3 Jul 2009, 10:47pm
Climate and Weather
by admin
leave a comment

Thermageddon Postponed Indefinitely

The latest global temperature reading (June ‘09) has been released by by the Global Hydrology and Climate Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The estimate is based on sensor readings from the Microwave Sounding Unit aboard NASA’s AQUA satellite. AQUA is a spacecraft with on-board propulsion and thus has stable station-keeping (it is not subject to diurnal temperature drifts).

Here is a graph of the 1979 to 2009 troposphere temperature anomalies (variations from the average of 1979 to 1997):

UAH global temperature anomaly 1979 to June 2009. Graph courtesy Watts Up With That [here].

Note that the total global temperature change over the last 30 years is 0.15 degrees C (fifteen one hundredths of a degree Centigrade).

Over the last 30 years the globe has warmed an insignificant amount according to the most exacting and accurate global temperature measurement system known to man.

There has been no significant global warming for the last 30 years.

The Pacific Ocean experienced a strong El Nino in 1998. That oceanic oscillation caused a spike in global temperatures. However, the excess heat was radiated into outer space within a year. The Earth’s atmosphere will only hold so much heat. There is no ceiling on the Earth’s atmosphere. Excess heat is dissipated into the interplanetary void.

The atmospheric addition of a few parts per million of carbon dioxide over the last 30 years has had no appreciable effect on global temperatures. The global is not heating up. There is no looming Thermageddon.

Actions taken by Congress, and indeed by all the governments of the world combined, to limit CO2 are useless. They will not “solve” a non-problem. There is no anthropogenic global warming because there is no warming (and in any case, if there was warming it would be a boon to Life, not a detriment). Those government actions may, however, cripple the world economy and needlessly cause tremendous human suffering worldwide.

If there ever was a time when the human inhabitants of this planet needed to cast off the chains of authoritarian governments gone mad, this is it.

Climate Realist Numbers Growing

The proper term for those who reject Al Gore’s paranoid fantasy about global warming is “climate realists”. It’s not “skeptics,” its not “deniers,” and it’s not “traitors.”

Climate realists already outnumber Chicken Little Alarmists, and our percentages are growing. From the WSJ:

The Climate Change Climate Change

The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

By Kimberley A. Strassel, Wall Street Journal, June 29, 2009 [here]

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven’t heard of this politician, it’s because he’s a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country’s carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

more »

Is There a Forest Fire-Climate Connection?

by Mike Dubrasich

The Web is all atwitter with the latest news about an alleged global warming - forest fire relationship. The buzz was instigated by a new research paper published in the June issue of Ecological Applications.

The paper is Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916–2003 by Jeremy S. Littell, Donald Mckenzie, David L. Peterson, and Anthony L. Westerling. The full text is [here]*, generously provided to us by the lead author**.

*The original link to the full text was withdrawn following threats made by Ecological Applications. For more discussion regarding that worm can, see [here].

** A new “legal” link to the full paper [here] has been supplied by the lead author, Jeremy S. Littell of the Univ. of Washington. Thank you, Dr. Littell.

The USFS PNW Research Station (where co-author David L. Peterson works) posted a News Release about the paper [here].

In the warming West, climate most significant factor in fanning wildfire flames

Study finds that climate influence on production, drying of fuels-not higher temperatures or longer fire seasons alone-critical determinant of Western wildfire burned area

PORTLAND, Ore. June 26, 2009. The recent increase in area burned by wildfires in the Western United States is a product not of higher temperatures or longer fire seasons alone, but a complex relationship between climate and fuels that varies among different ecosystems, according to a study conducted by U.S. Forest Service and university scientists. The study is the most detailed examination of wildfire in the United States to date and appears in the current issue of the journal Ecological Applications. …

“We found that what matters most in accounting for large wildfires in the Western United States is how climate influences the build up-or production-and drying of fuels,” said Jeremy Littell, a research scientist with the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group and lead investigator of the study. “Climate affects fuels in different ecosystems differently, meaning that future wildfire size and, likely, severity depends on interactions between climate and fuel availability and production.” …

Note the careful use of the word “climate.” And note the disclaimer: global warming is NOT implicated. The News Release and the paper itself do not blame global warming (aka “higher temperatures”) for forest fires.

Instead, the researchers found that a combination of weather factors, including precipitation in the years immediately prior to the fires, may be partially correlated with fire acreage.

Note my use of the term “weather”. Average precipitation has not changed. Some years are dry, some are wet. Note also my use of the term “correlation.” Correlation is NOT causation. Note also my use of the term “partial.” The correlations found by the researchers were weak.

However, that did not stop the USFS PNW Research Station from leaping to conclusions that are at odds with what was carefully parsed in the paper:

Findings from the study suggest that, as the climate continues to warm, more area can be expected to burn, at least in northern portions of the West, corroborating what researchers have projected in previous studies. In addition, cooler, wetter areas that are relatively fire-free today, such as the west side of the Cascade Range, may be more prone to fire by mid-century if climate projections hold and weather becomes more extreme.

Note that the USFS PNW Research Station uses the word “warming” in their headline and in the paragraph quoted above, despite the fact that “warming” was not even studied or correlated, much less causational.

Note that the conclusions of the USFS PNW Research Station rely on “climate projections” that have nothing to do with the paper and are themselves unskillful and largely failures at predicting anything.

So what did the researchers actually find, and how skillful were they at their historical analysis (note again that they attempted no “projections” or “predictions” as those words are generally interpreted)?

more »

New York Noodle Flipping

New York Times pundit Paul Krugman flipped his noodle yesterday, calling those who oppose the Cap-and-Stifle Bill “treasonous” [here].

Krugman, a noted socialist economist who won the Nobel Prize, (a cheap piece of junk jewelry also awarded to terrorists such as Yasser Arafat), claimed that terrorism was a false threat but “climate change is all too real.”

Guess he never visited Ground Zero.

Krugman also claimed “the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate.” In fact, those claims are false, although his attempt to terrorize people is real.

Krugman is not a climatologist — he bases his galloping paranoia on climate models that purport to predict the future 100 years out. Sadly, the climate models can’t predict the future two weeks out.

Krugman’s own economic models failed to predict the economic crash; you would think he might have learned his lesson regarding garbage-in-garbage-out computer models.

Speaking of treason, Krugman advocates a socialist takeover of the banking industry by One World Government. And speaking of economic failures, his employer, the New York Times, is on it’s last financial legs and staring bankruptcy in the nose.

Evidently Krugman wants to bring the entire country along on his mad dash to the poor house.

If I’m a traitor, what’s that make Krugman? A mega-traitor?

One thing is for certain: New Yorkers are loony. If there ever was a cesspool of failed socialism, New York is it. Yet they have temerity to dictate economic sanctions and punishments to the rest of the Nation.

Let’s excise New York like an ugly wart. Cut it off and build a wall around it. No more free handouts. Then watch the New Yorkers eat each other. Wasn’t there a movie about that? Honey I Ate The Kids or something?

For the record, the globe is not warming, CO2 is not a pollutant, and loonies like Krugman deserve straight jackets and padded cells.

Walden, Barton: House Should Investigate EPA

House Energy and Commerce Committee Press Release, June 25, 2009 [here]

Barton, Walden Ask Committee Democrats to Investigate on EPA’s Suppression of CO2 Report

WASHINGTON – U.S. Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Greg Walden, R-Ore., ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, today asked Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Oversight Committee Chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to begin an investigation on the process the Environmental Protection Agency used in developing its endangerment finding.

The endangerment finding, if formalized by a rule, would allow the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, something U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., once called “a glorious mess.”

“It appears the administration and EPA administrator rushed to issue the proposed endangerment finding without considering fully substantive analysis and views of senior EPA career staff within the agency,” Barton and Walden wrote. “The attached EPA emails raise serious questions about the process for developing the proposed endangerment finding, whether analysis or information was suppressed because it did not support the administration and/or administrator’s proposed finding, and/or whether there is a fear within the agency that there will be negative consequences for offices that offer views critical of the prevailing views of the administrator and the administration.”

A copy of letters from Barton and Walden to Waxman and from Barton to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson can be found [here].

An additional Press Release from Barton entitled “Draft of Report Suppressed at EPA Shows Why Agency’s Career Staff Challenged CO2 Endangerment Ruling” is [here].

EPA Suppresses Internal Report Questioning Regulation of CO2

A series of articles and posts are sweeping the Internet regarding malfeasance by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Background: in April the EPA announced they will be regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant [here]. They issued a document in that regard entitled Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (EF). The EPA requested public comment on the “endangerment” finding [here]. The comment period ended June 23rd.

But it turns out that the EPA suppressed their own scientists who had disagreements with the “endangerment” finding, and further, the EPA has no intention or capability to evaluate the public comments they received.

more »

25 Jun 2009, 3:48pm
Climate and Weather
by admin
2 comments

Opening Pandora’s Box: Classifying CO2 as a “Pollutant”

By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson, Center For Vision & Values, June 08, 2009 [here]

A few days before “Earth Day” (which happens to be the same day as Lenin’s Birthday), America’s ideological greens and reds received a present they have been desiring for many moons: The Environmental Protection Agency — egged on by the U.S. Supreme Court — officially designated carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. That means that either Congress or the EPA is expected to produce a plan for regulating this common gas.

So opens a new chapter in regulatory absurdity, a veritable Pandora’s Box of complications.

more »

US Government’s Climate Con-Job

Note: the Waxman-Markey Carbon Cap-and Trade Bill is due for a floor vote in the House of Representatives, possibly as soon as Friday [here]. The following timely essay was written by Paul Driessen, senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death.

*****

Obama administration “report” on climate change is deceitful, scare-mongering, bogus science

by Paul Driessen

Suppose a company doctored data, misrepresented study findings, replaced observations with computer simulations, and hired PR flacks to promote its new “wonder drug.” News stories, congressional hearings and subpoenas would be in overdrive. Fines and jail sentences would follow. And rightly so.

But the standards change when “climate catastrophe” is involved.

The White House has made global warming the centerpiece of its revenue-raising and energy policies. A House of Representatives 1,201-page bill would tax, regulate and penalize all US hydrocarbon energy use, to “save the planet from climate disaster.” The Senate promises an August vote.

But average global temperatures peaked in 1998 and since have fallen slightly, even as carbon dioxide levels continue to climb. Thousands of scientists say CO2 has little effect on planetary temperatures, and there is no climate crisis. Few developed countries are ready to commit economic suicide, by agreeing to reduce their CO2 emissions by a fraction of what the House bill demands for the United States.

Americans are beginning to realize the legislation would cost millions of jobs and trillions of dollars for a hypothetical 0.1 degree F reduction in global temperatures. Most put global warming dead last in a Pew Research list of 20 concerns.

The government’s answer to these inconvenient truths is simple.

Issue another report by government scientists carefully selected to exclude any who don’t subscribe to climate Armageddon. Ignore contrary data and analyses. Crank out more bogus computer-generated worst-case scenarios. Hire an activist media firm that specializes in environmental scare campaigns. And spend tens of millions hyping every imaginable climate disaster:

Rising sea levels, floods in lower Manhattan, California beaches permanently submerged. Ferocious hurricanes, floods and droughts. Food shortages, epidemic diseases, a quadrupling of heat-wave deaths in Chicago. Aged sewer systems convulsing from massive storm runoff. Wildflowers disappearing from Rocky Mountain slopes and polar bears from the Arctic. Leisure time gone, as people struggle to survive.

“Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” is the “most up-to-date, authoritative, comprehensive” analysis ever done on how human-caused warming affects the United States, deadpans Obama “science” advisor John Holdren.

Actually, it’s the most flagrant attempted con-job and propaganda campaign in US history.

more »

17 Jun 2009, 2:43pm
Climate and Weather
by admin
1 comment

Baghdad Bob (and Jane) of Global Warming

This is pretty funny:

AP Baghdad Bob of Global Warming Continues Ignoring Reality

By P.J. Gladnick, NewsBusters, Media Research Center, June 17, 2009 [here]

Rising sea levels!

Sweltering temperatures!

Deeper droughts, and heavier downpours!

Hey, that looks like fun! Let me try. Here goes:

Saudi spring snowfall!

Plunging temperatures!

Frozen Australians!

One big difference in the two warnings, besides my reluctance to call for a massive government spending program, is that mine have actually been happening on a big scale recently as I reported in NewsBusters. The prior group of warnings have been issued by Seth Borenstein who is quickly earning the well-deserved reputation as the Global Warming Baghdad Bob of the Associate Press. No matter what the actual climate conditions the world is experiencing, Borenstein will continue to engage in Global Warming alarmism to the extreme.

more »

Former Clinton Official: Strangle Climate Skeptics in Bed!

Joe Romm, former Clinton Administration official and purveyor of the Climate Progress blog, has clarified an earlier threat made on his website to “strangle [climate skeptics] and your kind while you sleep in your beds.”

Romm now say the statement was “clearly not a threat but a prediction” [here].

Climate realists like myself do not take veiled threats (or “predictions”) from radical former government functionaries lightly. Joe Romm is clearly a terrorist and a traitor to American values of life, liberty, and the rule of law.

Climate alarmists such as Romm, NASA berserker James Hansen, and Al “Porky” Gore are growing increasingly insane as the global warming hoax they have perpetrated is discarded by intelligent people.

It may not be enough to dispel the hoax with reason. Armed and dangerous radical wackos may need to be dispatched as they crawl in through other people’s windows late at night. Romm et al. should remember that in the U.S. a person may legitimately use deadly physical force if that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death.

27 May 2009, 12:53pm
Climate and Weather
by admin
leave a comment

Climate Realism in Oz

A new book skeptical of global warming has been published with fanfare in Australia and is due to be published here soon. It is Heaven+Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science by Ian Plimer, and the fanfare (positive and negative) was assessed in a recent column in the Australian:

A tale of two worlds

by Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, May 18, 2009 [here]

On Tuesday afternoon in Sydney last week, a handful of demonstrators gathered outside Abbey Bookshop in York Street. The target of their wrath was Ian Plimer, author of Heaven+Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science. A few of the young and ideological asked Plimer whether he had a sense of shame and guilt for promoting a line of argument that will destroy the planet.

The next day, and another world away, I followed the line of semi-trailers and utes snaking along the F1 freeway exiting at a small town two hours north of Sydney’s skyscrapers. Locals gathered that evening at a local pub in East Maitland to listen – yes, listen – to Plimer. There was no ideology, no howls of derision. Just a bunch of inquiring minds, people listening intently for an hour, many asking intelligent questions for almost an hour more. In the space of a day and a night, a tale unfolded of the gaping disconnect between the inner city moralisers and those whose livelihoods will be most harmed by policies concocted with the best of intentions by city dwellers aimed at addressing climate change. …

The comments following Albrechtsen’s piece are also interesting (at last count there were 144 but the number has undoubtedly increased). Some of the arguments presented are worthwhile, but some are rehashed jumbles of faulty logic.

For instance, some accuse the author of acting in his own self-interest. Indeed Albrechtsen’s quotes an Australian journalist making that charge:

On ABC Lateline Business, journalist Ticky Fullerton suggested he was “a greenhouse heretic”. “Is this scepticism genuine or is it about economic self-interest?” she asked.

Of course, Ticky herself is PAID to fling charges of “heresy” on TV. She doesn’t journalize for free, and is certainly aware that the more outlandish her claims, the more money she is likely to make.

Everybody who goes to work does so to gain personal reward. There is nothing unusual or immoral about that. We don’t fault Ticky for earning a living. We might fault her for her funny name, but not for acting in her own economic self-interest.

The Oil Cartel is alleged to be funding those who refuse to accept global warming alarmist dogmatism. However, it is in the self-interest of the Oil Cartel to drive oil prices up. Cheap oil is a bane to profits. They have nothing to gain (and much to lose) by quelling fears about climate change. The charge that climate realists are tools of the Oil Cartel is thus spurious and illogical, an insult to intelligence. Conspiracy theorists are not generally credited for their logic or intelligence, though.

Another common complaint is that anthropogenic global warming MIGHT happen in the foreseeable future, and therefore we should do something about it now, just in case. This is often referred to as the Precautionary Principle. However, the same folks who make this argument vote for command-and-control central government, i.e. socialism, when history teaches us that socialism has failed tragically in every instance. One would think that taking precautions against a KNOWN evil might be first order of business for a precautionist, but instead they embrace whole system failure with ardor.

There are those who weep and moan that folks like author Plimmer are problematical because their dissent disturbs the unity of groupthink. We must all think alike or else nothing useful can be accomplished. And yet, these are the same people who rush to demonstrations and other forms of dissent, who howl and parade down the avenue carrying signs expressing their lack of agreement, and who even advocate civil disobedience to promote their dissenting agenda.

Such rabble-rouser advocates (and I’m thinking of Al Gore and James Hansen now) want it both ways. They want riots to fuel their dissent but are aghast and distraught that anyone else might so much as utter a word (or write a book) that expresses dissent against their climate alarmism.

By the best measures (satellite sensors measuring troposphere and sea surface temperatures) global temperatures have been falling since 1998. Last Winter global temps fell to levels not seen since the 1970’s. That’s from NASA reports, and NASA, like the rest of the government, is deeply invested in scaring the populace for reasons of control and extracting exorbitant taxes. Yet they have to report the actual findings — any fraud on NASA’s part would be quickly detected and they would be penalized for it.

Warmer is better anyway. Note that most of human race lives in warm climes. Warmer means longer growing seasons, more rain, more bio-productivity, more biodiversity. Compare the tropics to the tundra — which is more productive and has more species per acre? The warmest place in the US, the Imperial Valley, is also the most productive agriculturally.

The Earth is definitely in the midst of the Ice Ages — we live in a temporary interglacial period, one sure to be followed by 100,000 years of deep cold with continental ice sheets a mile thick. We know this because the deep and long glacial periods have happened like clockwork 18 times over the last 1.8 million years.

If we are going to take precautions against debilitating climate change, then we ought to be looking for ways to forestall the coming return of deep-freeze, snowball Earth conditions. Warmer we can handle and even prosper in. Colder is bad news for civilization and life as we know it.

At any rate, look for Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven+Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science, to be on the shelves here soon. That’s a prediction you can count on.

Cap-and-Trade Looks Like Imperialism

Imperialism: The acquisition of colonies and dependencies, commonly associated with the policy of direct extension of sovereignty and dominion over non-contiguous and often distant territories, the indirect political or economic control of powerful states over weaker peoples.

The carbon cap-and-stifle bilge currently festering in Congress is an exercise in the dominion of populous states, mired in the economic doldrums of their own welfare excesses, over less populous but productive, wealth-creating states.

There is no other purpose to the cap-and-stifle bilge. It will not affect global temperatures in any measurable way, and indeed the proponents do not even bother to make that claim any longer. Their stated goal is to extract wealth from politically weak states and deliver the extractions to vampire states bloated with millions of welfare junkies.

Obama wants to hike energy costs by the $trillions to cover a portion of the tens of $trillions in deficit spending he has foisted on the Nation (with the help of the Welfare Junkie Party).

Global warming is a hoax, a scam, an imperialist power and money grab, non-different from the manufactured forest fire crisis — which has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with deliberate incineration by the government of public and private, rural and urban land.

It’s your standard, ugly, hurtful, shameful, grossly tragic imperialism, the same venomous credo perped by ancient Rome and modern fascists like Hitler and Stalin.

more »

17 Apr 2009, 10:49pm
Climate and Weather Federal forest policy
by admin
2 comments

EPA Proposes Nutzoid CO2 Rule

The Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act [here] was signed by EPA Chief Administrator Lisa Jackson [here] today (April 17, 2009).

Jackson is fulfilling an Obama campaign promise: to severely impoverish the citizenry by crippling the economy of the U.S. via the criminalization of the emission of carbon dioxide.

The New CO2 Rule reads in part:

Today the Administrator is proposing to find that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Concentrations of greenhouse gases are at unprecedented levels compared to the recent and distant past. These high atmospheric levels are the unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes.

That’s complete bullsh*t. Carbon dioxide is the principle nutrient in photosynthesis and hence the building block of all life. It is not a pollutant. Current concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are NOT unprecedented — for the last 200 million years CO2 concentrations have been greater, as much as 15 to 25 times greater than they are today. The global temperature trend widely observed over the last ten years has been downward.

The EPA statement goes on:

The effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur in the future – including but not limited to the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems – are effects on public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act. In light of the likelihood that greenhouse gases cause these effects, and the magnitude of the effects that are occurring and are very likely to occur in the future, the Administrator proposes to find that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

Again, utter tripe. There has been no observed climate change. Global temps are dropping. There is zero likelihood of “more frequent and intense heat waves.” Instead climatologists (including some from the IPCC) are predicting continued cooling for the next 30 years, based on oceanic perturbations such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The EPA claims CO2-induced global warming has already caused more wildfires. Yet the actual data show that the U.S.has been on a downward trend, experiencing FEWER wildfires per year, since 1981! The facts directly refute the EPA’s contentions!

It is true that wildfire acreage has gone up, but that is because the US Forest Service has induced megafires through a hands-off Let It Burn fire policy, which has absolutely nothing to do with mythical global warming.

The EPA is not claiming increased fire acreage — their claim is increasing number of fires which is a complete counter-factual.

Megafires do emit megatons of CO2. The policy of the USFS is to promote megafires and hence mega emissions. Will the EPA therefore crack down the USFS Let It Burn policies?

Don’t hold your breath.

Or maybe you should. Thanks to this latest atrocity of pseudo-science by the Obama Administration, your very act of breathing is now a crime and will be taxed to the max.

Al’s Big Hoax has come home to roost, as predicted, in the most taxaholic, oppressive, and anti-American government in our 200+ year history.

Bushfires, Prescribed Burning, and Global Warming

The following essay was written a year ago, before the devastating and fatal fires that swept through Victoria, AU, last February. The issue discussed, the relationship between “global warming” and forest fires, remains a primary concern in Australia and the U.S.

Roger Underwood is a former General Manager of the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) in Western Australia, a regional and district manager, a research manager and bushfire specialist. Roger currently directs a consultancy practice with a focus on bushfire management and is Chairman of The Bushfire Front Inc.. He lives in Perth, Western Australia.

David Packham is Senior Research Fellow, School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, Victoria.

Phil Cheney is Honorary Research Fellow, CSIRO, Canberra, ACT

*****

Bushfires, Prescribed Burning and Global Warming

Bushfire Front Inc. Occasional Paper No 1, April 2008 [here]

by Roger Underwood, David Packham, and Phil Cheney

This is not a paper about climate change or the contentious aspects of the climate debate. Our interest is bushfire management. This is an activity into which the debate about climate change, in particular “global warming”, has intruded, with potentially damaging consequences.

Australia’s recent ratification of the Kyoto Treaty has been welcomed by people concerned about the spectre of global warming. However, the ratification was a political and symbolic action, and will have no immediate impact on the volume of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, and therefore will not influence any possible relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures.

However, the ratification could have an impact on Australian forests. Spurious arguments about the role of fire contributing to carbon dioxide emissions could be used to persuade governments and management agencies to cease or very much reduce prescribed burning under mild conditions.

Decades of research and experience has demonstrated that fuel reduction by prescribed burning under mild conditions is the only proven, practical method to enable safe and efficient control of high-intensity forest fires.

Two myths have emerged about climate change and bushfire management and are beginning to circulate in the media and to be adopted as fact by some scientists:

1. Because of global warming, Australia will be increasingly subject to uncontrollable holocaust-like “megafires”.

2. Fuel reduction by prescribed burning must cease because it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus exacerbating global warming and the occurrence of megafires.

Both statements are incorrect. However they represent the sort of plausible-sounding assertions which, if repeated often enough, can take on a life of their own and lead eventually to damaging policy change.

more »

1 Apr 2009, 1:12am
Climate and Weather
by admin
2 comments

CO2, Negative Feedback, and the Earth’s Radiation Budget

Carbon dioxide does not cause runaway global warming because excess heat radiates into outer space, according to an “accidental discovery” by climate scientists.

Measurements taken by the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) [here] indicate that the Earth’s atmosphere can only contain so much heat energy. When the temperature “balance point” is exceeded, the heat escapes. Carbon dioxide, a trace gas in concentrations of parts per million, cannot contain the energy that global warming alarmists speculate will warm the planet.

This finding was explained by Dr. Richard Lindzen, PhD., Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science at MIT, in an essay addendum to his address made at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change and posted at Watts Up With That [here]. (Watts Up With That was rated the“Best Science Blog” of 2008 [here]).

Background: Solar radiation reaches the Earth in the form of visible light. The atmosphere is transparent to visible light which strikes the Earth’s surface (land and ocean) and is re-radiated upwards in the form of longer-wave (infrared) energy. Water vapor in the atmosphere is not transparent to long-wave (infrared) radiation and instead absorbs some of it. CO2 can also absorb long-wave radiation, although CO2 is present only in trace amounts. The water vapor is thus warmed, and provides a blanket that protects the Earth’s surface from rapid cooling at night.

That is a simple description of the so-called “greenhouse effect” which maintains moderate temperatures on the planet, although there is no glass ceiling on the Earth’s atmosphere.

Global warming alarmists have claimed that increases in the trace gas CO2 will cause runaway global warming, based on outputs from mathematical climate models running in super-computers. Their contention is that a doubling of CO2 concentration will raise global temperatures from 3 to 5 degrees Centigrade.

However, sensors aboard the ERB satellite (released into orbit by astronaut Sally Ride from the Space Shuttle) observed energy emissions from the upper atmosphere that were 7 times the expected (model) values during the warm years of 1989 to 2000.

That is evidence that the atmosphere cannot contain excess heat. The re-radiation of heat into outer space is termed a “negative feedback” that mitigates climate change. The new calculations indicate that a doubling of CO2 concentration will increase global temperatures by only 0.3 degrees C, an effect so small as to be swamped by normal climate variation (and thus be undetectable, more or less).

Our atmospheric blanket is self-regulating. It contains as much heat as it can contain, and any excess is lost in space. From Dr. Lindzen’s essay:

The Bottom Line

The earth’s climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself. …

Alarming climate predictions depend critically on the fact that models have large positive feedbacks. The crucial question is whether nature actually behaves this way? The answer, as we have just seen, is unambiguously no.

Chief climate alarmist (adviser to Al Gore) James Hansen claims that positive feedback from CO2 will cause runaway global warming and the “Venus Syndrome” where all the earth’s oceans boil away, leaving a dry, dead planet [here].

However, in past geological epochs the atmosphere has had concentrations of CO2 that were 10 to 15 times current levels, and the oceans did not boil away (obviously). The positive feedback theory promoted by Hansen has now been shown to be false (as if that were necessary) by satellite data. Ironically, Hansen is a NASA employee, the same NASA responsible for the ERB satellite!

The empirical data constitute strong evidence that global warming theories are false, and that increased CO2 emissions will have no effect on global climate, or at least an effect so small as to be undetectable.

The current hysteria to limit CO2 emissions is based on a false premise, demonstrably false, and proved to be false by the latest and best science.

 
  
  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta