the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Craig Loehle – 10 US Climate Disasters Which are NOT happening

Posted by Jeff Id on March 8, 2012

We all know the media constantly reports the standard climate change mantra of increased storms, droughts, flooding, warming, cooling and basically anything they can find and attribute it to climate change – by man.  Craig Loehle wrote an interesting post on WUWT which calls out what I describe as the 10 major lies of IPCC climate science.  Despite the known – complete lack of damage – caused by global warming, they still insist we shut down CO2 based energy production NOW!

What is a ‘known’ looming disaster is the pending economic strife, poverty and starvation which will be created by these environmentally false policies.  As the fat scientific coffers explode with money, those unbiased people demand we listen to the consensus duma, it is for our own good.  They know best.


18 Responses to “Craig Loehle – 10 US Climate Disasters Which are NOT happening”

  1. M. Simon said

    Ah. Yes. They intend to serve humanity. In the science-fiction sense.

  2. Yes, Jeff, the looming disaster has arrived.

    Economic uncertainty, unemployment, homelessness, poverty, and inability to plan for the future: These products of unscientific environmental policies are here now.

    An unhealthy alliance of manipulative, but well-meaning scientists and politicians adopted policies that diminished our economies, the sovereign rights of our nations, and constitutional rights of our citizens, supposedly to “protect” us from the:

    a. Danger of mutual nuclear annihilation;
    b. Natural aggressiveness in humans;
    c. Pollution of our environment;
    d. Overpopulation of Earth and
    e. Global climate change !

    I failed to figure out the reason, despite seeing evidence of government deception after 1972 and being familiar with George Orwell’s 1948 book, entitled “1984”, and President Eisenhower’s warning about the dangers of a “scientific-technological elite” in 1961:

  3. KenM said

    I have problems with the “trend only appeared to increase because the observation techniques improved” line. If the trend in fact increases how would you ever know, since presumably detection techniques are also always improving.
    I did notice one paper concerning hurricanes somehow “corrects for storm detection ability over time” – that may be worth looking in to.

  4. Jeff Condon said

    KenM,

    By sorting the data according to high intensity landfall hurricanes — ones that are certain to be detected — the trend vanishes and you recognize that your observation technique is absolutely biasing the data. There has been a lot of work on this because satellites find everything whereas ships or landfall wouldn’t always see the peak wind velocity when it is out at sea.

    There is no increase in storms or hurricanes – at all.

  5. There is increased awareness that planet Earth is still connected to its heat source – the Sun. I do not have speakers on my office computer, but this video illustrates the connection that others are making:

  6. KenM said

    Jeff, I can go along with that, my point though is this.

    100 years ago 100 category 3 storms hit the US.
    80 of them were detected (i.e. someone got hit and told someone else about it)

    This year 120 category 3 storms hit the US.
    All of them were detected.

    We say – there’s no actual increase because 100 years ago the detection methods weren’t as good.

    So some conclude the number of cat 3 storms has gone up 50%
    Others say there’s no trend because detection methods were poor back then.

    Both are wrong are wrong in my made up example, so the question is, how can you be sure that the increase is explained solely by improved detection techniques?

  7. Craig Loehle said

    Our personal experience is so subjective, impossible to estimate trends. Increased news coverage also makes disaster seem more urgent, and even small tornado events now get a news team on them. Makes it look like they are constant. When I was a kid we never heard about anything but the big ones.

  8. Brian H said

    OT, but important:
    Forbes reports a study on

    power↔overconfidence↔stupidity

    My new adage:
    Power tends to stupify, and absolute power stupifies absolutely.

  9. Brian H said

    typo:
    Power tends to stupefy, and absolute power stupefies absolutely.

  10. You are right, Brian.

    We won WWII and were then defeated by our own arrogance and power!

    Defeated by the practice of Judo, a fighting system that teaches “how to give way, rather than use force, to overcome a stronger opponent.”

    http://judoinfo.com/new/

    Our future was written in April 1956 when leaders of the American Geophysical Union and the Geophysics Section of the US National Academy of Sciences blocked normal channels of communication for evidence of natural “Nuclear Fires” on Earth [1,2].

    Our future was confirmed in April 1976 when leaders of the American Geophysical Union and the Geophysics Section of the US National Academy of Sciences thwarted attempts to report evidence that our elements were made in the Sun [3].

    Our future was sealed in 1995-1998 when NASA scientists followed instructions to hide isotope data from Jupiter that confirmed local synthesis of our elements in the Sun [4].

    1. P. K. Kuroda, “On the nuclear physical stability of the uranium minerals,” Journal of Chemical Physics 25, 781 (1956).

    2. P. K. Kuroda, “On the infinite multiplication constant and the age of the uranium minerals,” Journal of Chemical Physics 25, 1256 (1956).

    3. O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu,, “Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases: The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements,” Transactions Missouri Academy Sciences 9, 104‐122 (1975).

    4. O. K. Manuel. “”Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra‐solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97, 5011 (1998).
    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf

  11. Kenneth Fritsch said

    “Both are wrong are wrong in my made up example, so the question is, how can you be sure that the increase is explained solely by improved detection techniques?”

    KenM, you are never sure because the detection levels have changed but you must surely agree that detection methods have improved and that without adjustments for those changes the trend over time to present would be inflated. Much work in determining adjustments have been done and the results published in peer reviewed papers.

    Jeff’s point is that the trend for hurricane land falls is flat to slightly negative over a long stretch of time and that land falls are the most likely hurricanes to be detected at a reasonably constant rate over time. Unless the rate of landfall to total hurricanes and tropical storms has decreased over time, land fall events are a reasonably good indicator of the total tropical storm and hurricane picture. There have been other studies that gave similar results, i.e. a more or less constant rate of tropical storms over time, by looking at the change in the portion of the weaker storms detected. A higher portion of weaker storms indicates that the sensitivity of detection has increased. Further studies looking at where in the North Atlantic that storms are most likely to be detected and calculating the hurricane and tropical storms detected there versus in other remote areas has also given a similar result.

    Some have conjectured and even hypothesized counter explanations for these analysis, but I have found none convincing. One of the ones the I found most humorous was put forth by Mann in a paper on historical hurricane occurrences where he proposed that ships at sea in historical times did not have the detection systems, like radar I would suppose to detect storms, but also to steer clear of large storms in the North Atlantic and thus this effect would increase the counts of these events because these ships blithely ran into the storms. I liked to call it the dumb ships conjecture. Interesting also that I found that conjecture noted in another peer review paper as though it were something much more than a conjecture.

    If one uses a metric called ACE which integrates endurance and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes it can be seen that world-wide that ACE metric has not increased over time. Ryan Maue post this metric for major storm basins and the globe at his web site.
    http://policlimate.com/tropical/

  12. Kenneth Fritsch said

    While it has been pointed out to Loehle that a 0.1 decrease in the pH of the ocean does equate to close to an increase in 30% of the hydrogen ions, it should also be noted that the 30% number, in and of itself, does mean much and was probably used more for political effect than scientific.

    Any of you chemists out there who have titrated with acids or bases in an aqueous medium will know this by the how the pH changes differ when titrating a strong base with a strong acid and then doing the same in a buffered solution or titrating a weak base with a weak acid. The major point of noting a pH change in the oceans would be its potential effects on other things in the ocean and not by how much the concentrations of hydrogen ions has increased.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH

  13. Science and politics are as immiscible as oil and water!

    Please read the message at http://tinyurl.com/7qvvg3w and encourage:

    “Dr. Ralph Cicerone, US NAS President”
    “Dr. Steven Chu, US Secretary of Energy”
    “Mr. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator”

    To reply publicly and give us any evidence that these observations:

    http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No12.pdf

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xKRBkBBEP0

    Are better explained if Earth’s heat source is an H-fusion reactor, . . .
    rather than a pulsar at the solar core.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  14. D J Cotton said

    Whatever climate events happen are due to natural cycles clearly indicated in linked evidence in my paper. There is absolutely no additional anthropogenic effect on climate.

    If the IPCC wanted to attribute a warming property to radiation from a cooler atmosphere, then they should have proved its warming effect. I certainly can’t detect any warming in my backyard experiments, and nor would I expect to.

    Prof Claes Johnson has now read my Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics prior to publication and has commented “Doug Cotton is one of the few people who have read and understood my analysis of blackbody radiation and radiative heat transfer and I fully endorse his essay.”

    The fact that he said this is a sad reflection on the climate science community – demonstrating their reluctance to approach any contrary view with an open mind.

    It’s not all that hard really, Radiation does not cause thermal energy to transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. All it can do is slow the radiative component of cooling. (Carbon dioxide molecules are not as effective as water vapour molecules in doing this because of their limited range of frequencies). However, evaporation and diffusion play just as great a part as radiation, and these processes can compensate for any slowing of the radiative cooling. All this is explained in detail (in about 6,600 words) available on line on Tuesday this week.

  15. Before leaving for St Louis I hope to complete a short note on the long march to Climategate and economic collapse: “AGU, EU, NAS, RS, UN: Unity for Science and Society.”

    Social insanity was driven by lock-step, consensus opinions championed by an unholy alliance of the AGU, EU, NAS, RS and the UN with world leaders – frightened by the prospect of mutual nuclear annihilation.

    Fear drove world leaders to distort science after Hiroshima vanished on 6 Aug 1945 and world leaders faced the prospect of their own mortality.

    Fears intensified in late Oct 1962: “For thirteen days in October 1962 the world waited—seemingly on the brink of nuclear war—and hoped for a peaceful resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis.”

    http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx

    AGU (American Geophysical Union) and the Geophysics Section of NAS (US National Academy of Sciences) were leading the campaign of misinformation in April 1956 when normal channels of communication were blocked for evidence of natural “Nuclear Fires” on Earth [1-3].

    Twenty years later, in April 1976, the same group thwarted efforts to report evidence our elements were made in the Sun [4,5].

    About forty years later, in 1995-1998, NAS apparently encouraged NASA scientists to hide isotope data from Jupiter that confirmed local synthesis of elements in the Sun [6].

    Forty-five years later in 2001, papers presented at the SOHO-ACE Work­shop on Solar and Galactic Composition in Bern, SWITZERLAND (6-9 Mar 2001) [7] and at the Conference on Asteroids: From Piazzi to the Third Millennium in Santa Flavia (where Galileo taught near Palermo), ITALY (11-15 June 2001) were blocked from publication.

    Now fifty-six years later, in Feb 2010, continuing efforts by AGU and NAS to distort information was confirmed by the actions of Dr. Peter Gleick in obtaining Heartland Institute internal documents under false premises.

    1. P. K. Kuroda, “On the nuclear physical stability of the uranium minerals,” Journal of Chemical Physics 25, 781 (1956).

    2. P. K. Kuroda, “On the infinite multiplication constant and the age of the uranium minerals,” Journal of Chemical Physics 25, 1256 (1956).

    3. P. K. Kuroda, “Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo Phenomenon” (1982).

    4. O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, “Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases: The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements,” Transactions Missouri Academy Sciences 9, 104‐122 (1975).

    5. O. K. Manuel, D. D. Sabu, Roy S. Lewis, B. Srinivasan, and Edward Anders, “Strange Xenon, Extinct Superheavy Elements, and the Solar Neutrino Puzzle,” Science 195, 208-210 (1977).
    http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf

    6. O. K. Manuel. “Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra‐solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97, 5011 (1998). http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf

  16. produse bio…

    [...]Craig Loehle – 10 US Climate Disasters Which are NOT happening « the Air Vent[...]…

  17. Disasters are not happening because climatologists got it wrong.

    Climatologists love to talk about energy being trapped by carbon dioxide and thus not exiting at the top of the atmosphere (TOA.)

    It is nowhere near as simple as that. All the radiation gets to space sooner or later. Carbon dioxide just scatters it on its way so you don’t see radiation in those bandwidths at TOA. The energy still gets out, and you have no proof that it doesn’t, because you don’t have the necessary simultaneous measurements made all over the world.

    In the hemisphere that is cooling at night there is far more getting out, whereas in the hemisphere in the sunlight there is far more coming in. This is obvious.

    When I placed a wide necked vacuum flask filled with water in the sun yesterday (with the lid off) the temperature of the water rose from 19.5 deg.C at 5:08am to 29.1 deg.C at 1:53pm while the air around it rose from 19.0 to 31.9 deg.C.

    What did the backradiation do at night? Well from 9:15pm till 12:05am the water cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 23.4 deg.C while the air cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 22.7 deg.C.

    According to those energy diagrams the backradiation, even at night, is about half the solar radiation during the day. Well, maybe it is, but it does not have anything like half the effect on the temperature as you can confirm in your own backyard.

    This is because, when radiation from a cooler atmosphere strikes a warmer surface it undergoes “resonant scattering” (sometimes called pseudo-scattering) and this means its energy is not converted to thermal energy. This is the reason that heat does not transfer from cold to hot. If it did the universe would go crazy.

    When opposing radiation is scattered, its own energy replaces energy which the warmer body would have radiated from its own thermal energy supply.

    You can imagine it as if you are just about to pay for fuel at a gas station when a friend travelling with you offers you cash for the right amount. It’s quicker and easier for you to just pay with the cash, rather than going through the longer process of using a credit card to pay from your own account. So it is with radiation. The warmer body cools more slowly as a result because a ready source of energy from incident radiation is quicker to just “reflect” back into the atmosphere, rather than have to convert its own thermal energy to radiated energy.

    The ramifications are this:

    Not all radiation from the atmosphere is the same. That from cooler regions has less effect. Also, that with fewer frequencies under its Planck curve has less effect again.

    Each carbon dioxide molecule thus has far less effect than each water vapour molecule because the latter can radiate with more frequencies which “oppose” the frequencies being emitted by the surface, especially the oceans.

    Furthermore, it is only the radiative cooling process of the surface which is slowed down. There are other processes like evaporative cooling and diffusion followed by convection which cannot be affected by backradiation, and which will tend to compensate for any slowing of the radiation.

    This is why, at night, the water in the flask cools nearly as fast as the air around it. The net effect on the rate of cooling is totally negligible.

    The backradiation does not affect temperatures anywhere near as much as solar radiation, even though its “W/m^2″ is probably about half as much.

    And there are other reasons also why it all balances out and climate follows natural cycles without any anthropogenic effect. This is explained in detail in my peer-reviewed publication now being further reviewed by dozens of scientists.

    http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf

  18. Carrick said

    A refereed article with wikipedia references?

    Good luck on that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: