiming that the earth has been saved by them. They are now desparate as the truth is now known and they can’t take the political power they so fervently seek. For more on this subject and the sun’s role in it go HERE.

The second issue that captured my interest is that smoking is being limited in lots of place, even your own living room, but smoking marijuana is being made legal in state after state. There are those who can hold both thoughts in their heads at the same time and say, “That makes sense. I’m glad marijuana smoking is legal and I’m also glad tobacco smoking is illegal.” Now these same people think that second-hand tobacco smoke may cause health issues in twenty years, but are oblivious that second-hand THC in the head of a stoned driver may kill them now. (Some say drivers accustomed to being high are effective drivers. Oh, my!)

What will totally blow their minds is when a emarijuana cigarette is produced that has THC in it and not nicotine. they are banning the ecigarette, but how can they ban the ejoint? What will they do then? There is a certain humor in this situation as there is no good answer. It seems that enhaling second-hand THC is infinitely more dangerous than nicotine. Of course, there are those who like to go through life stoned and they vote, and they even believe in “Climate Change.” I think being scared is important to them.

Climate Change Reconsidered On a Snowy April 13

Today, I was inundated by emails about climate change, nee Global Warming. I have never been part of the hysteria, and I use that term properly,  and here’s why. My first encounter with the so called evidence in the climate change case was ten years ago at a Dartmouth Alumni Club lunch where one of our members, a lawyer with an environmental law practice, promised to show us the overwhelming evidence of global warming.

His first evidence was the Mann Hockey Stick Graph that has been proven to be total nonsense. As this lawyer explained the slow, straight line, rise in temperature to the 20th century, and then the rapid rise in the last decade (up, maybe, half a degree,) the questions started. Where was the Medieval Warm Period, How about the Little Ice Age? The lawyer was much flummoxed by the questions, but shifted to another piece of evidence. This was another graph, since deleted from alarmist materials, that showed overlaying lines indicating the correlation between CO2 and Temperature. The graph used blue and red lines and they did move together, so it was possible to think that the cause, CO2, preceded the effect, temperature increases. This continued until someone asked which line was the CO2.

The lecturer, now flummoxed again, had to admit that the red line to the right was CO2 and the blue line to the left side of the time scale was temperature. That had never been pointed out before; we just assumed that the alleged cause, CO2, would lead the effect, temperature increase, ergo CO2 was red and temperature blue, When asked how the effect could precede the cause, the lawyer said, “the relationship between CO@ and temperature is very complicated.” I heard Al Gore say the same thing some years later.

Based on this meeting, I have greeted each new piece of evidence such as tree rings and ice cores with great skepticism. I rejoiced when the hysteria diminished. Recently, however, there is a new effort to prove Climate Change, end carbon use, and save a planet that is not in danger.

Today, sitting in Minneapolis with snow on the ground, more on the way and 30 degree temperatures on April 13, I was told that the cold Spring is due to melting Arctic Sea ice that was at its sixth lowest extent ever. EVER. To prove the case, a link was provided and it is here. http://nsidc.org/articseaicenews/2012/daily-image/. So I looked at the image and found a satellite image of the Arctic Sea with an orange line showing what the ice was like when the world was safe. Well, the orange line indicates very little ice loss. So, what’s the big deal.

This is the big deal. Climate Change is a political movement based on false science that is manipulated by government that buys the loyalty of scientists by funding the climate science laboratories around the world. Billions of dollars had been directed to scientists who toe the line. Thousands of mortgages have been paid off by this effort. So, why does government need to do this? It is because this is the path to total economic control. If you can control carbon, you control economic activity. However, the Big Deal is that if carbon control can be achieved, the government or the party in charge can then wait a year and announce that climate change has been solved and temperatures are lowering and that it (the party in charge) has save the world, so you must give us total power over everything, which is what the party in charge seems to want. 

The only barrier to this power grab is the common sense of the people who recognize that there is no warming/change and are just now starting to realize that the party in charge has been lying to them. We’ll see where that goes.