APRIL 6, 2014 – TURBINE PROTEST AT THEDFORD BOG, ONTARIO
Part One
Part Tw0
Part Three
“Whole community is…one huge wind turbine, industrial area”
environmental
Donald Trump still Fighting Wind Turbines, (with Wins Under his Belt!)
TRUMP, who bought the Ayrshire golf resort last month for £35million, insisted wind farms are killing tourism in Scotland.
DONALD TRUMP has vowed to go to court again if plans go ahead to build a wind farm near Turnberry.
The US tycoon is already locked in a legal battle with the Scottish Government over proposals to build turbines near his course in Aberdeenshire.
Now government body Marine Scotland have identified an area of seabed off the shoreline at the Ayrshire resort Trump bought last month for £35million.
Trump claimed windfarms are “killing tourism”.
View galleryPIC DEREK IRONSIDE / NEWSLINE MEDIA
In Pictures: Donald Trump arrives in style as he touches down at Aberdeen airport in his private jet fresh oHe said: “It would be madness. Turnberry is such an important element in that whole area and the environment.
He said, “It would be madness”. Turnberry is such an important element, in that whole area, and the environment.
“I’ve not had assurances but I can’t imagine that the council would visually impair an incredible place such as Turnberry.
“If they did allow it I would fight very hard to make sure it doesn’t happen.
“I would certainly bring a lawsuit and try to stop it. I hope it doesn’t come to that but I will fight it.”
Trump says he was aware of the potential windmill war when he purchased Turnberry.
If given the go ahead it could be the world’s biggest offshore wind farm with up to 1500 large scale turbines on a 116-square mile area 3.5 miles off the coast.
Last week, South Ayrshire Council rejected an application to place three turbines on High Chapelton Hill, three miles east of Turnberry.
Trump successfully fought off a similar offshore plan near his Doonbeg resort in Ireland.
Trump said: “When I bought Doonbeg the first reporter I saw told me they were building wind farms and I said, ‘You have got to be kidding me. This thing never ends.’ They were going to build windmills out in the ocean but we went to the council and they totally killed them.
“They did their own studies and said they are bad for tourism and the environment. They kill birds and they don’t work. Other than that they are wonderful.
“So they had a vote two weeks ago and it is gone. I think the same thing will happen with Turnberry, otherwise you are killing tourism. Windmills kill tourism.
“So I heard rumblings but I also heard the council is very much opposed to it, as they should be. I have been treated so nicely by the council.”
Trump was speaking at his resort in Aberdeenshire, where he repeated his vow to suspend development of the Menie Estate site until plans for a £230million windfarm development in Aberdeen Bay are abandoned.
Despite losing his court battle in February, the New York magnate remains confident he will have the ruling overturned and press on with building the clubhouse and a second course on his estate.
His ambition is to host the Ryder Cup on his self-proclaimed “greatest golf course in the world.” Trump has repeatedly caused controversy with his outspoken opposition to turbines and personal criticism of First Minister Alex Salmond.
Trump said: “I am not going to ruin a masterpiece. If they want me to build a hotel and all this stuff, I am not going to be looking into windmills.
“I think we are winning the battle.”
More Evidence, that Climate Alarmists are Wrong!
AGW: more Wind & Rubbish.
by Anthony Cox
| 0.3% not 97.1% |
The first bit of rubbish is that Cook’s alma mater the University of QLD has got lawyered up and become litigious to absurd levels about the 97% man John Cook and his ridiculous consensus.
But playing nasty is part and parcel of the alarmist program as many good skeptical scientists have found including the latest Lennart Bengtsson . When you have no facts as the alarmists have not then all you can do is attack the skeptics.
But by far the biggest piece of rubbish from the alarmist camp has been the release of a new paper about Antarctic winds: Evolution of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) during the past millennium. This paper is co-authored by Matthew England. England has written other papers on wind. His past papers describe how winds have driven the missing heat to the ocean bottom which explains the temperature hiatus. The absurdity of that proposition is critiqued here.
England’s latest paper explains how increased winds are cooling the Antarctica but causing droughts in Southern Australia and causing the Western Antarctic Peninsula to rapidly melt.
England’s winds are marvelous things; they can do so many things; stop temperature, cause cooling, droughts and warming; all at once.
The first thing to check is whether Southern Australia is experiencing drought. A cursory glimpse of the Bureau of Meteorology site shows that Southern Australia is not experiencing anything different, drought or otherwise.
There was a drought from 2000-2010 but that was not unusual with the 1920s drought being bigger and rainfall since then has been above normal.
It is also apparent that England is not even sure what cause the droughts and rainfall in Southern Australia. In 2009 England co-authored a paper which concluded it was the Indian Ocean Dipole [IOD] which caused the worst droughts in South East Australia.
So which is it Matthew, the IOD or the SAM causing the droughts; so many choices, so little sense.
And what about these winds. England reckons they’re increasing and causing all sorts of mischief. But are global winds increasing? Not according to McVicar, Roderick et al 2012 who conclude in fact the globe is stilling. And according to Gabriel Vecchi, a prominent AGW scientist:
The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behaviour across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100.
In Australia winds and storms are declining in South East Australia and that comes direct from the BOM’s horse’s mouth and their top AGW scientist Blair Trewin.
In fact, according to AGW theory and another top AGW scientist, Richard Muller, winds should decrease because of a decline in the energy gradients in a warming world. There are plenty of studies and the IPCC which confirm this.
And what about the Western Antarctic Peninsula? England and his team say it is warming due to AGW. In fact the WAP has been accumulating snow since 1850 and that estimates of ice loss in the WAP may be a mistake based on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment [GIA] where the extra ice compacts the ice level and causes people to think there is less ice.
Of course if there is warming in the WAP it may be due to these volcanoes:
The Antarctic has nearly all its volcanoes in the West with a concentration in the WAP. Since air and sea temperatures are going down in the Antarctic any melting in the WAP can’t be due to AGW. This tends to be verified by the rate of sea level rise declining and with movements in sea level correlated with the PDO not AGW.
In short England’s latest paper contradicts his previous papers and other AGW evidence which also contradicts other ‘evidence’. Take away the ‘evidence’ and what you are left with iscontradiction. And that just about sums up AGW.
Climate has Become a Tool for Extorting Money from Taxpayers…
I was victimized for challenging zealots,
says Professor: Poison, plots and a battle
to neuter climate change critics
- Professor Bengtsson’s research suggested carbon dioxide may be less damaging to the planet than feared
- Says he’s been subjected to ‘unbearable’ pressure from other researchers
- Has warned of increasing politicisation of the once ‘peaceful’ science
- Others describe a ‘poisonous atmosphere’ fueled by plotting researchers
Speaking out: Professor Lennart Bengtsson
A leading academic says activists are trying to block scientific reports that question the dangers of climate change.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson said he had been subjected to ‘unbearable’ pressure from other researchers and warned of the increasing politicisation of the once ‘peaceful’ science.
Others described a ‘poisonous atmosphere’ in which researchers plot behind the scenes to block the publication of work that queries the danger posed by climate change.
Prof Bengtsson, a top meteorologist attached to Reading University, spoke out after some of his research was rejected by a leading scientific journal.
His study suggested carbon dioxide may be less damaging to the planet than feared – effectively challenging the political consensus and the urgency of the taxpayer-funded drive towards green energy.
An unnamed academic who was asked to help decide if the paper should be published, denounced it as ‘harmful’. The reviewer also warned it would generate bad publicity and have a ‘high’ but ‘strongly negative’ impact on the field of climate change science.
Prof Bengtsson said having research rejected was ‘part and parcel of academic life’, but added that it would be ‘utterly unacceptable’ for an academic to advise against publishing a paper on the grounds that it might bolster the views of climate sceptics.
He told the Times: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.
‘The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system, we must have much more solid information.’
Prof Bengtsson’s remarks came just days after he resigned from the advisory board of a think-tank that questions the amount of money being poured into combating climate change, after being subject to a ‘witch-hunt’ by fellow academics.
The 79-year-old said the pressure had become ‘virtually unbearable’ and made him fear for his health and safety.
Prof Bengtsson, a top meteorologist attached to Reading University, spoke out after some of his research was rejected by a leading scientific journal.
In his letter of resignation to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, he said: ‘I would never have expected anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.’
Benny Peiser, of the GWPF, said the professor’s case was just one example of a ‘poisonous atmosphere’ pervading climate change research.
He said many scientists with dissenting views were having their research rejected by the editors of scientific journals, and young scientists were censoring their work out of fear for their careers.
‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views’
Prof Bengtsson
Prof Bengtsson
Dr Peiser said: ‘Over the last few years, the editors of many of the world’s leading science journals have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, many have publicly attacked scientists sceptical of the climate alarm.
‘Instead of serving as open-minded broker of the contested fields of climate science and climate science, most science editors have opted to take a dogmatic stance that no longer allows for open research.’
David Gee, an emeritus professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, said the pressure on Prof Bengtsson ‘simply confirms the worst aspects of politicised science’.
The Institute of Physics, which publishes Environmental Research Letters, said the decision to not publish Prof Bengtsson was based solely on the paper not meeting the journal’s high standards.
Editorial director Nicola Gulley said: ‘Far from hounding “dissenting” views from the field, Environmental Research Letters positively encourages genuine scientific innovation that can shed light on complicated climate science.’
The “Agenda” Behind Climate Hysteria”!
What’s the Real ‘Climate Change’ Agenda?
A Perfect Storm for an End Run on Liberty
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.” –Patrick Henry (1778)
We’re nearing the hot season in the Northern Hemisphere and, predictably, that means the Left’s alarmist “global warming” rhetoric is heating up. Never mind that most weather forecasts beyond 72 hours are largely speculative; these purveyors of hot gas believe we should accept their inviolable 100-year forecast.
Ahead of this year’s midterm elections, amid the plethora of its domestic and foreign policy failures, the Democrat Party has chosen to make their “climate change” fear and fright campaign an electoral centerpiece. Their strategy is to rally the most liberal cadres of Al Gore’s cult of Gorons, whose religious zeal toward “global warming” is fanatical. Unfortunately, for the rest of America, most who occupy this Leftist constituency are no longer capable of distinguishing fact from fiction.
Though the climate alarmists of the 1970s were driven by rhetoric over the coming ice age, the current climate calamity is one of global warming. But the question about climate isn’t if the weather is varying but why it is varying.
And the answer to that question is far less complicated than the “climate change” agenda, which is not about the weather, but about a political strategy to subjugate free enterprise under statist regulation – de facto socialism, under the aegis of “saving us from ourselves.”
The climate is always changing relative to complex short- and long-term climate cycles, so “climate change” is a superbly safe political “cause célèbre” – sort of like “heads we win, tails you lose.” So, declarations like Barack Obama’s 2014 State of the Union warning – “The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact” – fall into the “keen sense of the obvious” category.
In April, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change released a synopsis ofthousands of climate studies, which contradict the conventional “global warming assumptions.” According to the Cato Institute’s Roger Pilon, “We are now at 17 years and eight months of no global warming.”
Not to be outdone by the NIPCC, however, the Obama administration released its own 800-page apocalyptic National Climate Assessment last week, with such erudite conclusions as, “[W]e know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now.”
I “know” with more than “increasing certainty” that every time I walk outside, I can detect climate change, and this ever-changing condition is better known as “weather.”
Despite the hot hype, Jason Furman, chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, the week before Obama trotted out his climate assessment, had this to say about sluggish first quarter economic growth: “The first quarter of 2014 was marked by unusually severe winter weather.”
Global cooling? That’s right, economic stagnation is not the result of failed “economic recovery” policies but “unusually severe winter weather.”
Obama’s minister of propaganda, Jay Carney, followed with this explanation: “We had historically severe winter weather which temporarily lowered growth in the first quarter … in other words, a reduction of 1 to 1.5% in GDP as a result of what was historically severe weather, one of the coldest winters on record, the greatest number of snowstorms on record.”
After the White House climate assessment was released, Carney was challenged about the disparity between “historically severe winter weather” and global warming, and responded, “The impacts of climate change on weather are severe in both directions.”
Well there you go – climate change is the default explanation for hot and cold weather.
It was no small irony that last week, Obama chose to promote his administration’s “green agenda” with Walmart as a backdrop – ironic given that most of Walmart’s products are produced in China and other third-world nations, the biggest land, water and atmospheric polluters on the planet.
To that end, columnist Charles Krauthammer notes, “We have reduced our carbon dioxide emission since 1996 more than any other country in the world, and, yet, world emissions have risen. Why? We don’t control the other 96% of humanity. We can pass all the laws we want. We can stop all economic activity and take cold showers for the next 100 years, it will not change anything if India and China are opening a new coal plant every week.”
I would suggest to Charles that it’s called “global climate” because it is not “local climate,” even if China and India reduced their CO2 emissions it would not stop “climate change.”
Further, the administration’s report claims that “climate disruption” has resulted in a global temperature rise of 1.3 to 1.9 degrees since 1895 – and it is no coincidence that the report cherry-picked that starting date because 1890 is recognized as the end of the 300-year “Little Ice Age” global cooling period.
For the record, estimates of the minuscule temperature fluctuation over the last century, if correct, would explain why White House science adviser John Holdren has abandoned the term “global warming,” opting instead for the more ambiguous and all-encompassing phrase “global climate disruption.”
Fact is, we “disrupt” the global climate every time we exhale.
Such linguistic obfuscations would make the old Soviet Dezinformatsia Bureau proud! Of course, the Obama administration has mastered the art of the “BIG Lie” from the top down. (Think about it: Would you buy a used car from any of them?)
However, even the Left’s cherished United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there “is limited evidence of changes in [weather] extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.”
And, regarding the objectivity of all those erudite “climate change” scientists, columnist George Will observed, “There is a sociology of science. Scientists are not saints in white laboratory smocks. They have got interests like everybody else. If you want a tenure-track position in academia, don’t question the reigning orthodoxy on climate change. If you want money from the biggest source of direct research in this country, the federal government, don’t question its orthodoxy. If you want to get along with your peers, conform to peer pressure. This is what’s happening.”
Krauthammer added, “All physicists were once convinced that space and time were fixed until Einstein, working in a patent office, wrote a paper in which he showed that they are not. I’m not impressed by numbers. I’m not impressed by consensus.”
As for those of us who can distinguish betweenfact, fiction and political endgames, and are most decidedly not among Obama’s legions of pantywaist bed-wetters, he unilaterally suspends the revered scientific method and accuses us of “wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate – climate change is a fact. … Climate change is not some far-off problem in the future. It’s happening now. It’s causing hardship now.”
This week, you can expect to hear the Leftmedia trumpet some Antarctic ice melt, but you haven’t heard much about the record ice pack in the Arctic, which is threatening Al Gore’s once-marooned polar bear population, because the ice is too thick for the bears to reach their primary food source, seals.
Let me repeat myself: The climate hype is notabout the weather, but about a political strategy to subjugate free enterprise under statist regulation – de facto socialism, under the aegis of “saving us from ourselves.”
Indeed, Obama’s economic policies and regulations have already moved our nation rapidly toward the brink of statist totalitarianism.
And there was more evidence this week of Obama’s reckless strategy to subjugate our economy and by extension, our national security, to his “climate change” agenda.
Adding to his “War on Coal,” Obama has ratcheted up his War on Energy Independence, not only refusing to complete the Keystone XL pipeline but now going after alternative oil exploration methods by implementing new fracking disclosure rules. On top of that, he is undermining alternate transportation options for oil in the absence of Keystone XL with new regulations for trains transporting oil, and specifications for rail cars. Oh, did I mention Obama’s regulatory obstacles to constructing new refineries despite the fact that our current refinement capacity is approaching its limit?
How does this all add up?
According to columnist Terence Jeffrey, “Ultimately, it will not matter if people in government cynically promote the theory that human activity is destroying the global climate as a means of taking control of your life, or if they take control of your life because they sincerely believe human activity is destroying the global climate. Either way, government will control of your life. … In a nation where government can de-develop the economy, stop population growth and redistribute wealth both inside and outside its borders, there will still be droughts, floods and hot summer nights. But there will be no freedom.” In his 1735 edition of Poor Richard’s Almanack, Benjamin Franklin observed, “Some are weatherwise, some are otherwise.” While the Left promotes its agenda as “weatherwise” and its detractors as “deniers,” fact is, they are otherwise.
Oh, wait, my bad. “The debate is settled.”
Climate Alarmists are Using Fear as a Sales Gimmick for Faux-green Energy!
Environmental Research Letters strikes back at: ‘Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view’
Environmental Research Letters has published a statement on the growing Bengtsson Climate McCarthyism scandal, now a front page issue in The Times, claiming their innocence over the accusation that it rejected Bengtsson’s paper because of his connection to climate scepticism. Here’s the part of the reviewers report that is at issue:
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
Now that Bengtsson has been put on “double-secret probabtion” in the peer review world, and the ERL peer review has become the center of the maelstrom, of course ERL would issue a statement essentially saying “nothing to see here, move along”.
Here is the statement:
============================================================
Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times
16 May 2014Bristol, UK
Dr. Nicola Gulley, Editorial Director at IOP Publishing, says, “The draft journal paper by Lennart Bengtsson that Environmental Research Letters declined to publish, which was the subject of this morning’s front page story of The Times, contained errors, in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore could not be published in the journal.”
“The decision not to publish had absolutely nothing to do with any ‘activism’ on the part of the reviewers or the journal, as suggested in The Times’ article; the rejection was solely based on the content of the paper not meeting the journal’s high editorial standards, ” she continues.
“The referees selected to review this paper were of the highest calibre and are respected members of the international science community. The comments taken from the referee reports were taken out of context and therefore, in the interests of transparency, we have worked with the reviewers to make the full reports available.”
The full quote actually said “Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”
“As the referees report state, ‘The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low.’ This means that the study does not meet ERL’s requirement for papers to significantly advance knowledge of the field.”
“Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson’s questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance.”
“As the report reads, ‘A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.”
“Far from hounding ‘dissenting’ views from the field, Environmental Research Letterspositively encourages genuine scientific innovation that can shed light on complicated climate science.”
“The journal Environmental Research Letters is respected by the scientific community because it plays a valuable role in the advancement of environmental science – for unabashedly not publishing oversimplified claims about environmental science, and encouraging scientific debate.”
“With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of ‘balance’ on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.”
Please find the reviewer report below quoted in The Times, exactly as sent to Lennart Bengttsson.
We are getting permission from the other referees for this paper to make their reports available as soon as possible.
REFEREE REPORT(S):
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent “assessments” of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).
The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.
The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.
The finding of differences between the three “assessments” and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.
The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of “errors” being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.
What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of “reasons” and “causes” for the differences.
– The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
– The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some “unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors” but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately “adjusted” to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
– The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
– Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn’t fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can’t see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.
Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.
==============================================================
Source: http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times
Bishop Hill notes this about the reports:
==============================================================
Regarding the scientific issues, the journal says it is trying to get permission to publish the referees’ reports and indeed the first of these appears at the bottom of the statement. As far as we can ascertain from this, Bengtsson’s paper focused on similar ground to the Lewis/Crok GWPF report, namely the stark difference between GCM estimates of climate sensitivity and those derived from the observational record and energy budgets. The referee quoted seems to object to this approach because of claimed inadequacies in the nergy budget approach. He says in essence that you wouldn’t expect consistency because the energy budget approach is flawed.
People closer to the climate sensitivity debate need to look at the full review, but noted something rather interesting among the list of objections to energy budget models. This is the paragraph that caught my attention:
Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn’t fit the same ranges).
==============================================================
It seems to me that Climate Science is reaching a tipping point. After Climategate, we were told that all of those nasty emails were taken out of context, and that “real climate scientists” don’t really act like that, and it is shameful for climate skeptics to label these instances as indicative of systemic problems that are endemic to climate science and the peer review process.
And now, here we are, right back where we started at Climategate.
Global Cooling is What is Really Happening, and it’s NOT our Fault!!!
GLOBAL COOLING UNDERWAY
With global temperature data now available for the first three months of 2014, an interesting trend has clearly emerged: global cooling. No longer is it just a hypothesis. For the first quarter of each calendar year since 2002, it is effectively a fact at reasonably strong statistical significance. Here is the data:
That downward trend since 2002 has a p-value of 0.097 (r=-0.48), which is below the p=0.10 (90%) threshold used in many climate science studies for statistical significance, and very close to the standard p=0.05 (95%) threshold generally employed across the physical and biological sciences. The same level of statistical significance is obtained regardless of whether parametric or non-parametric trend analysis methods are employed.
Some readers may be looking at this plot and thinking that the global climate data since 1880 looks a lot like a cycle, with a stable period (of neither warming nor cooling) of, say, 140 years in length between the approximately 70-year long alternating cool and warm periods. It certainly has that appearance. If such is the case, we would expect a return to “normal” January-March global temperatures by 2050, give or take a decade or two.
In the United States, the January-March 2014 temperature was well below the 20th-century average. There has been no statistically significant trend in January-March temperatures in the contiguous USA since 1980. None, for 35 years and counting. The same lack of trend applies for the December-February temperatures. Depending on how you define winter, either – or both – of these timeframes is considered the wintertime period.
So there has been absolutely no change in wintertime temperatures in the United States since before Reagan was president, and yet the The Guardian is reporting that the latest National Climate Assessment finds climate change to be a “clear and present danger” and that “Americans are noticing changes all around them … Winters are generally shorter and warmer.”
There is no trend – I repeat: no trend – in wintertime temperatures in the United States since 1980.
On an annual basis ending in March, there has been no change in the contiguous U.S. temperature since 1986 (actually, probably since 1985, but we’ll give the alarmists the benefit on this). You get the same result on a calendar-year basis. That’s right: there has been no change in annual temperatures for the United States since Bon Jovi had a number-one hit with “You Give Love a Bad Name,” the Bangles were telling us to “Walk Like an Egyptian,” Madonna was asking her papa not to preach, and Robert Palmer was “Addicted to Love.”
According to Virginia Burkett, the chief scientist for global change at the U.S. Geological Survey, “all areas are getting hotter.” All of them? So bold, yet so inaccurate. The entire Ohio Valley climate division has not seen any significant warming on an annual basis since 1896. The entire U.S. South climate division hasn’t warmed since 1907. Neither has the entire Southeast climate division since 1896.
The National Climate Assessment claims that “summers are longer and hotter.” Hotter summers? There is no trend in the average June-August temperature (aka summer) in the USA since 1930. Same lack of trend for July and August average temperatures.
On an annual basis ending in March (allowing us to use the most complete dataset possible), global warming stopped cold in statistical terms during 1997. And since 2002, the correlation coefficient has – in fact – turned slightly negative. Very weak evidence for global cooling, but on the balance of probabilities, since 2002, there is more statistical evidence for global cooling than there is for global warming. Scientists such as Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, have been making similar predictions for global temperatures.
In the Southern Hemisphere, where climate scientists are now apparently warning that the “Antarctic Ice Shelf [is] on [the] brink of unstoppable melt that could raise sea levels for 10,000 years,” the annual cooling trend since 2003 is even more probable (r=-0.22, p-value as low as 0.34 using non-parametric approaches).
The poor-quality science reporting on climate change is ubiquitous. Over at the Daily Kos, we find a plot of “Global Temperature (meteorological stations).” Given that oceans cover 71 percent of the planet’s surface, what possible meaning could a “global temperature” derived only from “meteorological stations” have? The answer is none. Any talk of a global temperature must include both land and sea data, and be properly weighted according to station type and location. And this assumes that the data itself is correct. Various climate skeptic websites have repeatedly shown that we need to doubt the data itself, not just the analyses.
As the countdown to the proposed climate agreement in 2015 ticks along, expect more of this hysterical nonsense not founded in the underlying data, as well as more concerted and emphatic denials of the global cooling phase we may be entering. One can only hope that the moderately conservative leaders in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom will not fall prey to the hysteria, but instead take a principled scientific stand in 2015 and lead the charge to reject any international climate agreements.
Unfortunately, many crony capitalists – including a number in the fossil fuels industry itself – are starting to see greater financial benefits for themselves by going along with the hysteria, rather than fighting for reality.
Perilous times indeed. The next couple years may not only see the end of America’s economic domination on the world stage, passing the torch instead to communist China, but also witness the final death throes of rigorous, objective science in the public interest.
What is the University of Queensland, so Desperate to Hide?
University of Queensland threatens lawsuit over use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal
Wow, just wow. Not only have they just invoked the Streisand effect, they threw some gasoline on it to boot. It’s all part of the Climate McCarthyism on display this week
UPDATE: Ironically, Cook’s “97% consensus paper” was published one year ago today, under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.
Data in the SI was added 16 days after publication, but not all the data, not sure if they have any legal basis to withhold the rest and still keep CCL license – Anthony
Brandon Schollenberger writes:
My Hundredth Post Can’t Be Shown
Dear readers, I wanted to do something special for my hundredth post at this site. I picked out a great topic for discussion. I wrote a post with clever prose, jokes that’d make your stomach ache from laughter and even some insightful commentary. Unfortunately, I can’t post it because I’d get sued.
You see, I wanted to talk about the Cook et al data I recently came into possession of. I wanted to talk about the reaction by Cook et al to me having this data. I can’t though. The University of Queensland has threatened to sue me if I do.
I understand that may be difficult to believe. I’d like to provide you proof of what I say. I’m afraid I can’t do that either though. If I do, the University of Queensland will sue me. As they explained in their letter threatening me:
That’s right. The University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter which threatens me further if I show anyone that letter.
Confusing, no? It gets stranger. Along with its threats, the University of Queensland included demands. The first of these is:
This demand is interesting. According to it, I’m not just prevented from disclosing any of the “intellectual property” (IP) I’ve gained access to. I’m prevented from even doing anything which involves using the data. That means I can’t discuss the data. I can’t perform analyses on it. I can’t share anything about it with you.
But that’s not all I can’t do. The University of Queensland also demanded I cease and desist from:
This fascinates me. I corresponded with John Cook to try to get him to assert any claims of confidentiality he might have regarding the data I now possess. I sent him multiple e-mails telling him if he felt the data was confidential, he should request I not disclose it. I said if people’s privacy needed to be protected, he should say so.
He refused. Repeatedly.
Apparently I badgered Cook too much. I tried too hard to get him to do his duty and try to protect his subjects’ privacy. The University of Queensland needs me to stop. If I don’t, they’ll sue me.
So yeah, sorry guys. I wanted my hundredth post to be interesting, but I guess it won’t be. Anything interesting I might have to say will get me sued. And maybe not just sued. The University of Queensland apparently wants me arrested too:
I don’t know what sort of hack they had investigate the supposed hacking, but this is silly. There was no hacking involved. The material was gathered in a perfectly legal way. I could easily prove that.
Only, proving it would require using the data I’ll be sued for using…
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/my-hundredth-post-cant-be-shown/
Donald Trump Knows Not to Invest In Wind Turbines or Areas Infested with them!
Donald Trump vows investment if turbines scrapped
Trump, 67, said he was willing to restart work at the £750 million Menie Estate course if Aberdeen City Council chiefs “took the windfarm off the table”.
The US businessman touched down at Aberdeen International Airport yesterday morning before heading off to the links at the Menie Estate in the afternoon.
He was due to fly out to Dubai later to oversee another of his golf projects.
Trump has objected to the proposed 11-turbine development off Aberdeen Bay since it was first put forward in August last year, saying it will ruin the view for people playing on the Aberdeenshire course.
He axed plans for a luxury hotel and a second course at Menie Estate and vowed to never invest in the course again after the Scottish Government rejected his appeal against the turbine plan in February. His legal team are planning a fresh appeal.
He arrived in Ayrshire earlier this week to visit the £35.7 million Turnberry course he purchased last month.
But he said he stands by his decision not to invest any more in his resort at Menie Estate, near Balmedie, unless he wins his wind-turbine fight.
He said: “We far exceeded the promise we made to Scotland.
“We have delivered a very special golf course. People all over the world are talking about it and we are getting record bookings.
“I look forward to continuing the development – as soon as that windfarm is taken off the table.”
Vattenfall, the 75% stakeholder in the windfarm project, is looking to sell its share and Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group, which holds the remaining stake, last month handed over the running of the project to Aberdeen City Council.
Trump also plans to invest up to #36million in a golf course he has bought in the west of Ireland.
He visited Doonbeg Links, in Co Clare, before travelling to Turnberry.
The American tycoon said yesterday he was “sad” to see Scotland, where his mother was born, being “destroyed”.
He said: “Scotland is a beautiful country, but it has a death wish. Wind turbines are destroying the country.
“The council in Aberdeen should do its people a great favour and abandon this scheme, which is doomed to lose money.”
Wind Turbines are Destroying Scottish Seabirds!
‘Protect Scottish seabirds from deadly wind farms’
Scotland is home to 24 internationally important seabird species. But the latest official figures show at least nine have been in steep decline for the past 18 years.
Now a new report from RSPB Scotland is calling for the Scottish Government to set out seven new Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to safeguard food supplies for threatened birds and reduce the impacts of offshore wind farms.
As the seas are increasingly being utilised for renewable energy developments, conservationists say guidance on sensitive areas is urgently needed to address a “fundamental lack of protection” for species such as the puffin and great skua.
The RSPB is also warning that the Scottish and UK governments risk failing to meet obligations under Scottish and European laws if “urgent action” is not taken to encourage their survival.
Stuart Housden, director of RSPB Scotland, said: “Scotland has a fantastic opportunity to show the world that we value our wildlife and natural environment.
“Unfortunately, this is not the case when it comes to our iconic seabirds, species for which Scotland in particular has a special responsibility to protect.”
He said the seven areas are just “a first step” in creating a full network needed to satisfy the requirements of EU and Scottish legislation.
“With numerous proposed wind farm developments ‘queuing up’ in the areas that overlap key feeding sites for birds, we cannot wait any longer,” he added.
The most dramatic declines have hit the arctic skua, arctic tern and black-legged kittiwake, which have seen numbers plummet by as much as 80 per cent in recent years. Experts fear the arctic skua may disappear from the UK within a decade.
Other species of concern include the northern gannet, European shag, common guillemot and European storm petrel.
Evidence shows changes in oceanography are affecting the food “web”, causing a scarcity of prey that impacts on breeding success.
But the survival of vulnerable populations can also be threatened by badly sited marine renewable schemes and invasive alien species, according to the report.
It suggests setting out protected areas at sea can boost their chances of survival.
The recommended areas were first identified in 2012 by the government’s statutory advisors, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and are considered vital feeding areas used by many tens of thousands of Scotland’s four million seabirds.
The government has already laid down 33 SPA colony extension sites, but experts say most of the critical areas where breeding species feed at sea remain unprotected.
The report recommends the SPAs should include colony extensions and offshore feeding areas, as both are essential for the birds to thrive.
“Without protection of these areas, breeding colonies designated as terrestrial SPAs and Sites for Special Scientific Interest risk being little more than safe places to starve, and leave seabirds unprotected through the majority of their lifecycle,” the report states.
But a spokesman insisted the Scottish Government is committed to safeguarding the nation’s seabirds.
He said: “We are confident that completion of marine SPA designations will deliver adequate site protection for seabirds.
“We recently consulted on 33 Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (MPA) proposals, which will provide valuable protection for our marine environment, including seabirds, in 2013.
“Six of these would include national protection for black guillemot in the marine environment, while several of the other MPA proposals include protection for habitats or species such as sand eels that support seabirds.”
The initial SPAs include sandbanks off the Firth of Forth, an area of the Pentland Firth and the sea north of St Kilda, but RSPB Scotland is set to propose further sites in coming months.
Final decisions on the MPA proposals are expected later this year.
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 