Search This Blog

Monday, 19 January 2015

K & T Energy Budget

Click on image above for full view
Basically what this says is that, because Earth cannot create heat and can only absorb and reflect what comes from the Sun, it's not possible for heat reflected, by so called green house gases, to be greater than the Sun's.
KT Earth Energy Budget Fig3Most everyone knowledgeable on this subject has heard of the “K&T Energy Budget” (Click on diagram). So how did Kiehl and Trenberth help debunk climate alarm? 
We have energy incoming from the Sun…thats the 342 W/m^2.  Well sure, the Sun is a source of energy, it is powered by nuclear reactions which liberate energy.
And then we have energy incoming from “greenhouse gas backradiation”.  There’s 168 + 67 = 235 absorbed energy coming from the Sun…and then there’s 324 coming from the atmosphere, 38% more energy than from the Sun.
It just magically appears over there, on the right hand side of their diagram.
Now the sun has a nuclear power source of energy.
The atmosphere has no source of energy, no source of power, has no chemical or nuclear reactions going on to liberate energy.
It is thus impossible for the atmosphere to be a source of energy, let alone to provide 38% more energy than comes from the Sun.
This debunks climate alarm science, without any additional consideration required, since this is the “reasoning” it subscribes to in general.  Climate alarm is based on the impossible, and the nonsensical.  It’s from these types of energy budgets that alarm is created.  Well yes, these diagrams are indeed alarming, for their amazing mind-boggling obvious errors.
And why do Kiehl and Trenberth, and climate alarm, get into such a mess?  Of course, it’s because they don’t get the incoming energy from the Sun correct in the first place.  Their “168 absorbed by surface” means that Sunlight could only ever make a surface it strikes to heat up to -40 degrees Celsius.
Wow, that’s pretty cold.  Can’t sunlight melt ice?  Isn’t much, much warmer sunshine actually responsible for driving the climate?  Yes and yes, but this is contradicted and denied by Kiehl and Trenberth’s pseudoscience.
So who’s wrong?  Is the Sun wrong, or is Kiehl and Trenberth wrong?
It’s pretty easy to see who.

Sunday, 18 January 2015

2014 warmest year? Can't be measured say scientists.

Here, a number of scientists challenge 2014 claims.
A number of reputable scientists also immediately cast doubt on the federal government’s declaration Friday.
“Using the normal rules of science, is 58.46 degrees then distinguishable from 58.45 degrees? In a word, ‘No,’” wrote Patrick J. Michaels on the Cato Institute website.


“There has not been any significant man-made global warming in the past, there is none now, and there is no reason to expect any in the future,” he said. “The computer models that predicted the warming have failed to verify. There has been no warming in 18 years. The ice at the poles is stable. The polar bears are increasing. The oceans are not rising.”

“There are dueling global datasets – surface temperature records and satellite records – and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill’ and the satellite was set up to be ‘more accurate’ than the surface records.”

“AP’s Borenstein can be trusted to shill for U.N.’s climate summit. … Borenstein ignores tide gauges on sea level showing deceleration of sea level rise and ignores satellite temperatures which show the earth in an 18 year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’ of global warming.”


Friday, 5 December 2014

This week we are told that 'warming is continuing'.

Ok I am not a climate scientist but I have read enough science on climate change to know that books must've been cooked for this week's media release by The Met. Office . 

There has already been enough eminent confirmation that there has been no global warming since 1997. Of course we know that we have been steadily climbing out of the Little Ice Age, when there used to be ice skating on the Thames, and that was the origin of our Christmas card scenes too. But that seems to have plateaued off since 1997 and by all accounts we are headed back down again too.

So yes climate has been getting warmer for some 200 years but contrary to it being anthropogenic, it is just one more wave in a cyclic history and warming seems to have stopped. So how does that square with this week's reports? Well this is the answer. Read here how the Warmists are still cooking the numbers! 

Monday, 19 May 2014

It seems all greens are nasty about their religions.

From Local Transport Today by Andrew Forster

Lawson rails against ‘religious fervour’ of the climate change ‘alarmists’

“I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation and vilification which I – along with other dissenters, of course – have received for my views on global warming and global warming policies'. He says. 

Yes and you see the same attitudes against pro drivers from the anti driver religion too Nigel. Read on.

Policies to dramatically cut carbon dioxide emissions are politically, economically and scientifically irrational, says the former chancellor Lord Lawson, who thinks alarm about man-made climate change has similarities to religion

Andrew Forster
Fear about man-made climate change doesn’t feature quite so prominently in the transport policy debate today as it did five or ten years ago but it continues to be a fundamental building block in how policy-makers frame ‘the transport problem’. With the exception of grassroots organisations such as motorist group the Alliance of British Drivers, there appears to be universal acceptance within the transport sector that man-made climate change is real, that it poses a serious threat to life on this planet, and that we should mitigate its impacts by dramatically cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

But how will historians look back at this thinking? Nigel Lawson thinks the judgment will be very harsh indeed. The former Conservative chancellor wrote a book in 2008, An appeal to reason: a cool look at global warming, and a year later set up a think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, to challenge what he regarded as widespread misinformation in the scientific, political and economic debate about global warming. The Foundation’s director is Benny Peiser, who LTT interviewed in 2006 and 2008 as climate alarm reached its peak in the UK, with the Government’s world-leading Climate Change Act 2008 committing the UK to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050 against 1990 levels.

Lawson believes policy-makers have got things badly wrong and his explanation for how this has happened reads something like this: take a credible theory; record a temperature rise that excites scientists; set up a United Nations body to look into the matter; build some computer models with flawed assumptions that generate projections of runaway temperatures; stoke these fears with the help of a largely uncritical media and a vibrant environmental movement; and, finally, add some politicians who see ‘saving the planet’ as the ultimate cause célêbre.

Lawson recently fleshed out his thinking in a lecture in Bath, which the GWPF circulated this month. As a distinguished politician, he has had plenty of bad-tempered exchanges with political opponents but none have been so bitter as  those over climate change. “I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation and vilification which I – along with other dissenters, of course – have received for my views on global warming and global warming policies.”

After a recent appearance on the BBC, many listeners complained to the broadcaster that Lawson was unqualified to speak on the topic because he wasn’t a climate scientist. “I must admit I am strongly tempted to agree with that... on the clear understanding, of course, that everyone else plays by the same rules. No more statements by Ed Davey, or indeed any other politician, including Ed Miliband, Lord Deben [John Gummer] and Al Gore. Nothing more from the Prince of Wales, or from Lord Stern. What bliss!”

But Lawson said he and other non-scientists had every right to speak about the topic because, ultimately, it was not a scientific one. “The issue is not climate change but climate change alarmism. And alarmism is a feature not of the physical world, but of human behaviour.

“There is, indeed, an accepted scientific theory – the greenhouse effect – which I do not dispute and which, the alarmists claim, justifies their belief and their alarm,” he said. The effect of increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide was, however, highly uncertain. Temperature records suggest that mean global temperature increased by about 0.5ºC in the last quarter of the 20th century. “But since then, and wholly contrary to the expectations of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, who confidently predicted that global warming would not merely continue but would accelerate, given the unprecedented growth in global carbon dioxide emissions, there has been no further warming at all.

“To be precise, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a deeply flawed body whose non-scientist chairman is a committed climate alarmist, reckons that global warming has latterly been occurring at the rate of 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC. In other words, the observed rate of warming is less than the margin of error.”

Lawson said this showed that the computer models used by the climate science community to predict future dramatic temperature rises were “scarcely worth the computer code they are written in” and “almost certainly mistaken”. 
Evidence, what evidence? 
Some pundits have pointed to the floods that affected much of southern England this winter, caused by a shift in the jetstream, as evidence of man-made climate change. But Lawson was scathing. There was “no credible scientific theory that links this behaviour [the movement of the jetstream] to the fact that the earth’s surface is some 0.8C warmer than it was 150 years ago”.

“That has not stopped some climate scientists, such as the publicity-hungry chief scientist at the UK Met Office, Dame Julia Slingo, from telling the media that it is likely that ‘climate change’ (by which they mean warming) is partly to blame.”

Society was now much more sensitised to extreme weather events, he said, “partly because of sensitivity to the climate change doctrine, and partly simply as a result of the explosion of global communications”.  “It is perfectly true that many more people are affected by extreme weather events than ever before. But that is simply because of the great growth in world population.”

With temperature datasets suggesting there stable average global surface temperatures for 17 years, Lawson said adaptation, not mitigation, was the correct response to the possibility of warming resuming. “It clearly makes sense to make ourselves more resilient and robust in the face of extreme weather events, whether or not there is a slight increase in the frequency or severity of such events.

“Astonishingly, this is not the course on which our leaders in the Western world generally, and the UK in particular, have embarked. They have decided that what we must do, at inordinate cost, is prevent the possibility (as they see it) of any further warming by abandoning the use of fossil fuels.”

Lawson said there was “no way in which this could be remotely cost-effective”. Lord Stern’s 2006 report for the UK Government, The Economics of Climate Change, suggested otherwise but Lawson said it was “a bible for the economically illiterate”, full of “dodgy economics”, and had been “comprehensively demolished by the most distinguished economists on both sides of the Atlantic”.

Stern based his conclusions on weighing up the costs and benefits of action to cut emissions, but Lawson said other commentators ignored any economic assessment of the case for mitigation at all. These people urged dramatic reductions in fossil fuel use on the basis of the ‘precautionary principle’ – the possibility that failing to kerb emissions will have a catastrophic outcome.

This made no sense either, said Lawson. “A moment’s reflection would remind us that there are a number of possible catastrophes, many of them less unlikely than that caused by runaway warming… and there is no way we can afford the cost of unlimited spending to reduce the likelihood of all of them.”

Turning to the politics of cutting emissions, Lawson said there was “no chance” of a meaningful global agreement at the supposedly ‘crunch’ United Nations-sponsored conference in Paris next year. Developing countries such as China rightly saw fossil fuels as a vital way of delivering economic growth and lifting their populations out of poverty.

“We use fossil fuels not because we love them, or because we are in thrall to the multinational oil companies, but simply because they provide far and away the cheapest source of large-scale energy, and will continue to do so, no doubt not forever, but for the foreseeable future.”

The UK’s Climate Change Act was pointless. “There is little point in setting an example, at great cost, if no one is going to follow it. Around the world, governments are now gradually watering down or even abandoning their decarbonisation ambitions.”

So why, Lawson wondered, has Western society “succumbed to the self-harming collective madness that is climate change orthodoxy?”   “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that it has in effect become a substitute religion, attended by all the intolerant zealotry that has so often marred religion in the past, and in some places still does today.”

The two creeds that used to vie for popular support in the western world – Christianity and Communism – were in decline, “yet people still feel the need both for comfort and for the transcendent values that religion can provide”.

“It is the quasi-religion of green alarmism and global salvationism, of which the climate change dogma is the prime example, which has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilege.  Throughout the ages, something deep in man’s psyche has made him receptive to apocalyptic warnings that the end of the world is nigh.

“It is a cruel irony that, while it was science which, more than anything else, was able by its great achievements, to establish the age of reason, it is all too many climate scientists and their hangers-on who have become the high priests of a new age of unreason.”  

Thursday, 6 February 2014

Calling people 'headless chickens' Chazza becomes one.

At the very least HRH Prince of Wales should now hear full presentations delivered by Lords Monckton and Lawson and their supporting scientists.
With credit to What's Up With That for the following:



Lord Monckton invites ‘Chazza’ to spar over ‘unroyal’ global-warming remark
His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales,
Clarence House, London.

Candlemas, 2014

Your Royal Highness’ recent remarks describing those who have scientific and economic reason to question the Establishment opinion on climatic apocalypse in uncomplimentary and unroyal terms as “headless chickens” mark the end of our constitutional monarchy and a return to the direct involvement of the Royal Family, in the Person of our future king, no less, in the cut and thrust of partisan politics.
Now that Your Royal Highness has offered Your Person as fair game in the shootout of politics, I am at last free to offer two options. I need no longer hold back, as so many have held back, as Your Royal Highness’ interventions in politics have become more frequent and less acceptable in their manner as well as in their matter.
Option 1. Your Royal Highness will renounce the Throne forthwith and for aye. Those remarks were rankly party-political and were calculated to offend those who still believe, as Your Royal Highness plainly does not, that the United Kingdom should be and remain a free country, where any subject of Her Majesty may study science and economics, may draw his conclusions from his research and may publish the results, however uncongenial the results may be.

The line has been crossed. No one who has intervened thus intemperately in politics may legitimately occupy the Throne. Your Royal Highness’ arrogant and derogatory dismissiveness towards the near-50 percent of your subjects who no longer follow the New Religion is tantamount to premature abdication. Goodnight, sweet prince. No more “Your Royal Highness.”

Hi, there, Chazza! You are a commoner now, just like most of Her Majesty’s subjects. You will find us a cheerfully undeferential lot. Most of us don’t live in palaces, and none of us goes everywhere with his own personalized set of monogrammed white leather lavatory seat covers.

The United Kingdom Independence Party, which until recently I had the honor to represent in Scotland, considers – on the best scientific and economic evidence – that the profiteers of doom are unjustifiably enriching themselves at our expense.

For instance, even the unspeakable Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has accepted advice from me and my fellow expert reviewers that reliance upon ill-constructed and defective computer models to predict climate was a mistake. Between the pre-final and final drafts of the “Fifth Assessment Report,” published late last year, the Panel ditched the models and substituted its own “expert assessment” that in the next 30 years the rate of warming will be half what the models predict.
In fact, the dithering old fossils in white lab coats with leaky Biros sticking out of the front pocket now think the rate of warming over the next 30 years could be less than in the past 30 years, notwithstanding an undiminished increase in the atmospheric concentration of plant food. Next time you talk to the plants, ask them whether they would like more CO2 in the air they breathe. Their answer will be Yes.

The learned journals of economics are near-unanimous in saying it is 10-100 times costlier to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to its supposedly adverse consequences the day after tomorrow.

Besides, in the realm that might have been yours there has been no change – none at all – in mean surface temperature for 25 full years. So if you are tempted to blame last year’s cold winter (which killed 31,000 before their time) or this year’s floods (partly caused by the Environment Agency’s mad policy of returning dozens of square miles of the Somerset Levels to the sea) on global warming, don’t.

You got your science and economics wrong. And you were rude as well. And you took sides in politics. Constitutionally, that’s a no-no. Thronewise, mate, you’ve blown it.
On the other hand, we Brits are sport-mad. So here is option 2. I am going to give you a sporting second chance, Charlie, baby.

You see, squire, you are no longer above politics. You’ve toppled off your gilded perch and now you’re in it up to your once-regal neck. So, to get you used to the idea of debating on equal terms with your fellow countrymen, I’m going to give you a once-in-a-reign opportunity to win back your Throne in a debate about the climate. The motion: “Global warming is a global crisis.” You say it is. I say it isn’t.
We’ll hold the debate at the Cambridge Union, for Cambridge is your alma mater and mine. You get to pick two supporting speakers and so do I. We can use PowerPoint graphs. The Grand Debate will be televised internationally over two commercial hours. We let the world vote by phone, before and after the debate. If the vote swings your way, you keep your Throne. Otherwise, see you down the pub.

Cheers, mate!

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley