?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
09 January 2011 @ 12:26 pm
The Sun, Arctic, AGW - Condition Green and How It All Began  
Do solar scientists STILL think that recent warming is too large to explain by solar activity? (WUWT)
Study of the sun-climate link was energized in 1991 by Friis-Christensen and Lassen, who showed a strong correlation between solar-cycle length and global temperature:
This evidence that much of 20th century warming might be explained by solar activity was a thorn in the side of the newly powerful CO2 alarmists, who blamed recent warming on human burning of fossil fuels. That may be why Lassen and Thejll were quick to offer an update as soon as the 1997-98 El Nino made it look as if temperatures were suddenly skyrocketing:
The rapid temperature rise recently seems to call for a quantitative revisit of the solar activity-air temperature association …
We conclude that since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature.


Concludes: That’s the big update that all of our solar scientists need to make. They need to stop tolerating this crazy charade that allows the CO2 alarmists to ignore the impact of decades of grand maximum solar activity and misattribute the resulting warming to fossil fuel burning. It is a scientific fraud of the most disastrous proportions, giving the eco-lunatics the excuse they need to unplug the modern world. / Full essay here.

Solar activity remains very low and if it continues an LIA at least is in the offing. Cooling happens faster than warming, even in a decade or less and this present cool-down, the down cycle of the PDO-AMO began in 2003 lagging the solar peak by 3 years or so.  
The agenda driven IPCC says CO2 drives warming, cooling and every bit of weather that makes the news. Because they can blame someone else for the information, governments use IPCC nonsense to govern for government instead of the people. That is, penal taxes and massive extension of bureaucracy and regulation using CO2 as the pathetic excuse. UK and US socialism is growing very close to the failed USSR version, i.e. one party, and a bureaucrat for each person to tell you when you can bum-burp.


SolarCycle24.com for up-to-date images and gen
Solar Cycle 25 Blog for current posts about the Sun

It is fairly obvious to anyone with eyes on the climate rather than your wallet that the phases of the Arctic vortex determine the the severity of the climate the temperate northern hemisphere gets, positive (warm/low pressure) gives mild and warm and negative gives the opposite. The IPCC will tell you CO2 drives the Arctic. On planet Earth the Sun is the culprit. A mechanism directly connecting the polar vortex to solar mood has been difficult to nail down but Jarl R. Ahlbeck managed to establish a clear link via the QBO (stratospheric wind). See "Future low solar activity periods may cause extremely cold winters in North America, Europe and Russia

The present phase of the Arctic oscillation is negative, it went strongly so in 2009. The following graphs show the historical and present state of the Arctic and N. Atlantic oscillations. The images are linked to the NOAA source pages.


           

$cience? A lot of rent seeking scientists are attempting to propagandize Arctic ice as the cause for extensive snow. (We pay these people?) Steve Goddard contends the claim here.

Model shows IPCC can be dismissed: 'Greener' Climate Prediction Shows Plants Slow Warming
A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.
The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Without the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.94 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled.
[Enter standard rent-seek statement here-] Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate.
Article continues here. (REMEMBER, CO2 additions are harmless to the climate)

I don't have much faith in models. I have said almost since I began blogging that trees regulate climate. Remove the regulator and you get unregulated climate. The temperate zone has been heavily deforested. It is unsurprising that extreme events result. The tropics are not so bad, except for south east Asia. 
So what do I think should happen next? Plant a tree stoopid. Parks in cities cool them in summer and warm them in winter if the planting is chosen carefully, a mix of deciduous and evergreen. Farmers can be given incentives to plant around fields and that helps protect crops as a bonus. Copses and wooded areas should be given some level of protection without going over the top. Along motorways trees filter out much of the crap that comes out of exhausts. Feed well with CO2 and they will prosper. Limit the food and they will limit their growth
.

Global Warming: How It All Began
Imagined risk
All available evidence indicates that man-made global warming is a physical impossibility, but if the predicted warming could be induced it would probably provide net benefits. However, there is a widespread imagined risk of the warming and politicians are responding to it. Responses to imagined risk are often extreme and dangerous. For example, somebody with a fear of mice may see a mouse and as a response try to jump on a chair causing damage to the chair and injury to himself. There is no point in telling the injured person that mice are harmless because fear is irrational so cannot be overcome by rational argument.
Widespread imagined risk is to be expected as the end of the twentieth century (the end of the second millennium) approaches. Prophets of doom have occurred when the end of each past century approached. They always proclaimed that “the end of the world is nigh” unless people changed their ways and accepted great hardship. So, history suggests that the global warming scare or something like it can be expected at this time.
Global warming proponents call for reduced CO2 emissions and this equates to a call for cuts in the use of energy, but the energy industries have done more to benefit mankind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. And global warming proponents often call for use of ‘renewables’ to replace fossil fuels, but that is a call for a return to preindustrial society: the industrial revolution occurred when fossil fuels replaced biomass and windpower. It is physically impossible for wind and solar energies to supply the energy needs of the developed world, and the peoples of the developing world are insisting on their right to develop too.
The past prophets of doom have all been wrong, so it is reasonable to expect today’s doom-mongers to justify their arguments. And this is especially the case when they attack something so clearly beneficial to mankind as the use of fossil fuels. But imagined risk is not rational, so reasonable expectations do not apply. The simple fact that it is physically impossible for CO2 emissions to cause man-made global warming has no effect on imagined fear of global warming. (It is a simple fact that a mouse cannot eat a person, but some people try to jump on chairs at the sight of mice.)
Also, some global warming proponents are accepting a good financial income from the global warming scare and have become global warming propagandists to promote their interests. These include some researchers who obtain research grants and some environmental organisations who need donations. They are making a living by promoting fear of man-made global warming. Their behaviour is similar to that of the ‘snake oil salesmen’ in the nineteenth century. Snake oil salesmen sold snake oil that did not require real snakes to make it. Global warming propagandists are selling fear of man-made global warming and that does not require real man-made global warming to make it.
The success of the global warming propaganda has induced some observers to argue that a conspiracy has created the imagined risk in the public’s perception (e.g. Böttcher, 1996). But consideration of the origins of the global warming scare deny the existence of any such conspiracy. Interests coincided and supported each other. And a coincidence of interests usually has a more powerful effect than a group of conspirators. The origins of the scare are political and have resulted in political policies that now threaten serious economic damage for the entire world.
Continues with The origins of the global warming scare; Governments’ global warming policies; Here

NIPCC Report Natural Variability, Not CO2, Accounts for Late 20th Century Warming

Know your enemies: UN’s eco war on humanity
The UN’s IPCC Assessor David Shearman wants you to pay an eco tax of $18,000 for every child you have. This is to compensate the planet for you being a human. Don’t forget the eco elitists in power think you are a disease, a scourge on the planet, a virus that needs to be eliminated so the logical consequence is they want you to pay even more for being a human – that is to them of course. They have taken it upon themselves to represent the earth – no one voted them there – they elevated themselves to that position and now they feel they have the right to tell the rest of us how to live. They are taking their Malthusian steps like the Fabians – one step at a time. Putting us in a pot of cold water like lobsters and slowly heating it till it is boiling.

FEMA concentration camps family residential centres. It couldn't happen here. Could it?