Author Archive

Monster Hurricanes have Pummeled New England Since the Roman Empire

hurricane sandyKeep in mind that we haven’t seen a Cat 3 or higher hurricane make U.S. landfall in nine years, which is the lowest hurricane activity seen since the Civil War. From the ScienceBlog (bold added):

A new study shows that the American Northeastern seaboard has been hit by dozens of “monster” hurricanes over the past 2,000 years, many of them dwarfing recent storms such as Sandy in 2012 that caused $65 billion in damages, says a team of researchers that include a professor at Texas A&M University at Galveston. Their results could offer clues about global warming and future storm intensity.

…snip…

The team analyzed sediment deposited in a coastal pond in Cape Cod, Mass. Annual layers of mud were deposited in the pond, but hurricane strikes deposited a distinct layer of sand mobilized from the adjacent beach.  They were able to detect storms that hit New England from a time period covering the height of the Roman Empire to early colonial America and the arrival of the first pilgrims, up to the present day.

“These core sediments act much like a commercial bar code you might find on an item at the grocery store,” van Hengstum explains. “We were able to ‘read’ the sediment core and found evidence of 35 hurricane strikes. Importantly, there are two periods of very intense storm activity in the Cape Cod area, from 150 to 1150, and again from 1400 to 1675, unlike anything we have observed during the instrumental record.”

van Hengstum says the team believes the storms were likely more intense than almost any storm ever seen in the Cape Cod area, including Hurricane Bob in 1991 and an un-named storm that hit the area in 1635 and caused storm surges of at least 20 feet.

But there was an active period starting in about 1400 that lasted until 1675, when storm activity increased significantly, the team learned.

The researchers calculate that an intense storm pounded the Northeast about every 40 years or so, and most of these would be classified at least as a Category 3 or Category 4 storm – storms that would totally devastate New England if they hit today. By comparison, Sandy was only a Category 1 storm with winds of 80 miles per hour when it made landfall.

The period of time from 1400 to 1675 AD was particularly interesting because it coincides with previous evidence for warming in the upper Atlantic Ocean off the North Eastern Seaboard,” van Hengstum says.

Read rest…

Continue Reading

Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s Peers Fire Back Against Global Warming Witch Hunt

hit pieceEditor’s Note: As reported by Breitbart News, the New York Times over the weekend ran a hit piece on astrophysicist Willie Soon, pressuring his superiors, Charles R. Alcock of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center and W. John Kress of the Smithsonian in Washington, DC, to punish him after the publication of a peer-reviewed paper debunking climate models that predict carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic global warming.

Two of Soon’s peers, Bob Carter and Lord Christopher Monckton, have each written letters to Dr. Alcock and other colleagues of Soon’s, defending his professional integrity against the misleading charges brought by NYT authors Justin Gillis and John Schwartz. We reprint these letters here with the permission of their authors.

carterProf Bob CarterDear Dr Alcock,

I was horrified to read yesterday the defamatory articles about Willie Soon written by reporters for the New York Times and the Guardian, and now spilling on to various web publications and blogs.

From the outside it is very clear that the attack on Willie is being co-ordinated, probably by the same persons who have sought to muddy his name in the past – Greenpeace being a prime suspect in this regard.

The accusations that Willie’s funding sources dictate what he writes in his research papers are of course untrue; as they would also be untrue if alleged against the many other distinguished scientists that you employ whose funding is derived from external sources.

​Despite the transparency of the attack as a co-ordinated attempt at character assassination, I realise that as the senior executive involved you will probably have no choice but to instigate a review of the matter, consulting closely with Willie to make sure that his side of the issue receives due weight and consideration.

​In such circumstances, would you please furnish the Chairperson of any Committee with the following assessment of Willie, which is extracted from a recent reference that I wrote for him:

The respect accorded to Willie Soon’s public contributions to the climate change debate stems from the rigorous professional and personal standards that he sets in his presentations and writing. Having read many of his written articles, and attended several of his plenary lectures, I can attest that Willie is scrupulous in attending to the basic scientific veracity of everything that he presents in public about scientific matters. He is careful not only in that regard, but also in the attention he pays to drawing reasonable and balanced conclusions, and in rigorously eschewing the unfortunate ad hominem arguments that too often characterize public “debate” about human-caused climate change.

In essence, Willie Soon is a highly original, laterally thinking and communicative solar physicist who epitomizes the balanced theoretical-empirical, agnostic approach that all scientists should apply to scientific issues that relate to societal matters. Seen from overseas, he forms part of a quartet with Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer – as an equal member of the four U.S. climate scientists who are most respected by their international peers for the unfailing intelligence, insightfulness and independence of their cogent views on the difficult climate change issue.

If one wanted to sum up Willie Soon in a single sentence, it would be that he radiates scientific expertise, obeisance to empirical data, enthusiasm, commitment to communication, concern for both scientific and personal integrity and good humour in roughly equal measure.​

I stand fully by those words, and note that it follows that the current media attack upon Dr Soon is repugnant.

Having reassured itself of the essential facts of the matter, it is surely the duty of the Smithsonian Institute to defend the reputation and honor of a scientist of such outstanding ability, integrity and courage.

The New York Times and other papers that have published the false accusations should be asked to withdraw them.

​Yours sincerely,
​Bob Carter

Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter
FAIMM, Hon. Fellow RSNZ​
Emeritus Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne

Lord Monckton’s letter begins here.

Lord MoncktonLord MoncktonLadies and gentlemen,

I am the lead author of the paper Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, published last month in the Science Bulletin, the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was one of my three distinguished co-authors. I understand that Dr Alcock has written to all of you to say that he proposes to investigate allegations that Dr Soon failed to disclose a supposed “conflict of interest” in that he had in the past received but had not disclosed grants from fossil-fuel interests to further his studies into the influence of solar variability on terrestrial climate.

Let me contribute to Dr Alcock’s enquiry by providing the following information:

Our paper had nothing to do with any of the specific projects in relation to the Sun-climate connection for which Dr Soon has in the past been grant-funded. Its subject-matter was not the influence of the Sun on the Earth’s climate; instead, our paper (available at scibull.com and click the link to “Most-read articles”, where our paper is the all-time no. 1) presented an irreducibly simple climate-sensitivity model that allows anyone to select his or her own parameters and to reach a respectable determination of climate sensitivity in minutes on nothing more elaborate than a pocket calculator.

Dr Soon first kindly wrote to me some eight years ago to raise with me some scientific points arising from a popular article on climate sensitivity that I had published in the London Sunday Telegraph. Over the years he has been kind enough to correct many errors in my scientific understanding and to give me instruction in the elements of climatological physics. It is largely thanks to his generous assistance that I acquired enough knowledge to draft our paper for the Science Bulletin. He was, therefore, a worthy co-author who had earned his name on the paper over eight patient years, and without any financial reward at any stage.

Neither Dr Soon nor any of the authors of our paper received a single penny for our months of work preparing the paper and then answering some very detailed and helpful questions from our three anonymous peer-reviewers. I greatly admire Dr Soon for his courage in being ready to follow wherever the science may lead.

It is apparent that the well-funded, highly-organized, concerted campaign of hatred and libelous vilification against Dr Soon has a rankly political motive. Certainly, as you will see from the attached note of the various instaquotes from rent-by-the-hour climate “scientists”, their attempts to attack the science in our paper have been remarkably insubstantial, unmeritorious and too often intellectually dishonest. Once it became apparent to climate campaigners that the science in the paper was uncongenial to their political position and not at all easy to refute, they began what has become an all-out campaign of hate-speech, libel and innuendo against Dr Soon.

I am particularly grateful to Ms Pulliam for her public statement that the Harvard-Smithsonian believes that scientists should enjoy academic freedom to reach their own conclusions, and that one cannot merely assume that a scientist who has received a grant from a corporation or other interest will in any way tailor his findings to please his funders.

Dr Soon is of course deeply hurt by the baseless allegations made against him. I hope that you will all do your best to support him until the police and the courts have dealt firmly with the offenses and libels of his malicious detractors.

–The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Source

Continue Reading 30 Comments

The final nail in the coffin of the NYT witchhunt against Dr. Willie Soon?

I was one of the earliest writers to respond to the NYT article by hack NYT journalist Justin Gillis in which astrophysicist Willie Soon was accused of writing for hire. A quite amusing accusation when you realize that Gillis himself was doing exactly that. As always, you just have to look at what Leftists say about conservatives to see what is true of Leftists themselves.

clip

An article just up on Anthony Watts’ site does I think blow the whole nasty campaign out of the water.It points out, as I have done, that the money allegedly coming from business to Soon was in fact paid to the Smithsonian so was in no way clandestine and was part of normal academic procedures.Far from the money being “undeclared” income that the Smithsonian should look into it was in fact money given to the Smithsonian itself.If they were to investigate anything they would be investigating themselves!

Unlike what I wrote, however, the latest post has dug up the actual contractual documents and posted photocopies on the web for all to see.

Perhaps most amusing, however is the revelation about what “deliverables” meant. Gillis found that word very sinister and implied that Soon had contracted to come to a certain conclusion in his writings. The photocopies show what was really meant and it was in fact perfectly routine and innocuous. See above.

Source

Continue Reading 2 Comments

IPCC Head Rajendra Pachauri steps down following allegations of sexual harassment

pachauriFrom the Daily Mail:

Rajendra Pachauri, industrial engineer-turned head of the UN’s climate science panel and one-off sex novel author, is no stranger to accolades — nor to controversy.

At his peak, the now 74-year-old Indian accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the policy-shaping body he heads, and was showered with national honours and honorary doctorates.

On Tuesday he stood down as head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) following allegations that he sexually harassed a 29-year-old woman researcher from the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi think-tank he heads.

The allegations had forced the bearded father-of-three, who denies any wrongdoing, to pull out of a four-day conference at a highly sensitive time, with the global community preparing to ink a planet rescue pact in December.

That deal will be largely informed by the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, a summary of the latest climate science.

It warns that on current greenhouse gas-emission trends the world is on track for double the UN goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), resulting in devastating floods, droughts and rises in sea level.

Pachauri, a vocal advocate of tough action against global warming, has had many career ups and downs, and this is not the first time he has faced public scrutiny.

He had to weather calls for his resignation after gross errors were found in a landmark IPCC report, and faced widespread ridicule for an attempt at erotic literature.

In 2007 he held aloft the Nobel jointly awarded to the IPCC under his chairmanship, and to former US vice president-turned climate campaigner Al Gore.

But three years later Pachauri was mired in controversy when errors were found in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.

An erroneous claim that Himalayan glaciers could be lost by 2035 was allegedly taken from a press article instead of a scientific study.

Pachauri refused to accept personal responsibility for the error and rejected pressure to step down, claiming “ideologically-driven posturing” was behind attacks on the IPCC.

Continue Reading 5 Comments

Views on global warming led to weather bureau staff exaggerating strength of Cyclone Marcia, claims scientist

floodingWEATHER bureau staff are so blinded by the view that global warming will produce more intense cyclones that they exaggerated Cyclone Marcia’s size, a scientist says.

Jennifer Marohasy said the bureau had invested hundreds of millions in having researchers investigate the impacts of human-induced global warming and this had coloured its views.

“They want to have more intense cyclones. (As Marcia passed) they ignored the observational data and it’s not good enough,” she said.

Dr Marohasy, a climate change sceptic, has waged war on the bureau over global warming issues, especially that bureau observations have been altered to better support climate change arguments.

She said that, based on bureau observations at Middle Percy Island of a maximum wind gust of 208km/h, Marcia was a category 3, not five.

Dr Marohasy said Middle Percy observations of the critical period had been taken from the bureau’s website and this demanded an explanation.

Read rest…

Continue Reading

Watters’ World in Snowy Boston: ‘I’m Up to My Rear End in Global Warming’

watersThis week, O’Reilly Factor correspondent Jesse Watters traveled to Boston, where residents this year have been dealing with more than eight feet of snow.

“I’m up to my rear end in ‘global warming’, and if I see Al Gore, I’d punch him in the mouth,” a man told Watters. Gore, the former Tennessee Senator and Vice President, has become the face of global warming/climate change advocacy.

“Climate Change, they’re saying, is causing all of this snow,” Watters said to a woman. “Yes. The temperature of the ocean water rises, the more humidity there is in the air, so it causes more precipitation,” she replied. “So, if the Earth is warming, you get more snow?” Watters asked.  “Yes,” she said. “So, if the Earth starts to cool, would we get less snow?” he followed-up, eliciting a long pause.

“Al Gore’s saying the Earth is warming,” Watters began to say to another man. “Al Gore’s an idiot!” the man interrupted.

“Your truck’s causing the global warming,” Watters warned a resident. “I know, that’s why I bought it,” he quipped.

Watters later asked whether Bostonians would escape the cold and snow inside an igloo occupied by former Congressman Barney Frank, if one existed. The responses were of a resounding ‘no’. 

The outspoken New Jersey native, who represented western Boston as well as the New England Patriots’ hometown of Foxboro for over 40 years, was memorably confronted by host Bill O’Reilly following the economic collapse in 2008. “[Frank] and Bill get along pretty well,” a man joked.

“How do you think John Hancock would handle all of this snow?” Watters asked. “Who’s John Hancock?” a woman answered.

When Watters pressed another Bostonian on the same question, instead regarding former President John Adams, she made a reference to beer; likely confusing Adams with fellow founding father Samuel Adams. The Boston Beer Company’s signature line honors the former Massachusetts governor.

“[The record snowfall] is God’s way of punishing liberals for voting for Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama,” another man told Watters.

Watters also asked whether the massive snowfall could be attributed to Nature responding to the DeflateGate controversy surrounding the Patriots’ in Superbowl XL. “We did not cheat. We didn’t shrink the balls,” a resident said.

Source and video

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Rift System Geology Rocks Global Warming Theory

mantleScientists from Lamont-Doherty University and the University of Oxford have published research that links increased activity along earth’s major upper crustal plate boundaries with climate change. Both studies show that there could be a “complex feedback loop among ice ages, sea level changes” and “bursts of volcanic activity.”

This new research also confirms one of the most basic tenets of Plate Climatology theory (PCT) that suggests geologically based events and the climate are inextricably linked and are the most probable explanation for natural climate variations rather than manmade global warming.

A bold contention to be sure, but it is supported by this new and very solid research from two separate studies. Before we get to that, the following is a crash course on PCT:

“…periods of active Earth Tectonics and Volcanism can be correlated to periods of active climate change and climate-related events. To describe this new theory, the term “Plate Climatology” is proposed. In general increased tectonic activity, either locally or globally, equates to more faulting and volcanic activity primarily along tectonic plate boundaries / rift systems. Increased tectonic activity leads to more heat and fluid release from these active geological features into both the oceans and atmosphere. Altered heat and fluid input equates to climate change. This effect has been largely hidden from scientific investigation because the primary heat and fluid release is from two under-explored / under-monitored regions; deep oceans and sub-glacial polar ice caps.”

Details of this research from Lamont-Doherty / University of Oxford indicate that periods of fault movement, associated heat release, and associated CO2 release from major continental and oceanic plate boundaries “rift systems” (pictured above) are episodic.

During periods of increased rift system activity, significantly greater amounts of heat and CO2 are emitted into the oceans, and over time warm the atmosphere, altering the Earth’s climate, most notably melting much of the polar ice caps.

Water from melted polar ice caps raises sea level. When rift system activity decreases far less heat and CO2 is emitted, eventually the atmosphere cools and the polar ice caps expand back to their previous extent. Sea level falls. According to Live Science:        

“Both studies suggest that there could be a complex feedback loop among ice ages, sea level changes and these bursts of volcanic activity. For instance, if volcanoes pick up their pace during an ice age, then carbon dioxide gas could warm the Earth and shrink the ice sheets. (Underwater volcanoes pump carbon dioxide into the ocean, just as their terrestrial cousins add climate-altering gases to the atmosphere.) However, no one knows how much gas would escape into the atmosphere from the oceans.

“In a broad sense, this reinforces the idea that the climate system and the solid Earth are connected and, in fact, may be thought of as a single system,” Katz said. “Not only do ice ages affect volcanism, but volcanism has a feedback effect on climate itself. We haven’t proved that yet, but it’s a tantalizing possibility.”

Tolstoy summarized the results from the East Pacific Rise and from closely monitored submarine eruptions around the world. The findings in Science, led by University of Oxford researcher John Crowley, are based on ocean floor surveys gathered by a Korean icebreaker in 2011 and 2013. Both studies rely on high-resolution spectral imaging of the seafloor, a remote-sensing technique that maps the surface in great detail.

“Both of these data sets have found a signal which is consistent with climate forcing of variations at mid-ocean ridges,” said Paul Asimow, a geology professor at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena who was not involved in either study. “Now, apart from showing the effect is there, the other part that needs to be teased out is its consequences.”

The authors of each study are now searching for additional ice age signals at other spreading ridges, such as the Juan de Fuca Ridge offshore Washington and Oregon.”

The majority of this research, its conclusions, and explanations confirms many suppositions in the geologically based theory of plate climatology.

There is also one aspect of this new research that does not fit into PCT, inasmuch that the researchers explanation of what causes the episodic “on/off” nature of these giant plate boundary rift systems is incorrect.

They hypothesize glacial melt water raises sea level, which results in a taller column of seawater. The taller column of water exerts increased downward pressure on the rift systems, thereby turning them “off” and decreasing rift activity. Conversely, when ice caps reform, the sea level drops, downward pressure decreases, and the rift activity is turned back “on.”

There are several problems with this proposed sea-level induced on/off rift activity mechanism:

  1. )   Downward pressure is insufficient: When the ice caps melt sea level would raise approximately 200-250 feet, as stated by current climate scientists. So let’s use 250 feet, the maximum. This equates to 110 psi (pounds per square inch) of downward pressure, because sea water exerts 14.5 psi per 33 feet. It seems very unlikely that a 110 psi change in pressure could affect world class rift systems that have the force to move entire continents 2-3 centimeters per year. Stated another way, the average depth of most ocean rift systems, for example the Mid Atlantic rift, is 7,000 feet. Pressure at 7,000 feet is 3,075 psi. The additional 250 feet of sea water from ice cap melting would be a 3.5% increase in pressure. It’s very difficult to imagine that a 3.5% increase alone would alter rift system mechanics.
  2. )   Rift systems move sideways: The next big problem is that rift system faulting moves rock layers sideways, so downward pressure from increased water depth would have minimal effect on the sideways movement of rifts. Actually a case can be made that downward pressure might act to increase sideways rift movement.
  3. )   Upward seawater and gas expulsion: Expulsion of water and gases from the ocean rift system hydrothermal vents exerts an upward force, which would act to diminish the affect of the downward sea level rise induced force.
  4. )   Rock layer mechanics: The basic problem here is that rock layer mechanics are extremely complicated and not predictable. Many geologists have dedicated their entire lives to trying to accurately predict when and how pressured rock layers open and close. To date no one has figured it out. Here is just a one example. Let’s assume for a moment that the increased pressure does push down on rock layers. The mechanics would work like this in a “bowl shaped” ocean basin. As the top of a rock layer is pushed down it would compress together. The result would be to close / tighten the rock. Heat flow would theoretically turn “off.” However the bottom of the same rock layer would expand, which would act to open and loosen the bottom of the layer. Heat would theoretically be turned “on.” Now throw in varying layer angles and rock density variations and you can easily see why it is tough to predict how rock layers will react to simple downward pressure.
  5. )   Complex word class rift systems: Finally, and most importantly, these are 5,000- to 7,000-mile-long geologically complex rift systems; active volcanoes, super-active hydrothermal vents, faults, cross-faults, varying rock layer densities, varying rock layer thicknesses, varying fault spreading rates, etc. To effectively turn these types of systems on and off uniformly and in a reasonably small time frame a very large force is needed. It is difficult to believe that a mere 110 psi increase in downward force would get this massive job done.

A much more logical explanation of what turns rift system activity on and off is natural variation in the Earth’s very powerful and extensive upper mantle convective system (see image), which “carries heat from the interior of the Earth to the surface.”

This power is episodically released at tectonic plate boundaries and rift systems, which warm our oceans, warm the atmosphere, and melt polar ice caps. The result? Geological rift systems “rock” our climate.

James Edward Kamis is a Geologist and AAPG member of 40 years and has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. Years of research and observation have convinced him that the Earth’s heat flow engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is also an important driver of our climate. Please use the Contact Us page to reach James.

Continue Reading 1 Comment

It’s an Ice Age for Sure

icecubeSome say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire.
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate.
To say that for destruction ice Is also great.
And would suffice.

— Robert Frost, American poet.

Robert W. Felix borrowed from the poet Robert Frost for the title of his book, “Not by Fire, But by Ice”, first published in 1997 and devoted to the science of magnetic reversals and the Earth’s ice ages. I read it first in 2010 and was absolutely floored because Felix makes a very strong case for a reversal that would lead to a widespread extinction of life at some point in the future. In the near, more predictable future, he said the Earth was heading into a new ice age.

“What would happen if a magnetic reversal occurred right here?” asked Felix. “The same things that happened in the past. Earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, giant snowstorms, rising land, plummeting sea levels—you name it—tectonic activity would go bonkers.” Don’t believe him? Think about the disappearance of the dinosaurs some 65.5 million years ago.

The Earth had been in a cooling cycle that began in 1996 when the sun entered a cycle of reduced radiation. Such cycles were well known and most dramatically tied to the mini-ice age that occurred between 1300 and 1850. Solar observers had noticed many centuries ago that when there were few sunspots—magnetic storms—on the surface of the Sun, the Earth got colder.

This has become especially dramatic because, on February 17 a post on http://thesiweather.com/category/climate-info/ called for a discussion of the fact that “The Sun has gone quiet again during the weakest solar cycle in more than a century.” The post says, “If history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a negative impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere—and where we all live.”

“There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first is known as the ‘Maunder Minimum’, named after solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the ‘Dalton Minimum’, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton and it lasted from 1780 to 1830.” Together they are referred to as the “Little Ice Age.”

There are quite a few scientists forecasting a new ice age. The last ice age began approximately 1.6 million years ago in the Pleistocene epoch. We are currently in the Holocene epoch that began about 11,000 years ago and is regarded as an interglacial period of general warmth.

In his book, “Dark Winter: How the Sun is Causing a 30-Year Cold Spell”, John L. Casey, a former White House national space policy advisor, says that whatever warming has occurred has ended as the result of “solar hibernation”, a term he applies to the reduction of energy output of the Sun. The “climate change” that is occurring is a long-term reduction in the Earth’s temperatures with, says Casey, “a high probability of increased earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.”

In “Cold Sun”, another book by Casey, his says that “The most likely outcome from this ‘solar hibernation’ will be widespread global loss of life and social, economic, and political disruption. You must prepare for this life-altering event now!”

In January 2012, Matt Ridley, a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, noted that “The entire 10,000-year history of civilization has happened in an unusually warm interlude in the Earth’s recent history. Over the past million years, it has been as warm as this or warmer for less than 10% of the time, during 11 brief episodes known as interglacial periods.”

Those who kept warning of a “global warming” with dire results misinterpreted the climate. Ridley noted that “It’s striking that most inter-glacials begin with an abrupt warming, peak sharply, (and) then begin a gradual descent into cooler conditions.” That is what is occurring now.

None of this has anything to do with carbon dioxide, ozone, or any other element of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is entirely the result of the lower solar radiation of heat.

The United States should be taking steps to ensure a sufficient supply of electricity to cope with the lower temperatures, but has been wasting billions to support “renewable” energy, wind and solar, that is costly and ineffective. The U.S. Energy Department projects that solar power will make up 0.6 percent of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015. Wind power which is funded in part by taxpayer subsidies to stay in business has received $7.3 billion over the past seven years, but produces a minimal amount of electricity to justify its cost.

At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency’s “war on coal” has forced many plants providing electricity to close. A significant disruption of electricity over an extended period of time will cause many deaths due to the cold weather. It is inevitable.

At the same time, instead of providing a source of food, tons of corn are being turned into ethanol in the name of reducing carbon dioxide even though CO2 plays no role whatever in a “global warming” that is not happening.

It’s not just another typical winter. The U.S. and much of the northern hemisphere is experiencing increased cooling that is seen in record-breaking and record-setting new amounts of snow and ice. This is a trend tied to the Sun’s and the Earth’s cooling cycle.

That is of no concern to those who are using “global warming” and “climate change” in order to bring about a transformation in the global economic system from capitalism, the most effective creator of growth and wealth, to socialism, a pathetic, failed system of income redistribution controlled by a central government. Directed out of the United Nations, their absurd claims are supported by the media and many deluded politicians.

Is the U.S. government responding in a sensible way? No. When President Obama speaks of “climate change” he means “global warming.” The result over the past three decades has been the waste of billions for “research” and other schemes tied to this huge hoax.

Real climatologists, meteorologists, and scientists paying attention to both the past and to present events are forecasting more intense and longer winters—for now a Little Ice Age.

Source

Continue Reading 6 Comments

Kerry Issues Climate Warning: ‘There is No Planet B’

Using Kepler Telescope transit data of planet “b”, scientists predicted that a second planet “c” about the mass of Saturn orbits the distant star KOI-872.Using Kepler Telescope transit data of planet “b”, scientists predicted that a second planet “c” about the mass of Saturn orbits the distant star KOI-872.Secretary of State John Kerry continued to beat the drum on the dangers of climate change Friday, noting that “there is no Planet B.” The secretary made the remarks at the swearing-in ceremony for Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom David Saperstein. He drew a religious connection to the issue of climate change, saying that “when it comes to the fundamental health of Earth, folks, we’d better stick to the Creator’s original plan.” 

Kerry said he and Saperstein had worked together on a number of issues in the past thirty years, including climate change:

Together we got behind the CHIPS legislation for children’s health care. We pushed for the proposed Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which unfortunately never passed. We were partners in the struggle to help veterans who had been affected by Agent Orange. And we have been allies in trying to awaken the world to the dangers of climate change – and let me just say that when it comes to the fundamental health of Earth, folks, we’d better stick to the Creator’s original plan, because there is no Planet B. (Applause.)

The “no Planet B” line is not original with Kerry. The Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon recently used it at September’s UN climate summit in New York where he told reporters, “There is no Plan B because we do not have planet B.” However, the “Planet B” idea predates Ban Ki-moon’s usage; there are t-shirts, a bookFacebook pages, and even a YouTube video

It’s unclear exactly where the phrase originated, but press reports first begin mentioning the phrase used on signs at climate change rallies beginning in Copenhagen in 2009.

Source

Continue Reading 4 Comments

‘World’s Largest’ Solar Panel Business Collapses

qcells plant in MalaysiaThe solar photo-voltaic (PV) industry has another victim: Q-CELLS plant in Thalheim, Germany. As of March 1, 2015, the plant will cease production altogether and will only be selling PV panels made in Malaysia, 550 of its previous workforce of 800 will be laid off. Not that long ago, in 2007, the company had a workforce of 1700 and claimed to be the world’s largest producer of PV panels.

The Super-Greens just can’t win. Wind-power by turbine, PV panel manufacturers, ocean wave power device builders and the like have fallen off the renewable energy-cliff, one by one. What’s happening? Were they not supposed to rescue the world from Al Gore’s prophecies of doom and gloom, runaway overheating of the earth from a few parts per million of anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air? Hasn’t the ice cap in the Antarctic disappeared yet? Are there still any polar bears left in the Arctic? If so, why haven’t they drowned yet?

I’m sure you could add more questions to those above. The list of evil effects ascribed to “climate-change-causing-CO2,” and other demons is getting longer each day and it’s getting hard to keep track of them all.

Grand View

You really need to step back and look at things from the right perspective in order to get to the Grand View. Not only has the earth’s climate changed continuously for about 4,000,000,000 years, just because earliest mankind arrived some 200,000 years ago and civilization of any sort perhaps 5,000 years ago, it does not mean that the earth’s climate has given up changing; far from it. Of the immense ice shields covering the northern parts of North America, Europe, and Asia, not much is left.

Most of that land that was covered mile high in ice is now taiga, tundra, or boreal forest. There is no evidence whatsoever that our stone-age ancestors’ fires in some caves in the Pyrenees or elsewhere had anything to do with that. It was a natural phenomenon produced by the sun’s radiation and the earth’s movement in that interplanetary space. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that in the future things will be any different; nature is going to keep “all options on the table,” all the time.

Nature’s Options

Just don’t be lulled into thinking that the current “climate change” will continue in the same direction as before, forever. In fact, there are many indications that the warming period of the 1970s to early 1990s has already come to an end—-perhaps rather soon and too fast. One, if not the major influence on earth’s climate are the sunspots. In rough terms, the more there are, the warmer it is on the globe. Guess what: the number of sunspots is hitting a one-hundred year low, right now; as of Feb. 18, 2015, there is just one sunspot left. Not that the event was entirely unexpected, most people familiar with the cyclical nature of sunspot abundance had predicted it for a while. However, I surmise, even some of them are a bit surprised about their rapid decline experienced currently.

Sunspot Cycles

The current 11-year sunspot cycle we are in (cycle 24 since the mid 1600’s), had been expected by many observers to show comparatively low activity, though presumably not quite as low as currently seen. Why is that of concern, you might ask?

Over the last few hundred years, ever since the sunspots were continuously observed and recorded in our history, there were two prolonged periods of low sunspot numbers. They coincided with temperature extremes known as the “Maunder Minimum” lasting from around 1645 to 1715 and the “Dalton Minimum” from about 1790 to 1830.

During both of these periods of low sunspot numbers, the northern hemisphere experienced well below normal temperatures. They did not just result in severe colds during the winters but also in shorter summers with crop failures and subsequent starvation by many of the (then much fewer) people in this region. Such times could reappear much faster than thought, especially with that many more mouths to feed on the globe.

If there is any hope to prevent a future starvation catastrophe at all, it must be in the form of much higher agricultural yields than available from traditional seeds and traditional farming methods. So-called organic farming, using traditional plant varieties, without any, or with only very limited fertilization with vital nutrients like phosphorus-, nitrogen, and -potassium supplements can no longer provide all the food required. That is, even if there is no sunspot cycle cataclysm. So, where are we now?

February 2015

While President Obama stated in his recent State of the Union address that “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record”, apart from the fact that this claim has widely been disputed, even if it were true, you wouldn’t know it from the cold currently gripping this continent. The five Great Lakes, comprising a surface of area of 90,000 square miles are just about frozen over, for the second winter in a row. At the moment, the Lake Superior, L. Huron, and L. Erie are completely frozen over and Lakes Michigan and Ontario partially. That certainly does not happen every winter.

Perhaps some of the polar bears from the (hot) Arctic may show up here soon, just to cool off.

****

Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts convenientmyths.com

Dr. Kaiser can be reached at:mail@convenientmyths.com

Source

Continue Reading 4 Comments