jump to navigation

Save the planet! Don’t divorce February 24, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Save the planet! Don’t divorce

From the Andrew Bolt Blog, February 24, 2009

Steve Fielding sounds no crazier than the average global warming alarmist, sad to say, but at least is more constructive:

Divorce adds to the impact of global warming as couples switch to wasteful single lifestyles, Family First senator Steve Fielding says.

He told a Senate hearing on Tuesday that divorce led to a “resource-inefficient lifestyle” and it would be better for the planet if couples stayed married….

“We understand that there is a social problem (with divorce), but now we’re seeing there is also environmental impact as well on the footprint,” Senator Fielding said.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/save_the_planet_dont_divorce

Advertisements

Video: James Hansen wants us to go vegetarian to “Save the Planet” February 24, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Videos.
Tags: , , ,
3 comments

Video: James Hansen wants us to go vegetarian to “Save the Planet”

Oh dear, here we go again, Dr James Hansen telling us to ditch meat to stop global warming.

I suspect his hysterical rantings will only get worse as the globe continues to cool…

H/T Tom Nelson

Collapsing Carbon Market Backfires February 23, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Carbon Trading.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Collapsing Carbon Market Backfires

Posted on ICECAP

By Julian Glover, UK Guardian

‘Roll up for the great pollution fire sale, the ultimate chance to wreck the climate on the cheap. You sir, over there, from the power company – look at this lovely tonne of freshly made, sulphur-rich carbon dioxide. Last summer it cost an eyewatering 31 vpounds to throw up your smokestack, but in our give-away global recession sale, that’s been slashed to a crazy 8.20 pounds. Dump plans for the wind turbine! Compare our offer with costly solar energy! At this low, low price you can’t afford not to burn coal!”

Set up to price pollution out of existence, carbon trading is pricing it back in. Europe’s carbon markets are in collapse. Yet the hiss of escaping gas is almost inaudible. There’s no big news headline, nothing sensational for TV viewers to watch; no queues outside banks or missing Texan showmen. You can’t see or hear a market for a pollutant tumble. But at stake is what was supposed to be a central lever in the world’s effort to turn back climate change. Intended to price fossil fuels out of the market, the system is instead turning them into the rational economic choice.

That there exists something called carbon trading is about all that most people know. A few know, too, that Europe has created carbon exchanges, and traders who buy and sell. Few but the professionals, however, know that this market is now failing in its purpose: to edge up the cost of emitting CO2. The theory sounded fine in the boom years, back when Nicholas Stern described climate change as “the biggest market failure in history” – a market failure to which carbon trading was meant to be a market solution. Instead, it’s bolstering the business case for fossil fuels.

Understanding why is easy. A year ago European governments allocated a limited number of carbon emission permits to their big polluters. Businesses that reduce pollution are allowed to sell spare permits to ones that need more. As demand outstrips this capped supply, and the price of permits rises, an incentive grows to invest in green energy. Why buy costly permits to keep a coal plant running when you can put the cash into clean power instead?

All this only works as the carbon price lifts. A lot of the blame lies with governments that signed up to carbon trading as a neat idea, but then indulged polluters with luxurious quantities of permits. The excuse was that growth would soon see them bumping against the ceiling.

Instead, exchanges are in meltdown: a tonne of carbon has dropped to about 8 pounds, down from last year’s summer peak of 31 pounds and far below the 30-45 pounds range at which renewables can compete with fossil fuels.

The lesson of the carbon slump, like the credit crunch, is that markets can be a conduit, but not a substitute, for political will. They only work when properly primed and regulated. Europe hoped that the mere creation of a carbon market would drive everyone away from fossil fuels. It forgot that demand had to outstrip supply, and that if growth stops, demand drops too.

There is not much time to rescue the system. Carbon trading remains at the heart of the international response to climate change. Obama backs what Americans call cap and trade. Australia wants to try the same thing. It should be at the heart of a deal at the Copenhagen summit this winter. But both are hesitating, given Europe’s mess.

The market must be unashamedly rigged to force supply below demand. The obvious way would be to cut the number of permits in circulation, but in a recession no government will be brave enough to do that. And private initiatives such as Sandbag, which encourages individuals to buy and lock away permits, can exert little pressure on price in a market awash with them.

Europe can choke off tomorrow’s supply, however, without hitting business today. First the EU must stop importing permits from countries such as Russia – a bonus for a paper transaction. No one really believes that 15m tonnes of imported permits will not still be emitted by a steelworks somewhere east of Novosibirsk. Second, it must publish plans to crack down on the surplus of permits when the recession is over. Warnings of famine ahead, when the scheme enters its third stage in 2012, would raise prices now, if believed. Like medieval pardoners handing out unlimited indulgences, governments have created a glut. Reformation must follow. Wanted – a modern Martin Luther to nail a shaming truth to industry’s door: Europe’s whizz-bang carbon market is turning sub-prime. Read story here.

Now well over 30 days without a cycle 24 sunspot February 23, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in sunspots.
Tags: , , , ,
1 comment so far

Now well over 30 days without a cycle 24 sunspot

From Watts Up With That, February 21, 2009

The last time we saw would could have been a cycle 24 sunspot, was on January 20th, 2009, but it was an oddball, and not clearly part of cycle 23 or 24. Spaceweather.com wrote that day:

A new sunspot [1011] is emerging inside the circle region–and it is a strange one. The low latitude of the spot suggests it is a member of old Solar Cycle 23, yet the magnetic polarity of the spot is ambiguous, identifying it with neither old Solar Cycle 23 nor new Solar Cycle 24. Stay tuned for updates as the sunspot grows.

The last time we had a true cycle 24 spot was on January 10th thru the 13th, with sunspot 1010, which had both the correct polarity and a high latitude characteristic of a cycle 24 spot. But since then no other cycle 24 spots have emerged.

soho-mdi-022209

It has been slow going for cycle 24.

We did have a single cycle 23 spot in February as you can see from the SWPC sunspots data, but it has been dead quiet on all other solar activity indices:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/now-well-over-30-days-without-a-cycle-24-sunspot

Greens add fuel to the fires. Literally February 23, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

Greens add fuel to the fires. Literally

By Andrew Bolt, HeraldSun, February 23, 2009

Greens didn’t just stop the fuel reduction that would have made the Black Saturday bushfires less intense.

Greens literally added fuel to the fires by planting “carbon offset’’ forests – which have now burned, adding the carbon dioxide emissions they were meant to remove:

Greenfleet will assess the impact of these fires on our forests over the coming weeks, with a view to replant if necessary or monitor recovery in areas where the impact was less severe.

Greenfleet plants the trees that allegedly offset the emissions from the Victorian Labor Government’s car fleet.

Now Treesmart’s Thornton forest may also be in danger, to judge from the CFA’s latest alert. And only a miracle has saved Climate Positive’s plantation:

The Balook planting was under imminent threat throughout Saturday 7 February. The fire started in Churchill, just 30kms to the north. Strong northerly winds pushed it right up to the site and 20kms beyond it until the winds shifted. Miraculously, the planting site was unaffected, as was the entirety of the Trust for Nature property.

But Climate Positive’s other big planting isn’t doing much for offsetting:

The Bush Family Reserve, located on the Perry River, while heavily affected by continuing severe drought, is safe from fire.

The AGW believers at Cities of Theory predicted this danger two years ago:

It can be expected that over the next ten to thirty years, many of the areas where trees for carbon sequestration will be planted will be in increasingly hotter and drier areas, subject to more intense and frequent bushfires. Are the resulting risks to the safety of rural communities acceptable?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_add_fuel_to_the_fires_literally

THE SOLAR CONNECTION by Professor Will Alexander February 22, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions, sunspots.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

Note: The below memo should be read in conjunction with the paper
from the Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering titled:

Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development by: W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse <Click here to download paper>

THE SOLAR CONNECTION by Professor Will Alexander

Received via email February 19, 2009

Memo 13/09

Climate change – the solar connection

Thursday 19 February 2009

Out of Africa – sceptics vs believers. (Internet photo.)

This memo is more technical that the previous memos but I urge you to study it.

The IPCC assessment reports are voluminous documents. For this reason the IPCC produces summaries for policymakers. The assessment reports include lists of publications referenced in the reports. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify the key issues on which the IPCC’s assessment reports are founded. The most important of these is the causal linkage between variations in solar energy received on earth and synchronous variations in climate. This is the subject of my memo.

The IPCC’s position is that solar energy received on earth is sensibly constant and that all anomalies (pages full of them), are therefore a consequence of human activities. As I demonstrate in this memo this view is fundamentally in error. The source of the error is the IPCC’s reliance on process theory instead of observation theory which is the basis of the engineering sciences.

I have attached a copy of our five-authored paper Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development. It was published in the Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering in June 2007. In our paper we demonstrate that a synchronous relationship exists between the sun’s wobble as it moves along its trajectory through galactic space under the influence of the orbiting planets, all the way through to the principal hydrological characteristics – rainfall and river flow.

The IPCC’s approach to the solar linkage will be found in pages 188 to193 of Part 2 of Chapter 1 of the report of Working Group II (WG2) titled Changes in atmospheric constituents and radiative forcing. For those of you who have a professional interest in this subject I suggest that you download this chapter from the IPCC’s website. The file description is

ar4-wg2-chapter1

Fundamental differences

I will now guide you through the issue in easy steps. Start with the title of our paper. It is positive and unambiguous. Linkages exist between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development.

Read our introductory summary. Notice in particular the final sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction. It reads

Despite a diligent search, no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities.

Compare this with the following statements in WG2’s executive summary on page 131.

Radiative forcing (RF) is a concept used for quantitative comparisons of the strengths of different human and natural agents in causing climate change… The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 Wm-2. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes.

Here in lies the rub, to quote Shakespeare. These are two fundamentally opposing views on a critically important issue.

Now take a quick glance through our paper. It includes ten figures and seven tables. Compare this with the WG2 report that has two figures and no quantitative tables on this subject. The IPCC quotes many examples of change but none of them are quantitatively linked to progressive changes in climate other than by inference.

If you have an enquiring mind, you should have noticed that I emphasised the word quantitative in the above paragraph. This single word is the very essence of the fundamental differences in our approach to this issue. Our paper is based on the interpretation of observations in many fields that are continents apart. Their approach is based exclusively on theory in a single field (variations in solar radiation itself) without the support of quantitative observations of the consequences on the earth’s climate. As shown in my recent memos, these consequences have been known, documented and studied for more than a century, but completely ignored by the IPCC.

In our paper we demonstrate that the evidence of the solar linkage is all around us. It can be seen in the hydrological processes (Tables 1 and 2). The unequivocal linkage with sunspot activity is demonstrated in Figure 1 and Table 3. We quantify the periodicity in Figures 2 and 3 as well as in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7.

In Figures 5 and 6 we move further afield to Lake Victoria in central Africa and then northwards to Ireland in the northern hemisphere.

Changes in momentum

At this point I have to introduce the concept of changes in the momentum of the bodies that make up the solar system. Please bear with me.

If you are a passenger in a motor vehicle travelling at high speed you will be comfortable as long as the vehicle travels at a constant speed. If the driver applies the brakes you will lurch forward. If the vehicle accelerates suddenly, you will lurch backwards. Your discomfort is directly related to the change of momentum of your body relative to that of the vehicle.

The same principle applies to the bodies in the solar system. They all accelerate and decelerate relative to the velocity of the solar system’s centre of mass as it moves a constant speed through the galaxy. Please refer to our Figure 7 and note the slope of the ecliptic plane. If one of the bodies lags ‘behind’ the solar system’s centre of mass it will have to accelerate as it rotates towards the ‘bottom’ of the plane ahead of the solar system’s centre of mass. It will then decelerate as it moves back again.

Please refer to our Figure 1. Sequences BC, DE, and FG are all drought sequences as shown by the downward slopes of the lines. Conversely, sequences AB, CD, and EF are sequences of above average river flow. This is the well-documented Joseph Effect. What is also important is the transitions are sudden and not gradual as is the case with the sunspot numbers. This is due to the natural inertia in the system, and increasing instability that eventually overcomes the inertia. These changes are quantified in our Table 3. Both our Figure 1 and Table 3 show that these sudden changes are concurrent with changes in sunspot activity.

One more point. These clearly apparent reversals are associated with the occurrence of the sunspot minima which in turn are concurrent with the reversals in the sun’s magnetic polarity.

Scientific proof

These observations in themselves are not sufficient. We had to identify the causes. Fred Bailey’s ground-breaking studies are illustrated in Figures 7, 8 and 9 as well as in Table 7. His coup de grâce is delivered in Figure 10. The earth does not orbit the sun. It orbits the solar system’s centre of mass. Consequently, the earth to sun distance is not constant. Consequently the level of solar energy received on earth must also vary.

In my earlier memo this year Fred Bailey demonstrated that variations in received solar energy are more than 17 times that of human causes quantified in the WG2 report.

To summarise, in our paper we demonstrate that a synchronous relationship exists between the sun’s wobble as it moves on its trajectory through galactic space under the influence of the orbiting planets, (Figure 9), all the way through to the flow in the Vaal River in the interior of the African subcontinent (Figure 1). This relationship is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, (points H in Figure 1).

The IPCC’s position

With all this in mind we can return to the IPCC’s position detailed on pages 188 to 193 of the report of WG2. These are some extracts for your amusement. The emphases are mine.

The estimates in long term solar irradiance changes … have been revised downwards… by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar activity…

[Note the following two extracts in particular.]

The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet radiation on the stratosphere. .. Least certain, and under ongoing debate are indirect effects induced by cosmic rays. [Dear oh dear!]

The primary known cause of contemporary irradiance variability is the presence on the sun’s disk of sunspots and faculae… Models that combine the records of global sunspot darkening directly from white light images and the magnesium irradiance index as proxy for the facular signal do not exhibit a significant secular trend during activity maxima… Nor do the modern instrumental measurements of galactic cosmic rays. [These people are either ignorant or totally clueless. Sunspots cannot possibly cause climate changes.]

[And finally.]

The direct RF due to increase in solar irradiance is reduced from the third assessment report to +0.12 Wm-2 (90% confidence interval: +0.06 to +0.30).

In my Memo 07/09, Fred Bailey calculated that for the past five years the range was equal to 28 Wm-2 compared with the IPCC’s estimate of the anthropogenic component of 1.6 Wm-2 , and their estimates of the solar irradiance component of only 0.12 Wm-2. Something is radically wrong with the IPCC’s figures. Now we know why. They omitted to consider the prime driver of variations in received solar energy. It is the synchronous variations in the earth to sun distance.

This brings me back to the issue raised in my last memo. Why did they omit any reference to the effects of the changing earth to sun distance in their report? Surely this must be the most obvious cause of the earth’s climatic variations bearing in mind the wealth of documents and studies dating from biblical times through to the present.

I am forced to ask this question no matter how embarrassing it may be. Was this omission due to ignorance, dishonesty or fraud? I find it extremely difficult, bordering on the impossible, to believe that this omission was not deliberate.

My suspicion is reinforced by their reference to the Maunder Minimum relative to contemporary activity, as the point of departure. They dared not ignore it as they did in their notorious hockey stick graph in their third assessment report. So they used it as a point of reference which saved them from having to explain it. They offered no descriptions of the processes that caused the Minimum.

Even then they made a serious mistake. Fred Bailey also produced illustrations similar to those in Figure 8 of our report. These covered the Maunder Minimum as well as the unusual warmer periods. They demonstrated that these periods were also the consequence of unusual planetary positions relative to the solar system’s centre of mass during these periods.

Those of you who have some understanding of the influence of the relative positions of the major planets should appreciate that the plane of the planetary orbits is at an angle to the trajectory of the solar system’s centre of mass, (our Figure 7). As a consequence, the planets also accelerate and decelerate as they move along their orbital paths. This in turn means that the combined planetary centre of mass not only moves closer to and further from the solar system’s centre of mass but its position relative to the solar system’s centre of mass is also important. This is because its position indicates whether the bodies, including the sun itself, are accelerating or decelerating relative to the constant velocity of the solar system’s centre of mass. This is illustrated in Figure 8 of our paper.

It is this combination of circumstances that gives rise to the longer pseudo-cyclical periodicities often quoted in the literature. The WG2 report mentions solar related cycles near 90, 200 and 2300 years. These are coincidental.

In conclusion

We are very confident of our conclusions. We list some outstanding uncertainties but they do not invalidate the results of the fundamental studies described in our paper. There is little more that we can do to demonstrate the overwhelming ignorance (dishonesty in my opinion) that permeates the IPCC’s approach to the climate change issue. The affluent nations can look after themselves. The African nations are at the mercy of these patently dishonest practices and the political motives that drive them. We will see examples at the forthcoming Midrand Summit on Climate Change that starts 12 days from now.

There will be no opportunity for serious debate. Take or leave it. This is a serious political risk in the light of the increasing economic recession and joblessness in this country, as well as the insurmountable differences between the major developing and developed nations. There is absolutely no reason for hasty decisions by South Africa. The truth will eventually become public knowledge. The press will have a juicy tale to tell, especially in the light of recent political developments.

Regards.

Will Alexander

Click on the “more” button below to read Professor Alexander’s introduction to this memo

(more…)

Mass migrations and war: Dire climate scenario February 21, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Mass migrations and war: Dire climate scenario

From YahooNews, February 22, 2009

CAPE TOWN, South Africa – If we don’t deal with climate change decisively, “what we’re talking about then is extended world war,” the eminent economist said.

His audience Saturday, small and elite, had been stranded here by bad weather and were talking climate. They couldn’t do much about the one, but the other was squarely in their hands. And so, Lord Nicholas Stern was telling them, was the potential for mass migrations setting off mass conflict.

“Somehow we have to explain to people just how worrying that is,” the British economic thinker said.

Stern, author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, was one of a select group of two dozen — environment ministers, climate negotiators and experts from 16 nations — scheduled to fly to Antarctica to learn firsthand how global warming might melt its ice into the sea, raising ocean levels worldwide.

Their midnight flight was scrubbed on Friday and Saturday because of high winds on the southernmost continent, 3,000 miles from here. While waiting at their Cape Town hotel for the gusts to ease down south, chief sponsor Erik Solheim, Norway’s environment minister, improvised with group exchanges over coffee and wine about the future of the planet.

“International diplomacy is all about personal relations,” Solheim said. “The more people know each other, the less likely there will be misunderstandings.”

Understandings will be vital in this “year of climate,” as the world’s nations and their negotiators count down toward a U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in December, target date for concluding a grand new deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol — the 1997 agreement, expiring in 2012, to reduce carbon dioxide and other global-warming emissions by industrial nations.

Solheim drew together key players for the planned brief visit to Norway’s Troll Research Station in East Antarctica.

Trying on polar outfits for size on Friday were China’s chief climate negotiator Xie Zhenhua, veteran U.S. climate envoy Dan Reifsnyder, and environment ministers Hilary Benn of Britain and Carlos Minc Baumfeld of Brazil.

Later, at dinner, the heavyweights heard from smaller or poorer nations about the trials they face as warming disrupts climate, turns some regions drier, threatens food production in poor African nations.

Jose Endundo, environment minister of Congo, said he recently visited huge Lake Victoria in nearby Uganda, at 80,000 square kilometers (31,000 square miles) a vital source for the Nile River, and learned the lake level had dropped 3 meters (10 feet) in the past six years — a loss blamed in part on warmer temperatures and diminishing rains.

In the face of such threats, “the rich countries have to give us a helping hand,” the African minister said.

But it was Stern, former chief World Bank economist, who on Saturday laid out a case to his stranded companions in sobering PowerPoint detail.

If the world’s nations act responsibly, Stern said, they will achieve “zero-carbon” electricity production and zero-carbon road transport by 2050 — by replacing coal power plants with wind, solar or other energy sources that emit no carbon dioxide, and fossil fuel-burning vehicles with cars running on electric or other “clean” energy.

Then warming could be contained to a 2-degree-Celsius (3.4-degree-Fahrenheit) rise this century, he said.

But if negotiators falter, if emissions reductions are not made soon and deep, the severe climate shifts and sea-level rises projected by scientists would be “disastrous.”

It would “transform where people can live,” Stern said. “People would move on a massive scale. Hundreds of millions, probably billions of people would have to move if you talk about 4-, 5-, 6-degree increases” — 7 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. And that would mean extended global conflict, “because there’s no way the world can handle that kind of population move in the time period in which it would take place.”

Melting ice, rising seas, dwindling lakes and war — the stranded ministers had a lot to consider. But many worried, too, that the current global economic crisis will keep governments from transforming carbon-dependent economies just now. For them, Stern offered a vision of working today on energy-efficient economies that would be more “sustainable” in the future.

“The unemployed builders of Europe should be insulating all the houses of Europe,” he said.

After he spoke, Norwegian organizers announced that the forecast looked good for Stern and the rest to fly south on Sunday to further ponder the future while meeting with scientists in the forbidding vastness of Antarctica.

James Hansen wants us to take a stand on Global Warming February 21, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Videos.
Tags: , , ,
3 comments

James Hansen wants us to take a stand on Global Warming

James Hansen wants us to protest against the dangerous carbon dioxide produced from coal.
I wonder if he’ll will be walking/cycling to the protest?
I also wonder what the weather, in Washington D.C, will be like on March 2nd?


World War II “corrections” live on in dubious Hadley Centre SST data from deep in the Southern Ocean February 21, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,
add a comment

World War II “corrections” live on in dubious Hadley Centre SST data from deep in the Southern Ocean

February 20th, 2009 by Warwick Hughes

From the Warwick Hughs blog

I had been admiring Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the Steig et al 2009 claims (much promoted in the Australian media) that Antarctic was “warming after all”. I think this is the first article on Climate Audit, then several others followed into February. Try not to miss, When Harry Met Gill

It turns out there were errors in Automatic Weather Station (AWS) data, surprise, surprise.
Also enjoying reading of the discomfort from UnRealClimate as their paradigm unraveled on the world stage. While digging around in Antarctic data to check on the claims of Steig et al 2009 to have found a West Antarctic “Hot Spot”, I thought I would check first what UAH satellite lower troposphere trends showed for the region from 180 west to 60 west and south of 60 south, also what GISS land data showed for that region. Using data from the KNMI Climate Explorer.

Both GISS and UAH MSU lower troposphere agree there is no trend 1979-2008 for that region which includes the Steig et al “hot spot”, see maps at Climate Audit. You can try the sector from 70 south too, still great agreement between GISS and UAH that there is no warming.
Clearly Steig et al should have checked their data against other datasets and they might have been lead to discover the errors in their AWS data and could have saved taxpayers the trouble of paying to publish their dubious claims.

Then I was curious what SST data showed for the 120 degree sector from 180 west to 60 west and south of 60 south, which includes the Steig et al “hot spot”; I came across these odd aberrations in the latest HadISST1 data.

Read the rest click here

Satellite Data Show No Warming Before 1997. Changes Since Not Related to CO2 February 20, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions, Temperature.
Tags: , ,
2 comments

Satellite Data Show No Warming Before 1997. Changes Since Not Related to CO2

By Arno Arrak

Posted on ICECAP

A full analysis of satellite-measured lower tropospheric temperatures indicates that none of the global temperature variations from 1978 to 2008 can be attributed to the effect of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. The record shows global climate oscillations with a period of three to five years and a peak-to-peak amplitude of 0.4 to 0.5 degrees Celsius about a common, fixed mean temperature that lasted from 1978 to 1997. Since this mean
temperature did not change for twenty years the late twentieth century warming touted by IPCC and others simply did not happen. The cause of these newly discovered climate oscillations is large-scale periodic movement of ocean waters from shore to shore, part of the El Nino � Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system. It is accompanied by a massive, periodic transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere and back again which was previously
unsuspected and which is detectable even in land-based records. This major atmospheric phenomenon is missing from all IPCC Global Circulation Models (GCMs) and thereby invalidates conclusions drawn from their climate models. Satellite records show that this oscillatory period ended with a giant warming peak known as the “super El Nino of 1998.”

This unusual peak does not belong to the oscillatory ENSO system but interrupts it and could well be of cosmogenic origin. After it subsided the interrupted ENSO oscillation continued. But it had been energized from that warm peak and in three years the global temperature rose to a plateau 0.2 degrees above previous peaks. The expected climate downturn that should have followed failed to occur and temperature stayed up there for six years. It lasted from 2001 to 2007. This “twenty first century high,” together with the warming peak that preceded it, accounts for recent accelerated loss of arctic ice. Contrary to carbon dioxide theory the world temperature did not increase but stayed the same during this period. The period ended with a climate downturn in 2007.

image

Carbon dioxide cannot explain the lack of warming in the eighties and nineties, nor any of the abrupt warmings that followed, nor the stasis of the twenty first century high, nor the temperature downturn that followed it in 2007 and bottomed out in 2008. A direct comparison of these satellite data with ground-based measurements is also possible. Comparing satellite (UAH MSU LT) and land-based (HadCRUT3) data for the eighties and nineties gives HadCRUT3 a warming trend of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade (one degree per century) while lower tropospheric satellite data show no warming at all. This is compounded by the fact that satellite measurements of midtropospheric temperature show a long-term cooling effect for this period. Looking for sources
of error in ground-based data one is led to the usual suspect, the urban heat island effect.

Fatal computer errors in IPCC climate models derive from the fact that none of the abrupt warmings and coolings on the record, especially since 1998, can be attributed to the greenhouse effect. Hence, all IPCC models purporting to predict (project??) climate a hundred years into the future are invalid and their predictions/projections must be discarded. To summarize: existing theory used by the IPCC can neither explain the observed climate nor predict the future. Carbon dioxide warming has been shown to be non-existent in the eighties and nineties, and the warming since 1998 is not carbonaceous in origin. It follows that Quijotic carbon dioxide policies like the Kyoto Protocol and the cap-and-trade laws should be abandoned. See post here.