Global Temperatures Global Troposphere Temperatures click here For full size []]
Providing Insight
Into Climate Change
Friends of Science Newsletter December 2013

FoS Logo

 

 

December 2013

 

The PDF version of this document is here.

FOS MEMBERSHIP QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER

No. 40

       "FOS is dedicated to providing the public with insight into Climate Science"


 

 

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Our primary objective continues to be the distribution to both the public and governments of up-to-date informative material concerning the science and reality of climate change. Our 40 press releases that we sent out this year have been a great success, reaching a large number of readers throughout North America as well as many other countries.  Our Facebook page has also been rapidly growing in the number of “Likes”, with currently over 4000 “Likes”.

As an example of the continued irresponsible and ridiculous pressures of the United Nations, delegates at the recent climate conference in Warsaw decided that one billion dollars a day, the amount currently being spent across the world on ‘climate finance’, is not enough. Far greater funding is needed to save the world from what UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon calls the “greatest threat facing humanity.” That climate science is highly immature and global warming actually stopped 17 years ago was never mentioned.

Here’s what our representatives just agreed to. Starting in 2014, the UN’s Green Climate Fund, a plan to divert an additional $100 billion per year from the treasuries of developed countries to those of developing nations to help them “take action on climate change”, will commence operation. But this is only the tip of the financial iceberg we will soon face. Last minute concessions by our representatives have set us up for a potential liability of trillions of dollars. They agreed to the establishment of a new institution under the UN’s legal framework: the “Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts”. In so doing, the door has been opened to requiring that we compensate developing countries for the impact of extreme weather events that are supposedly our fault. No one knows to what extent the charges against us will be retroactive.

This happened because developed countries did not challenge the scientifically-flawed notion that anthropogenic climate change is responsible for causing extreme weather events, such as the recent typhoon in the Philippines. Data does not support this hypothesis. For instance, when the 2014 hurricane season starts in the U.S., it will have been 3,142 days since the last category 3+ storm made landfall, shattering the record for the longest stretch between intense hurricanes since 1900.

As another example of political guffaws, president Obama just signed a law exempting wind farm operators from any liabilities or claims against them for killing eagles, by issuing them a permit to do so for the next 30 years! Considering the love and respect for this mighty bird by the American people, this is an incredibly tragic law.

Once again as Christmas approaches, the Greenpeace website is focused on frightening the children and bringing them to tears because Santa Claus says Christmas is going to be cancelled due to supposed melting of the Arctic. I guess he is unaware that Arctic ice increased by 533,000 square miles this year. If their claims aren’t scary enough, their version of Santa looks more like a bearded terrorist, so perhaps its best he stays away. Interestingly, Greenpeace then suggested their actions assisted in cooling the Antarctic, which recently reported all-time record low temperatures.

The UK House of Commons Energy & Climate Change Committee invited written submissions to an Inquiry on the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report.  The Friends of Science submitted a report here, compiled by Ken Gregory.  Dr. Neil Hutton submitted a separate report here. Both authors are FoS directors.  All submissions were published on the UK Government website here.

One of our long term members, Bruno Wiskel, geologist, author, entrepreneur, agriculture specialist and public speaker, will be at the Spectrum Chapters, in the Spectrum Shopping Centre at 2555, 32nd St. NE, in Calgary on January 25, 2014. If anyone is interested, he will be signing his books including “The Sky Is Not Falling – Putting Climate Change on Trial” This is an excellent read.

We have recently developed a professional Business Plan that outlines in detail a description of our organization, our mission, philosophy and vision, our concerns, strengths and core competencies, goals and objectives, funding and budget, along with a number of other details. If you are interested in our Business Plan and in assisting us financially, please contact Friends of Science.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

                                                Len Maier

                                                President, Friends of Science

 

POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS

Global Warming’s Vested Interests

“Vested interests” is a favorite demon of the warmist crowd. For example, in 2012 the Australian publication The Monthly ran an essay by Robert Manne titled Dark Victory – How Vested Interests Defeated Climate Science. It begins by stating that the international “community” has failed conspicuously to heed climate scientists’ warning that we are facing a catastrophe deeper than any other in the history of the human species. Mr. Manne’s reason for this failure: the growth of “climate change denialism” over the previous three years, led by scientific mavericks and supported by financial contributions from the worldwide oil and coal industry, by right-wing think tanks and influential websites. (If you can’t access The Monthly’s website, DeSmogBlog has a one-hour video of Mr. Manne expounding on his vested interests here.)

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri is another believer in vested interests, as Donna Laframboise reports. Back in 2010, Dr. Pachauri wrote an article for the Guardian in which he referred to “vested interests” working “… to impede progress towards a binding climate agreement …” And, of course, DeSmogBlog blames “… fossil fuel-funded groups, free market think tanks (some of which also qualify as fossil fuel funded groups) and the fossil fuel industry itself …” for “… breaking the consensus in the eyes of the public …”

It never occurs to the warmists that the global warming industry has its own vested interests – five of them, united in their striving for power, money or both:

  1. UN and national climate bureaucrats, the main drivers, seeking power through control of CO2 emissions;
  2. Environmental NGOs working hand-in-glove with the bureaucrats to increase their power;
  3. Climate scientists depending on the global warming scare for never-ending funding of their work;
  4. Rent-seeking businesses making money out of the “green” economy or “carbon” finance; and
  5. Developing countries expecting to get billions of dollars annually from rich countries in climate reparations.

The Bureaucracies

Maurice Strong, the consummate international bureaucrat, was the prime mover behind the UN climate movement. As described in “Cloak of Green” by Elaine Dewar, he organized the Stockholm Conference, the first UN meeting on the environment, in 1972, this led to the setting up of the UN Environment Program, headed by himself. The UNEP, together with the World Meteorological Organization, established the IPCC in 1988. In 1992 Mr. Strong was secretary general of the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, better known as the Earth Summit. There, he was quoted as promoting the UN as the centerpiece for global governance. The Earth Summit’s result was establishment of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the objective of which was “to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.”

Another outcome of the Earth Summit was Agenda 21, a 21st century plan for world governance under the guise of “sustainable development”, to be implemented by the UN, other multilateral organizations and governments at both national and local levels. Here’s a 9:31 video of various speakers, some of whom were in on the negotiations, explaining Agenda 21’s implications for humanity.

From 1995 through 2013 the UNFCCC has held 19 annual climate change conferences, leading to the Kyoto Protocol, multiple action plans and subsidiary bodies, and a few collapses along the way. Its present head, Christiana Figueres, is a career international bureaucrat, who moved smoothly from advising private companies that align themselves with climate friendly goals to the top job at the UNFCCC. Ms. Figueres, a bureaucrat accountable to no one but her UN bosses, has no compunction about telling the newly-elected Australian government that it “… will pay a heavy political and economic price for walking away from …” the policies of its predecessor.

National and regional bureaucracies have also benefited like their UN brethren. In the US, the Obama administration has expanded the climate change mandate of the EPA. Environment Canada is also supporting “an aggressive approach” to climate change. Germany has set up a bureaucracy to manage 4,000 different subsidy categories for renewable energy. The EU has just announced that 20% of its entire budget for 2014-2020 will be spent on climate change-related projects and policies.

The Environmental NGOs

At the top of the list is the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the world’s largest environmental organization, which works closely with governments and UN bodies. In 2012 its revenue was $245 million, of which $206 million was spent on program expenses. The WWF has heavily infiltrated the IPCC, such that 28 of 44 chapters for the IPCC’s 2007 report had at least one WWF-affiliated individual on the authors’ roster.

Greenpeace considers global warming to be the greatest environmental problem facing the Earth and is known for its direct actions. Its 2012 revenues were €268 million of which €183 million was disbursed on “non-fundraising expenditure” of which “climate and energy” (€31 million) was the largest component. Greenpeace is also at the heart of the IPCC.

At the UN climate conferences activist media events are part of the process. At Warsaw six green groups staged a publicized walk out.

The Climate Scientists

In 2009 Joanne Nova published a 19-page essay titled Climate Money, in which she found that, starting from almost zero in 1989, the US government had spent $89 billion in 20 years on policies related to climate change, of which $32 billion went to science and $36 billion to technology. For fiscal year 2008 through FY 2013, the US government had budget authority for $13.6 billion on the Global Change Research Program (formerly the Climate Change Science Program) for climate change, of which most went to NASA.

As Climategate emails reveal, scientists receiving this government money conspire to hide their doubts and mistakes. Phil Jones, the former head of the Climatic Research Unit, the source of the emails, received 55 endowments, totalling £13.7 million, from agencies ranging from the US Department of Energy to NATO.

The Rent Seekers

Feed-in tariffs, whereby green energy producers are guaranteed grid access, long-term contracts and cost-based (not market-based) purchase prices, have created opportunities for rent seekers in, among other jurisdictions, Ontario, Germany and the UK. In all cases the result has been higher power prices for consumers for the benefit of the producers.

Carbon or climate finance, a new branch of environmental finance, was conceived in 1996. The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism allowed the offset of emissions in developed countries by investment in emission reduction projects in developing countries like China, India or Latin America. Following the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, UNFCCC head Yvo de Boer, smoothly transitioned into a job at KPMG advising on climate change and sustainability. The World Bank sees “financing climate change” as an important part of its business.

The Developing Countries

The UNFCC Convention divides its 195-strong membership into 41 developed “Annex I” countries, with the remaining developing or least-developed countries been given special status. To get the latter onside and salvage something from the debacle, the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference agreed to set up the Green Climate Fund as a mechanism to transfer money from the developed to the developing world to assist them in climate change adaptation and mitigation, with a target of $100 billion/year by 2020.

At the 2013 Warsaw climate change conference, a new mechanism, the International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (IMLD) was created to assist vulnerable countries deal with future harm from climate damages they claim are no longer avoidable. At Warsaw, developing countries had coalesced into the G77+China group of 133 nations designed to enhance their negotiating capacity at the UN.

                                                Ian Cameron

                                                Director, Friends of Science

 

SCIENCE NEWS

Evidence in AR5 Contradicts the Model's Climate Response

Climatologist  Nic Lewis reports on ClimateAudit.org here that the observational evidence of greenhouse gas and aerosol forcings, presented in the IPCC's fifth assessment report (AR5), but excluding unknown indirect solar forcing, implies a transient climate response (TCR) of only 1.30 °C for double CO2, which is only 72% of the model mean TCR of 1.80 °C.

Transient Climate Response of CMIP5 Models

Nevertheless, AR5 states (Box 12.2) that:

“the ranges of TCR estimated from the observed warming and from AOGCMs [climate models] agree well, increasing our confidence in the assessment of uncertainties in projections over the 21st century.”

Nic Lewis asks, "How can this be right, when the median model TCR is 40% higher than an observationally-based best estimate of 1.3 °C, and almost half the models have TCRs 50% or more above that?"

The TCR is the temperature response at the time when the CO2 concentration is doubled, and is the key determinant of the projected global warming to the end of the 21st century. Virtually all the projections of future climate change in AR5 are based on the mean and range of outcomes simulated by this latest generation of climate models. A list of models with their TCR is here.

Dr. Ross McKitrick writes, "Using numbers from the IPCC report itself, and applying their own formula for transient climate response, an estimate of around 1.3 °C is unavoidable. Yet most of the models they employ have TCR’s of 1.6 or higher, and quite a few are even above 2, implying way too much sensitivity to CO2 emissions. ...The whole summary section of Ch. 9 gives the impression that models and observations are beautifully in alignment."

But in fact, the model mean is running about 40% too hot. The Canadian model is running 85% too hot! All this assumes that only greenhouse gases and aerosols can effect climate, and solar effects are negligible, even though the IPCC blames the lack of warming over the last 15 years in part due to low solar activity.  Including the climatic effects of solar magnetic field changes would further reduce estimates of TCR.

Global Sea Ice Area

The annual average global sea ice area in 2013 was higher than any year since 1999, and is above the 30-year average 1979 to 2008. Data.

Global Sea Ice Area

Solar Activity Foretells Future Cooling

German scientists reported here that the temperature history of Europe correlates very well to periodic cycles, dominated by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (AMO/PDO) and a 200+ year solar cycle.

The AMO/PDO cycle is about 65 years and can be traced back for about 1400 years. It is an internal ocean oscillation and does not appear to be directly tied to solar activity.

Instrument temperature measurements suggest a 200 year cycle, but they only extend back for 240 years. A spectral analysis of the Spannagel cave stalagmite temperature reconstruction shows a 197- year period as the strongest climate variation by far since about 1100 AD. The Spannagel cave is located in the Central Alps.

A spectral analysis of solar activity shows clearly a 208-year period known as the Suess solar cycle (a.k.a. "de Vries cycle") as the strongest variation of the solar activity, other than the 11-year solar cycle. Considering the uncertainty in the age model used, the Spannagel temperature cycle very likely corresponds to the Suess solar cycle.


The paper concludes that the solar cycles combined with the ocean cycles explain most of the historic temperature variations, leaving little room for an anthropogenic CO2 effect. The current solar cycle (24) is the weakest in a lifetime, and most solar scientist predict that our sun is headed into a long-term period of low solar activity. The authors predict that global temperatures will fall to the year 2100 to about that of 1870 in the Little Ice Age, 0.7 °C below current temperatures.

 

                                              Ken Gregory

                                              Director, Friends of Science

 DONATIONS

To accomplish our goal of educating the broader public and policy makers on the diversity of views on climate change, and the important natural factors, we need financial help from our members. Thank you for your help to date.  This debate matters, you are making a difference. 

Please continue to make donations to Friends of Science.  We can be a voice for your climate change issues – and we thank all of you who have given us tips on the misinformation they see in the marketplace.  Donations made directly to Friends of Science will help us bring in quality guest speakers, expand our media presence and create a platform for informed debate. To make a contribution at www.friendsofscience.org; click on DONATE in the upper right of the home page. Alternately, you can mail donations to FoS at the following address:

Friends of Science               

P.O. Box 23167

Connaught P.O.

Calgary AB T2S 3B1

Canada

Toll-Free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597

E-mail:   contact (at) friendsofscience.org         

Websites:        www.friendsofscience.org                                                                           www.climatechange101.ca




web design & development by: