Fears of an Ice Age

The typical conservative reaction to this article is “why wont this get as much coverage as the AGW articles?” Of course, we already know the answer: there’s no money in it. What should our reactions be to this type of news? I’m not sure, perhaps the only real action that we can take at this time is to play what little part we can in spreading the word. From The Australian:

All four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

Temperature from 1998 to 2008

Some graphs showing the temperature fluctuations over the last ten years. You’ll notice the last one is way out of step with the others and the author brings up a good reason why. If you’d like further evidence as to why that last data set is suspect cruise on over to Climate Audit where you’ll find lively discussions on that very subject.

Revising the 200 year old climate equations

Daily tech highlights a Hungarian scientist that used to work for NASA and his paper that illustrates the original warming equations were done incorrectly because they set the atmosphere as being infinitely thick. He reworked them with a more realistic value and found

Another dose of climate reality

From the National Post of Canada

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”

You should read the rest, little bit of snark in it but not too much and a couple great talking points for your AGW friends.

Truth be damned, of course

An insightful article from the Wall Street Journal highlighting the maniacal partisanship of Henry Waxman. This doesn’t surprise me at all and makes me wonder if I should create a new category for topics entitled ‘Ho Hum’.

Mr. Waxman doesn’t much care if any of this is true, because his larger goal is to send a message to every Inspector General in government: They answer to him. Mr. Waxman expects them to tee up political scandals in the executive branch and serve as witnesses for his prosecution whether or not the facts support it.

More jobs Americans wont do, except…

Once again we learn that these jobs that we are told Americans wont do, they actually will do, once the illegals leave and the companies are forced to raise their wages. From Google News

The effects of the law have been immediate, according to businessmen, workers and rights activists who spoke to AFP, with companies driving up wages to attract labor while being forced to part company with prized employees.

It’s almost funny watching all the lefties do the dirty work for big business when they campaign against immigration enforcement.

Global Cooling

Well, low and behold

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn’t increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder.

It’s from the Washington Times and is worth a read.

AGW consensus? Not so much.

Well, Senator Inhofe has gone and done it. Compiled a list of 400 scientists with published views skeptical of AGW.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Heh.

Climate models: wrong

A nice article from WCR highlighting a new entry in the International Journal of Climatology. In it we learn, surprise surprise, that climate models are unreliable.

Even juicier, they state “On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.”

As many have already stated, AGW is politics in the guise of science, they have no use for facts unless they bolster their political position.

Climate Models Are Inaccurate - what?

A new study was just published where they compared current temperatures with those predicted by the most popular climate models. I bet you can’t guess what they found!

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society

Wow, what a surprise.