The Bourbon Addict

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis

Written by Robert Ferguson

Tuesday, 15 July 2008

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports. Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007. Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes – “… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.” Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:  “I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.‘ “To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.” Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that – The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%; CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100; Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly; The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500; The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated; “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years; Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling; The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%; It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible; Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed; In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

the full PDF is here

1. let’s assume we have a warming atmosphere, and that more heat means that more glaciers melt….

2. if we assume  50% glaciers are on land and 50 % are in the ocean, then….. 

  2a. half fill a glass of water and add an ice cube, mark the water’s level….

   2b. when the ice melts, remark the level… did it change?

    2c. i did not

3. global warming enthusiasts claim a warmer ocean is one which holds less co2 (IE that warming the planet will warm the oceans which will cause them to off-gas co2 and cause more warming, need citations, just ask)

  3a. so if 50% of the glaciers are on land, and they a! ll melt, will that water not travel to the ocean and have an overall cooling effect?

   3b so in 3.0 we said that a cooler ocean absorbs more co2, so then  is not glaciers melting in response to global warming a  good thing?

4. remember that glaciers only represent 2-3% of earths total water

5. if 100% of the glacier mass is 3% of water; then 50% of glacier is 1.5% water and then: since 1.5% of the water mass wont raise the water levels  (see point 2) then at most we can only raise the sea level by 1.5% if we assume warming planet is going  to warm the glaciers and cause 100% of them to melt completely; which is absurd

6. a warming planet means hotter water which means more evaporation of more water which means more clouds which means more rain which means more snow in winter which means  more ice pack which means global warming causes glaciers to increase and since when its warmer they melt they! also have more mass with which to melt off and cool the o ceans of which means that its a self governing, cybernetic (IE non-linear) cycle, really, except when the sun is weak, in those years they grow, when the sun is active they grow.

7. more clouds (caused by hotter water) also means the earth’s surface is more white (when seen from the sun’s perspective), and white, as we all know, reflects more heat than black, which absorbs heat, so therefore, more heat means more clouds which means more heat reflected which means more cooling on the surface which acts to counter the warming.

8. so, in conclusion…. melting glaciers only raise water levels  to 1.5% above where they are now (AT MOST) and warmer oceans means more clouds which means more rain which means glaciers advance and warming planet also warms land-glaciers which melt and cool the oceans which also negates the warming trend

get it yet? gaia protects herself with feed back mechanisms.

cheers`~KM 

David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com

Has global warming stopped?David WhitehousePublished 19 December 2007=’The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001′ Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.

Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, say as many as six of this year’s 14 named tropical systems might have failed in earlier decades to earn “named storm” status.

“They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to,” said Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV.
Rush to name storms may be costing you money | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

as we all know this is to try to make the global warming theories work. we all know that a warm earth has less storms than a cold one. a cold Earth  has more extreme temp. differential that actually causes more storms if the whole planet is warm it rarely storms in comparison.
`KM

if you could have warm, sunny beaches in alaska or ice bergs in texas what would you choose? imagine the what the world’s population  would do if it suddenly started getting colder?  they would strorm south!! Yikes? And idf it got warm everyone would just spread out and demand drinks with little umbrellas. Women would dress more scantily. Now how is that bad? I am sure the eternally cold beer would also be invented…..`KM well  then how about this song by Judas PriestVictim of Changes to help you think.

 Whiskey woman don’t you know that you are drivin’ me insane 

The liquor you give stems your will to live and gets right to my brainDon’t you know you’re driving me insaneYou’re tryin’ to find your way through lifeYou’re tryin’ to get some new directionAnother woman got her manShe won’t find no new connectionTakes another drink or two, things look better when she’s throughTakes another look around, you’re not goin’ anywhereYou’ve realised you’re gettin’ old and no one seems to careYou’re tryin’ to find your way againYou’re tryin’ to find some new…Another woman’s got her manBut she won’t find a new…Takes another drink or two, things look better when she’s throughYou ‘bin foolin’ with some hot guyI want to know why is it whyGet up get out you know you really blew itI’ve had enough, I’ve had enough, good God pluck meOnce she was wonderfulOnce she was fineOnce she was beautifulOnce she was mine…she was mineNow change has come over her body, she doesn’t see me anymoreNow change has come over her body, she doesn’t see me anymoreChanges, changes, changes, changesVictim of changes

i’ll start with the peer-reviewed paper that goes right to the point that “virtually all published estimates of how the climate could change in the uS are the result of computer models of the atmosphere known as ‘general circulation models’. These complicated models are able to produce MANY of the features of  the climate but they are still not accurate enough to to provide reliable forecasts of how the climate may change….”global warming - climate, 14 october 2004, <yosemite.epa.gov/introduction/goals>.

plus think

more co2 means trees grow faster. ever heard of a marijuanna grow room. some pump co2 into so plants grow faster. and they also heat them up. oh my. our trees will grow faster, or climate zones will shift. wowie zowie. looks like the only concern is the insurance industries that coincidentally fund many “the seas will rise of  the oceans warm” papers. but over the past 40 years the antarctic has gotten colder. need that one? oh yea no ipcc models can explain that and its reality! never mind its late, i have a few thousand papers i can quote from. but then so do you. i can look up that one in the a.m. (here  not my links, jusy googles,i can give you mine in the am.,m.m http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high.html  <http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2002/faxback/2.14.02glblwarm.htm><http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2002/jan/science/ws_antarctic.html><http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0118/p02s01-usgn.html><http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jan/antarctica/020118.antarctica.html><

it doesnt matter that over 100 times in earth past, in ten years the temps have swung 5-10 degrees further than we have in 100 years or will in 200, and the planet came thru. this time many two legged mammals may not survive. oops. the planet will.  again. and again and again.

coincidentally when  the ice ages advance we get more storms not the other way around think of iurt, gradients of temps cause air movement, if the who earth is  warm that goes down (air movement., think. its physics 101). quite against how the warmists want u to think.

g’night

i close with this

http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/youtube.pl?IDLink=3226224

lets start with a  few facts. you can verify these everyhwere. i just cant be certain peoplke know their non-anthropomorphic climato-geologic history. i actually ahd someone argue taht extra co2 does not help plants plants only need light and nothing else!!! LOL. ask any pot grower. just light in a vaccum does not green bud make.

4.5 BYA - earth formed
3.8 BYA - single celled life!!!
1.9 BYA - nitrogen dominated atmosphere replaced by oxygen rich one
540 MYA - earth suddenly went from ice ball to to warm and humid, life is bursting at seams, evolution grows exponentially
350-250 MYA - ace sheets reform, stil only one large land mass
300 mya - earth uniformly hot and humid,most of land is swamps and rain forest
250 MYA - permian period - so hot and dry that huge salt deposits form all around the earth (aghast and no human emissions)
60 MYA - earth in hot house period wit no ocean circulation or polar caps
30 MYA - antarctica separates, shortly after glaciers begin to form
5 MYA - modern climate begins to develop as continents separate and produces the giant oceanic temperature conveyer belt in north atlantic. cooling  up there leads to more ice sheets up north.
2 MYA - cycles in earth’s relation ton the  sun produce alternating ice ages (90-100,000 years) and interglacials (10-20,000 years) the onset is often slow but ends abruptly at the transition to the warm period. the average global temperature changes 5 to 7 degrees Celsius but as much as 10-15 over a span of less than 75 year!!! (REF: Mikkelson, N., and A. Kuijpers, The Climate System and Climate Variations, “Natural Climate variations in a  geological perspective,” geological survey of denmark and greenland 2001 - but ya gotta as k for it from them, they’l send  it to ya i am sure http://www.geus.dk/publications/2001other-pa-uk.htm)

so anyway i doubt anyone cares taht the well i’ll go into anyway just so we know
130-110k YA - Eemian interglacial warm period
110k YA - sudden shift over 400 years to much colder toims, northern forests retreat south, ice sheets spread south, trees give away to grass, then to deserts, as more water is frozen in ice instead of fgalling as rain
60-55k YA - melting of glaciers
30k YA - coldest point of last ice age, sea lkevels 400 ft lower than today and deserts took over
14k YA - sudden warming, from ice age to warming to prtesent levels in 400 year!! Aghast. forests began to spread.
12.5k YA - the younger dryas, starting of another 10000 years of ice. l;ack of co2 not cause
11.5k YA - the holocene started. warmed from then cold to nearly presnmt termps in under 100 years.co2 was NOT the cause
9-5k years ago - climate optimum, warmer and weter than today
2600 years ago - coolling, caused wet conditions almost all overt the world
600-200BC - cold period the preceeded the roman warming
200 BC - to 600 AD - roman warming, NOT caused by co2, caused rome flourish (helped to)
600-900 ad - dark ages cold period.
900-1300 AD medieval warming otherwise called little climate optimum
1300-1850 ad - litttle ice age, the thames river froze
1850-1940 warming
1940-1975 - cooling
1976-1978 sudden warming
1978- 2day - a large disparity between surface thermometers, which show a fairly strong warming, and the independent temperature readings of satellites and baloons which show little if any warming.

then we have”the study, appearing in the march 21 issue of the journal of science, analyzed ancient tree rings from 14 sites on three continents in the north hemisphere and concluded the temperatures in the medieval warm period, some 800-10000 years ago closely matched the warming trend of present (REF: paul recer, “study of the tree rings shows earth ahs normal cycles of warmth, cooling,” associated press, 222, march 2002

“the number of chinese floods averaged fewer than 4% in the warm period of the 9th thr the 11th centuries, while the average number of was more than double the figure in  the 14th century thru the 17rth century of the mini ice age” oh that one was from 199 5may not be new enough for ya. but he it was based upon the chinese who kept meticulous records.
lol

think about it during hot imes all ice is gone so not may floods but when its got ice covered spots taht melt then you get floods, scaremongers have it all wrong.

well i am tired. apnea kicks my ass

for every 3 links i can quote - so can you. its an impasse. i think my reading and my schooling m,akes me a better judge of what links to believe (all are ran by money, funded by monewya nd are therefore somewhat subjective and biased) all i know is that A) plats love extra co2 and B) the planet has seen worse and survived and C) mammals such as humans may not live (mostly just beach front houses  would be lost and insurance companies would go broke) but certainly life as extremophilic bacteria will and hopefully the next intelligent species is smarter, but i think it’ll be nukes before heat waves oh and D) our only salvation without an almost complete genocide of humans is to use nuclear power, i have to agree  with lovelock on that. the numbers are staggering. if the sun  was up 24/7 it would take all four southwest us states covered in solar panels to power the usa. yikes. windmills would need to occupy the same space and need to run 24/7. cant happen. we need nuclear.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gifwhy have temps been level since 2000? we have added not only more cars but more airplanes and coal plants. this should equal more co2 taht should according to global warming cultists equal a huge rise in global temps. it did not. why?.why did the global mean temp drop from 1940 to 1980 is we were during the whole time adding more co2?
either way, methane from cow flatulence is a bigger greenhouse contributor than cars.exhaust from airplanes (Gore’s gets 1mpg and he flies A LOT!!!!!! LOL yea he cares.) cause more greenhouse emissions than carsthe last save the planet concert caused more greenhouse damage via plane exhaust than  they could ever recover. celebrities dont care they just pretend.

`~KM

Down and dirty like: there have been periods of vulcanism that have spewed 2X to 3X the amoount of co2 and particulates in the air in a  matter  of hours than we have since the industrial revolution. all the temp did was swing. then eventually it swang back. its a wholly cybernetic system, thats extremely hard to model which is why scientists chose the assumption of an environmental stasis upon which to start their models which is wrong as we know and they also even the ipcc says they dont know how clouds fit into the model NASA’s Bruce Weilicki says “we present new evidence from a compilation of over 2 decades of accurate satellite data that the top of the atmosphere tropical radiation budget is much more variable and and dynamic  than previously thought. results indicate  that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness. the results of several current climate model simulations fail to predict  this large observed variation in tropical energy budget. the missing variability in the models highlights the critical need to improve cloud modeling … this leads to a  threefold uncertainty  in the predictions of the possible global warming over the next century. we caution against interpreting decadal variability as evidence of greenhouse gas warming”: B.A. Weilicki et al., “Evidence for large decadal variability in the tropical mean radiative energy budget, ” Science 295 (2002): 841-44LOLi doalbedo at least.. that what my computer modelling teacher said (we used macs, and an app called stella). i actually spent time modeling solar output and cloud cover. fun stuff. on a  mac SE LOL. onlly one semester. only one paper. it was only about 10 pages. i actually used it in my ecology clas as extra cedit to bring me from aA- to big Ol A. the other model i did was on aids and its spread was about 20- pages. turns out my model is still holding up :) `KM