It is my sincere wish that climate alarmism has finally hit the buffers with the definitive and scientific deathknell administered by two German physicists, Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, co-author of a July 7, 2007 paper titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics”.

The full story is online here, with all relevant links within the document.

Allow me to quote some highlights, so you can decide whether or not to read the whole document.
“The main results of our paper are:
- the CO2 greenhouse effect is not an effect in the sense of a physical effect and, hence, simply does not exist;
- computer aided global climatology will not be science, if science is defined as a method to verify or falsify conjectures, according to the usual definition of science.”

“Due to research grants, huge amount of financial support, virtual global climatologists suffer from a kind of omnipotence delusion comparable to the state of highness of the early super string community. However, physics is different. “Physics is where the action is”, I.e., finally, reproducible results in the lab. We cannot overemphasize that science is a method to prove conjectures, and not to go on-stage like the pop star Al Gore performing what-if-when-scenarios beyond any reality and scaring kids.” 

Last December, Dr. David Whitehouse wrote a number of articles about the tardiness of Sun cycle 24 and its potential impact on Earth’s Climate. He noted that the apex of solar activity at the end of last century corresponded with the periods’ unusually high temperatures and that temps have been flat since activity abated.

Whitehouse created quite an outcry among climate hysterics when he suggested that not only had global warming ended, but that we may be entering into a new solar cycle which would begin a period of global cooling. The Sun expert reminded readers that a similar sunspot holiday in the 17th Century (The Maunder Minimum) corresponded with the coldest temperatures of that millennium (The Little Ice Age).

Luckily for the doctor, heretics are no longer burned for blasphemy.

But an article in yesterday’s IBD, cleverly titled The Sun Also Sets, reported that Canadian scientists are seeking emergency funding for equipment to better observe our Sun. To study Global Warming, you’d expect, right? Not quite.

Global warming may not be entirely to blame for the collapse of an Antarctic ice shelf in 2002, according to research published today. The 10,000-year-old Larsen B ice shelf was initially believed to be a victim of climate change. But a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology claims the shelf had been teetering on collapse for decades. Professor Neil Glasser, of Aberystwyth University, the paper’s lead author, said cracks and fault lines in the ice had significantly weakened the structure. “A number of other atmospheric, oceanic and glaciological factors are involved. For example, the location and spacing of fractures on the ice shelf such as crevasses and rifts are very important too because they determine how strong or weak the ice shelf is.”

From their abstract: We define domains on the ice shelf related to glacier source areas and demonstrate that, prior to collapse, the central Larsen B ice shelf consisted of four sutured flow units fed by Crane, Jorum, Punchbowl and Hektoria/Green/Evans glaciers. Between these flow units were ‘suture zones’ of thinner ice where the feeder glaciers merged. Prior to collapse, large open-rift systems were present offshore of Foyn Point and Cape Disappointment. These rifts became more pronounced in the years preceding break-up, and ice blocks in the rifts rotated because of the strong lateral shear in this zone. We suggest that the ice shelf was preconditioned to collapse by partial rupturing of the sutures between flow units.  See full paper here.

Read rest...

People who swear by the idea that man can affect climate - may drown in their own blood in a minute. The one factor left out is proof positive that elevated CO2 does not cause Global Warming. The debate is over. A good scientist can't afford to miss this data.

If one looks at all temperature correlations and CO2 levels, there appears to be absolutely no correlation between the two variables. Granted, CO2 levels are at 370ppm right now--the highest they’ve been since 1850. But if one looks at the two above variables closely, the case can be made that the rising temperatures are actually responsible for increasing CO2 levels.

From the Scripps Institute (Mauna Loa), it can be seen that CO2 levels have increased virtually every year since 1850. But other sources---tree rings, ice cores, etc…, say that CO2 levels at earlier times have been more than 7x that of today. Per Noel Sheppard (economist; editor of Newsbusters), there have been 72 years in the past 156 (53.8%) when global average temperatures declined.

Highly correlated items will tend to follow each other, going higher or lower. But in the years that global warming alarmists use to prove this absent correlation, there was virtually no year-over-year connection between CO2 concentrations and temperature. But there are other options that should be evaluated to determine what might be causing the 0.8°C / century rise lately in surface temperature. Joe D’Aleo (Certified Consulting Meteorlogist) decided to compare the three most probable causes.

Most warm weekends, you can find me in Central Park by the Tavern on the Green playing the beautiful game of petanque. This is the French version of bocci, only unlike the Italian game, which uses effeminate wooden balls, we use manly balls of steel.

The game goes like this: each team takes turns throwing 800g balls six to ten meters towards a small colored ball, called the cochonette. The goal is to get as close to the cochonette as possible. When each team has thrown their six balls, we walk up to the cochonette and try to see which team’s balls is closer. Often, of course, it’s a narrow call whether my ball or my opponent’s ball is nearest.

Now, I have stood over the cochonette literally thousands of times—it helps to understand that I have perfect vision and have never needed glasses—and in a large fraction of those times I would have sworn, on my soul, that my ball was the closer of the two. Sometimes, of course, it is, but if you know me as a player, you know that is a rarity. Usually, my ball is the furthest, but it is often manifest, I pledge on my honor, that mine is best! Not only does my ball appear closer, but it is so obviously closer, that I cannot for the life of me see why there is an argument from my opponent.

But there is invariably a dispute, so out comes the stick, usually a telescoping radio antenna stripped from its base. Somebody bends down and measures the distance between all the balls and the cochonette. Once the objective results are in, there are usually groans from one side and calls of “It was obvious” from the other.

Psychologists are well familiar with this phenomena; in science it is called the experimenter effect. It describes what happens when an honest scientist carries out an experiment in the absolutely fairest way possible, looks at the results, and sees exactly what he expected to see, only to find that, later, other scientists have shown his result to be a statistical artifact or due to a forgotten, unaccounted variable. This is why, for example, double-blind trials in medicine are required, else the doctors would always find that the “active” pill beats the placebo. Read rest...