The Realists Take on Climate Change

The above is an extract from the Piers Corbyn January Earthquake chart published in December, the period 25th - 26th January was highlighted as a Top Red Warning (5) period, as per note from Piers Corbyn...Red Warning periods – are now standardized R1 to R5 (most extreme effect).

Although there was a Strong Earth bound solar flare (Sunspot 1402) reaching M8.7 on the 23rd January It produced no more then a light show. It was of interest from the above chart, Piers Corbyn was not forecasting any major changes on the Earth during that period.

However as you can see the same could not be said for the period 25th - 26th January, there was yet another M9 class class solar flare from the same Sunspot (see the LINK at SpaceWeather.com for more detail).

The following news reports indicate, unlike the flare on the 23rd, there WAS a "solar kick" effect produced on the 26th by the M9 class flare and people in the Mediterranean area should take note.

There's a great piece by David Rose in the Mail On Sunday nicely summing up what a lot of us here knew already: that the thing we really need to fear right now is not global warming but global cooling. And that, on current evidence, it's global cooling we're going to get.

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.

Rose's piece comes hot on the heels of an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal signed by 16 distinguished scientists (proper ones: not "climate" "scientists") noting the continuing absence of ManBearPig:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

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.

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.

Updated below with MUST READ comments by Piers Corbyn

The President's State of the Union address was as weaselly as any politician's could be.

When I happened to wake up in the middle of the night last Wednesday and caught the BBC World Service’s live relay of President Obama’s State of the Union address to Congress, two passages had me rubbing my eyes in disbelief.

The first came when, to applause, the President spoke about the banking crash which coincided with his barnstorming 2008 election campaign. “The house of cards collapsed,” he recalled. “We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them.” He excoriated the banks which had “made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money”, while “regulators looked the other way and didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behaviour”. This, said Obama, “was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work.”

I recalled a piece I wrote in this column on January 29, 2009, just after Obama took office. It was headlined: “This is the sub-prime house that Barack Obama built”. As a rising young Chicago politician in 1995, no one campaigned more actively than Mr Obama for an amendment to the US Community Reinvestment Act, legally requiring banks to lend huge sums to millions of poor, mainly black Americans, guaranteed by the two giant mortgage associations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was this Act, above all, which let the US housing bubble blow up, far beyond the point where it was obvious that hundreds of thousands of homeowners would be likely to default. Yet, in 2005, no one more actively opposed moves to halt these reckless guarantees than Senator Obama, who received more donations from Fannie Mae than any other US politician (although Senator Hillary Clinton ran him close).

HEALTH chiefs issued a nationwide alert yesterday warning of a killer freeze on the way.

Dubbed the “Beast from the East”, the weather system is set to roar in from Siberia bringing widespread snow and freezing temperatures.

Older people in particular were warned to take extra care to keep warm as night-time temperatures are expected to plunge as low as -9C (16F), sending death rates soaring.

The Department of Health took the rare step of issuing a Level 2 cold weather health warning for the whole of England, running from 6pm tomorrow until 9am on Tuesday.

The alert was triggered because it is likely temperatures will remain below 2C for 48 hours or more.

A Department of Health spokesman said: “There is a 60-70 per cent chance of all regions having temperatures low enough to give rise to significant health risks.

Low temperatures can especially be dangerous for the young and the elderly or those with chronic disease.”

Abstract – In this paper we show that a gray body which separated from vacuum by a material interface and submitted to outside incident radiation can behave like a Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier. The Earth (Earth + atmosphere) is not a simple isolated gray body but it is in fact a Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier with adequate reflection coefficients. The balance of the energy exchanged between Earth and outer space is reconsidered and the estimated Earth’s ground temperature mean value 15 °C is then derived.

The solar power absorbed by the Earth does not explain the gap noted between the estimated Earth’s ground temperature mean value and the one calculated while considering the earth as an isolated gray body. The Earth (Earth-atmosphere) is in fact a Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier with adequate reflection coefficients.

The effectively absorbed power by a Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier is the sum of the power provided by an external source, and the power emitted by the Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier gray body itself and reflected back at the interface separating the Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier gray body from the vacuum. In this scheme, the solar and terrestrial radiation reflection coefficients by the earth and its atmosphere acquire a privileged role. Thus, the balance of the energy exchanged between Earth and outer space is reconsidered and the 15 °C estimated Earth’s ground temperature mean value is then derived.

Our result revives the discussion on the parameters that control the Earth climate. The Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier can be a starting point to improve the energy use. It can find its application for a better use of the energy resources. The materials having the adequate reflection coefficients will be indicated for specific applications.

Click source to download PDF file "The Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier (PREA)" by Prof. Ahmed Boucenna, Physics Department Sciences Faculty Setif University, Algeria

The only question in the climate debate is “does human emission of CO2 causes global warming?” One way to answer this question is to compare IPCC’s model projections for the global mean temperature with actual observations (hadcrut3 data) as shown in the above chart.

The above result shows IPCC projections are wrong. Actually, the observed global mean temperatures are even less than the projections if emission were held constant at year 2000 level, as shown by the orange curve in the above chart.

It is extremely crucial that public policy be based on facts. The above data shows, human emission of CO2 does not cause global warming.

References:
[1] IPCC 2007 WG1-AR4
[2] Global Mean Temperature Observed Data from Hadley Center:http://bit.ly/A8aXBm

What happened to “climate change” and “global warming”?

The Earth is still getting hotter, but those terms have nearly disappeared from political vocabulary. Instead, they have been replaced by less charged and more consumer-friendly expressions for the warming planet.

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday was a prime example of this shift. The president said “climate change” just once — compared with zero mentions in the 2011 address and two in 2010. When he did utter the phrase, it was merely to acknowledge the polarized atmosphere in Washington, saying, “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change.” By contrast, Obama used the terms “energy” and “clean energy” nearly two dozen times.

That tally reflects a broader change in how the president talks about the planet. A recent Brown University study looked specifically at the Obama administration’s language and found that mentions of “climate change” have been replaced by calls for “clean energy” and “energy independence.” Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: “The phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena.”

Sixteen scientists, including such luminaries as Lindzen, Kininmonth, Happer and Shaviv, write to the Wall Street Journal, expressing the view that the global warming scare is completely overblown, and that AGW alarmism may result in increased research funding. Shock!

What heresy! Wait for the excuses: they’re not the “right” scientists, of course. They’ve all been “bought off” by big oil. They’re all probably suffering from delusions caused by mental illness. The fact that they may have reached these conclusion by means of proper impartial scientific enquiry wouldn’t occur to the alarmist head-bangers (given they haven’t a clue what “impartial scientific enquiry” is – “Surely science is avoiding FOI requests, deleting data and fudging results? That’s what I was taught!”).

Cue collective warmist head-pop in 3, 2, 1…

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

Public concern about climate change is on the wane.

The number of people willing to alter the way they live in the hope of making a difference to global warming fell by around 10 per cent last year.

There was also a sharp drop in those who regarded themselves as ‘fairly concerned’ about climate change.

More recently, doubts about the efficiency of wind turbines and the high costs of the Coalition’s drive for renewable energy have seen enthusiasm for the cause dwindling.

Fewer than two thirds now say they are at least ‘fairly concerned’ about climate change or that they are prepared to do something about it, figures published by the Department for Transport said.