Articles Tagged "Tim Ball"

This week two events provide opportunities to understand the political influences on climate science and the real influence of climate on politics.

First was Sean Hannity’s program The Green Swindle, a very good overview of the entire range of issues from hijacking of climate science by people at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to the dangers of cap and trade.

Medieval Warm Period

Second was a question from a CFP reader about the evidence for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).

Hannity showed a graph of northern hemisphere temperatures (Figure 1) produced by Hubert Lamb and used in the 1990 and 1995 IPCC Reports.

Click source to read FULL report

Recently Kerry Emanuel said, “Why would anybody ask weather forecasters about their opinion on climate? I think it is because there is a hope that I don’t think is justified that ordinary people will confuse weather forecasters with climate scientists.”

Emanuel is a professor of meteorology at MIT with a specialization in atmospheric convection and hurricanes. He is a meteorologist not a climatologist and many weather forecasters are meteorologists. Indeed, his specialty is even more narrow than that required by weather forecasters.

Dr. Emanuel served on the deliberately biased Lord Oxburgh committee investigating Climategate

He argued that hurricane activity would increase with global warming, but is reportedly rethinking that position. His comments were part of a 10-minute documentary about the apparently different views of media meteorologists and climatologists. He also said, “Weather forecasters are in a unique position. I mean if they actually did study the problem, if they actually took the time to really understand it rather than just go to the blogosphere to get their favourite views and rebroadcast them, then I think they could do a lot of good in the world and I think there are some who are doing that to be fair.”

Moonlight is not light generated by the moon, but reflected sunlight. First astronauts on the moon were amazed by the brightness of Earth when it appeared over the lunar horizon. What they saw was Earthlight, which is also reflected sunlight. It’s sunlight that does little to heat the Earth because it goes directly back out to space. The amount reflected varies with changes to the surface and atmosphere. These changes are significant yet poorly measured or understood and pushed aside by the fanatic focus on CO2. Global warming due to humans is based on the hypothesis that our addition of CO2 has changed the balance of energy entering and leaving the Earth’s atmosphere. There are a multitude of factors that can change this balance, many ignored or underplayed by climate science. They get away with this because the public is unaware.

Incoming Energy Inadequacies

It begins with measures of the amount of energy entering the Earth’s atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only consider changes in the irradiance portion of incoming solar energy (insolation). They claim that up to 1950 it explained over 50 percent of variation then CO2 became 90 percent of the cause of change. Part of the reason for downplaying irradiance is the low percentage of change in modern records. The earliest record from outside the atmosphere from a manned observatory was Skylab (1973 – 1979). Skylab showed a change of 0.14% in the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). An average over time shows a variation of 0.1% for an 11 - year sunspot cycle. This seems like a very small number and therefore of little consequence. The difficulty is by varying TSI by 6% in a computer model you can ‘explain’ all temperature change for the entire history of the Earth.

Finally, a weather person has mentioned the word “blocking” when talking about the heat and fires in Moscow. It’s a natural event as the world shifts from the warming trend of the 1990s to a cooling trend since 2000. Distortion of reality about global temperatures continues with warming claims while Western North America, most of Eurasia and large areas of the southern hemisphere report below normal temperatures. It’s been the coldest summer on record north of 80°N latitude and rate of sea ice melt continues to decrease.

Recently the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency as hundreds of people died from the coldest temperatures in 50 years.

Fifty years ago there was a cooling trend as global temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980. It troubled promoters of human CO2 as the cause of global warming. During the cooling period, CO2 from human activity increased the most in human history. They tried to solve the problem by plugging variables into the models until results equaled what was happening. It has nothing to do with reality, but allows them to claim their models work because they recreate past conditions. It’s even better if the cause has a human source. In the 1940–80 cooling, they added sulfates. Trouble is sulfate additions continued but global temperatures began to rise.

Obsession with finding human causes means they ignore what we know about natural mechanisms. Failure to include natural mechanisms is complicated by lack of knowledge or understanding of weather and climate mechanisms by most involved in the politics of climate science.

Image Source
US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” -temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speakout.

In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.

Most disturbing of all is that it took publication of my article last week to persuade the authorities to withdraw the errant NOAA-16 satellite from service. But as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite. The scandal is endemic with comparable flaws across the entire network; the scandal is also that it took a tip off from a member of the public and the widespread broadcast of my article before one of the offending junk boxes, NOAA-16, got taken down.

Readers who missed the details when this sensational story first broke can seen here at ClimateChangeFraud.com.

NOAA’s chief Program Administrator, Chuck Pistis, at first disingenuously tried to discredit my report and whitewash the matter with disinformation. Indeed, we may have a smoking gun of a cover up when we contrast and compare latest announcements with the offending satellite’s AVHRR Subsystem Summary.

"It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Yogi Berra.

Official weather forecasting hasn’t improved since it began and is of insufficient accuracy to be useful. Official climate forecasts produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are wrong, useless and dangerous. Weather and climate has been totally politicized through government involvement so it’s time to eliminate them in forecasting and research and reduce their role to data collection. Neither weather nor climate forecasts have improved over the centuries. Robin Page, farmer/author in his book “Weather Forecasting: The Country Way” wrote, “Yet it is strange to record that as the weather forecasting service has grown in size and expense, so it’s predictions seem to have become more inaccurate.” It isn’t strange but part of the deception government meteorologists and climatologists practice in leading the public to believe they’re improving because of bigger computers.

IPCC driving policy on energy, environment and economy

Weather folklore includes both weather and climate forecasts achieved without data. “Red sky in the morning sailors warning; red sky at night sailors delight” is an example of a weather forecast. The compelling English comment that, “A wet May brings a good load of hay; A hot May makes a fat churchyard” is a climate forecast because it’s based on a pattern established over time. Today we still have both, as national weather agencies provide weather forecasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make climate projections. The fact the IPCC deliberately call them projections and not forecasts is telling, as is the fact they are consistently wrong. They are meaningless, yet they are driving triple E global policies; energy, environment and economy.

On August 3rd and 4th a solar flare erupted from the surface of the Sun coincident with a sunspot equal in area to the Earth. Many people saw the associated increase in aurora visible in western North America as far south as Iowa. They were most visible in the auroral belt shown on the left, which is well north at this time of year.

Many prepared for other impacts and all sorts of hysterical predictions were made, including claims this was the start of increasingly severe activity leading to 2012. (Yes, the dreaded Mayan calendar year nonsense). The only thing that materialized was extensive and dazzling aurora displays.

NASA Continues Its Shameless Role As Chicken Little

Earlier in June 2010, NASA put out similar warnings about such solar storms. Dr. Richard Fisher, director of NASA’s Heliophysics Division warned Britain they faced, “…widespread power blackouts and be left without critical communication signals for long periods of time, after the earth is hit by a once-in-a-generation “space storm”. “It will disrupt communication devices such as satellites and car navigations, air travel, the banking system, our computers, everything that is electronic. It will cause major problems for the world.” “Large areas will be without electricity power and to repair that damage will be hard as that takes time.”

Recent reports claim June was the warmest on record, but it seems to fly in the face of reports of record cold from around the world.

Reports from Australia say, “Sydney recorded its coldest June morning today since 1949, with temperatures diving to 4.3 degrees just before 6:00 a.m. (AEST).” “Experts say it is unusual to see such widespread cold weather in June

In the southern hemisphere reports of cold have appeared frequently but rarely make the mainstream media.

“The Peruvian government has declared a state of emergency in more than half the country due to cold weather.”

“This week Peru’s capital, Lima, recorded its lowest temperatures in 46 years at 8C, and the emergency measures apply to several of its outlying districts.”

Up to a point Clive Crook, Senior editor of the The Atlantic, wrote a brilliant assessment of the whitewash that were the three investigations of the Climategate fiasco. “I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even willfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”

Crook correctly condemns the Climategate inquiry failure. He says they fail to restore confidence in climate science, which is essential to resolving the climate change problem. He never asks the next logical question. Why would they fail to act as he expects? Maybe it’s because Crook doesn’t realize there is no climate problem.

The degree to which those in official climate science are incapable is illustrated by the reaction. The answer is in the reaction the whitewash has triggered; an orchestrated attack on the skeptics, those who dare to perform science by proving the hypothesis wrong, to ask questions or demand debate. Why? The obvious answer is because the public was increasingly skeptical as evidence accumulated that the hypothesis was wrong.

Judge Lance Ito lost control of the O. J. Simpson trial when he allowed speculation without a shred of evidence. Defense counsel Johnny Cochrane was able to sow seeds of doubt by his speculations and it found fertile ground in the jury’s mind. The entire Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) structure and work was designed to convince the public either with no facts or falsely created ones. Once these were established the speculation of impending doom could begin.

Structure of the IPCC begins with Working Group I outlining an unproven speculation that academics call a hypothesis, which is defined as, “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.” In this case they proposed that CO2 is a gas that causes global temperature to rise and it will continue to increase in volume in the atmosphere because human activity, particularly energy production, will continue to expand.

As evidence accumulated it showed the hypothesis was not proven. Indeed, nobody has produced a record that shows a CO2 increase preceding a temperature increase.

Despite this, Working Group II assumes global warming is occurring and speculates on the impact it will have. It is a meaningless exercise and the area where much of the incorrect information was used and many of the non peer-reviewed articles are cited.

Working Group III take the speculations of Group II and propose strategies for offsetting them to achieve the goals of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is stated in the introduction of the 2007 Report as, “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” So they come full circle as they claim to have proved scientifically what was necessary to achieve their original goal. The hypothesis was not proved, nonetheless, the speculation of impact ensued and totally inappropriate recommendations presented. Policy based on speculation that is a product of speculation is frighteningly normal in this Age of Speculation.