View Article

Good Morning, Folks,

I may have discovered the one item that really frightens the climate modelers - the fact that none of their predictions seem to be bearing any fruit and in fact the opposite of their predictions seems to be happening.

I posted the below comment at.....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/aerosols-chemistry-and-climate/

.......and of course Gruppenführer Schmidt did not allow it to go live on the page, but it seems to indicate that even a casual summary of the actual situation appears as a threat to all of the failed climate modeling.

My original ( not allowed ) post is below for your enlightenment. Feel free to post it elsewhere if you wish, but I'd recommend you also include the note that this is the type of information that "Real Climate" doesn't want the general public to know. How ironic that "Real Climate" is not interested in the actual real climate of today.

Jim Peden


PS: Gavin Schmidt has been added to the CC list on this particular email, please be polite if you reply to the whole group, even alarmists deserve a modicum of respect, even if they aren't inclined to give it to others.

==================

Someone please help me out here. Everyone is yelling about fixing the "climate crisis", but I still can't find it - the crisis, that is.

There appears to be no significant change in either the frequency or intensity of hurricanes and in fact the last two seasons have been pretty quiet. Katrina hit land as a pretty standard CAT 3 and hurricane intensity isn't measured by the measure of property damage at any rate.

Global "temperatures" appear to be dropping ( if that term has any meaning at any rate ) and the solar scientists are complaining about a quiet sun which is starting to show many of the same characteristics as the Maunder Minimum, which led to the "little ice age". Well, that's a crisis, I suppose, but not the same color as the present one.

Sea levels continue to rise a minuscule amount each year as they have since the last ice age when sea level was perhaps 400 feet lower than it is today. I just can't see New York under water anytime in the 21st century at the present observed rates which don't seem to be changing.

Even the oceans seems to be cooling a bit based on data from the new diving buoy system, but perhaps NOAA is cooking the data and we can't trust them any more than we can trust NASA anymore.

The Antarctic Ice Pack continues to grow and is now larger than ever in the 30+ years we've been able to take highly accurate radar altimeter measurements. The Arctic Ice continues to expand and shrink annually as it seems inclined to do, and we note some pretty good sized volcanoes have recently been discovered on the Arctic Ocean floor which might be helping the shrinking part a bit.

Polar bear populations are at near record levels and seem healthy, and even I have seen them playing around on floating ice chunks in the Arctic summer. They are a terrestrial animal, after all, as anyone can see who visits the Churchill area in the summer and takes a polar bear cruise on one of their giant bear-proof buses.

Droughts and floods seem to be more strongly correlated with changes in ENSO and his friends than with a one degree temperature rise over the span of a hundred years, but maybe I'm missing something.

When I wrote the WE Campaign suggesting they take a closer look at things before falling off the turnip truck I immediately started receiving email bulletins from them referring to me as a "fellow campaigner", so I guess I now know how they grew to be a "million strong".

So, while hordes of folks continually call for Weapons of Mass Taxation to be hauled out to fight the "climate crisis", I still can't seem to find the crisis anywhere and note that the likely beneficiaries of carbon taxes and such will be the folks tolling the alarm.

As I said at the beginning: I'm having trouble locating the crisis, so I'm hoping some of the many experts here on this forum can give me a little guidance....

A reply to this from Lord Monckton........

At 01:38 PM 7/20/2008, Christopher Monckton wrote:

In 1989 the UN said we had ten years to prevent climate disaster or, by 2000, entire nations would be wiped off the map by "global warming". Yet it's cooler now than it was in 1988, the year before the UN made its doom-laden prediction. Temperature outturn is indeed tending to falsify the hypothesis of high climate sensitivity.

Let's look at the 30 years of halfway-reliable global temperature records. Temperature rose for the first 20 years and has been stable or falling in the most recent 10 years. Yet CO2 concentration is rising faster than ever, driven by massive and continuing emissions growth as China and India at last power their way out of third-world poverty. Since we're in no moral position to tell them to stop, and since they'll be exceeding the entire current CO2 output of the West between them in the next decade, even closing down the entire Western economy would not prevent climate disaster - if climate sensitivity were high. But it isn't.

The scare is over - falsified by a stream of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and by the failure of temperatures to respond as predicted.. The only way the UN can now square the temperature outturn with the predictions made by the models upon which it so heavily and unwisely relies is by saying that the temperature outturn falls within the error-margins of the predictions. All that means is that the error-margins are so massively wide that they encompass just about any outcome. The central puzzle for the Traffic-Light tendency (Greens to yellow to admit they're really Reds) is this: since the UN attributes negligible forcing capacity to natural climate changes, how come it's gotten so much colder when the greenhouse-gas theory says it should have gotten warmer?

Are the alarmists willing to concede - as they must - that natural variability is so powerful that for decades at a time it can buck the supposed warming trend from CO2? Natural variability could only have that effect if it were greater than the IPCC's values for natural forcing allow, or if the CO2 forcing were less than the IPCC imagines, or both. The scare is over, but it will take some time to educate the classe politique away from the notion that "global warming" will allow them a convenient excuse to tax and intrude on a hitherto-unprecedented scale. We're not buying any of it, not while the first July snow for decades is falling on the Scottish mountains outside my library window. - C