Peer reviewed PNAS study acknowledges no global warming 1998-2008

Tweet .
7/5/11, "Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008," PNAS.org

"Abstract"

"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.

Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008 (1). Furthermore, global surface temperature declines 0.2 °C between 2005 and 2008. Although temperature increases in 2009 and 2010, the lack of a clear increase in global surface temperature between 1998 and 2008 (1), combined with rising concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, prompts some popular commentators (2, 3) to doubt the existing understanding of the relationship among radiative forcing, internal variability, and global surface temperature. This seeming disconnect may be one reason why the public is increasingly sceptical about anthropogenic climate change (4)."... 


"Robert K. Kaufmann^a,¹ ,Heikki Kauppi^b, Michael L. Mann^a, and James H. Stock^c"...

================================

Regarding aerosols:

Page 1 notes lack of scientific data on aerosols makes it impossible to accurately interpret global climate.

Jan. 15, 2013, “Global Temperature Update Through 2012, 15 January 2013,” Columbia University, J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Rudy

(page 1): “Summary. …”The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing….

(page 1, parag. 3): “The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements 3,4.”…

-------------------------------------------------

Page 6 details problem predicting future “climate change” referenced on p. 1 above, ie lack of data on aerosols, and that the one US satellite designed to measure them crashed on takeoff and  no plans exist to restart the mission:

page 6, last parag. of report under sub-head, “Climate Change Expectations”: 

“The one major wild card in projections of future climate change is the unmeasured climate forcing due to aerosol changes and their effects on clouds. Anecdotal information indicates that particulate air pollution has increased in regions with increasing coal burning, but assessment of the climate forcing requires global measurement of detailed physical properties of the aerosols. The one satellite mission that was capable of making measurements with the required detail and accuracy was lost via a launch failure, and as yet there are no plans for a replacement mission with the needed capabilities.4″

---------------------------------------------

Links re: NASA climate satellite crashes in 2009 and 2011. 2011 satellite (referenced by Hansen) was to study aerosols:

“Perhaps that’s why the loss hurts most, because Glory “was directed very specifically at the place where our knowledge was weakest“, he said.”…”A tragedy for climate science.”…”an area that desperately needs more study.”…

3/4/11, “Raze of Glory: NASA Earth-Observing Climate Satellite Fails to Reach Orbit,” Scientific American, John Matson

“A launch malfunction sent the Glory satellite crashing into the ocean, almost exactly mimicking the 2009 loss of NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory.“…
.

============================
.

3/6/11, “Nasa crashes hit geoscience efforts,” AFP, News24, Washington

“A pair of costly satellite crashes have dealt a major blow to Nasa’s earth science efforts just as the US space agency faces scrutiny from Congress over whether climate science should be part of its focus at all.

The $424m Glory satellite to monitor aerosols and the sun’s power plunged into the Pacific on Friday shortly after launch, just two years after a similar satellite to study carbon dioxide in the atmosphere met the same fate.

“The loss of the Glory satellite is a tragedy for climate science,” said Bruce Wielicki, senior scientist for earth science at Nasa’s Langley Research Centre.”…
.

============================

Army artillery drill started Stuart Creek, Alaska, wildfire. Training took place during red flag warning in which residents are asked to avoid activities that could start fires-Newsminer

Tweet 7/6/13, "Army official: Artillery drill started Stuart Creek wildfire," Sam Friedman, newsminer.com

TWO RIVERS, Alaska, "An Army artillery exercise ignited the Stuart Creek 2 fire now threatening the community of Two Rivers, according to the Fort Wainwright garrison commander.

Col. Ron Johnson spoke to area residents this evening at a community meeting at the Pleasant Valley Community Center.

In general, the Army makes sure it has the resources to put out a fire that could start from training before allowing the training, he said.

“In this case it took some mitigation measures, they allowed the training to occur, it was artillery training, it did start a fire,” Johnson said.

The fire, which started June 25, was initially contained until it flared up last week, Johnson said.

The training took place during a red flag warning in which residents are asked to avoid conducting activities that could start fires, he said.

“It was monitored, it smoked up, they hit it again and then when the fire conditions changed it flared up and now we’ve got what we’ve got,” Johnson said.

Saturday’s meeting was organized by the firefighting crew now managing the 32,014-acre fire to give information to the Chena Hot Springs Road community that’s been under an advisory evacuation watch since Tuesday.

Johnson was not a scheduled speaker at the meeting but took the microphone to applause and laughter when a local resident asked “If the military started this fire, then why aren’t they here?”

Chena Hot Springs Road between 14 mile and 32 mile remains on evacuation watch. Warm weather is forecast for Sunday, as is wind that would blow the fire toward the community." via Free Republic




.

Obama freely admits March 2012 EPA ruling against electric utilities won't effect US CO2 emissions, rather it will send a strong signal 'internationally' and help 'stimulate investment'

Tweet "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," EPA, Carbon Pollution Standard, Fed. Register, draft, 3/27/12

p. 49, "While this proposed rule also will not have direct impact on U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases under expected economic conditions, it provides assurance that emission rates from new fossil fuel-fired generation will not exceed the level of the standard and will send a strong signal both domestically and

internationally. Domestically, this proposed rule can further 

stimulate investment in CCS and other clean coal technologies, 

by making it clear that such technologies do provide a clear path forward for new coal-fired generating capacity.

Internationally,

this rule may encourage others

to consider less GHG-intensive forms of power generation."...via USNews.com:

4/12/12, "The Illogic of EPA Carbon Regulations," USNews.com, by Daniel Simmons

"If global warming is a problem that the EPA needs to address, then why are they working on imposing rules that the agency admits "will not have [a] direct impact of U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases?" It's tough to see how EPA regulation makes logical sense. 

Does the EPA not really care about global warming 

or are they working to end America's use of coal?

Does the EPA only want to increase the price of energy by making it harder to build low-cost electricity generation? 

What explains the EPA's actions? And why are taxpayers paying for this nonsense?

The only thing we know for sure is that the EPA claims that global warming is a problem and then announces rules that the agency admits does nothing about it. Draw your own conclusions."

.

US coal production continues to decline, Jan-Feb. 2013 total lower than Jan-Feb 2012 and Jan-Feb 2011, US DOE/ EIA

Tweet May 2013, "Monthly Energy Review," US DOE/EIA, eia.gov

page 5, Table 1.2, "Primary Energy Production by Source"

"Coal"

US coal production in first two months of 2013 lower than same period in both 2012 and 2011:

Jan 2013, 1.702
Feb 2013, 1.554
Two month total, 3.256

=================

Two month total 2012, 3.664
Two month total 2011, 3.590


.

Exit 8A, NJ Turnpike

Tweet

Exit 8A on New Jersey Turnpike, 4/20/13, "Major delays expected on N.J. Turnpike as work shifts for massive widening project," NJ Star-Ledger

Issa and Waxman share laugh, photo Dec. 9, 2008

Tweet "House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., shares a laugh with committee member Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2008, as they wait for the starts of the committee's hearing on the financial meltdown. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)"

Dr. Barbara Bellar explains ObamaCare in one sentence

Tweet 10/6/12, Dr Barbara Bellar explains Obamacare in One Sentence



"We are going to be gifted with a healthcare plan [the ACA]:

* We are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't;
* Which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people
* Without adding a single new doctor; but
* Provides for 16,000 new IRS agents;
* Written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it;
* Passed by a Congress that didn't read it; but
* Exempted themselves from it; and
* Signed by a president who smokes;
* With funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes;
* For which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect;
* By a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare;
* All to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese; and
* Financed by a country that's broke."

And managed by an unelected 15 member panel appointed by the president and not subject to congressional approval. (as Dr. Bellar says on the video).


.

Antarctic Sea Ice, NSIDC, Sept. 2012

Tweet