hcubed's WunderBlog

Another newspaper reports on the coming ice age

By: hcubed, 2:21 AM GMT on January 30, 2012

From here:

Link

"...The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997..."

These are a couple of the "top-flight" CAGW sources, so that makes it believable.

"...Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C..."

And, as a recap, we've seen temps over the past century rise by about one degree C.

"...However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid..."

Now, according to most CAGW believers, it's this time period that they consider the start of the industrial revolution, and CO2 rise from this point is what's causing our current warming (and not just a rebound from the LIA).

"...Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases'..."

It's the CO2, not the sun. Got it. It WAS the sun during the LIA, but WON'T be the sun now.

"...These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts..."

It's from this point we'll lose a lot of believers, but try to stay with it.

"...‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
World solar activity cycles from 1749 to 2040

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said..."

So far, the believers saw "Svensmark said Blah, blah, blah", and didn't go any farther.

"...Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years..."

And, the Believers saw the names Scafetta and Curry, and blew off the rest.

"...Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious’..."

So the data (from believable sources) is still showing little to no warming, and the forecast shows a possibility of future cooling. Yet, according to some, it's only gonna get worse - much worse.

They may just be right. Just not in the way they hope.

There is a reply from the Met Office, though.

Even there, they report:

"...The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions)..."

Sounds like accurate reporting of what the Met office said.

But, again, thanks for a verifiable forecast - that in the next 90 years or so, we should go from the current .4C above, to a level of 2.82C above "normal" (current of .4C plus the 2.5C minus the .08C of solar cooling).

We'll see it when (or if) we get there. They've got the whole world watching now...

Updated: 2:16 PM GMT on January 30, 2012

Permalink

The "green hole" sucks more companies down.

By: hcubed, 3:55 AM GMT on January 29, 2012

Just seven months after California-based solar power company Amonix Inc. opened its largest manufacturing plant, in North Las Vegas, the company’s contractor has laid off nearly two-thirds of its workforce.

Flextronics Industrial, the Singapore solar panel manufacturer that partnered with Amonix to staff the new $18 million, 214,000-square-foot plant, laid off about 200 of its 300-plus employees Tuesday..."

"...Amonix received a $5.9 million investment tax credit through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act in 2010, and another $12 million in private capital helped finance the plant..."

One...

Earlier this week, Stimulus beneficiary Evergreen Energy bit the dust.

"...Evergreen Energy Inc., a developer of alternative fuel products, filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this week, citing a lack of financing that the company said made it impossible to maintain operations.

The company listed assets of about $240 million and debt of $25 million in Chapter 7 documents filed today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware. Chapter 7 proceedings let companies liquidate their assets while being protected from creditors.

Evergreen "remains unable to obtain additional financing and, given its current financial condition, there is substantial doubt that the company will be able to continue operations," Evergreen said in a Jan. 13 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission..."

Two...

Then, Enter1, a manufacturer of batteries for electric vehicles and recipient of Stimulus largesse, filed for bankruptcy.

"...Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Ener1 Inc., which owns a company that received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant to make electric-car batteries, filed for bankruptcy protection after defaulting on bond debt amid Asian competition.

The company listed assets of $73.9 million and debt of $90.5 million as of Dec. 31 in Chapter 11 papers filed today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. Ener1 has been affected by competing battery developers in China and South Korea, "which generally have a lower cost manufacturing base" and lower labor and raw material costs, interim Chief Executive Officer Alex Sorokin said in the petition..."

Three...

So what do all these companies have in common? They all received gov't loan guarantees, and all give the same reason for their demise: an inability to match the labor and material costs of Asia.

The list of sinking "green" companies grows, and it's only gonna get worse - much worse...

Permalink

Oldie but goodie...

By: hcubed, 5:01 PM GMT on January 23, 2012

First, I know this is from 2009, and it's now 2012. But Peru will soon be going into their winter season, and, since we're going through a period of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, I wonder if they'll suffer through another brutal winter...

BBC NEWS
Children die in harsh Peru winter
July 12, 2009
By Dan Collyns, BBC News, Lima

"...Almost 250 children under the age of five have died in a wave of intensely cold weather in Peru.

Children die from pneumonia and other respiratory infections every year during the winter months particularly in Peru’s southern Andes. But this year freezing temperatures arrived almost three months earlier than usual..."

So, if that's a worry, then we'll be on the watch for mid-March this year.

"...Experts blame climate change for the early arrival of intense cold which began in March. Winter in the region does not usually begin until June.

The extreme cold, which has brought snow, hail, freezing temperatures and strong winds, has killed more children than recorded annually for the past four years. A total of 246 under the age of five have died so far, only half way through the winter months..."

Does bring up one thing, though - what kind of heating system would have saved these children? If their current heating systems weren't effective in March, how much more effective would they have been in June?

And how can Global Warming (excuse me, I meant Climate Change) be blamed for inefficient heating devices?

Unless the're being brainwashed into turning off their fossil-fueled heating devices to "save the planet".

So, some research is needed.

First, it seems that 2009 wasn't the only reported problem:

"...(Oct 19 2007) Winter in Peru this year has seen temperatures fall to their lowest levels for the last 30 years. The departments hardest hit are at altitudes of over 2500 metres, in the central and southern Andean region, with more than 700 000 people affected. There was a shift in the focus of aid following the August earthquake, leaving the victims of the cold helpless. The Commission is therefore providing assistance to 60 000 of those hardest hit in the four departments facing serious food shortages: Apurimac, Ayacucho, Huancavelica and Puno. The EUR 1.5 million will be used to supply emergency food aid and aid to restore people's livelihoods, to distribute kitchen utensils and kits, and to engage in disaster-preparedness activities..."

"...June 19, 2008 by Andean Air Mail & PERUVIAN TIMES

Peru President Alan Garcia enacted a legislative decree to declare a 60-day state of emergency in 11 of Peru’s 24 departments Thursday as temperatures in the Andes region continue to drop dramatically and claim the lives of residents.

As Peru remains in the grip of intense cold — meteorologists have registered temperatures dipping to -22°C, or 7.60 F — the cold weather death toll continues to rise. Sixty-one children have died since April 13.

Again:

"...In July 2010, the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency in 16 of Peru's 24 regions due to cold weather. The majority of the areas affected are in the south, where temperatures have dropped to as low as -24C. Lima recorded its lowest temperatures in 38 years at 9C, and emergency measures have been applied to several of its outlying districts. In the Amazon region temperatures dropped to as low as 9C, the fifth recorded cold spell this year. In the south, hundreds of people - nearly half of them very young children - are reported as having died of cold-related diseases such as pneumonia, and poor rural populations living at more than 3,000m above sea level being the most affected..."

And again:

July 22, 2011 by Andean Air Mail & PERUVIAN TIMES

"...The regional health office in Southern Peru’s Puno region has reported that 27 children under the age of five have died in recent weeks in the department from respiratory infections due to a sharp drop in temperature.

Children in Puno are one of the most vulnerable groups to the cold that hits the region during Peru’s winter. Numerous children regularly die every year as residents lack proper shelter to be protected from the cold, and children are more susceptible to bronchopulmonary diseases because their systems are weakened by cooking smoke within their homes..."

So then to recap - Cold weather (blamed on Climate Change in 2009) killed children in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

And it appears Climate Change effects these people's ability to have proper SHELTER from the extreme cold (like the extreme cold they've seen for the past 5 years.)

And, according to some, it's only gonna get worse - much worse...

Updated: 5:03 PM GMT on January 23, 2012

Permalink

For those who haven't been brainwashed enough...

By: hcubed, 6:08 PM GMT on January 17, 2012

...there's a new source (an all-in-one stop) for all your Catastrophic Man-Made (anthropogenic) global warming/climate change/climate disruption needs:

...Open Climate 101

"...Almost 3000 non-science major undergraduates at the University of Chicago have taken PHSC13400, Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, since Ray Pierrehumbert and I (David Archer) first developed it back in 1995. Since the publication of the textbook for the class in 2005 (and a much-cleaned-up 2nd edition now shipping), enrollment has gone through the roof, it’s all I’ve been able to teach the last few years, trying to keep up with demand. I hear it is the largest class on campus, with 4-500 students a year out of an annual class of only around 1400. Now the content of this class is being served to the internet world at large: Open Climate 101...

Open Climate 101. Catchy name. Almost as catchy as "Climate Reality Project". That one's run by a real scientist, too.

"...You can watch video lectures followed by quizzes to challenge and hopefully stimulate your understanding, and work your way through tutorials with interactive models and simple mathematical ideas. Actually all that stuff has been available for a long time, online or in the textbook, but now it’s packaged into an interactive assessing system, which admittedly lacks the personality and finesse of our graduate student teaching assistants, but I hope it’ll get the job done. You can work at your own pace, on your own time. You don’t get University of Chicago credit, but it’s free, and if you get to the end of it you can download a certificate of accomplishment with your name and a verification code, signed by me. I hope people find it useful."

Wow. A certificate of accomplishment with your name and a verification code. Personally signed, too. Never got that kind of service from the "24 Hours of Reality" we were asked to watch.

Of course, never made to the end of the 24 hours. And, even here, you'll only get the certificate IF you get to the end of it.

Let me save you the time:

"It's only gonna get worse - much worse".

And I'll sign your certificate, too...

Updated: 6:10 PM GMT on January 17, 2012

Permalink

"Denier" wins climate bet

By: hcubed, 8:17 AM GMT on January 14, 2012

This ties in closely to the last blog, pertaining to the HadCRU data:

""...Britain’s Met Office projects 2014 temperature likely to be 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than 2004. “Here is the climate forecast for the next decade [2007-2014]; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014. This is the prediction of the first computer model of the global climate designed to make forecasts over a timescale of around a decade, developed by scientists at the Met Office. The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record..."

It seems that a bet was made in 2008 - a bet that has been won by Dr David Whitehouse, a former BBC Science Editor and a scientific adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"...In 2008, the BBC programmmers came up with the idea of a bet. It was for £100 that, using the Met Office’s data set (HadCrut3), there would be no new warming record set by 2011. It was made between Dr Whitehouse and climatologist Dr James Annan..."

Dr. Annan's blog on the original bet:

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

The results are in: Dr Winehouse won. Using that same HadCRU data, up to now, there HAS NOT BEEN A YEAR WARMER THAN 1998.

So what does Dr Annan have to say?

His latest:

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Although he admits to the loss (and, it's true that the other two data sets show warmer), they agreed to use HadCRU data.

As far as the other two sets, they've ALWAYS run warmer. So when the HadCRU numbers for 2011 came in at a blistering .543C above "normal", it's still the coolest of the three. That, compared to 1998 at .820C, makes a bone-chilling drop of .277C below the "warmest ever".

Then again, he states "...I estimated observational values for 2011, as they are not actually published yet..."

He'd better look again.

Anything else?

Sure - there's this:

"...That said, there is little sign of the acceleration in warming that most models had predicted, and it increasingly seems that the Smith et al forecast (for example) was a bit excessive. This new paper also suggests that the transient response of a modern model (albeit a particularly sensitive one) has to be significantly downscaled to match observations. Mind you, that paper also has a worrying discrepancy between the results obtained with 1900-2000, versus 1850-2010 data. Normally one would expect the latter to be broadly a subset of the former - more data means closer convergence to the true value - but the two sets of results are virtually disjoint, which suggests something a bit strange may be going on in the analysis (cf Schmitter et al with the land-only versus land+ocean results). But just a glance at the first figure shows a striking divergence between model and data over the first decade of the 21st century (compared to the close agreement prior to then). Something isn't quite right there..."

Seems more observation needs to take place.

Permalink

Doom and gloom, continued

By: hcubed, 1:50 PM GMT on January 11, 2012

Again, from here:

2015 Forecast

Again, easy to verify predictions:

"...Britain’s Met Office projects 2014 temperature likely to be 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than 2004. “Here is the climate forecast for the next decade [2007-2014]; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014. This is the prediction of the first computer model of the global climate designed to make forecasts over a timescale of around a decade, developed by scientists at the Met Office. The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record..."

OK, we've actually got one we can check on. They say this forecast is for the decade of 2007-2014. Wait - a decade is 10 years, right? This is only 7 years. Whatever.

Let's examine this: "...at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998...". Since 2012 has just started, there's actually a very short time period here - using their "decade" of 2007-2014, they're saying that of those years AFTER 2009 (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014), half of them will be warmer than 1998. Comes to 2.5 out of 5.

Since this is the Met Office, I'm going to assume they're using HadCRU values.

So, using this listing, (HadCRUT3 global) it appears that the "final" for 1998 was .820

Since 1998, nothing has come close.

2010 came out to .713C.

2011 came out to .543C.

That's 2 out of the 5. So for this one to come true (at least half), we're looking for the temps for 2012, 2013 and 2014 to ALL be greater than .820C. Might be rough, especially since in the 13 years AFTER 1998, NONE have been warmer - and by the end of 2000, they dropped a bone-chilling .459C below the "hottest ever" levels.

So by the end of the year, this prediction could be falsified.

To continue: "...Over the 10-year period [2007-2014] as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C [0.3 degrees Celsius] warmer than 2004. The overall trend in warming is driven by greenhouse gas emissions but this warming effect will be broadly cancelled out over the next few years by the changing patterns of the ocean temperatures.” (Roger Highfield, Science Editor, “Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014,” The Daily Telegraph, London, England, United Kingdom, August 9, 2007 reporting findings in Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, and James M. Murphy, “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model,” Science, August 10, 2007 317: 796-799 DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540)..."

Ok, looking at this part: "...2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C [0.3 degrees Celsius] warmer than 2004..."

According to HadCRUT3, the "final" for 2004 was .611C. Adding .3C to that makes the projected temp for 2014 to be .911C.

We'll be watching that, and get ready to make the call...

Updated: 2:05 PM GMT on January 11, 2012

Permalink

More on the doom and gloom forecasts.

By: hcubed, 1:43 PM GMT on January 10, 2012

Again, being taken from here:

2015 forecast

Arctic Sea Ice forecast:

"...2010-2015. Computer model forecasts taking into account sea ice thinning and albedo effects project an ice-free summer Arctic Ocean between 2010-2015. “The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015 -- something that hasn't happened for more than a million years, according to a leading polar researcher. Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a Canadian research network, said the sea ice is melting faster than predicted by models created by international teams of scientists, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They had forecast the Arctic Ocean could be free of summer ice as early as 2050. But Fortier told an international conference on defence and security in Quebec City yesterday that the worst-case scenarios are becoming reality. ‘The frightening models we didn't even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true,’ Fortier told CanWest News Service, referring to computer models that take into account the thinning of the sea ice and the warming from the albedo effect -- the Earth is absorbing more energy as the sea ice melts. According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.” (No author credited, “Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer as early as 2010,” Times Colonist, Victoria, British Columbia, November 16, 2007)..."

OK, in 2007, they figured we could be ice free by now. But there's still 3 more summers to go.

Who else?

"...2013. Arctic ocean could be mostly ice free by 2013 according to NASA scientists. “Recent satellite data from the U.S. Space agency NASA indicate that sea ice in the Arctic and Greenland is melting at a faster rate than previously projected. VOA's Paul Sisco has the story. Climate scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, outside Washington, say the Arctic Ocean could be mostly ice free in late summer 2013.

‘The sea ice is decreasing faster than all the models predicted," says Jay Zwally, the ice satellite project scientist at NASA Goddard, ‘We not only have the warming of the atmosphere, we have a warming of the ocean that is affecting this. It has been surprising to everybody, this decrease in [Arctic sea ice] area. This is a marked departure, and this is suggesting to us that maybe we are getting at this tipping point.’” Arctic ice free. (No author credited, “NASA Scientists See Hastened Arctic Warming,” Voice of America, Washington, DC, January 9, 2008)..."

And a year later (2008) they moved the goalpost to 2013.

But Jay Zwally has even revised his own projection:

"...This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."..." (NatGeo, December 12, 2007)

2012, 2013 - somewhere in that time frame...

They have improved their forecasts, though. Just a few years before (in 2004), they had this to say:

"...Arctic sea ice could completely disappear during the summer as early as 2070. “U.S. scientists said Monday [October 4, 2004] that the extent of Arctic sea ice, the floating mass of ice that covers the Arctic Ocean, is continuing its rapid decline. Researchers at the [University of Colorado at Boulder's - CU Boulder - National Snow and Ice Data Center] said latest satellite information indicates the September 2004 sea ice extent was 13.4 percent below average, a reduction in area nearly twice the size of Texas. In 2002, the decline in arctic sea ice during September -- which traditionally marks the end of the summer melt season -- was about 15 percent, a record low. Sea-ice decline during September has averaged about 8 percent over the past decade, researchers said, and current computer models suggest the sea ice could completely disappear during the summer as early as 2070.” (“Summer Arctic Sea Ice In Decline,” United Press International, Monday, October 4, 2004 citing reported by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, “Arctic Sea Ice Declines,” October 4, 2004. See also Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis)..."

So it appears that anywhere from 2012 to 2070, we could have ice-free summers.

Or not.

Updated: 2:04 PM GMT on January 10, 2012

Permalink

So what's next?

By: hcubed, 5:52 PM GMT on January 09, 2012

It's always entertaining to see the doom and gloom forecasts, jusy to see how much worse it's gonna get.

So, lets see what's forecast in the next few years (taken from here: 2015 forecast)

We'll look at each one, just to see what the "consensus" thinks.

1st: Temperatures and Heat Waves

"...2010 – 2019. Stanford computer models project a dramatic spike in extreme seasonal temperatures during the period 2010 - 2019. “The Stanford team also forecast a dramatic spike in extreme seasonal temperatures during the current decade [2010 – 2019]. Temperatures equaling the hottest season on record from 1951 to 1999 could occur four times between now [2010] and 2019 over much of the U.S., according to the researchers. The 2020s and 2030s could be even hotter, particularly in the American West.” (Mark Shwartz, communications manager, Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, “Heat waves and extremely high temperatures could be commonplace in the U.S. by 2039, Stanford study finds,” Stanford Report, July 8, 2010 citing findings in Diffenbaugh, N., and M. Ashfaq. Intensification of hot extremes in the United States. Geophys. Res. Lett., (in press) DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043888, August 6, 2010)..."

So, according to this, "...Temperatures equaling the hottest season on record from 1951 to 1999 could occur four times between now [2010] and 2019 over much of the U.S., according to the researchers..."

Leaves out the hot times from the 30's. And, appears to have a "hole" there - what happened between their end-of-reference period (1999) and the beginning of the period chosen (2010).

Gonna have to look at this, and we'll use GISS for the comparison.

Using their Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies listing (found here: Link), we see that the warmest year in their chosen period (51-99) was the 1998 values (at 58C, taken off the J-D listing).

Throuought the "gap" (2000-2009), only one year matched that (2007). It didn't EXCEED it. Does fit their criteria. One out of 10.

So let's see how the 2010-2019 peroid is doing so far. Too bad, only one year (2010), and it does exceed it. Good start for them. 2011's not done yet on their records.

They're expecting 4/10, and they've got 1/10. Three out of the next 9 years have to equal or exceed 1998 for this "doom and gloom" scenario to come true.

Updated: 9:00 PM GMT on January 09, 2012

Permalink

Milestone reached.

By: hcubed, 1:07 AM GMT on January 08, 2012

For those who read here that AREN'T threatened to check out other sites, a milestone has been reached:

WattUpWithThat.com (WUWT), has announced their 100,000,000th view today.

For a site that is so universally hated here, one that has tons of scorn heaped on it (even to the point that A. Watts is accused of any number of unproven "crimes"), to reach 100,000,000 views in about four years (moved to wordpress.com in October 2007), is a dream of any site owner.

And to think, the reason such a site started was because of scientists refusing to let people take a look at the data used to prove their Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory.

And, because of the "threat" posed by WUWT, other sites started to pop up, both rabidly pro-AGW, and those that tried to show the truth.

So tear it down if you feel you need to, but when a "denialist" site gets 6 times the hits that the "alarmist" PR site of RealClimate does, you've got to pay attention.

And, BTW, some sites won't show how many hits they get (WU included). So congratulations to Anthony and company. And some thanks goes to the posters here. Without your continuous trashing of sites like WUWT, people wouldn't have gone there to see what's so threatening about that site.

And 100,000,000 views is the proof. Seems like this statistic, in a way, was also driven by CO2...

Permalink

For those who exclude "natural causes" for climate change...

By: hcubed, 9:37 PM GMT on January 02, 2012

"...January 2, 2012- GERMANY -A sleeping super-volcano in Germany is showing worrying signs of waking up. It s lurking just 390 miles away underneath the tranquil Laacher See Lake near Bonn and is capable of ejecting billions of tons of magma. This monster erupts every 10 to 12,000 years and last went off 12,900 years ago, so it could blow at any time. The Laacher See volcano is similar in size to Mount Pinatubo, which caused a 0.5C drop in global temperatures when it erupted in 1991. It covered 620 square miles of land with ash and rocks and several small earthquakes in the region last year indicate that it could be awakening from its deep sleep. Experts believe that if it did go off, it could lead to widespread devastation, mass evacuations and even short-term global cooling from the resulting ash cloud blocking the Sun. The effect on the UK is hard to predict but it s possible that large parts of southern England could be covered ash. It's thought that the volcano is similar in size and power to Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blew in 1991 and became the biggest eruption of the 20th century. It ejected 10 billion tons of magma, 20 billion tons of sulphur dioxide 16 cubic kilometres of ash and caused a 0.5C drop in global temperatures. Volcanologists believe that the Laacher See volcano is still active as carbon dioxide is bubbling up to the lake s surface, which indicates that the magma chamber below is degassing..."

So there's one way to cure global warming - let nature loose. Since GISS (the warmest of the temp records) is currently stating we're at a blistering .6 degrees above what they call "normal", a .5 degree drop could wipe out all that warming we've seen since the mid to late 70's.

There's a possibility that some of the temp charts could actually go BELOW "zero" - for example, HadCRU has us at a "warmish" .4 degrees above "zero". This one volcano could wipe that out.

Question is, then - if one volcano could theoretically wipe out 30-40 years of CAGW, how long will it take to recover? Will we get back up to the blistering .6 above by 2050?

Stick around, folks: the screaming is gonna get worse - much worse...

Permalink

Green cars burning up.

By: hcubed, 12:35 AM GMT on January 02, 2012

Besides the Chevy Volt having batteries that can burst into flames after an accident, besides warnings put out to fire departments on how to handle electrics that have been in an accident (batteries and power cables, see here), we have ANOTHER problem with electric cars:

"...Fisker Automotive is recalling all 239 of its 2012 Karma luxury plug-in hybrid cars because of a fire hazard, according to a report filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Prices on the 2012 model start at $103,000, including the destination charge.

In a report filed recently on the agency’s Web site, Fisker said some hose clamps were not properly positioned, which could allow a coolant leak. “If coolant enters the battery compartment an electrical short could possibly occur, causing a thermal event within the battery, including a possible fire in the worse case,” the company told the safety agency.

Fisker said the problem was discovered on Dec. 16, when workers at the Valmet Automotive assembly plant in Finland noticed coolant dripping. Fisker said it was not aware of any consumer complaints, warranty claims or “any other reports related to this condition.” It said fewer than 50 vehicles were in the hands of consumers.

Under federal regulations dealers may not sell the remaining new models until the recall is completed..."

Fisker. The same Fisker that got a US gov't backed loan to build it's cars - and, so far, all the jobs are in Finland.

From ABC News, Oct 20th, 2011:

"...With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.

Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the company’s manufacturing jobs are still limited to the assembly of the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car in Finland..."

So with $529 million in loans, and they've made 239 of them. And those assets are going up in smoke.

Permalink

About hcubed

Living in Biloxi MS, have been here since '85 (first Hurricane was Elena).