Saturday, 22 June 2013
"Cyril On Global Warming" Part 3 of 3 - Just The Facts
"ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING"
PART 3 of 3
April saw the introduction in the UK of the Climate Change Levy (CCL) aka the carbon tax, from April 1st 2013 power stations will be taxed per tonne of CO2 they release. This is expected to raise the price of electricity to the consumer by 20% in the first year alone. The government is fully aware that companies will pass on the cost of this tax to their customers, the government also knows the increase in energy charges will push 100’s of thousands more people into fuel poverty, cause many more deaths from the cold every winter and result in job losses due to small companies closing as they become uncompetitive.
Drax, the largest, cleanest and most efficient coal powered power station in Britain will spend an estimated 600 million pounds converting its power station to burn biofuel (wood) in part to avoid the crippling CCL and to take advantage of the massive government (Taxpayers) subsidies for switching to biomass.
It is not only Drax converting to wood burning, across Britain and Europe dozens of power stations will be making the change from coal to wood this year.
Biomass for large scale electricity generation means woodchips or pellets, Drax group Plc will buy the woodchips/pellets from America, build or rent a woodchip/pellet processing plant then transport them the 3000 miles to UK.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on how Europe’s switch away from coal to biomass is already affecting forests in America.
All combustion produces CO2, so what is the difference between burning wood as opposed to coal. This all depends on the moisture content (MC) of the fuel being used, as a rule the less MC the less CO2 released. At 45% MC wood releases about 9% more CO2 than coal with the same MC, things equalise somewhat the less MC present in each fuel. However this does not take into account the CO2 emitted in the processing of trees into chips/pellets or the emissions in transporting the millions of tonnes of biomass from America to Europe. Neither do these figures account for the loss of CO2 uptake caused by the felling of hundreds of square miles of forest each year to supply the demand of ‘biomass’ power generation. A lot of which will be old growth, with resultant loss of wildlife and increased susceptibility to flooding.
You do not have to be a genius to work out there will be no saving in CO2 emissions from this utterly bonkers, environmentally destructive unsustainable policy.
Is there even one environmentalist who thinks this to be a good idea?
Maybe Nick Palmer or Dr Mark would like to give us their view on this?
PROPAGANDA OF A POST NORMAL SCIENCE
The go to ad hominine directed at all sceptics of AGW. The scientific method demands that scepticism, even robust scepticism, is the default thinking for any good scientist, group think and consensus are anathema to a discipline that relies on facts, measurements and observation to advance knowledge. Denier with its holocaust overtones is an example of the intellectual dishonesty displayed by many of the denizens of the cult of AGW.
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED
Have you ever heard that the science has been known for over 100 years? Did anyone tell you exactly what science they are referring to? Did you think it meant AGW? It doesn’t, what this refers to is the fact that CO2 absorbs and emits long wave radiation (infrared) and this has been known for a long time, does this prove AGW, well not exactly, in fact not at all, because everything (all matter) does this, some matter better than others. It’s a scientific fact that anything with a temperature above absolute zero (-273.15 deg. C) emits long wave radiation and that includes ice. So far from CO2 being unique or even special in this regard it is the norm.
If the science is settled then why are pro AGW scientists so keen to accept lavish government research grants to try to prove their idea? Climate is one of the least understood earth sciences and until recently (35years) was a scientific backwater. It has now become one of the best funded sciences in history. The US government alone has spent over $30 Billion on climate science in the last 20 years to try to prove a link between man-made CO2 emissions and global warming in an attempt to justify massive new taxation of the people.
“We’ve looked at the sun and it can’t be the cause of the recent observed temperature rise.”
This claim is a relic from the 1980’s and 90’s when the sun was thought to be a non-variable star, this century has seen the launch by NASA of several solar missions like Hinode, Stereo, Ulysses, SMEI, RHESSI and Trace, they have already dispelled the non-variable sun idea, and as more discoveries, observations and measurements are collected and collated the role of the sun on earths climate is becoming more apparent, few scientists now believe the ideas of the sun/climate thinking prevalent in the past which some ‘climate scientists’ cling to.
Of course AGW is itself a misnomer, what the Malthusian apocalyptics keep bleating on about without one shred of evidence or scientific reasoning is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). It is this imagined disaster that fuels the fear factor beloved of the Main Stream Media and those who seek ever more control over people’s lives.
THE BIG OIL FUNDED DENIER MACHINE
This has to be one of the funniest oft repeated false claims made by charlatans like Dr. Michael Mann. There is no evidence of a well-funded machine working to discredit “climate science” what is remarkable is that independent self-funded bloggers and scientists are the people who on the whole have exposed the climate science hierarchy’s woeful work, sharp practices and junk science.
The role of the MSM in propagating climate scare stories has been pivotal to getting the public to accept the ‘theory’ of CAGW and the steep rise in energy costs of the last decade all in the name of ‘saving the planet’.
In particular the BBC carries a lot of the blame in the UK for this by the total disregard of their charter, to report both sides of the debate. Almost every natural history programme put out by the BBC this century has the obligatory man made CO2 is the devil meme. Look past the rhetoric and we see the age old technique of creating fear to sell unpalatable measures.
Below is the information you will not see in the MSM.
Green House Gases account for about 1% of the atmosphere.
(Typo in the above pie chart; CO2 should read 0.04%)
Of the 1% that is GHG water vapour is by far the most abundant.
Man-made CO2 emission compared to natural CO2 emissions
GHG are 1% of all atmospheric gases and CO2 is about 4% of that 1%, man-made emissions of CO2 make up just 5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere.
Water vapour has 7 times the radiative effect of CO2 and there is 80 times more water vapour than CO2 in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the 600lb gorilla in the room, it controls the green-house effect not the minuscule trace gas CO2.
SHOUT DOWN SCEPTICS AND STIFLE
This is something all zealots can do at home, sites like skeptical science, DeSmogblog and RealClimate will give you sciencey sounding sound bites which can repeated ad nauseam on any forum until those pesky ‘Deniers’ get fed up and leave, neat eh!
Does this remind you of someone?
Most proponents of CAGW will not debate sceptics about the ‘science’, they will use all kinds of excuses, the gish gallop meme being one of the most used, this is disingenuous, the only reason CAGW scientists will not debate sceptics is they know they will lose because they have no real science backing the CAGW ‘theory’. Below is a video showing just how childish some of the CAGW crew can get.
This reluctance of proponents of CAGW to debate sceptics can be traced back to the IQ squared debate in 2007, where sceptics comprehensively trounced the CAGW crew. Below is the first video in the 10 video record of that debate (click on to the uploader’s channel for the entire series).
To get some idea of the plethora of alarmism that has been published on the supposed effects of CAGW and the enrichment of atmospheric CO2, here is a list of things CO2 induced CAGW has been blamed for, click on the subject to be taken to the source of the claims;
WHAT THE CRU EMAILS REVEALED
1. By Phil Jones and others admissions there is a ‘group’ of scientists pushing the man-made global warming theory.
2. From the released in 2009 emails it is possible to name about 40 scientists in that group.
3. This group are closely associated with the IPCC assessment reports, many of their members being lead and co-ordinating authors of various working groups.
4. Privately amongst themselves many of the group admit there are huge uncertainties with AGW theory, few of the group will publicly admit to the extent of those uncertainties.
5. Some members of the group talk of adjusting and/or losing the raw data.
6. The group became as influential so as to be able to dominate peer review in climate science.
7. The number of scientists in the group has increased in line with government funding for anthropogenic caused climate change.
8. The group have blocked sceptical papers from being published.
9. Some of the group actively obstructed freedom of information requests.
10. The ‘groups’ discussion on how to “get rid” of the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period (MWP) for which Michael Mann came up with the now discredited ‘hockey stick graph’ reconstruction.
There are hundreds of peer reviewed studies showing the MWP was global and between 1-2 deg. C. warmer than today, the IPCC ignored these papers in the Third Assessment Report favouring the single paper by Mann et al.
The below links to a website that has archived a vast number of peer reviewed papers confirming the Medieval Warm Period, click on the Continent for the abstracts and references.
The CRU emails show us the kind of practices ‘climate scientists group’ get up to, but to get an idea of the competence of these people I recommend reading the ‘Harry read me’ file, you really couldn’t make this stuff up.
All of the hacked/leaked emails and files can be found at the link below.
METHODOLOGIES OF A POST NORMAL
Adjusting the historic temperature record and raw data.
Anyone who has objectively followed the AGW subject knows that for the last 20 years James Hansen (formally of GISS) has been adjusting the pre 1950 historic surface temperature record downward and adjusting the post 1950 record upwards. There is no scientifically valid reason for these adjustments,
the only reason for this behaviour seems to be to exaggerate the warming of the late 20th century.
Independent blogger Steven Goddard (no fossil fuel/Koch brothers funding) is one of several people who have looked at these adjustments, the following blog posting shows the adjustments and how the adjustments have affected the surface temperature record. Links to the original raw data are included in the posting.
The CO2 record
The observatory at Mauna Loa on the big island of Hawaii is the only official record of CO2 levels in the world.
Quite why a spot without any CO2 breathing plant life, 11,000 feet above sea level, in the midst of 5 active volcanoes (which expel copious amounts of CO2) should be chosen as the only official CO2 level measurement station in the world is not satisfactorily explained by the IPCC.
A little closer
Mauna Loa observatory started measuring atmospheric CO2 levels in 1958 the machinery used to make the measurements is accurate to 0.01 % which is excellent. Pre 1958 CO2 levels were measured chemically with an accuracy of 1%-3% which is pretty good. The IPCC in its divine wisdom decided to ignore the 10’s of thousands of chemical measurements of CO2 going back 200 years from all around the globe and instead extrapolated backward the Mauna Loa record using ice core measurements to the supposed pre-industrial level of 280ppm. Ice core analysis is robust for charting the rise and fall of CO2 over centennial time scales, however it is poor for determining the absolute levels of CO2 over decadal time scales.
Below is a graph of chemical CO2 measurements since 1810, notice that the chemical measurement method (red line) shows levels of Atmospheric CO2 similar or above today's levels in the 1820’s, 1850’s and 1940’s.
Below is a link to Beck’s full paper.
“the site report (and statistical evidence) demonstrating the anomalous “signal” in the Khadytla data lead us to omit them from the new Yamal chronology constructed here (see SM5 for details)”
You what Keith? Anomalous signal? You mean data that does not fit your pre-conceived ideas so you left it out, that’s rubbish science, and in fact it doesn’t deserve to be called science.
Another member of the ‘group’ Jan Esper goes even further with this shameful quote; (my bolding)
“However as we mentioned earlier on the subject of biological growth populations, this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.”
Jan should have said the ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to junk science.
This is what UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist has to say;
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
The role of the IPCC
There is a widespread belief that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) looks at and reviews all the available science on climate. This is not the case as we can see from the IPCC’s charter below;
1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the IPCC or, synonymously, the Panel) shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.
Full document here; http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Article 2 above shows that the IPCC is concerned only with information on human-induced climate change, it does not bother itself with information that could disprove AGW.
Scientific working groups are also stacked with pro AGW scientists. For example in chapter 9 (understanding and attributing climate change) of AR4 (2007) more than half of the reviewers had co-authored papers with each other, reviewer David Karoly was a co-authored on no less than 13 of the papers reviewed. Of the 534 papers cited in chapter 9, 213 had been authored by the reviewers of the chapter.
An analysis by John McLean delves into the details of chapter 9 and can be read here;
Article 3 of the IPCC charter (above) states; “review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.”
Much has been said about the quality of the documents reviewed by the IPCC usually along the lines of how much emphasis is placed on peer reviewed literature. This, not surprisingly coming from the IPCC, is another misnomer up to 30% of documents reviewed by the working groups are ‘grey literature’ i.e. not peer reviewed.
Blogger shub niggurath wrote this piece on the use of grey literature in IPCC assessment reports;
Donna Laframboise organised a citizen audit of grey literature in assessment reports with these results;
Quite clearly the IPCC has a political agenda to convince people there is a real threat of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, the funny thing is that after more than 20 years of trying it has failed to produce one single piece of evidence to back up its mission.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
AGW scientists and followers of the cult of CAGW will plumb the depths of dishonesty to try and discredit sceptics of their new religion, oft repeated lies such as there is a big oil funded denialist machine working against science are
spouted by the likes Michael Mann then regurgitated over the MSM and Internet as gospel, yet we never get to see the sources and proof of these claims.
The truth is the complete opposite and can be proved.
Exxon mobile donated $100 million to Stanford University for research into climate change.
In the year 2000 BP and Ford donated $20 million to Princeton for the same reason.
Both BP and Shell have funded the CRU at East Anglia University since the 1970’s
The following is taken from the CRU website at;
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Council, British Petroleum, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DoE, 1970-1997), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR, 1997-2001), Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA, 2001-present), Department of Energy and Climatic Change (DECC), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Earth and Life Sciences Alliance, Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greater London Authority, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Assembly for Wales, National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, SQW Consulting, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, Tyndall Centre, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR), United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).
(Coloured highlights by me)
There are plenty of Companies and Organisations listed above who have a dog in the fight.
It is also true that fossil fuel Companies have funded some studies sceptical of AGW, but the level of funding is small in comparison to the figures above.
Big Oil is all for carbon credit schemes as this will create an enormous new derivative market that they would be best placed to profit from.
It’s worth googling the involvement of Al Gore and Maurice Strong in the setting up of the Chicago Carbon Exchange.
Fossil Fuel funding for either side of the debate is dwarfed by the billions of dollars governments spend on man-made climate change science. A US Government accountability Office report in 2011 showed funding for climate change science from 1993-2010 to be in excess of 31 Billion Dollars. I’m sorry I can’t paste the graph you will find it on page 48 of the PDF below.
We did not see 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
Sea level rise has not accelerated.
The 17 year hiatus from warming was not predicted.
The slight cooling since 2002 was not predicted.
I’ll finish with a bit of Richard Feynman