Tag: Climatology


The Left Wing is atwitter over documents leaked from the Heartland Institute, a think tank that is at the forefront of climate skepticism. There’s a bunch of stuff there but … I’m kind of unimpressed. Most of it is about raising money from the likes of the Eeevil Koch Brothers. These are the evil pair who funded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature program which … um, confirmed the purported temperature trends using the most robust analysis yet. Yeah, so … uh … get your Evil Act together guys!

The most damning document is about coordinating a campaign aimed at teachers to spread misinformation about climate science. However, Heartland is saying that while the other documents are real, this one is a fake.

We’ll see what shakes out. As with Climategate, I suspect this will turn out to be overblown. Heartland pushes climate skepticism and so they collect donations from people whose business interests might be harmed by global warming legislation. This is neither surprising nor revelatory. The same game is played by business interests who would benefit from global warming legislation, such as Obama’s entire multi-billion dollar “green energy” program and the failed European cap and trade experiment.

Let’s stick to the science and ignore who is funding whom.

Update: This “scandal” is falling apart as we speak. Megan McArdle goes through the bad memo and shows why it’s at least odd, if not faked. And the Koch Brothers indicate their support or Heartlands was for health programs, not climate issues. Yes, climate hysterics, Heartland does more than climate skepticism.

Do you think any of the Lefties cackling with glee over this are going to admit it if this memo is shown to be a fake? I’m not holding my breath.

Berkeley Results

Just before we switched the blog over, I mentioned preliminary results from the Berkeley Earth project. This project, led by climate skeptic Richard Muller and funded by the eeevil Koch Brothers (and including Saul Perlmutter, who won this year’s Nobel Prize for Physics), was determined to do the most thorough analysis of global warming data yet. As I said then:

This is actually a pretty staggering and thorough piece of work, although it’s not entirely complete. You can read Ronald Bailey for a summary. They looked at over 39,000 temperature stations (4-8 times what anyone else has used). They carefully investigated the assertions of Anthony Watt, who has noted that many weather stations are located close to heat sources (conclusion: yes they are, but no it’s not causing the warming). They took random samples from the data to see if they could reproduce the measured trend. And they keep finding the same thing, only more reliably than any of the more hyped climate scientists.

At the time, they were doing a preliminary analysis of 2% of their data. They’ve now finished the full sample:

Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1 C since the mid-1950s.

Analyzing temperature data from 15 sources, in some cases going back as far as 1800, the Berkeley Earth study directly addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics, including the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias.

On the basis of its analysis, according to Berkeley Earth’s founder and scientific director, Professor Richard A. Muller, the group concluded that earlier studies based on more limited data by teams in the United Sattes and Britain had accurately estimated the extent of land surface warming.

This is the temperature study we’ve been waiting for. I’m under no illusion that it will quiet the conspiracy theorists. But in a reasonable debate, this would put to bed talking points about Climategate, weather stations, normalization and heat island effect. Their analysis agrees almost completely with both HadCRU and NOAA and NASA. All the data are available from their website — one stop shopping for those who keep claiming, incorrectly, that the data are not available. The four papers they are publishing address a variety of other related issues.

It also demonstrates how important skeptics — real scientific skeptics — are for this debate. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism of the hockey stick didn’t disprove it in the end, but they made the result far more reliable. And Muller’s skepticism has now made the temperature data five times more robust than it has ever been.

One last note before my points disappear in an AGW comment shitstorm: this should also shut up some of the liberals claiming the Koch Brothers are the quintessence of evil. They helped fund this study and have made no effort to interfere or bury the results, despite the serious implications for their business interests. Of course it won’t silence them. Religions can survive without God, but not without the devil. And the secular religion of progressivism needs its Kochy devil, even if they don’t quite fit the role.

OK. Fight nice now.

CERN study more worried about politics than the scientific findings?

The U.K> based The Register has this article dealing with the recently published CERN paper entitled “Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation”. Their findings basically destroy the existing climate models used by the watermelon alarmists. Yes, the same ones we discovered where junk after the East Anglia scandal exposed them as rigged, are now going to need, according to the as politically correct as possible language being used to avoid pissing off the big government money machine banking on getting more power and control from selling the AGW myth, to quote the CERN scientists, some “major tweaking”.

CERN’s 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

CERN’s director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists “to present the results clearly but not interpret them”. Readers can judge whether CLOUD’s lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss’s warning.

“Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere.”

So far their study validated that those of us that have been pointing out that solar activity – that’s practically where all of earth’s exposure to cosmic radiation comes from, for you rubes – was a massive driver of temperature and temperature/climate changes, completely undermining the decade old attempt by the watermelons to minimize solar impact in order to sustain that man-made narrative they plan to ride into more power, was correct. As it stands they determined that changes in this radiation from solar activity, even small ones, can have massive impact on the amount of cloud formation and hence drastically affect the amount of heat trapped or released. They even have to admit the role of water vapor, the most prolific greenhouse gas, in this newly revealed – that was sarcasm on my part – equation! Basically their study has yet again found/provided scientific evidence that solar activity affects water vapor content, it drives cloud formation, and that this cloud formation drastically impacts how much heat is trapped or released by the atmosphere, and hence remains the dominant and most important, if not outright exclusive, player in climate change and global temperatures. Not new to those of us that understood this relationship, but apparently something that if you want to be generous to the AGW cultists is seriously flawed in their models. The good research dealing with the impact of the cosmic radiation on the oceans, and the relationship between clouds and trapped heat, is out there and plentiful BTW, and I certainly feel no need to rehash it all here. Google it.

However, to me at least, the most telling revelation, and what I see is the most disastrous one for the AGW cultists, is the admission by Kirby of the “political sensitivity of these findings”. Why should these findings be politically sensitive? So “sensitive” that they have to be explained in a scientific paper that tries its best to do a kabuki dance not to offend those that have dismissed the role of solar radiation and cloud formation in the past. So, how does politics factor into the scientific equation, if this is all about science?

Should not the paper and the research be completely about facts and the rigorous application of the scientific method and totally about what the results and facts obtained through that scientific process tells us? Why would the political class suddenly not like these findings that drastically undermine their premise that man is to blame for climate change, unless they have a plan predicated on that remaining the scientific consensus? The cultists have been telling us now for a long time that the science was settled and on their side, and that anyone that said otherwise was a denier, usually one motivated by politics and greed to boot, so is that why these CERN scientists felt the need to be political? Could avoiding that “denier” tag be the political sensitivity Kirby speaks about?

For those of us, of course, that realized that the exclusive and laser-like focus on CO2 – to the exclusion of all else – that is behind this schism dividing the two camps arguing about what was/is causing climate change, it was very clear that those refuting anything but the CO2 model pushed by the AGW proponents wasn’t based on much real respect for science, and clear that politics had tainted that “settled science” from the beginning, these findings of this aren’t a surprise at all. I would even hazard that it is not a surprise to the clergy of the AGW cult either. However, I don’t expect them to do anything but double down on their settled science, and come out with guns blazing over these findings. Well, that is, once they finally get to reporting on it, which I suspect will not happen until someone comes up with something that they figure allows them to dismiss the findings of this CERN study in the first place.

Think they will fix their broken models to account for these new revelations – to give cloud formation fueled by solar radiation the proper weight in them – then share them with us, though? No, me neither. I do expect them to tell us, regardless of any findings that undermine their plan, that we need to let them keep going with their program to control CO2 emissions with one or another kind of wealth redistribution scheme. At least we know that if we get more Sulfides into the air it will cause more clouds and thus more cooling. Let the games begin!

Nothing to see here!

They are at it again. This is the science these people use, and while I must admit that it is quite an ingenious trick, it’s plain bullshit. Read along.

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters — or about the thickness of a fingernail — every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

“Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring,” said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

“We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger… water volume is expanding,” he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

What a joke! Shouldn’t they instead be pointing out that nature seems to be itself dealing with the water level problem? It’s about as valid a conclusion as their ridiculous claim that they get to add a rise in ocean levels even when none is there, by of all things claiming that land is sponging upwards as an after effect of the ice age. Seriously, do they want me to believe that the entire planet was covered by ice in the last ice age? Because unless that was the case, I am sure they have a larger portion of the planet where land doesn’t need to bounce back that they could then quickly point towards and show actual sea level rises, right? Even a child should be able to see through this nonsense.

“If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger,” Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

Really? Why? Since when is a correction that seems so counter intuitive something that only those members of the clergy are supposed to know about? WTF? Is this science or something else? Again, why is an ice age that affected just a portion of the northern hemisphere causing land all over the planet to now rise and cancel out their claims out a rise in ocean levels?

“For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny — only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet.”

To me it stands out like a dead body in the middle of a prom dance. But then again, I pay attention.

But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases. “We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That’s not insignificant,” he told FoxNews.com.

Exactly. So the response of those tacking on non-existent rises using ridiculous contrived excuses is what then?

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

WTF? Compromise? This isn’t science at all then! There is no compromise in science just like there is no crying in baseball. When you are right, and try as they might nobody can dispute your finding/observation as they repeat your analysis and experiments, you r hypothesis becomes law and thus validates your findings. Or, if you are wrong, they find discrepancies and holes, discredit your work, and you are done and need to go back to the drawing board to start over. There is no compromise. These people need to be laughed at.

Exactly! Ocean levels are not disputable. It’s what you measure at the coast.

Seriously, if this isn’t obvious to people then we are in trouble. What’s next? They are going to tell us that both cold weather and warm weather are because of global warming? Oh wait. They already did that.

UPDATE: If you thought this was the only problem for these guys, well then check this revelation out:

The world’s foremost authority on climate change used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write one of its key reports, which critics say made misleading claims about renewable energy, The Independent has learnt.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the UN in 1988 to advise governments on the science behind global warming, issued a report last month suggesting renewable sources could provide 77 per cent of the world’s energy supply by 2050. But in supporting documents released this week, it emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years – and that the lead author of the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164 investigated by the IPCC.

Critics said the decision to highlight the 77 per cent figure showed a bias within the IPCC against promoting potentially carbon-neutral energies such as nuclear fuel. One climate change sceptic said it showed the body was not truly independent and relied too heavily on green groups for its evidence.

The allegations are particularly damaging as they represent the second controversy to hit the IPPC in a matter of years. In 2009, a tranche of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were leaked two weeks before the crucial Copenhagen climate summit. Climate change sceptics said they showed scientists manipulating data to talk up the threat of global warming, as well as trying to suppress their critics.

Lovely! In case you didn’t know it they are having some kind of meeting over this bullshit cult’s plans again, and as usual, it went nowhere.

And then we have this revelation, which in light of some people defending this circle jerk on another recent post is quite funny:

One of the disturbing practices revealed by the great cache of emails out of the University of East Anglia — the so-called Climategate emails — was the attempted shortcutting or corruption of the oh-so precious peer-review process. The emails contained clear declarations of how the grand viziers of climate science would lean on journals and reporters to make sure certain critics did not get the validation, the laying on of peer-reviewed hands, so critical to full participation in the great climate debate. This was most succinctly expressed by the beautiful quote from Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia that, “We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is.”

Much of what the world bizarrely allows to be called climate “science” is a closet-game, an in-group referring to and reinforcing its own members. The insiders keep out those seen as interlopers and critics, vilify dissenters and labour to maintain a proprietary hold on the entire vast subject. It has been described very precisely as a “climate-assessment oligarchy.” Less examined, or certainly less known to the general public, is how this in-group loops around itself. How the outside advocates buttress the inside scientists, and even — this is particularly noxious — how the outside advocates, the non-scientists, themselves become inside authorities.

It’s the perfect propaganda circle. Advocates find themselves in government offices, or on panels appointed by politicians disposed towards the hyper-alarmism of global warming. On the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) boards and panels, like seeks out like. And when the IPCC issues one of its state-of-the-global-warming-world reports, legions of environmentalists, and their maddeningly sympathetic and uninquisitive friends in most of the press, shout out the latest dire warnings as if they were coming from the very mouth of Disinterested Science itself.

A must read for those that want to understand what’s really going on.

Of course, as Hal already has pointed out in the first comment: climate change “science” is as settled and proven as gravity! So it is us non believers that are the dumb heretics that need to be mocked. Great one Hal!