Hard times in the Church of Global Warming

Posted by: Phineas on January 31, 2012 at 1:01 pm

**Posted by Phineas

Today’s a busy day, but I wanted to share three stories that, taken together, almost make one feel sorry for those who cling bitterly to their faith in the fraud that is anthropogenic global warming …er… dangerous man-caused climate change …no, wait… extreme weather events that are really our fault whatever they want to call it, this week.

First, yet another prediction of DOOM falls flat. Among the various disasters sure to befall us as we pump CO2 (aka, “plant food”) into the atmosphere and Earth takes her revenge in the best Hollywood manner was supposed to be an increase in violent hurricanes.

There’s a small problem: it ain’t happening.

What was learned
The four researchers’ reconstructed record of intense hurricanes revealed that the frequency of these “high-magnitude” events “peaked near 6 storms per century between 2800 and 2300 years ago.” Thereafter, it suggests that they were “relatively rare” with “about 0-3 storms per century occurring between 1900 and 1600 years ago,” after which they state that these super-storms exhibited a marked decline, which “began around 600 years ago” and has persisted through the present with “below average frequency over the last 150 years when compared to the preceding five millennia.”

What it means
It is instructive to note that over the past century and a half of ever-increasing fossil fuel utilization and atmospheric CO2 buildup, the frequency of the most intense category of hurricanes in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico has been lower than it was over the prior five millennia, which speaks volumes about the climate-alarmist claim that continued anthropogenic CO2 emissions will lead to more frequent super cyclones and hurricanes.

Dontcha just hate it when empirical evidence gets in the way of perfectly good religious dogma scientific theory? Granted, this study was only in Florida, but, also in fairness, Florida is one of the places alarmists claimed would be worst-hit by AGW-caused super-storms. Certainly, this is worth testing elsewhere to see if the results hold up.

But wait, there’s more!

Far from the Earth becoming a steam bath thanks to Man’s folly, we may well be headed toward another Little Ice Age, such as that which plagued us from the mid-17th to the mid-19th centuries, when the Hudson and the Thames would freeze-over in winter. Apparently, the sun just won’t cooperate:

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

(h/t the ever-readable Delingpole)

The Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (1), as you may know, have been two of the chief centers for climate alarmism, constantly pushing a message of impending DOOM!!, unless we all submit now to a transnational bureaucracy that will tax and control us all the way to Salvation. Naturally, since the report came from the Met, they feel obliged to explain that it really means nothing and that the power of CO2-induced warming will overwhelm the influence of the sun (2).

So, does this mean AGW is now good, since it will keep us from freezing our tootsies off? I’m so confused…

Finally, a group of 16 (real) scientists co-authored an essay in the Wall Street Journal arguing that while there is no need to panic over global warming, we should decry the corruption of science in the name of “consensus” and, yes, profit:

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

(…)

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Be sure to read the whole thing.

And the next time you find yourself pitying a disconsolate global-warming cultist, forget it. Laugh and point, instead; it’s much more fun.

Footnotes:
(1) The CRU was also at the center of the Climategate and Climategate II scandals. How anyone can take them seriously after that is beyond me.
(2) Of course, this is the same crowd that claimed our children and grandchildren would not know what snow is, only to see Europe soon thereafter blanketed with record snowfalls. So we know what their predictions are worth.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

24 Responses to “Hard times in the Church of Global Warming”

Comments

  1. Tex says:

    I read last year about some of the more true scientists (neither for or against but following the real data) were complaining that most of the climate models created by the global warming advocates failed, either accidentally or intentionally, to take the effect of temperature increases on the atmospheric moisture content into consideration.

    Anyone with a basic high school science education knows that warm air holds more water than cool air. Therefore, the more warm air there is around the world, the more water is being evaporated from the surface, the more water that is being held in the atmosphere, and the less water in the oceans.

    They were calling into question the dire predictions made by global warming advocates of huge sea level rises and the flooding of coastal areas and the loss of islands. They believe if the global warming advocates would factor in the effects of a warmer climate on moisture content of the atmosphere into their climate models, they would find far lower sea level rises, if any at all.

  2. Dave Dooling says:

    The Daily Mail story is incorrect in referring to “magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface.” We cannot measure magnetic fields below the surface. What we can do is measure how sound is refracted through the interior of the Sun by changes in gas density (this by measuring the red/blue shift of surface oscillations). From this we infer the structure of major wind flows that produce the magnetic dynamo that produces sunspots, flares, and space weather. See “What’s Down with the Sun?”

  3. Zippy says:

    The tree hugging elite are always easy to detect since they usually inject ‘because of global warming’ into conversation whether it’s relevant or not. In reply, I like to inject ‘because of rendered fat’ and ‘twinkies’ in the conversation just to throw them off.

    This was very interesting and enlightening, to say the least.

    (Note: There is nothing scientifically noteworthy about my comment.)

  4. Carlos says:

    It’s unfortunate that “believers” cannot for the life of them figure out that the alarmist “scientists” are in it not just for the money, but are propped up by politicians that are in it for the power.

    Really wish they could get a clue, but clues cost $.15 and they don’t have it because the alarmists have caused food prices to skyrocket trying to “fix” the problems they create by fiat.

  5. Zippy says:

    It’s easier for far too many to believe what people tell them instead of having a healthy dose of skepticism, I think Carlos.

  6. Tlaloc says:

    Key quote:

    Granted, this study was only in Florida

    In other words this is no different than pointing to a place on the map that happens to be having cold weather that day and saying “Aha! Global warming is a hoax, it’s 10 degrees cooler in Okipinokee, Al this year compared to last year!”

    In other words it’s the kind of muddle the issue stall for time tactic used by the desperate when they know they’ve well and truly lost the argument.

  7. Tlaloc says:

    It’s unfortunate that “believers” cannot for the life of them figure out that the alarmist “scientists” are in it not just for the money, but are propped up by politicians that are in it for the power.

    Anyone dumb enough to go into science, particularly climate science, for the money is also too dumb to succeed at the kind of massive conspiracy you suggest. Actually there’s nobody smart enough to manage such a conspiracy successfully. Like all theories that rely on hundreds or thousands of disparate individuals to all remain silent on a matter it simply falls apart in the face of even the most minimal of reality checks.

  8. JohnFLob says:

    Tlaloc:
    You may have missed an important bit of information in your rush to judgement. Yes the article did admit that the study of severe hurricanes was limited to the Florida Gulf Coast. But the article also included a 150 year time frame, much longer by a factor of 75, than your 2 year example. Perhaps the 2005 hurricane was more of an anomolie than a predictor of looming doom.

  9. JohnFLob says:

    Tlaloc:
    Many people enter the sciences because they have a keen interest in a particular discipline, not dreams of incredable wealth accumulation. Many, if not most, institutions of higher learning require that their instructional staff ‘publish or perish’. Thus there is keen competition for research funding of studies upon which to base publications in the appropriate technical journals. It is not unlike competion in other employment environments. Produce or get terminated.

  10. Drew the Infidel says:

    Tlaloc has been in the sunlight too long. Living in West Texas, I know the symptoms well. We only have two seasons here: six months of heat and dirt and six months of damn poor weather. Been that way since before any of us was even an idea.

  11. Zachriel says:

    Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

    That is incorrect. 2005 and 2010 were the warmest years on record. Last year was the eleventh warmest on record, even though it was a La Niña year, which generally results in cooler temperatures.
    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

  12. Drew the Infidel says:

    Some people use statistics the same way a drunk uses a lamp post; for support instead of illumination.

  13. Great White Rat says:

    Zachriel conveniently omits much of what’s revealed in his link.

    For one thing, as Phineas points out, Met office is less a scientific operation than a political one. Yet even in Zach’s link, you find unintentional nuggests like this:

    The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.

    Wait, what??!? you mean the sun might actually have something to do with the temperatures here on Earth? Who knew?

    Unless, of course, these, um, deniers want to pretend the sun has little to do with our climate changes. And it turns out that’s exactly the case:

    It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

    Translation: pay no attention to the sun. It has very little to do with whether climate becomes warmer or colder. The fact that Mars has the same sun and that climate changes on Mars are paralleling those on Earth is purely coincidence. Most likely the Martians have been voting Republican and driving SUVs instead of their equivalent of the Chevy Volt; that’s why they have the same problem.

    Betcha you just can’t guess what they do see as the big factor in global temperatures:

    The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).

    So while sound science that predicts solar cooling is to be given little credit, the most outlandish scenarios Dreamed up by an openly political and long-discredited U.N. operation – the IPCC – are to be worshipped and treated as fact.

    Unless you can actually think, that is.

  14. Jiji says:

    Washington Post Report on Global Warming

    The Washington Post:

    The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and, in some places, the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

    Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

    Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points, well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    Within a few years, it is predicted that, due to the ice melt, the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

    I apologize; did I forget to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in the Washington Post .. 89 years ago???

    What fools some mortals be….

  15. Carlos says:

    Very good, Jiji. The language used was exactly like the reports issued at least weekly (weakly?) by the WaPo, NYT, IPCC, University of East Anglia and a host of other “science” sources.

    If they keep this up another year or two, they’ll have to come up with another name for what we grew up knowing as “science” because they will be so discredited no one will ever wish to be known as a “scientist” again.

    And I still remember the scare headlines of the 1970s about the coming Ice Age, all based on exactly the same “science” that is used today to scare mindless blobs into giving up ever more freedoms in the name of earth-worship.

  16. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: Wait, what??!? you mean the sun might actually have something to do with the temperatures here on Earth? Who knew?

    Of course it does, and it is an important component of climate models over geological time scales, and is critical to understanding Earth’s climate history. However, the greenhouse effect currently swamps changes in solar irradiance.

    Jiji: I apologize; did I forget to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in the Washington Post .. 89 years ago???

    The arctic warming of 1920-1940 was regional, not global. A number of studies have shown that natural variability was responsible, in particular, wind-driven ocean heat flow into the Barents Sea, amplified by changes in albedo.

    Johannessen et al., Arctic climate change: observed and modelled temperature and sea-ice variability, Tellus 2004.

    Bengtsson, Semenov & Johannessen, The early century warming in the Arctic – A possible mechanism, Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie 2003.

  17. Great White Rat says:

    However, the greenhouse effect currently swamps changes in solar irradiance.

    And of course, that explains why Mars is experiencing the same phenomenon. We have such potent greenhouse gases that they’re even affecting the Martian climate.

    Unless, of course, the sun actually is the main reason for global warming, or climate change, or whatever the alarmists are calling it this week. Naaah…that couldn’t possibly be the major factor.

    Or, as I speculated above, Martians are busy driving SUVs and don’t have Luddites trying to criminalize freedom.

  18. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: And of course, that explains why Mars is experiencing the same phenomenon.

    It’s not at all clear that Mars is warming. Changes in the ice cap may be a regional phenomena.

    Colaprete et al., Albedo of the south pole on Mars determined by topographic forcing of atmosphere dynamics, Nature 2005.

    Nor are there changes in solar irradiance sufficient to account for the warming trend.

    Willson & Mordvinov, Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles, Geophys. Res. Lett. 2003.

    In any case, the atmosphere on Mars is much more tenuous and dry than Earth’s, and there are no oceans to moderate temperature changes, so the planet is susceptible to rapid changes in global conditions. Dust is an important factor—Mars is subject to vast dust storms—, and dust can cover the ice and lower its albedo.

  19. Great White Rat says:

    Ah, so let’s understand….first you accept contemporary non-scientific scenarios as proof of terrestrial global warming, then cite 7-9 year old articles to debunk contemporary Martian global warming.

    The one thing consistent in Zach’s commentary is that today’s scientific findings, such as the research Phineas cited, are disregarded. But that’s not too surprising for someone who’s more invested in the politics of climate than the science.

  20. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat:

    The one thing consistent in Zach’s commentary is that today’s scientific findings, such as the research Phineas cited, are disregarded.

    Start with the basics.

    Phineas (quoting): “Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.”

    He didn’t quote “research”, but the Daily Mail. And the Daily Mail got it wrong.

  21. Great White Rat says:

    Oh, please. You’re going in circles. You’re citing a political organization (the Met Office) as the authority for its own statements, and then attempt to support that from the CRU, whose credibility is in the sewer after its internal communications showed unscientific data manipulation in order to “hide the decline”.

    Once again, you can refer to nothing except what is contained within your ideological strait jacket. I’m done with this one.

  22. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: You’re citing a political organization (the Met Office) …

    The MET is the UK’s national weather and climate service. It’s findings are corroborated by other national climate organizations.

    Great White Rat: … as the authority for its own statements, …

    The article in question represented that the MET data ‘confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997′. That is simply false. In fact, the MET data shows that it was warmer in 2005 and 2010 than any previous year in the record.

  23. Zachriel says:

    Sorry, meant to say that 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.

  24. Zachriel says:

    Another way to consider the data is to remove the ENSO oscillation, which being an oscillation doesn’t affect the overall climate trend. From Thompson 2008:
    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/adj1yr.jpg