WILL ANYBODY NOTICE GLOBAL COOLING?

WILL ANYBODY NOTICE GLOBAL COOLING?
.........Something is terribly wrong with the official international science bodies such as the IPCC who have not come forward and properly informed the world leaders of current global temperatures.........


Norm Kalmanovitch [kalhnd@shaw.ca]

It is inconceivable that even after a decade since global warming ended and seven years into a cooling trend with no end of cooling in sight, that world leaders are unaware of these facts and are still pursuing initiatives to stop global warming. Something is terribly wrong with the official international science bodies such as the IPCC who have not come forward and properly informed the world leaders of current global temperatures.

Something is terribly wrong with the individual government science bodies who did not come forward and inform their own leaders when it was certain that global warming had ended, or when there was sufficient data to claim that we are now in a cooling trend.

It is not as though this is highly guarded secret data that can only be accessed by a limited group of people. The global temperature data is in fact readily available from several public sites and can be downloaded at no cost.

For the past year Friends of Science has been maintaining a graph of satellite temperature data and atmospheric CO2 concentration data on their website www.friendsofscience.org

This graph is updated every month as the new data becomes available.
The cooling trend that started in 2002 is highlighted by a straight line best fit posted on this graph. The numerical value for this trend is 0.25°C/decade of cooling!

By contrast the forcing parameter of the IPCC climate models would dictate that the effect of the 10ppmv increase in CO2 should cause a temperature increase of 0.15°C/decade.

If in fact there is any validity to the claims of CO2 increases causing warming; the fact that we are cooling at twice the rate that the climate models say we should be warming, is a clear indication that natural forces are about three times stronger than the maximum possible effects from CO2 increases.
Quantum physics clearly demonstrates that the effect of current increases in CO2 can have only a small and diminishing effect on global temperature with further increases in concentration.
Since the natural effects dominate, and physics dictates that the effect of increasing emissions is only a small fraction of the effect commonly accepted; it is clear that any initiatives aimed at reducing CO2 emissions for the purpose of reducing global warming are entirely without merit and serve no purpose whatsoever.

This is not a trivial issue because these initiatives to stop global warming have caused great suffering to the poorest people of the world. Biofuel initiatives have caused a global food crisis as food crops were forced to compete with biofuel crops driving the price of basic food staples beyond the means of the poor. The attempt to replace inexpensive coal fired power plants with very expensive and unreliable alternate energy sources such as wind power, has raised the cost of power not only affecting the poor, but also industry further reducing the ability to compete with countries using inexpensive power to manufacture products.

Unfortunately the AGW concept is so engrained in the public psyche through the graphic propaganda of the last several years that all verbal arguments against this ideology fall on deaf ears, and get shouted down by an indoctrinated crowd. While these people are deaf they are not blind, and no matter how loud the shouting, a graphic representation of increasing CO2 and decreasing global temperatures will be seen above the din.

If every presentation contained a graph similar to the one on the Friends of Science website this "visual" will eventually get in front of leaders who will be forced to reconsider the global warming initiatives that have been so costly to the world.

Norm Kalmanovitch
Calgary, Canada
www.friendsofscience.org

Clean energy's dirty little secret.

CLEAN ENERGY'S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET

Adam Smith Institute, 13 May 2009


Dr Fred Hansen

The political and international divide over green energy politics is growing. Not only are the prospects of over ambitious plans such as Koyoto II getting gloomier in the ongoing financial crisis, it is becoming increasingly clear that the green renewable energy issues could create problems of the same magnitude as our present oil-dependency. As the Atlantic reports in its May issue , the exploding demand for hybrid cars and windmills is likely to create a bottle neck in the supply of a commodity with the exotic name of neodymium.

Neodymium is a crucial material for build lightweight permanent magnets "that make the Prius motors zoom" and are needed for the generators of wind mills as well. In fact, the present production of neodymium would have to be doubled in order to make just a few million electric cars. The main pit for neodymium in the US, California's Mountain Pass, has recently been closed after a series of leaks released hundreds of thousands of gallons of radioactive waste into the environment. The dirty little secret of green cars and windmills is that the neodymium has to be yielded from rare-earth ore, which are regularly contaminated with radioactive thorium.

So much for the green ideologues and main stream media hypocrites who don't accept nuclear energy with zero CO2 emission as clean energy.

Renewables with a hefty price tag

Renewables target comes with a hefty price tag

'........The costs of green policies are out of control, and unaffordable. £9 billion here, £10 billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money..........'

Andrew Tyrie M.P.

According to an independent study commissioned in support of the Renewable Energy Strategy Consultation, £10 billion of new investment of our electricity network is needed to meet the 2020 renewables target, a cost incurred by transmission companies such as the National Grid. The cost of connecting offshore wind farms makes up around 75% of this figure, based on a 35% renewable electricity scenario.

A further £2.3 billion a year will be required to cover the cost of ancillary services to meet system balancing requirements. Meanwhile Open Europe reckons that the on-going cost of renewables policy will be £9 billion.

National Grid and Scottish Transmission Companies are currently busy pondering how they are to meet such targets by 2020 whilst delivering necessary network capacity.

The figure is confirmed in a written answer from the Department of Energy to a parliamentary question (PQ: 2007/4553) from Andrew Tyrie MP, which admits that the plans will also require an estimated £10 billion of new investment in the grid, plus an on-going £2.3 billion a year.

And there are good reasons to believe that the government's "35% renew­ables scenario" will simply not work in technical terms, even after this massive investment. The costs of green policies are out of control, and unaffordable. £9 billion here, £10 billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Rise of Sea Levels "Greatest Lie ever told"

Rise of Sea Levels "Greatest Lie ever told"

'......as an expert reviewer on the IPCC's last two reports he discovered that not a single one of the 22 contributing authors was a sea level expert.......'

Dr Morner

For anyone living in London or Mablethorpe who has been considering buying a boat to cope with the imminent rise in sea levels that Al Gore has promised us: good news. London and Skegness are not about to be swept away by biblical floods. Nor are the seas going to rise up and swallow all those tiny Pacific islands; we are not going to suffer the same fate as Atlantis.

The revelation comes in Christopher Booker's Telegraph column focussing on the work of Nils-Axel Mörner, a physicist who has, for the last 35 years, been studying sea levels world-wide. Dr Mörner's conclusions? That "all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story."

He asserts that the sea level has not risen for the last 50 years, and that if any rise does occur this century "it will not be more than 10cm." And how can he be so sure? Well, unlike most sea level studies which are based on computer modelling, Dr Mörner has actually headed out into the field to conduct his research.

One of his most shocking discoveries was the way the IPCC was able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year: their experts had based the figure on a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a rise of 2.3mm. They then adjusted the entire global sea-level projection upwards by 2.3mm, creating an upward trend in the graphs. But we shouldn't really be surprised -- when Dr Mörner was asked to act as an expert reviewer on the IPCC's last two reports he discovered that not a single one of the 22 contributing authors was a sea level expert.

Rise of Sea Levels "Greatest Lie ever told"

Rise of Sea Levels "Greatest Lie ever told" ?

For anyone living in London or Mablethorpe who has been considering buying a boat to cope with the imminent rise in sea levels that Al Gore has promised us: good news. London and Skegness is not about to be swept away by biblical floods. Nor are the seas going to rise up and swallow all those tiny Pacific islands; we are not going to suffer the same fate as Atlantis.

The revelation comes in Christopher Booker's Telegraph column focussing on the work of Nils-Axel Mörner, a physicist who has, for the last 35 years, been studying sea levels world-wide. Dr Mörner's conclusions? That "all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story."

He asserts that the sea level has not risen for the last 50 years, and that if any rise does occur this century "it will not be more than 10cm." And how can he be so sure? Well, unlike most sea level studies which are based on computer modelling, Dr Mörner has actually headed out into the field to conduct his research.

One of his most shocking discoveries was the way the IPCC was able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year: their experts had based the figure on a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a rise of 2.3mm. They then adjusted the entire global sea-level projection upwards by 2.3mm, creating an upward trend in the graphs. But we shouldn't really be surprised -- when Dr Mörner was asked to act as an expert reviewer on the IPCC's last two reports he discovered that not a single one of the 22 contributing authors was a sea level expert.