The death knell for global warming alarmism

Two reports have or are coming up with I believe is the nail in the coffin of global warming. There will always be idiots who believe this nonsense, but the evidence against the ridiculous “it’s got to be CO2 as nothing else explains warming” and “there are massive positive feedbacks, there’s got to be because CO2 did it”. They are now dead.
CERN is about to come out with a report which from the gossip will say that solar activity does cause cloud formation from which it is pretty obvious that “it was the sun what did it”.
Now Roy Spencer has direct observational evidence that the atmosphere is not retaining the heat it needs to retain if the necessary massive positive feedbacks were in place. Forbes
Individually they are damning, together they are conclusive and anyone who doesn’t listen is an scientific moron (which won’t stop many as morons seem to float to the top of science).
THIS IS THE END … and I nearly missed it because I’m doing this at 12:30pm I’ve just finished finishing the work from one day and I’ve got another early start.
And of course the IPCC are trying to cobble together a report on the effects of global warming and whilst it is bound to be the same attempted whitewash … this time the amount of paint is so thin that it is going to fool no one. There is no meaningful trends in extreme events,beyond a few scattered measures and you are bound to get some just by statistical chance. The science has fallen through, no one with any science gumption will demean themselves by supporting this rubbish now.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to The death knell for global warming alarmism

  1. Robin says:

    And don’t forget lindzen choi 2011 on feedbacks too.

  2. Good post. Here’s another addendum maybe. Don’t overlook the recent work (2011) by Lindzen and Choi updating their previous paper (2009) on feedback factors. They too note results confirming that the IPCC models are over stating warming.

  3. lapogus says:

    Thanks for flagging this, the Bish is away and I don’t see any mention of it at WUWT so good for you. As you say scientifically it should be the death knell for the CO2 thesis but the global warming industry is now so big that many will just bury their heads deeper in the sand. Politicians will not want to admit that they have been gullible fools and duped the Greenpeace / IPCC doom-mongers, so much depends on how the media play. Sadly, after last week’s delusional vindication of the BBC’s science output by Prof Steven Jones I think we still have a long road to travel.

    • Lapogus, you are quite right that there is a whole industry which will continue going by pure momentum after the scientific basis collapses. But that is simply the inevitable way governments work. Civil servants take years developing policy initiatives, they have to be debated by politicians agreed by everyone and it is the same when these policies have to be unpicked.
      But the key to the direction of ,movement is what the scientific community thinks (I don’t mean the idiots who run the royal society — they are just headless chickens who’ll go whatever way their scientifically literate colleagues go). What is boils down to is whether your average scientists with a good degree or a doctorate can be persuaded that the evidence is compelling.
      And the key to the global warming argument has always been: “there’s no other way to explain the (apparent) temperature rise other than CO2”. But once you are forced to admit a non-“warming gas” explanation, suddenly it brings in a whole lot of questions like “how much should be apportioned to CO2 and how much to solar” and “why isn’t there the amount of heat trapping that is expected” … It’s no longer a “done deal”, you no longer just accept what is said and instead you have to judge the evidence. And once you have to judge the evidence for yourself, anyone with a scientific bent will immediately start looking at the evidence AND AS WE ALL KNOW, AS SOON AS ANYONE LOOKS AT THE EVIDENCE THEY WILL FIND JUST HOW WOEFULLY LACKING IT IS.

  4. But not the ernd of ecofascist scare stories. For 60 years, since the no threshold radiation claim, they have produced hundreds of scare stories, not one of them really true, to bolster their own self importance and the bureaucrat’s power. They have had the total support of the media for this and doubtless we will see the BBC pushing the mext fraudulent “consensus” too. Global cooling again perhaps.

  5. I think the fact that ordinary people see it is not warming (ie last December’s 20 below) is a greater driver than the opinions of scinetists outside the alarmist community.
    We already have the Oregon Petition where over 31,000 independent scientists have said CAGW is fraudulent, far and away the greatest expresssion of scientific opinion on the subject. However it is simply airbrushed out of the media. That corrupt fascist parasite Steve Jones didn’t even acknowledge the existence of this when claiming a consensus.
    There is also the fact that if you are a scientist in some completely unrelated field amd you know that putting in a reference to how your research will impact on “climate change” no matter how improbably, will greatly increase the size of grant ootr fascist government will spend then waht are you goi8ng to do? Only the most honouraable wouldn’t put in the reference and they are by definition a minority.
    No it is the public seeing the disgusting thieving organlegging Nazi parasite ploiticians are lying to that will end it. That has happened in the US where Republican contenders are busily saying that the guy who told them CAGW was real must have been their doppelganger and it is happening more slowly here.

  6. Stonyground says:

    Although I can’t really share your optimism about the imminent demise of AGW alarmism, I believe that its eventual demise is inevitable. The alarmists can’t go on forever predicting disasters that consistantly fail to happen. They cannot go on forever claiming that every extreme weather event is unprecedented, only to have someone point out that a more extreme one occurred in 1922. they cannot go on forever claiming that such extreme events are on the increase when the actual numbers are either stable or declining. In short, being wrong all the time tends to damage your credibility.

  7. Stoneyground:
    In this year alone massive blizzards have struck the U.S. Northeast, tornadoes have ripped through the nation, the Mississippi and Missouri have overflowed their banks, and floodwaters have covered huge swaths of Australia as well as displaced more than five million people in China and devastated Colombia. This year’s natural disasters follow on the heels of a staggering litany of extreme weather in 2010, from record floods in Nashville, Tenn., and Pakistan, to Russia’s crippling heat wave.
    The data show that the number of such events is rising. Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance companies, has compiled the world’s most comprehensive database of natural disasters, reaching all the way back to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Researchers at the company, which obviously has a keen financial interest in trends that increase insurance risks, add 700 to 1,000 natural catastrophes to the database each year, explains Mark Bove, senior research meteorologist in Munich Re’s catastrophe risk management office in Princeton, N.J. The data indicate a small increase in geologic events like earthquakes since 1980 because of better reporting. But the increase in the number of climate disasters is far larger. “Our figures indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change,” says Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center: “It’s as if the weather machine had changed up a gear.
    This week’s Recommended reading for all you gung-ho ‘sceptics’ – ‘Merchants Of Doubt’

    • You are simply wrong to say extreme events are increasing. This is simply flying in the face of the facts. The evidence does not show an increasing level of any extreme event apart from Hurricanes – which itself may be a facet of ocean current cycles.
      But when you said: “Our figures indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change,”, you very much hit the nail on the head because now solar activity has been proven to be linked to climate variability and CO2 has been proven not to have the scale of feedback effects necessary to be the major cause of the apparent warming in the 20th century, it is now simply wrong to say: “CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED BY CLIMATE CHANGE”. You can’t explain them by CO2 because the measurements indicate that CO2 is not blanketing the planet in the way it is supposed to, and YOU CAN EXPLAIN in terms of solar activity.
      And in any case there is no evidence of increasing extreme events as found by a quite impartial group who even said something like: “SURPRISINGLY WE FOUND NO INCREASED TREND IN ANY OF THE MAIN THREE WHERE YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THE MAIN TREND”.

  8. I am simply wrong to say extreme events are increasing eh? I would rather listen to an insurance company – whose business is risk – than to bland statements like that from a disillusioned eco-warrior.

  9. Twit-Stomper says:

    You people make me laugh. For a start, Global Warming is a misleading term that has been abandoned by most for quite some time. Climate Change is now the term used. Anyway, regardless of the specifics of how it works or doesn’t work there are several factors that make all of your huffing and puffing completely irrelevant.
    1. No one can deny that human beings are responsible for enormous amounts of pollution in all areas of our environment.
    2. There are various resources on this earth that are finite and much of our current way of living is based very heavily on some of these finite resources.
    3. No one is denying that the earth naturally goes through warmer and colder global cycles (except ill-educated idiots), however, logic and even the most basic knowledge of weather patterns, climate, etc, would suggest that cutting down vast tracts of forest, creating deserts, reducing biodiversity in most of the word’s ecosystems, altering everything we touch, pumping pollution into the air, water and all over the earth and so on an so forth has to have some effect on the earth, and therefore logically the weather and the climate over a period of time.
    4. Whether or not you specifically believe in the science of climate change you cannot deny that humans can not keep going along the way we are now – with the world population increasing and increasing and pollution and pressure on ecosystems increasing in turn. The current model of human existence is not sustainable.
    SO, whether or not you agree with the specifics of climate change the BIG picture would suggest that changes have to be made. Whether the changes currently being made by the various governments around the world are worthwhile is a different debate, perhaps one that would benefit from your input as opposed to concentrating all of your energy on a ridiculous argument. The fact is that neither side can conclusively PROVE their arguement as there are too many variables. BUT if your side is wrong then you will not be remembered kindly by history. It is your children and grandchildren who will suffer the consequences, not you and you have a responsibility to future generations to deliver them a world that is as intact as possible.
    And if you are still in complete denial about all of the above, then think about it this way; when I get in a car, the likelihood that I am going to be in an accident is not great. There is a chance that I will, and it could be my fault or someone else’s. However, I put on my seatbelt because, in the event that I do crash, by wearing my seatbelt I have a much better chance of survival. So what is really wrong with trying to improve the way we use our planet in an effort to give it a better chance of survival in the event that something (or many things) go(es) horribly wrong?

    • TinyCO2 says:

      In reply to your points:-
      Climate change is the term currently used because embarrassingly it’s not warming. If it’s not warming there is no additional CO2 induced climate change. There has been warming for less than half the time man made CO2 has been big enough to be an issue. Over the last ten years a fifth of all man made CO2 has been emitted and the temperature hasn’t risen at all.
      1) Pollution can be removed from industrial emissions relatively easily. Removing CO2 is nearly impossible without wasting huge amounts of energy. Which is more important?
      2) Resources are finite. However one that is in plentiful supply is coal, which CO2 reduction would ban. AGW theory artificially speeds us towards peak energy. Renewables use many rare substances with little energy return. Does that make sense?
      3) Most people don’t advocate cutting down forests but then most of us don’t need to. The forests are being cut down by those who live there or own them, often with the complicity of local authorities. Speak to them about it. They have their reasons. Is it our right to tell them they can’t have the same things we have? And talking of forests, global measurements of greenery is showing that forests are not just growing in size they are growing in bulk. This is mainly due to additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Amazingly, CO2 doesn’t just feed trees it allows them to use less water which is starting to push back the edges of deserts and helping plants deal with drought conditions.
      4) How do you control world population? Put something in the drinking water? Genocide? Accepting that there is a problem isn’t the same as solving it. As for reducing your impact on the environment – who’s stopping you? How much CO2 would you allocate each person? The current figure for just levelling off is 2 tonnes per person. Have you reached that target yet? If not, why not?
      The precautionary principle is a double edged sword. Many activities to reduce CO2 are anti humanitarian. You aren’t just talking about all of us having a little bit less or doing something easy like putting on a seat belt. Renewables cost a lot more than traditional power generation methods, a cost paid for by all, but with a heavier burden on those using the least amount of energy (the poor). Do those who can afford to install solar panels worry about the transferred cost to pensioners and those on prepayment meters? When a tax is put on petrol, does it hurt Al Gore and Prince Charles or does it hurt the poor person trying to get to work? Which of them has the bigger CO2 footprint and who should be ashamed?
      Your gripe is about rampant consumerism – fine, use that as your argument to cut back. Don’t use CO2 for which the jury is still out.

  10. 1) I could certainly deny that we are seeing more pollution – by almost any measure it is declining.
    2) “finite” is a somewhat weaselly term. Of course nothing is infinite but we certainly have many resources (eg enough uranium to keep going till the sun explodes in 5 billion years) that we face no insuperable problem.
    3) The Hockey Stick theory, beloved by the IPCC said there had been no natural variation for at least 1,000 years. Later they changed it to 500 years. Perhaps the IPCC and the well funded climatec “scientists” are thus idiots.
    Forests are actually increasing worldwide.
    4) I know of nobody but “environmentalists” who want to “keep the way we are going”. I much prefer human progress.
    The fact that the alarmists dropped the specific term “global warming” for the amorphous and essentially meaningless term “climate change” shows they don’t believe their predictions so why should we? The BIG PICTURE is that we have had 50 years of Luddite scare stories, not one of which has been true, all of which have been damaging and which, in sum have killed well over 100 million people, held back human progress and more than halved the potential, living standards of every one of us.
    When somebody starts their asertions with “nobody can deny” it is a sure sign they are saying something they cannot support with evidence and is likely wrong.
    I challenge any Luddite to name a single major catastrophe they have predicted over the last 50 years, out of hundreds, which, turned out to be fully true. I am comfortable that not one such will ne named since I have asked many “environmentalists” this before and they have been unable to.

    • to Neil Craig:
      Predicted (and therefore averted) catastrophes are hard to pin down, but if I had to come up with one it would be ozone depletion caused by cholorfluorocarbons.
      Ozone depletion is now thought to be under control – thanks to an almost universal ban on the substances that caused it. As with all other environmental threats since the end of the cold war big business and its ‘think tanks’ stuffed full of tame ‘scientists’ battled vigourously against regulation, which for them has replaced the now vanished threat of Communism. Fortunately common sense prevailed, as I am optimistic it ulltimately will in the case of CO2.
      The entire ‘contrarian’ or ‘sceptic’ movement is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the worst excesses of big business and the under-regulated ‘free market’. Why intelligent people allow themselves to be duped and used like this is a mystery – I guess it is just the thrill of being a maverick.

      • TinyCO2 says:

        The most effective scare stories all have a genuine element to them. The problem is when the issue is blown out of proportion. AGW is not an all or nothing issue.
        As for us being the mouthpiece of big business – haven’t you noticed yet that big business hasn’t changed at all? It isn’t suffering over CO2 costs. Some move their production to places like China, other spend a few million pretending to be on board. Do oil or gas companies care if they sell half the product at twice the price? It isn’t them that will suffer from CO2 taxation and reduction, it’s us.

  11. TinyCO2 – the extent of warming based on a doubling of CO2 is generally accepted by climate scientists as being 3 degrees plus or minus 1.5 degrees. This is a wide variation, but in terms of human civilisation it is a variation from the very disruptive (1.5 deg) to the catastrophic (4.5 deg).
    A combination of regulation, subsidies for alternative technologies and an increase in carbon-based taxes to encourage behavioural changes will – and to an extent already is – addressing the issue, but it is not moving fast enough – there is too much warming already in the pipeline.
    Big business is not immune from regulation and taxation, whcih is why the merchants of doubt fight so hard from the redoubts of their right wing libertarian think tanks like the Heartland Institute, Cato Institute etc. The free market has repeatedly failed to address external costs in the case of tobacco, CFCs, sulpher emissions and now CO2. They squirm and wriggle but eventually they are brought to heel with regulation. It will happen again with CO2.
    What worries me is that the ‘bold crusaders’ who make up the bulk of the respondents on blogs like this see themselves as seekers of truth when in fact they are just pawns for the juggernaut of business. When – as happened with tobacco, with suphur, with CFCs, with second hand smoking – the overwhelming scientific consensus eventually breaks through the doubt industry’s defences these people are not going to feel very good about themselves.

    • TinyCO2 says:

      You list things that are easy to get rid of and yet still exist. Many people still smoke despite the vileness of the substance. China laughably produces CFCs purely for the income for destroying it. CO2 however is extremely hard to reduce and I notice very few AGW believers ever mention their personal CO2 footprint. Many assume that the cuts will come from business. It’s always someone else’s job.
      I worked for a business that endlessly tried to cut waste and energy use. It was a long and painful death for the UK side of the company because there are only so many reductions you can make. It will ultimately end this September despite the products still being produced in China and the US. In a neat bit of recycling the machinery will be shipped out to be used elsewhere. Who gets hurt by that environmental victory? Not the company, they get to dump expensive UK workers who demand silly things like health, safety, pensions and a clean environment. Once it becomes cost effective to dump perfectly good UK factories, they do it in a heat beat.
      The UK is supposed to have cut its CO2 footprint 5% from 1990 levels but despite losing chunks of heavy industry and the dash for gas, it has increased its CO2 footprint 16% when imports are included. Last year our emissions went up 3% because of the cold! These figures must be right because they come from the Guardian.
      I will never feel bad about questioning CAGW theory, simply because I see those who blithely support it making no effort to experience what cutting CO2 is all about. I might be kidding myself about how shoddy climate science is but at least I’m not deluding myself that cutting CO2 is anything but darn near impossible. And those cuts have to be across the board. Cutting CO2 means having less. Less travel, less space, less food, less posessions. Industry can only make those cuts if we stop buying what they sell. If we stop buying, they stop employing. Who hurts then?
      If I’m expected to attempt the impossible I demand a higher level of proof and professionalism than climate science has so far demonstrated. I want a real debate that includes all the options and not just the one that too many have pinned their credibility on. I want to see the believers living like they’re convinced. I want to see the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not the snippets that stay ‘on message’.

      • You are not deluding yourself about how shoddy climate “science” is. Any real scientist would be thrilled to hear about the CERN results and desperate to follow up on the microwave heat loss work because that would lead to a better understanding of the subject. Instead this CO2 bandwagoneers will only consider (or manufacture) evidence that supports CO2. They treat the climate like a bunch of party political spindoctors treat a political policy area: they reject everything that doesn’t support their position and manipulate to “gospel truth” anything that could support their position.
        In all the time I have been watching this subject, I’ve been open to any real science regarding climate change. In that respect I exclude any “GW could … ” mumbo jumbo, I ignore any “models predict” and instead I concentrate only on the “the evidence is this, which seems to suggest this … “. I really can’t remember the last time I saw anything in the latter category supporting global warming. I’m very willing to look at the science, but when the science just isn’t there it isn’t possible to be even handed!

  12. SR there is no evidence that, despite the ozone scare, there was ever any problem to be “under control”> We were specifically told thateven if we stopped using CFC’s instantly the hoel’s expansion would continue for 50 years. In fact it started shrinking as soon as the Mount Erebus volcano stopped erupting. When results don’t fit the theoretical predictions the theory is automatically wrong.
    The acid rain story was a scam too – see my blog 5th Aug 2008 “After 15 years of research it is now clear to us that as far as forests go our fear of acid rain was totally unfounded”.
    So while appreciating your difficulty in finding a single non-fraudulant “environmentalist” scare story which was true may I ask you to try again.
    PS When I asked for figures from insurers proving a real increase in bad weather caused by catastrophic warming I meant figures, not some advertising fluff. Alarmists may believe all insurers advertising is true but I do not.

  13. @’futureboy’ Neil:
    The HCl fromErebus never reached the stratosphere.
    You appear to be unable to believe that ANY human activity could ever have a harmful effect on the biosphere. I assume you also think that smoking does not cause cancer?

  14. Sr what a ridiculous defence. You “assume” I believe something to prove you can disagree with it.
    Shouls I assume that all “environmentalists” believe in the Tooth Fairym thereby proving they are wrong about the facts.? No I think I’ss stivk to facts.
    Which, incidentally brings us to your defence of the heatwave argument – that the scientists say it isn’t actually caused by yout bete noire but take the opportunity to protect themselves by saying “who knowns maybe catastrophic warming might happen sometime and somewhere else?” Who knows is not evidence. The evidence is that this instance of CAGW, like all the others, isn’t.
    PS While accepting your claim that Erebus, uniquely among volcanos, is incapable of producing hot air capable of reaching the stratosphere, is in no way more wrong than any other “environmentalist” claims, I would be interested in some actual evidence that it isn’t nonsense.

  15. ‘Futureboy’ . . .
    The vast majority of volcanic eruptions are too weak to reach the stratosphere, around 10 km above the surface. Thus, any HCl emitted in the eruption begins in the troposphere. Sea salt from the oceans is also released very low in the atmosphere. These compounds would have to remain airborne for 2-5 years to be carried to the stratosphere. However, both sea salt and HCl are extremely soluble in water, as opposed to CFCs which do not dissolve in water. Rain effectively scrubs the troposphere, removing both of these forms of chlorine. Steam in volcanic plumes can act the same way, removing HCl long before it reaches the ozone layer. Measurements have shown that concentrations of these substances vanish very rapidly as altitude increases. Neither sea salt from the oceans nor tropospheric-level volcanic eruptions (like Mt. Erebus in Antarctica) contribute significantly to stratospheric chlorine levels.
    Key word in the above is MEASUREMENTS – or science as it is also known.

  16. SR your evidence free assertions about the nature of vulcanism would have been lees obviously ignorant if you had not, reapeatedly, said that they atmosphere effecting material they released is HCl (hydrogen chloride) rather than SO2 (sulphur dioxide).

  17. Futureboy,
    You seem very confused.
    HCl – hydrogen chloride – was the volcanic compound suspected of causing free chlorine to accumulate in the stratosphere and so contribute to ozone depletion. Sulphur dioxide is the compound implicated in acid rain. The two are completely separate environmental issues.
    This apparent confusion between two very separate areas of environmental science suggests that it may be you that is making the ‘evidence free assertions’.

  18. HCl is typically 1/20th to 1/100th of SO2. It is a trace element by comparison. Or perhaps you “assume”numbers do’t count to go with your other “assumptions” Still waiting for evidence.

  19. Ozone depletion is caused by chlorine in the stratosphere, not SO2
    It is true that satellite data after the 1991 eruptions of Mt.Pinatubo (the Philippines) and Mt. Hudson (Chile) showed a 15-20% ozone loss at high latitudes, and a greater than 50% loss over the Antarctic, showing that volcanic eruptions can play a significant role in reducing ozone levels. However, it is an indirect role. Primary aerosol formation, also known as homogeneous aerosol formation results when gaseous SO2 combines with water to form aqueous sulfuric acid (H2SO4). These eruption-generated particles, or aerosols, appear to provide surfaces upon which chemical reactions take place. The particles themselves do not contribute to ozone destruction, but they interact with chlorine- and bromine-bearing compounds from human-made CFCs.
    All very interesting but irrelevant as the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered in 1985 and subsequent ozone concentrations did not show any significant correspondence with volcanic activity.
    Sorry, but science got the ozone hole right – it’s a done deal, so get over it 🙂

  20. Ah yes, Roy Spencer and the death of global warming alarmism . . . let’s revisit that
    September 2 2011
    The editor of a ‘Remote Sensing’ has now resigned after admitting that Spencer’s paper should not have been published.
    “Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science,” he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.
    “Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.
    “Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell… is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.”

Comments are closed.