Mar 10 2010

Myriad Of AGW Articles

The pace and scope of debunking of AGW and the IPCC has expanded exponentially of late, so much so I cannot keep up with the postings. So here is a  compendium of recent postings and articles that continue to decimate the false hypothesis behind AGW.

First off is this guest post over at Roger Pielke Jr’s website that analyzes how much of the latest IPCC report (AR4) is based on ‘peer-reviewed’ science vs grey and black references – along with a great definition for these classes of scientific confidence:

Overall only 62% of the references in the IPCC report are actually based on science, the rest are grey or black. But as we all know, not even the science references are all used accurately, or are even accurate themselves.

Next is this interesting post at Harmless Sky by TonyN, which looks at one of the insane tables produced by Working Group 1 of the IPCC. In it (reproduced below) TonyN notes that we find some bizarre, mathematically impossible conclusions drawn that simply emphasize the fact you can point to all the scientific papers you want, and still come up with garbage conclusions:

[A]

Phenomenon aand direction of trend

[B]

Likelihood that trend occurred in late 20th century (typically post 1960)

[C]

Likelihood of a human contribution to observed trend b

[D]

Likelihood of future trends based on projections for 21st century using SRES scenarios

[1] Warmer and fewer cold daysand nights over most landareas

Very likely c

[>90%]

Likely e

>60%

Virtually certaine

>99%

[2] Warmer and more frequenthot days and nights overmost land areas

Very likely d

>90%

Likely (nights) e

>60%

Virtually certaine

>99%

[3] Warm spells / heat waves.Frequency increases overmost land areas

Likely

>60%

More likely than not f

>50%

Very likely

>90%

[4] Heavy precipitation events.Frequency (or proportion oftotal rainfall from heavy falls)increases over most areas

Likely

>60%

More likely than not f

>50%

Very likely

>90%

[5] Area affected by droughtsincreases

Likely in many regions

since 1970s

>60%

More likely than not

>50%

Likely

>60%

[6] Intense tropical cycloneactivity increases

Likely in some regions

since 1970

>60%

More likely than not f

>50%

Likely

>60%

[7] Increased incidence ofextreme high sea level(excludes tsunamis) g

Likely

>60%

More likely than not f, h

>50%

Likely I

>60%

Just focus in on the line highlighted in red text. What we have is three columns of confidence levels for three hypothesis (none of which are really proven): (a) a measured trend in the climate data, (b) the trend has a human component (of any size, it could be insignificant or dominant, IPCC never explains here), and (c) a guesstimate the human influence will drive a future trend – or at least that is the implication. The title of the column actually is much more general and useless, it simply provides a confidence Earth will experience this same trend again.

If the world is going through a natural cycle, of course we will see these things again!

Anyway, so we look at “[3] Warm spells / heat waves. Frequency increases overmost land areas“. For the globe to be warming, one would think the frequency of warm spells and heat waves would naturally increase. But look at the confidence levels (if these numbers are even the mathematical variety of the term).

It is only 60% likely that there has been an increase in warm spells or heat waves in the 20th century! Only 60%? I thought this was the apocalyptic end result of AGW? Even more so, there is only a 50% confidence this barely perceptible trend is human driven (remember a 50% confidence means it could be or as easily could not be = no evidence either way). If you were combining uncertainties (the 1’s compliment of confidence) we would say there is 40% uncertainty in warming trends being detected and 50% uncertainty (basically zero) it is human driven. This would lead any real scientist (or HS math ace) to conclude there is enormous uncertainty that human induced warm spells will be seen in the future.

But not those crazy folks at the IPCC – they claim there is a 90% certainty of future human induced warm spells! Or is that just warm spells, which would be the only sane (but useless) conclusion?

As I said, you can have all the scientific references in the world and still produce garbage.

Next is this real scientific paper that attempts to use shellfish shells to discern historic climate. It looks like it is going to replace all other proxies because it can actually measure down to the month or less. Interestingly it shows a Roman Warm Period, a Medieval Warm Period, and A Little Ice Age. What does it show for today? Strangely the entire thing stops in the 1800’s. H/T Bishop Hill.

Speaking of real scientific papers, SPPI has this interesting paper out discussing the possible mechanisms behind the divergence of Satellite & Ground temp data. I find its exploration of UHI effects and detail on how wind speed is a huge factor in cooling at night very enlightening. If you want to truly glimpse the complexity of instantaneous and long term climactic forces and drivers, this paper is a bit of an eye opener.

This article up at WUWT demonstrates how unsettled the ‘science’ really is. You have one major national climate organization, the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC), refuting the speculative math used by NASA GISS to smear a few warm thermometers over the entire continent of Antarctica and claim there is warming. What is ‘settled’ is no one spent any time fact checking GISS, CRU and IPCC until recently.

And finally I want to end with a picture of the pending corruption that is the natural result of all this green madness (and I mean the money type of ‘green’). This starts in the UK and will make its way around the world Australia. First the UK and the fleecing of its citizens for green greed:

Well-off homeowners will be expected to borrow more than £7bn over the next decade to meet ambitious government energy saving targets announced today.

Local authorities will be encouraged to borrow the money needed to make buildings greener and meet local carbon emission reduction targets, for example by entering into public-private partnerships.

Energy suppliers will be required to meet about 60% of the estimated £18.6bn cost of insulating most of the UK’s homes, for which the poorest households will not have to pay. Suppliers will pass these costs on to their customers, but energy secretary Ed Miliband insisted the targets would not lead to additional utility bill rises.

Energy Secretary Miliband must be using that new math, because there is no way to pass on new costs and not see increased rates. Can you see our Federal government mandating we all pay exorbitant prices to insulate our homes? There is more 3rd grade math to come!

Under legislation proposed today, homeowners would be able to take out loans for thousands of pounds to install loft or wall insulation or solar panels. These loans would be fixed against the home, so that if the borrower moved out, they would not have to continue to pay.

The new owner would inherit the annual charge to pay for the green measures, but would also continue to benefit from the resulting lower energy bills.

Do these people understand it can take a decade or more to recoup some of these investments? And if your house is relatively new it will only marginally change your energy use since you can only do so much in upgrading to a modern, energy efficient home. And if it is older, the cost to get it up to par with modern homes is enormous, thus the long time to recoup the investment. This is just silly madness. And when this doesn’t work they will go to energy rationing and the thermostat police will show up.

This is all ripe for exploitation, as we find in Australia from these posts here and here.

Government needs to stop mandating what products we buy. From health insurance, to home upgrades, to the food we want to eat the nanny state needs to be fired. There is no global melt down, stop picking our pockets and lining yours.

Update: Oops! Almost forgot another set of posts I wanted to highlight. This first post is from The Virtuous Republic and ponders some of the effects of the great thermometer die off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. It is my contention you cannot use one thermometer to represent more than 50 km of any region with any accuracy. The Machiavellian has discovered how GISS has trimmed their sensors to a senseless level. Here is another post from the site on the same topic.

Bottom line, anyone who thinks a thermometer in Florida can give you the temperature in VA is pretty much a fool.

5 responses so far

5 Responses to “Myriad Of AGW Articles”

  1. grumpyguy says:

    Thanks for the link.

    Keep up the good reviews of the AGW debacle. Your articles always make the complicated easy to understand.

    Unfortunately, I think the left could be hit with a brickbat of facts regarding the inherent unscientific basis of global warming, yet they will still believe.

  2. del says:

    Thanks AJ. When looking at that probability chart and seeing how it was used it is easy to see that no scientists were in the room. Who do these people think they are fooling, besides themselves?

  3. tarpon says:

    I think what you have proved is governments can buy an awful lot of silence with grant money.

  4. Friday Flotsam – Back on the Blogging Beach Edition. …

    In 2001, Michael Mann, the CRU, and the IPCC asserted an extraordinary scientific claim that we are experiencing the greatest global warming in a millennium, predicted dire consequences, but failed to deliver the extraordinary evidence required to supp…

  5. [...] via The Strata-Sphere » Myriad Of AGW Articles. [...]