Doubleplusgood doublespeak

I just read a summary of a report from NOAA that climate change has tipped and, even if we abruptly stopped producing CO2, we are in for 1,000 years of climate change. 

I can top this report, written by a straight-faced chemist whose entire career is publishing about meteorology.  I say we are in for 200,000 years of climate, maybe even longer. You can take that to the bank.

But what of NASA's notion that the cooling trend shows (a correlation, you see) greenhouse gases rate (CO2 being a deadly green house gas) is down. 

NASA GISS explains below, do read it as I took the time to point out the use of propaganda's false logic, the variables that tricked them into incorrect prognostications. The sun, it seems, has a little input - now. But, don't worry, they predict, the terror will return. You can't hold a good religion down:

However, let's assume that the solar irradiance does not recover. In that case, the negative forcing, relative to the mean solar irradiance is equivalent to seven years of CO₂ increase at current growth rates. So do not look for a new "Little Ice Age" in any case

My, the negative forcing. What a concept.

Please peruse the following. It is interesting and probably contains some numbers not created by politicians. Can't say I understand the pontificating as being very scientific. It is fun to see people doing back flips.

Please note, also, that the

Annual growth rate of climate forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) slowed from a peak close to 0.05 W/m² per year around 1980-85 to about 0.035 W/m² in recent years due to slowdown of CH₄ and CFC growth rates [ref. 6].

Lest you be concerned that green house gases are declining, which is the guess of all guesses, NASA predicts a growth in methane will get us back on track. You wonder if they listen to themselves. I have to go out an fart some more.

Oh, W/m² per year is watts per square meter squared per year. So, it must be NASA did not actually measure the "gases", but uses warming, represented by watts, as the clear indicator of the gases, as there is no question CO2, for example, causes warming. Thus, if it is warmer, then the gases caused it. I got it. A direct relationship is obvious as are all causations.

Also, if the rate slowed, the climate should not get cool, should it, just stop doing whatever they say it is, so fast? 

My last comment is there no consideration given to undersea volcanoes. Must also have negligible impact, like the sun and volcanic debris in the sky. 

....Finally, in response to popular demand, we comment on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record. Specifically, the question has been asked whether the relatively cool 2008 alters the expectation we expressed in last year's summary that a new global record [new global record!  Think about that] was likely within the next 2-3 years (now the next 1-2 years). Response to that query requires consideration of several factors: [here it comes, but we will be out of Iraq in 18 or 16 months from someday.] 

Natural dynamical variability: The largest contribution is the Southern Oscillation, the El Niño-La Niña cycle. [doesn't the sun govern here?] The Niño 3.4 temperature anomaly (the bottom line in the top panel of Fig. 2), suggests that the La Niña may be almost over, but the anomaly fell back (cooled) to -0.7°C last month (December). It is conceivable that this tropical cycle could dip back into a strong La Niña, as happened, e.g., in 1975. [Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my] However, for the tropical Pacific to stay in that mode for both 2009 and 2010 would require a longer La Niña phase than has existed in the past half century, so it is unlikely. [Tut, tut] Indeed, subsurface and surface tropical ocean temperatures suggest that the system is "recharged", i.e., poised, for the next El Niño, so there is a good chance that one may occur in 2009. Global temperature anomalies tend to lag tropical anomalies by 3-6 months. [Global warming got derailed by some odd, natural variability they overlooked.]

Solar irradiance: The solar output remains low (Fig. 4), at the lowest level in the period since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s, [proof of solar cooling] and the time since the prior solar minimum is already 12 years, two years longer than the prior two cycles. This has led some people to speculate that we may be entering a "Maunder Minimum" situation, a period of reduced irradiance that could last for decades. Most solar physicists [ah, most of them] expect the irradiance to begin to pick up in the next several months — there are indications, from the polarity of the few recent sunspots, that the new cycle is beginning. [Whew]

Figure 4, at right. Solar irradiance through November 2008 from Frohlich and Lean [ref. 8]. (Click for large GIF or PDF.)

However, let's assume that the solar irradiance does not recover. [which assumes it is ill]  In that case, the negative forcing, relative to the mean solar irradiance is equivalent to seven years of CO₂ increase at current growth rates. [Any help here?]  So do not look for a new "Little Ice Age" in any case. [Double whew] Assuming that the solar irradiance begins to recover this year, as expected, [like they expected the decrease this year] there is still some effect on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record due (sic) to the unusually prolonged [sez me] solar minimum. Because of the large thermal inertia of the ocean, the surface temperature response to the 10-12 year solar cycle lags the irradiance variation by 1-2 years. Thus, [Thus!] relative to the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3 years. [So, what nature does is an anomaly.]

Volcanic aerosols: Colorful sunsets the past several months suggest a non-negligible stratospheric aerosol amount at northern latitudes. [Huh?] Unfortunately, as noted in the 2008 Bjerknes Lecture [ref. 9], the instrument capable of precise measurements of aerosol optical depth depth (SAGE, the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment) is sitting on a shelf at Langley Research Center. [So, we will just guess] Stratospheric aerosol amounts are estimated from crude measurements to be moderate. [Huh?] The aerosols from an Aleutian volcano, which is thought to be the primary source, [of?] are at relatively low altitude and high latitudes, where they should be mostly flushed out this winter. Their effect in the next two years should be negligible. [being low and high and flushed and thought to be important should do something.]

Greenhouse gases: Annual growth rate of climate forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) slowed from a peak close to 0.05 W/m² per year around 1980-85 to about 0.035 W/m² in recent years due to slowdown of CH₄ and CFC growth rates [ref. 6]. Resumed methane growth, if it continued in 2008 as in 2007, adds about 0.005 W/m². [if it continues] From climate models and empirical analyses, this GHG forcing trend translates into a mean warming rate of ~0.15°C per decade.

Summary:The Southern Oscillation and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, the dominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change. Solar irradiance has a non-negligible effect on global temperature [see, e.g., ref. 7, which empirically estimates a somewhat larger solar cycle effect than that estimated by others who have teased a solar effect out of data with different methods]. Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance. 

So, the lesson is avoid psuedo-scientists who adopt such words as: should, suggest, as expected, it is conceivable, it seems likely, good chance, if it continues, thought to be, empirically estimates, and most scientists.

Also, I think the report means: don't blame us if our predictions are not coming true. It's the darned variables, stupid. If we only knew!

My two cents: The concept of an earth  temperature is unknowable.  How do you measure the wind of a cyclone? You can't. We guess and average. 

The earth and it climate is a massive, dynamic system and we are just sticking a thermometer out the window to see what's up.  Of course, the thermometer is no longer the same as 25 years ago, the measuring is different,  the window has been changed, and we didn't have any people around a few million years ago to create a baseline.

By the way, Columbia U, et seq.,  found solar flares to be, by far, the largest contributor to temperature and that threw off the Mann curve. That is why Mars was getting warmer in the late 90's, early 2000's. If prior blogs still exists, and I didn't see them published just now, you can find this. Think about it - space, the earth, the sun, light waves....

Global Whatever

Few notes, on my increasingly unlikely terminated blog:

1. Ray was showing me the projected new shipping lanes in the Artic as published in the Atlantic Monthly. (Sort of a neat idea) Then, I heard on CSPAN the presdient of some international energy bla bla saying by 2030 the world will be hotter by 10 degrees farenheit, so we ought to have a meeting.
This is astounding. As Greg says, you can't make this stuff up. A meeting!

I have come to realize the facts are not important, I was foolish to address them previously; creating fear, jobs, and large government are the goals, not transmitting data. As a minor Canadian politician said not long ago, "If global warming didn't exist, we'd have to make it up."

Just keep repeating the big lie and the sheeple will believe. Except for the mantra that 95% of us will get a tax reduction, that must be true. (The photo, I admit, is an obscure reference. That is the Queen of Hearts, who must have her own way, no matter how stupid, or off with your head.)

However:

1. An article re the growth of ice in the arctic, which I wrote about some time ago. It refers to You Tube video, for those who don't read. (reading Hanson does not qualify)

According to collated data from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the University of Illinois, Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007

2. China: can't get a research ship to Antarctica because of unexpected ice 40 km from shore.

3. Antarctic record ice growth:

News Roundup September 13, 2007 Antarctic ice grows to record levels & Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears

4. Gee, the earth's climate changes

a. Columbia and NSF, covering tracks, call periodic ice ages "new evidence"

b. Old Domonion: Thinks the cold is coming. I mentioned that months ago as solar activity has dropped off. Maybe, I should call it new evidence, then the obviousness of it will be accepted.

...One could also call it a belief. In the case of global warming, this belief is that, if enormous amounts of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, a temperature rise must occur. This prior assumption has guided scientific thinking and triggered a true deluge of investigations, all desperately trying to prove just that. What has been totally forgotten is the fact that natural climate changes occur as well as manmade ones, and on time scales on the order of decades, in some cases.....

c. A U.S. Senate's guru says: (in February, since then things have gotten colder)

Marc Morano is the resident authority on global warming with the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works minority staff. He says according to records kept by the United Nations, global average temperatures peaked during the El Nino year of 1998 -- and that since 2001, the temperature trend has declined slightly.

According to Morano, despite the continued pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, the southern hemisphere has also experienced a cooling trend; and in the northern hemisphere, January 2008, by some estimates, was the coldest month in more than a decade.

5. Some Hollocaust Deniers, from a book covering Global Whatever. Got this from Amazon.com, which has many such books.

Loading...

Sorry, there are no products to display in this category.

---

Editorial Reviews

From the Publisher
Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases. {Huh? Bugs?]

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers

===

That said, I have no doubt we will spend billions on ensnaring people in fear of the ongoing global something or other. These days, the way money is thrown around without recourse to the people, it will be trillions. But, at least, Mr. Obama will use the federal government to drive all the coal companies into bankruptcy, just like the Constitution provides, helping all those...hmmm.

Anyway, have a good Thanksgiving. Start storing can goods (no joke).

PS: When a tree falls and rots in the forest, all the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. Ronald Regan was right. The forests are the problem - cut em down. Or, at least, bury all vegetation. When a tree looks old, kill it and bury it to save the planet.