the real cost of green

Hang onto your wallets, the IPCC is about to take the global warming swindle to the next level...

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- The costs of cutting greenhouse gases and who will pay for doing it are likely to be the key issues at a major U.N.-backed climate change meeting of scientists and diplomats in the Thai capital this week, participants said Sunday.

Note the reference to scientists above although the topic of determining "who will pay" is purely political. The CNN article quoted above contains all the usual fear-mongering about the dire consequences of not taking action to stop global warming. We've heard it all before.

But then there's this one little paragraph which gives away the IPCC's real agenda:

Developing countries are likely to demand that richer countries help them adapt to warming global temperatures, which are expected to cause widespread flooding, droughts and rising sea levels.

They're not asking, they're demanding! Those scientists from developing countries! How can we here in the evil, greenhouse gas spewing rich countries ever have the nerve to say no? It's not enough that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have disastrous effects on our own economies; in the noble crusade against climate change we soon will be expected to foot the bill for adaptation by "developing countries".

I wonder exactly how the dictatorial governments of all those 3rd world developing countries really intend to spend the billions of $$$ in aid money they will soon be extorting demanding from us? Will it be used to help their citizens? Or will it all go to support dictators and government elites like the billions of dollars of previous foreign aid money?

Now that the Goracle, Kooky Suzuki, Citizen Dion & company have managed to convince most people that they need to feel deeply, deeply guilty for causing global warming, the IPCC is about to swoop, to cash in on that guilt and begin the process of extorting $ billions more from us.

This is just more proof that Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations. Unfortunately, none of our political leaders any longer has the guts to say so.

Source

Be prepared, be very prepared

I have always thought that it is extremely strange that all statistical analysis done on temperatures in the scientific literature as only been done on maximum and minimum temperatures. This despite the billions of dollars that are spent in the area.

Surely, someone would have a proper scientific analysis of time based temperature? Unfortunetley, this has not been the case.

We have proven before the importance of such scientific study, suggest that minimum temperatures might not represent the average temperature overnight, but might represent the temperature just before sunrise, and hence be highly influenced by the sun - precisely what maximum temperatures are influenced by.

But nothing compares to the analysis that you will see on this blog over the next week. The statistical analysis that you will see shortly is a world first, and will prove beyond doubt that analysis of minimum temperatures is completely useless if one is trying to approximate overnight temperatures.

We will also show you that rate of increase of minimum temperatures as a relation to overnight temperatures has been over exaggerated by as much as 1 degree increase (celcius) per 100 years - more than the shown increase in minimum temperature over the past century. Which alone suggests that temperatures have not increased overnight over the past 100 years despite increases in minimum temperatures.

Our analysis will show that looking at minimum temperatures only is highly dangerous, and only analysis into time based temperature should be undertaken.

As previously said, over the next week, we will give you ground breaking analysis that has never been done before and will astonish even the most loyal critic.

Stay tuned, and be prepared, be very prepared.

Cape Borda - Kangaroo Island

Located on the very picturesque kangaroo island just outside Adelaide, Cape Borda will share some statistical analysis of it's own.

However, the data at the place is hardly complete. Whilst maximum and minimum temperatures go back to 1925, no measurements were taken from 1938 to 1960, so it makes sense that we just look at 1960 onwards. As far as time related data goes - no data for Midnight times, and with the exception of 9am and 3pm (which go back to 1960), all other time related temperatures are only 15 years old.

So data is haphazard here, but we will still look at it nevertheless.

Maximum temperature analysis shows a significant increase in temperature (t=5.8,p<0.01), and this increase also goes with minimum temperatures (t=2.6,p<0.05). It follows on that temperatures at 3pm have significantly increased (t=4.5,p<0.01),however temperatures at 9am have not (t=0.7,p=0.5). Not surprisingly, temperature anomalies at 3pm were significantly higher than at 9am (p<0.01).

There's not a lot we can say about these temperatures, only that it's increasing during the day and at night, but not at 9am. The increase in temperatures at 3pm (and maximum) are very substantial, and are possibly the greatest we have seen to date.

Our analysis for the next stations in south-eastern South Australia will provide some very interesting analysis I am sure.

IPCC AR4 WG1: full text

Lubos says it all:

The climate panel's working group I has just published the full report:

• IPCC WG1 full text

A preliminary version of the same document has been available via JunkScience and the structure of the final document seems almost identical. You may read the first reactions of Steve McIntyre.

Officially, we have had the summary for policymakers (SPM) only - until now. You may see that the long document contains a lot of serious albeit boring science and data. Concerned members of the IPCC have however (mis)interpreted the results in catchy ways in their summary. Journalists are even more concerned and their presentation is much closer to nutcases like Al Gore than the boring content of the IPCC report. This multi-level hysterization and cherry-picking is a primary mechanism fuelling this whole global idiocy.

Comments about the IPCC working group II summary for policymakers, originally posted on April 6th

Recall that the U.N. climate panel (IPCC) has three parts:

• WG1: physical processes
• WG2: impact on life and societies
• WG3: how to cool down Earth :-) ... next week, they will recommend nuclear power and GM crops

Buy your personal CO2 box today!
(Thanks to the creator written in the corner of the ad.)

WG1 is composed of scientists led by government bureaucrats and political activists: these three subgroups are far from disjoint. Their list includes every scientist who has been in contact with them but hasn't yet threatened them with a lawsuit - which is what e.g. Prof Paul Reiter had to do before he was removed from the list of the corrupt scientists. Their pre-determined task is to "prove" that most of the recent climate change is man-made, despite any scientific evidence that shows the opposite. Their fourth report, IPCC AR4, will be released on April 29th (officially May).



It is necessary for WG1 to prove what they're asked to prove, otherwise it would become clear that the very existence of the groups WG2, WG3 is a gigantic fraud - much like the existence of a large WG1, after all.

In the same way, it is necessary for WG2 to prove that the exaggerated yet modest warming "predicted" by WG1 will have extremely bad consequences. If they failed to prove it, it would become clear that the very existence of WG3 - and to a large extent WG2 - is a huge fraud. The political framework is given and scientists are only expected to make it look convincing by inserting scientific jargon and cherry-picked data into the big gaps in the whole orthodoxy. That's a classic example of intellectual prostitution.

WG2 doesn't even pretend to be based on natural science. Just like WG1 that provided us with a demo (summary for policymakers) although many people apparently think that WG1 has already released a report, WG2 only offers us the table of contents, press conferences, and their

• IPCC WG2 summary for policymakers.

You can also see a webcast of this conference: a black window together with a screenshot that allows you to safely remove zero types of hardware.

Some of their statements

Even though the full document is rumored to have 1572 pages (what else it can be than just a worthless conglomerate of myths that hundreds of random people add to it?), we must rely on the summary and press conferences as reported by the media e.g. Bloomberg. The working group is informing us that species will go extinct even though it is pretty much known that higher temperatures have been historically increasing the diversity of species, especially mammals.

They feel certain that all infectious diseases will become extremely widespread although the correlations between the temperature and diseases are questionable, to say the least, while millions of people are dying today as opposed to a result of a hypothetical change in the future.

They are telling us that there will be many more storms even though rudimentary atmospheric physics implies that storminess should decrease because it is driven by the temperature difference between the equator and the poles and this difference is predicted to shrink because the polar warming should be faster.

They are also convinced that the droughts will spread although some of the newest scientific results indicate that rainfall in Saharan Africa could increase substantially within a few decades in the case that the warming trend continues and undo the natural devastation of that region.

They are telling us that the poor people may be the hardest hit ones. That's almost certainly the case but what they're not saying is that 99+ percent of their ability to cope not only with a hypothetical climate change but also with the status quo depends on their future wealth and on their access to technology - something that these comrades want to prevent.

To summarize, what WG2 is saying is mostly a shameful piece of crap but it is a politically correct piece of crap, and that's what really matters these days. The Whacko Gang #3 will release their "findings" how to cool down Earth later. A leading contaminator of science, Stephen Schneider who is known for his Schneider doctrine about the necessary compromise between the scientific integrity and fraud that every scientist must adopt in order to be effective, claims that the Bush administration was helping this bureaucratic tumor of professional parasites and liars to grow in 85% of cases.

Hotel Al

It’s a religion:

Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won’t find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of “An Inconvenient Truth,” former Vice President Al Gore’s book about global warming.

No Bibles?

thanks Tim

Crunching the IPCC's numbers

The following analysis was sent to me by an astute reader, who is also a geophysicist, who says that he prepared this:

"only using data that the IPCC agrees with; in particular the long term global temperature and CO2 concentrations back to 1856 which have been published by them in support of their AGW premise. (The IPCC has never disagreed with the lower troposphere temperatures from satellites they only have commented on the differences between the satellite data and the land based data.)

"The kicker is that when their own data is held up to physical reality it shows their entire premise to be wrong."

The emphasis and tables have been added by me. Here are the results of number crunching of the IPCC accepted data:

THREE YEARS AND THREE DATA POINTS

The year 1990 was selected as the reference year for the Kyoto Accord.
In 1990 human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels was 21,230 megatonnes.
In 1990 atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 354.16ppmv (year average from Mauna Loa observatory). In 1990 the global temperature was 14.075 degrees C (year average from MSU satellite data for the lower troposphere referenced to 14 degrees C for a relative absolute temperature)

In 2003 the global temperature from this satellite data dropped from 14.317 degrees C of the previous year to 14.272 degrees C. The temperature dropped again in 2004, went up in 2005, and dropped again in 2006 representing a net cooling of 0.044 degrees C over the last four years indicating that global warming is likely over.

In 2003 human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels was 25,030 megatonnes.
In 2003 atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 375.79ppmv.
In 2003 the global temperature was 14.272 degrees C.

The year 2006 is the last complete year for these data.
In 2006 human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels was 29,330 megatonnes.
In 2006 atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 381.89ppmv.
In 2006 the global temperature was 14.272 degrees C.

I've added this table to place the numbers side by side for comparison:

YEAR	CO2 emissions	CO2 concentration	Global Temp
1990	21,230 Mtonnes	354.16 ppmv	14.075 C
2003	25,030 Mtonnes	375.79 ppmv	14.272 C
2006	29,330 Mtonnes	381.89 ppmv	14.272 C

Kyoto is based on the direct relationship between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration.
From 1990 to 2003 emissions increased from 21,230 to 25,030 megatonnes or 292 megatonnes per year.
From 2003 to 2006 emissions increased from 25,030 to 29,330megatonnes or 1435 megatonnes per year.
This represents an increase in the rate of emissions of 491% (this alarming rate of increase was duly noted at the conference in Nairobi last year using 2001as the pivotal date and “over a four fold increase” stated.)

If there is a direct linear relationship between CO2 emissions and concentration then this same 491% increase should have taken place in the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase.

From 1990 to 2003 the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increased from 254.16ppmv to 375.79ppmv or 1.66ppmv per year.
From 2003 to 2006 the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increased from 375.79ppmv to 381.89ppmv or 2.03ppmv per year.
This represents an increase in the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration of only 22% yet the emissions rate increased by 491%.

Another table added:

PERIOD	CO2 Emissions rate increase		CO2 concentration rate increase
1990-2003	292 Mtonnes		1.66 ppmv
2003-2006	1,435 Mtonnes	+491%	2.03 ppmv	+22%

If emissions are increasing at a rate over 20 times greater than the increase in concentration then it is clear that human emissions are not primarily responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and consequentially not primarily responsible for global warming for those who subscribe to the Greenhouse Gas hypothesis of global warming.

Since human emissions can be calculated in actual tonnage, simple algebra can show the relative contributions of CO2 to the atmospheric concentration from human and other sources.

In 2006 this equates to humans contributing 1435 megatonnes to the concentration increase and other sources presumably natural (such as out gassing of the oceans and volcanoes) contributing 4836 megatonnes.
This is a clear statement that human emissions are only contributing 29.7% of the atmospheric CO2 increase and therefore any statement that human emissions are the major cause of global warming is clearly false.

Another table added:

YEAR	CO2 Emissions from Humans	CO2 Emissions from other
2006	1,435 Mtonnes	4836 Mtonnes

The sharp increase in human emissions took place in 2001 as was pointed out by the IPCC. If the same calculation is done using the 5 years before and after 2001 the human emissions contribution to the atmospheric concentration is reduced to 27%, and if the natural emissions are increasing as would be suggested by out gassing theory this number would be reduced even further.

All of the predictions for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2050 or 2100 are based on emissions not actual measured atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The 2006 concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 381.89ppmv and the increase from 2005 was 2.15ppmv with the rate increasing at 0.15ppmv/year each year.
In 2050, 44 years from now, the concentration will have increased by 101.2ppmv to 483.1ppmv which is far from a doubling of 760ppmv, and even in 2100 the concentration will only be 598.1ppmv.

Quite simply, the actual physical data indicates that even if we increase our emissions at our current alarming rates we will have met the concentration objectives of the Kyoto Accord by staying well under a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by 2100.

The global temperature change as a function of human emissions is a further indication that the premise for Kyoto is wrong.
The global temperature increased from 1990 to 2003 from 14.075 to 14.272 degrees C or about 0.015 degrees C per year.
The global temperature was exactly the same in 2003 and 2006 indicating zero increase between those years.

Remarkably the zero increase in global temperature took place when the emissions were increasing at over 20 times the rate for the period that the temperature was increasing at 0.015 degrees C per year. By any scientific standard this would negate any possible correlation of human CO2 emissions with global temperature change.

In fact the temperature data over the last 150 years compared to the CO2 concentration data as presented by the IPCC prove that CO2 concentration itself cannot be correlated with global temperature changes.

A close inspection of the temperature graph will show that instead of a continuous temperature rise since the turn of the century there are two almost linear trends of global temperature increase separated by the well documented minor cooling that took place from about 1943 to 1975. The trend from 1975 to 2006 has a slope of about 0.02 degrees C per year. The earlier trend from about 1911 to 1943 also has the near identical slope of 0.02 degrees C per year.

The change in atmospheric CO2 concentration as presented by the IPCC shows an increase of less than 0.3ppmv per year from 1911 to 1943 but that rate increases by over 6 times to just under 2ppmv per year from 1975 to 2006.

PERIOD	Change in CO2 concentration per year	Change in Temperature per year
1911-1943	0.3ppmv	0.02 C
1975-2006	~2.0ppmv	0.02 C

If two concentration rate increases, one six times the other, produce the same rate of temperature increase there are only two possible conclusions; either there is no relationship between CO2 concentration and global temperature; or there is such a rapidly decreasing exponential relationship that it would take several doublings of CO2 concentration to achieve the same amount of temperature increase that occurred from 1975 to 2006.

(While the first conclusion that there is no relationship between CO2 changes and global temperatures is more likely, the second possible conclusion points to the likelihood that the parts of the 4.2micron band and the 13.5micron band that are unique CO2 infrared radiation capture are nearly saturated and additional CO2 concentration has progressively less an less effect in a decreasing exponential fashion.)

In Summary the actual physical data used by the IPCC clearly demonstrates that:

1. Human emissions are not the primary source for increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and in fact represent less than 30% of the contribution.
2. Human emissions cannot be responsible for global temperature changes.
3. Changes in concentration of atmospheric CO2 have virtually no effect on global temperature.

This simple demonstration of basic science using IPCC data begs the question why was this not done by the IPCC scientists who are all top scientists more than capable of recognizing these simple shortcomings of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis?

The short answer is that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is not a scientific entity, but a political body. And it's politicians like Mr. Dion, Ms. May, Mr. Layton, Mr. Duceppe and now, sadly Mr. Baird who don't want to recognize these simple shortcomings of the global warming crusade.

Source

If only cars could run on hypocrisy

Outback south australia

Continuing on with south Australia, we head out bush to look at two stations in the middle of whoop whoop, namely, Yongala and Woomera Aerodrome.

whilst Woomera might seem outback, it has the largest military testing area in the world (around the same size as England), where all sorts of weapons and aerospace testing is done (including nuclear weapons in the past).

But onto the data. Maximum and minimum data go back as far as 1925, whilst time related temperatures go back to the mid 50s or 60s (with the exception of midnight which is only 15 years worth).

Analysis of maximum temperatures show a significant increase in temperatures (t=3.5,p<0.01), whilst minimum temperatures show no such increase (t=1.6,p=0.1).

A significant increase was found in temperatures at 3am (t=2.2,p<0.05), Noon (t=2.3,p<0.05), 3pm (t=2.8,p<0.01) and 6pm (t=2.03,p<0.05). No significant increase was found at the remaining times (6am: t=1,p=0.3; 9am: t=0.45,p=0.65; 9pm: t=1.9,p=0.06).

It is no surprise to see that when maximum temperatures increased, so to times at noon, 3pm and 6pm. The increase in temperature at 3am however is very surprising, especially when considering that times around this were insignificant.

So in outback south Australia, it seems as though we are only heating up during the day, moreso when the sun is at it's hottest. There was no significant change in rainfall since the start of the 20th century.

Use One Square

Using only one square of toilet paper will cool the world.

Carbon offset swindle

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place. (...)

The FT investigation found:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.