Category: Climate Change

Climate Change Part II – Computer Models

George Noga
No computer models of climate change have been updated to incorporate the actual temperature record of the past twenty years. Why is this true?
Climate Change Part II – Computer Models
By: George Noga – March 19, 2017
       Computer models predicting sharply higher temperatures were not only wrong but drastically so. And the models were wrong about much more than temperatures. They predicted antarctic ice would decrease; instead, it has increased and it is ten times larger than the arctic icecap. The predicted rise in sea levels is not materializing and the rate is slowing. Extreme weather has declined as proven by decreased insurance claims. Oh, and those disappearing Pacific islands – some are actually increasing.
      Despite their serious flaws, models have not been updated with results of the past 20 years. Why is this true given the gusher of government money available for such purposes? Moreover, the first scientist to update a model with actual temperatures since 1998 and still show alarming global warming would become an instant climate warrior rock star. Everything else has been improved in the past 20 years; compare your present cell phone to 1997 models the size of a brick and with long antennas.
      Are scientists too dumb or too lazy to update and to correct their computer models? Do they lack the necessary funding? Are they too busy teaching or performing other research? Do they lack either the incentive or the desire? Following are the five main reasons why no computer models have been updated for at least 20 years.
1. It simply cannot be done. As noted in Part I, temperatures increased sharply from 1910 to 1945 then cooled 1946-1975, then warmed moderately 1976-1998 and then paused beginning in 1999. Try fitting those data into a computer model.
2. Models rely on powerful CO2 feedback loops. To show alarming future warming, models assume ultra high levels of CO2 feedback amplification. Research shows such strong feedback may be wrong by up to 10 times. Even if they continued to use 300% amplification, they still could not make models mesh with observed temperature data.
3. Accurate models would show man-made warming is not a problem. Scientists could construct a plausible computer model showing a modest amount of anthropogenic warming; however, that is unsuited to their need to portray a cataclysmic and imminent global crisis as expected and demanded by their government patrons.
4. Funding for future climate and other research would evaporate. In addition to perpetual loss of funding, scientists who updated a model to show little, if any, man-made warming would experience all-out attacks on their work, methods, motives and ad hominem attacks as well. They may even be charged with thought crimes.
5. Scientists disavowing human causation would be savaged. Instead of their current status as moral warriors occupying the high ground fighting an imminent global crisis, they instantly would be regarded as bottom-feeding pariah. They would incur the wrath of those proven wrong, would become persona non grata on campus and would be shunned by their peers. The environmental religion is unforgiving to apostates. Instead of media darlings who do no wrong, they would be tarred as heretical climate deniers.
    I turn to Occam’s Razor (simplest explanation is the most likely one) to revisit the question of why computer models have not been corrected or updated. The simplest answer clearly is that a valid climate model cannot be constructed that explains the temperature record since 1910 including the pause in warming since 1998 and still show the desired results. In this case however, I also am going to turn to Noga’s Razor, which states that when there is only one plausible answer, it is the correct one.
    The absence of updated or corrected computer models for two decades constitutes dispositive and prima facie evidence human activity does not cause climate change.
Research note: I have invested considerable time researching this post. There are many climate models and some may have been updated, at least in part. It is possible there may exist climate models which include data for the past 20 years. What I do believe is that there are no updated computer models showing the same sharply rising temperatures as the original models. If such models existed, they would be widely touted by media and climate warriors.
Our next post March 26th is Part III of our climate change series

Climate Change Part I – Causation

George Noga
Climate change is the key for progressives to impose their agenda which they can’t
achieve via elections. If they succeed, government will control every aspect of our lives.
That is the reason MLLG is publishing this fact-based and principled five-part series.
Climate Change Part I – Causation
By: George Noga – March 15, 2017
     Anyone who reads our entire five-part series on man-made climate change may never look at that subject the same way again. Following is a summary of each part.
Part I – Overview and the role of human activity in climate change
     Summary of MLLG position: Earth has been in a secular, solar-caused warming trend since circa 1850; this is a normal part of alternate warming and cooling cycles throughout history. Increases in CO2 resulting from human activity may contribute to warming to a small and inconsequential extent – perhaps 10%. Moreover, the moderate warming predicted by the UN-IPCC is a net benefit to mankind. Present attempts to lower CO2 incur ruinous costs to achieve infinitesimal benefits and are disastrous. Bottom Line: Warming is likely about 90% solar and only about 10% anthropogenic.
The Five Main Arguments Against Anthropogenic Warming
1. Warming throughout solar system: NASA has documented warming on our moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Enceladus, Dysmonia and Eris. (Specific temperature data are on our website.) Much of this warming has a similar pattern to Earth’s and there is not a single instance of observed non-warming anywhere in our solar system. The odds are over 1,000 to 1 (2^10) against this occurring in all ten out of ten other places (where data exist) in our solar system if temperatures on Earth were rising due to human activity. This is nearly irrefutable evidence of solar causation.
2. No warming for 20 years: There has been no net global warming at least since 1998 except possibly for the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016. Most (nearly 75%) of the warming in the 20th century occurred from 1910 to 1945 when CO2 was low.
3. Temperature patterns are consistent with solar causation: Weather since at least 1910 fits a secular warming paradigm. Temperatures increase in fits and starts; there are long pauses and even intervals of cooling. Temperatures increased from 1910-1945, cooled from 1946-1975, warmed from 1976-1998 and paused from 1999 to now. These data are consistent with solar causation but inconsistent with CO2 causation and all models.
4. Climate models are wrong: Models have not come even remotely close to predicting temperatures for the past 20 years. They haven’t been updated because it is impossible for them to account for the hiatus in warming since 1998. As shown infra, models rely on 300% amplification of CO2 feedback to achieve the high future temperatures predicted. Such feedback now appears wrong. Also, if warming is solar caused and behaves as shown in number 3 above, then no computer model could ever predict it.
5. CO2 feedback is much less than believed: Climate models assume increases in CO2 are amplified (increased) through feedback by 300%; instead, current research (now being peer reviewed) shows it could be dampened (decreased) by more than 50%. That difference means the effect of CO2 increases on climate change is lower than predicted by all climate models by a factor of up to 10 times. Increases in CO2 still may impact temperatures but by up to 10 times less than that shown in the models. Thus, CO2 can explain only about 10% of climate change, meaning the other 90% is solar. Note: Even if the amplification/dampening effects cited herein ultimately are found to be different, it would not change the fact that temperatures cannot be explained by changes in CO2.
      There is much more to the case against man-made warming, but I’ll close with this vignette. Ever since man trod this earth, climate change was 100% due to nature. Now, the climate consternation folks want us to believe that starting 40 years ago climate change is 100% due to human activity and has nothing to do with nature. Go figure.
Part II on March 19th – Why Climate Models Have Not Been Updated

The Seen Versus the Unseen

George Noga
What we see is frequently far less important than what we don’t see. This is true
particularly for economic growth, international trade, climate change and poverty.
The Seen Versus the Unseen
By: George Noga – October 23, 2016

       Election issues, both real and fake, are viewed through the prism of what is readily seen and are juxtaposed against what is opaque or occult to most Americans. The seen versus the unseen is singularly germane for economic growth. The data Americans readily see are many years of positive economic growth and unemployment rates approaching historic lows. Looking only at what is seen, many people conclude the US economy is performing satisfactorily. But let’s look at the unseen.

     The US, in its eighth year of economic recovery, is averaging 2.0% growth in real GDP. Real economic growth since 1945 averages 3.3% and is 4.3% for the years following the prior 10 recessions. Had the US grown at the 4.3% post-recession average from 2009 onward, today real GDP would be $10,300 higher for every man, woman and child in America. The unseen 900-pound gorilla of economic growth is the $26,700 that is missing from every American household each and every year – forever. Had Obama simply achieved average results, we would be infinitely better off.

For foreign trade deals, what we can see are job losses, harm to affected industries and deleterious effects on communities impacted. The pain is visible, immediate, and concentrated, whereas the benefits are unseen, long term, opaque and diffuse. Every American household benefits $2,500 per year just from China – even if they manipulate their currency, subsidize exports and use cheap labor. The unseen benefits to Americans from foreign trade vastly outweigh short-term job losses and other impacts.

     For climate change, we see media reports of warming, melting glaciers, polar bears on ice flows, extreme weather events and receding arctic icecaps. The largely unseen is: (1) no warming for 20 years; (2) glaciers receding for the past 150 years; (3) record polar bear populations; (4) no increase globally in insurance claims for weather events; and (5) an increasing antarctic icecap which is 10 times the size of the arctic icecap. Completely unseen are the immediate benefits to humanity that could be realized if the trillions now being totally wasted on infinitesimal reductions in temperature were diverted to human needs such as disease eradication, clean water supply and nutrition.

     We are bombarded by media reports and images of poverty, homelessness and hunger although none of these conditions exist per se in America today. What we don’t see is that these conditions (which do still exist) result nearly exclusively from untreated mental illness and from a small cohort of Americans of low ability, i.e. those who struggle to fill out a simple form. These conditions, and their attendant social pathologies, are what result in poverty, hunger and homelessness. Political correctness prevents us from identifying and addressing the real underlying problems.

     We see gun violence whenever there is a shooting; we don’t see the 2.5 million times each year guns are used lawfully to prevent or to stop crime. We see that more Americans have health insurance; we don’t see the armies of under employed 29ers and 49ers and the high premiums, deductibles and co-pays. We see the spending but the debt and deficits go largely unseen. We see what is reported by the media; we don’t see many stories covered that run counter to the progressive narrative. We see what we recycle; we don’t see it going into the same landfill as all our other garbage.

What we see is often vapid and illusory and intended to beguile us into accepting progressive shibboleths and dogma. The unseen is frequently much more important.

The next post in our 2016 election series is scheduled for October 30.

Fake Solutions to Fake Problems

George Noga

America is facing economic stagnation, failed schools, a nuclear Iran and is fighting global Islamic terrorism. Progressives are fighting for men to use the ladies’ restroom.
Fake Solutions to Fake Problems
By: George Noga – October 2, 2016

      As we approach the election, we are bombarded from the progressive side with a panoply of phony issues to which they proffer equally phony solutions. They don’t have real solutions to real problems; all they can offer is maskirovka and rope-a-dope.

     The most serious issues America faces are: weak economic growth with income stagnation, radical Islamic terrorism, Iran as a nuclear threshold state, chronic debt and deficits approaching critical mass, and failed government schools. Progressives don’t want to discuss any of these issues; instead, they talk of climate change, gun control, a war on women, transgender restrooms, and environmentalism – all phantom issues.

     Climate change is fake because it is man-made in only an inconsequential way, if at all, as well documented in prior posts. It is a classic Baptists-bootleggers political coalition of true believers (environmentalists) and their fellow travelers (government) who stand to benefit. The latest fake solution is the climate deal signed earlier this year in Paris where politicians from 175 countries agreed to keep doing whatever they intended to do anyway and with no consequences for non compliance. In an ultimate irony, the fake climate deal to fight a fake enemy was signed in the same city where just a short while earlier a real enemy, Islamic terrorism, slaughtered 130 real people.

     Gun control is progressives’ go-to issue. We published a series, Guns in America, available at http:\\www.mllg.us which proves to any scient person there is no positive correlation between guns and crime and there likely is a negative correlation, i.e. more guns equals less crime. We followed that up with a Harvard study showing social, cultural and economic factors (and not guns) are the determinants of violent crime.

     Gun control is a phony issue for which progressives have proposed a long train of phony solutions. Not one proposed measure would have prevented any mass gun violence in America. Their most recent phony solution is the “no fly, no buy”  proposal to ban gun sales to anyone on the no-fly watch list. This is a small and notoriously inaccurate list that excludes all recent terrorists; it would have no effect on terrorism.

     A war on women and the campus rape culture likewise are imaginary issues. Duke, UVA and Harvard (The Hunting Ground) have been debunked. College campuses actually are safer for women than elsewhere. Women’s pay is equal to or higher than men’s when making proper adjustments for education, experience, danger, etc. Liberal solutions also are imaginary such as constant ongoing affirmative consent for sex. Progressives refuse to criticize the real war on women in Moslem countries, replete with, inter alia, genital mutilation, no driving, burkas and Sharia law. Go figure!

     Transgenders constitute .00006 of the population, making this issue a tempest in a teapot. Progressives insist anyone who self identifies as any gender can use any public facility at anytime. They demand young girls accept showering with men and that they simply get over any discomfort. Yet, they dictate transgenders not be required to use facilities conforming to their biological gender because it may cause them discomfort.

     Environmentalism is a totally ersatz issue. Every metric (100 of them) shows both human and environmental well being to be the best they have been in the past 50-75 years and getting better all the time. Their fake solution is to spend ever more and more money to eke out ever less and less imperceptible benefit and to elevate a tiny fish (delta smelt) over the well being of hundreds of thousands of real human beings.

     Take the real issues identified in this post and contrast them with the phantom issues and solutions put forth by progressives. They use misdirection, smoke, mirrors, and rope-a-dope for emotional appeals to low information voters. They never address serious issues with serious solutions. They choose instead to fight for transgenders against young girls but not for all Americans against radical Islam and a nuclear Iran.

The next post in our 2016 election series addresses political correctness.

Hurricane Warning!

George Noga

Hurricane season began on June 1 and provides the common thread for this post. It addresses hurricanes, climate change, price gouging and economics of storms

By: George Noga – June 5, 2016

    To observe the beginning of hurricane season, we address a trio of hurricane related topics: (1) climate change; (2) storm economics; and (3) price gouging. As you have come to expect, our analysis of these issues is not the usual pap you find elsewhere.

Hurricanes and Climate Change

    The last hurricane to hit Florida was Wilma in 2005. This 10-year hurricane-free streak dwarfs the prior record of 5 years that stood for 165 years. This is especially remarkable considering 40% of all hurricanes impact Florida. This decade of  clement weather follows dire predictions by global warmists that hurricanes would be more frequent, last longer, have stronger and more intense winds and cause more damage.

    Warmists also warned of  many more severe weather events worldwide. Munich Re, one of the world’s leading reinsurance companies, performed the first ever analysis of global weather-related losses incorporating normalization adjustments for inflation, population growth, wealth increases and other variables. Its study concluded there was “no statistically significant trend for total weather-related events in the past 20 years“.

    Let’s suppose a hurricane hits Florida. Global warmists and their media sycophants instantly will cite it as incontrovertible evidence of climate change. I hope we avoid hurricanes again in 2016; but if one should hit, brace yourself for the inevitable onslaught of self righteous prattle – but remember, it has been 165 years since there have been fewer hurricanes and weather losses are trending downward worldwide.

Hurricanes and Putative Economic Benefits

    It is a testament to economic illiteracy that this question persists in the 21st century. Yet, in the aftermath of any disaster, the media trot out this fusty canard. A reductio ad absurdum is all that is needed to give it the lie. If a mega-disaster struck destroying everything, we clearly are worse off despite any increased economic activity it may spawn in the short run. Following is an example of the relevant economic analysis.

    Postulate there is a small island with aggregate wealth of $1 million in homes and property. Economic growth is slow and some on the island are unemployed. A storm destroys the entire wealth of the island. The whole population works for one year and succeeds in rebuilding everything. Looking at statistics, GDP was $1 million, much higher than normal, and unemployment was zero. Yet the overall wealth of the island is unchanged and, in fact, is much less than it would have been without the storm.

Hurricanes and Price Gouging

    Americans accept that prices for the same product vary under different conditions. They understand why hotel rooms in small college towns cost more the weekend of a big game and why tickets for the big game cost more than a regular game. We readily accept all these things; why should it be any different following hurricanes?

    Take the case of generators. Entrepreneurs, at some peril, drive to other cities to buy generators to sell for what buyers willingly pay. Some may pay a lot if they stand to lose thousands of dollars of food stored in freezers; some just may want the convenience of electricity. Every decision and price is voluntary and non-coercive. Soon, the price of generators returns to equilibrium. With anti-gouging laws, everyone does without generators; any intrepid souls who supplied them are subject to arrest, public scorn and to pandering by economically illiterate politicians and media.

    There is no such thing as price gouging. Prices in free markets convey accurate, truthful and valuable information about the value of a good or service at a point in time. In contrast, government prices (think: rent control, rationing) always are lies. In which kind of society would you rather live – one based on voluntary cooperation of people in free markets or one based on government lies, force and coercion?

The next post on June 12th revisits the 2016 US national election.

EPA Carbon Regulations: Science or Religion

George Noga
The EPA carbon mandate costs America over $200 billion to achieve a
reduction in temperature of 2.35 ten-thousandths of one degree per year.
By: George Noga – March 20, 2016

    The EPA enacted, and President Obama enthusiastically touted, new regulations on carbon emissions targeting coal burning power generation. The regulations phase in between now and 2030. This post contains the numbers – which you are not likely to read anywhere else – behind the regulations. Note: The US Supreme Court recently stayed the regulations until after the matter is adjudicated in the appellate court.

    The US uses 18% of the world’s energy of which 36% is coal generated. Thus the US uses 6.5% (18% times 36%) of global coal power. However, absent new regulation, America’s reliance on coal is falling rapidly; over the next 15 years (the length of the EPA regulation phase in) it will be less that 5% of global coal power generation.

    The EPA mandates a 32% decrease in carbon emissions by 2030. A cut of 32% of 5% is equal to a reduction of 1.6% – or one-tenth of one percent per year between now and 2030. The regulation reduces temperature by less than two-hundredths of one degree Celsius by the year 2100. During the phase-in period of the regulation, China alone will add far more coal burning capacity than the US takes out of service. Despite virtually non-existent benefits, the costs to achieve them are astronomical.

    The American coal industry is savaged, big swaths of our country economically devastated, 300,000 jobs destroyed and economic growth stifled. The initial compliance costs are $50 billion and then $10 billion of ongoing costs per year and increasing every year thereafter ad infinitum. Every American household and business will pay much, much more for energy with working people and the poor, i.e. those who Obama claims to be looking out for, the most severely impacted.

    For any American president to invoke such an extreme measure by executive fiat, one would have to believe the horrendous sacrifices being demanded of the American people are justified by the results attained, i.e. the costs bear at least some relationship to the putative benefits. Yet as shown herein, the costs are real, onerous and immediate while the benefits are  microscopic, uncertain and remote. Reductions of carbon of .1% (one part per thousand) per year and in temperature of .02 degrees by 2100 (2.35 ten-thousandths of one degree) per year are so small as to defy measurement.

    Obama is demanding extraordinary sacrifices without benefits; yet that is not the most absurd part of this American tragedy. The pinnacle of absurdity is that these sacrifices are being imposed, not in the name of science, but in the name of climate religion. There is no evidence warming is significantly anthropogenic or even harmful, while there is much evidence (see March 6th MLLG posting) to the contrary.

    This is another instance of liberal elitists impoverishing millions of working Americans solely in obeisance to their unscientific, politically climate religion.

Next up is a compelling juxtaposition between bottled water and socialism.

Ultimate Climate Change Primer

George Noga
If you believe global warming is man-made to any significant extent, then
reading this post should forever change the way you look at climate change.
By: George Noga – March 6, 2016

      Our first ever posting in 2007 was about climate change and we have written about it more often than any other topic. This post updates our position based on the latest science buttressed by logic. Earth has been in a secular, solar-caused warming pattern for 150 years; it is a normal part of alternate warming and cooling cycles throughout history. Nevertheless, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 have contributed to warming in some small and inconsequential way.

    Evidence warming primarily is nonanthropogenic continues to mount. Recent science (now being peer reviewed) shows CO2 feedback is not amplified 300% as per the computer models but instead is dampened 50% – a decrease in warming due to CO2 of 600%. Following are the top ten things you should know about global warming.

  1. The most compelling proof of solar causation is temperatures throughout our solar system. Since 1970, NASA has documented warming on our moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Titan, Enceladus, Dysnomia and Eris. Much of this warming has a similar pattern to Earth’s. There is not one instance of observed non warming in our solar system. This evidence is so powerful it led me in 2007 to conclude that warming is solar caused and not man-made.
  2. There has been no observed warming (net of El Nino) for at least 18 years; this emphatically devastates the hockey-stick computer models predicting disaster.
  3. Earth’s temperatures fit a secular warming pattern with increases in fits and starts, pauses for long periods and even intervals of cooling as in the 1970s and perhaps again in the 2020s. No CO2 based computer models fit the pattern.
  4. Climate models have not been updated for decades because it is impossible for them to incorporate the actual results of the past 18 years. They have no answers for the simple reason that temperature changes cannot be explained by CO2.
  5. There is scientific agreement that a doubling of CO2 should cause a rise of about 1 degree by 2100. However, there is no agreement CO2 feedback is amplified (increased) by a factor of 3 per the computer models. Instead of a 300% increase, there is a 50% decrease in feedback. This means computer models are wrong by 600% and temperature gain due to CO2 should be only .5 degrees by 2100.
  6. Per the UNIPCC, the warming expected by 2100 is a net benefit to mankind. Moreover, their oft quoted summaries are written by politicians, not scientists.
  7. Science is not settled; it never is settled. Government funding of studies outstrips funding from all other sources by 3,000 to 1; you get what you pay for. If the science is truly settled, why won’t any scientist or politician agree to debate?
  8. Even if the worst scenario were to be believed, the best response is to spend scarce resources to ameliorate the effects of warming if and when it occurs rather than squander trillions today on infinitesimal reductions in temperature.
  9. Humanity’s best strategy is to maximize economic growth to have the most possible resources available in the future. Instead, we are choking economic growth by lavishing money on political feel-good initiatives that have no impact.
  10. The precautionary principle is being grotesquely misapplied. Warmists insist we spend trillions willy-nilly today to perhaps save lives in the future. But squandering trillions now will result in certain death for millions of poor people from lack of funds for clean water, electricity and disease eradication.

   Thus, affluent liberal elitists are condemning tens of millions in the third world to death solely in obeisance to their unscientific, politically motivated climate religion.

   We will continue to address climate change on these pages; this was but a beginning.

The next post addresses the many recent pratfalls of Pope Francis.

Was 2015 The Hottest Year Recorded? Not So Fast!

George Noga
Climate change acolytes and their yellow dogs in the media are flogging
2015 as the hottest year ever. This is a factual, objective look at the data.
By: George Noga – January 27, 2016

     One objective of the new MLLG blog is to be more attuned to current events. The media frenzy flogging 2015 as the warmest year on record and stoking global warming panic demands a timely response. Following are the facts and nothing but the facts.

Some data (surface readings) do indeed show last year as the warmest, although satellite data do not support that finding. What is not being reported is the temperature rise in 2015 was wholly the result of a powerful El Nino that began in early 2015 and hence influenced temperature for the entire calendar year. Without the El Nino effect, 2015 would have been another hum-drum year with no observed warming.

The warmest prior year on record had been 1998, not uncoincidentally the year of the last powerful El Nino which raised temperature .25 degrees over 1997. However, in 1999 when El Nino transitioned to La Nina, global temperature fell .30 degrees, more than offsetting the 1998 increase. Usually (but not always) the subsequent La Nina cooling is greater than the El Nino warming. Thus, temperatures in 2016 or 2017 will revert to where they were before the 2015 El Nino. Note: It may be 2017 only because the transition to La Nina will not coincide well with the calendar year.

Temperatures since 1998 (and data since the Little Ice Age) match up well with a solar caused, non anthropogenic climate model. There has been a secular warming trend for 150 years which began well before carbon dioxide was a factor. The warming has been moderate and non-linear, often with long periods of little or no change. There even have been intervals of cooling; witness the global cooling panic of the 1970s. With adjustments for El Nino, global temperatures for the most recent 20 year period have been flat and comport extremely well with the secular warming climate paradigm.

     Moreover, the gestalt of climate change fits the secular-solar model whereas computer models based on CO2 all yield wrong results. No computer model to my knowledge ever has been updated. Ponder that for a moment; there have been no changes to the models for 20 years despite highly contradictory real world data.

     There have been no updates to the computer models for one reason only. It is impossible to create a computer model that incorporates the actual results of the past 20 years while simultaneously projecting any significant global warming scenario. It is impossible because climate change is a solar phenomenon unrelated to CO2.

Bien-pensant climate fanatics and their media sycophants tout the temperature in 2015, the recent blizzard-of-the-century and any extreme weather event to support their climate religion. Yet, facts are stubborn things and they unambiguously tell us there has been no warming err, climate change for 20 years – net of El Nino.

Are there any climate religion fanatics out there willing to risk some of their own money on a significant wager that temperatures will not revert to the pre El Nino pattern in 2016 or 2017?  If so, I just may be able to get you some action.

The next post resumes our Guns in America series; look for it in a few days.

Warming Observed Throughout the Solar System

George Noga
 By: George Noga – December 8, 2013
       Several recent MLLG postings about global warming have referenced temperatures throughout our solar system moving in near lockstep with Earth’s. This has been cited by MLLG as proof that warming is caused by solar phenomena and not man. Some  readers have asked to see the evidence because, if indeed the assertion is true, that appears to provide conclusive evidence that warming is not manmade in any significant part.
      Proof of warming throughout our solar system was the final evidence I needed back in 2007, when I wrote the very first MLLG blog, to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that manmade  global warming was junk science, a very bold assertion indeed way back in 2007. Following are the data and the critics’ reactions. We begin with the moon and work our way outward to Pluto.
  1. Moon: Temperature sensors were placed on the moon by Apollo 15 in 1971; additional probes were deployed by Apollo 17 in 1972 at a different lunar site. They reported rising temperatures year after year for as long as they operated. Moreover, the observed lunar temperatures were comparable to the long term warming trend on Earth. Candor however compels me to report there are SUVs on the moon – detritus from Apollo missions.

  2. Mars: NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions in 2005 showed the south polar icecap receding each year. Recently the Mars Rover mission reported much higher than expected temperatures. NASA scientists say Mars has warmed by the same amount as Earth since the 1970s. Critics blame higher Martian temperatures on dust storms, albedo (reflection coefficient)  and a host of other things. They also point out that the Martian north polar icecap has been increasing. Well – so has Earth’s south polar icecap. Oh yes – there also are some SUVs on Mars – jetsam from various NASA missions.
  3. Jupiter: Jupiter is developing a second red spot which scientists attribute to warming. Some parts of Jupiter now are 6 degrees warmer than before. Data from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and the Keck II telescope show Jupiter in the midst of a significant warming trend. Critics blame shifts in internal turbulence – whatever that means.
  4. Saturn: Recently temperatures jumped several degrees based on data from Voyager 2 and the later Cassini probe. Critics say the warming is momentary and due to orbital position.
  5. Neptune and Triton: Voyager 2 observed the atmosphere of Neptune and Triton (a moon of Nepture) in 1989. Recent data from Hubble confirm that Neptune and Triton have warmed considerably since Voyager 2 took readings in 1989; thus at least since 1989 Triton has been warming. More recent Earth-based measurements show the surface temperature has increased up to 5%. Critics haven’t yet responded to this data.
  6. Pluto: In recent decades Pluto has warmed considerably based on studies by scientists from MIT, the University of Hawaii and Cornell – and this is occurring despite the fact Pluto is moving away from the sun. The study was conducted by telescopes based at Mauna Kea, Lick, Lowell and Palomar Observatories. Critics blame Pluto’s orbit.
  7. Elsewhere in the solar system: There are data showing warming on Titan and Enceladus  (both moons of Saturn) and Dysnomia, a moon of dwarf planet Eris. There is not one single measurement anywhere in our solar system showing lower temperatures.
“There has been observed warming on our moon, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Titan, Dysnomia, Eris, Enceladus and elsewhere. There is not one instance of observed temperature decrease anywhere in the solar system.”
      If the preceding data do not convince everyone warming is a solar phenomenon, I don’t believe anything ever can. How can it be possible for any scient person to see these data and continue to believe global warming is anthropogenic to any significant degree? And don’t forget – per the United Nations IPCC – warming is a net benefit to both man and planet.

Why Everyone Was Wrong About Man-made Global Warming

George Noga

Why So Many Were So Wrong For So Long

 By: George Noga – November 23, 2013
      Buried deep in the bowels of the new UN-IPCC report is a scientific consensus that  global warming has been, is now and will continue to be a net benefit to humanity and to our planet into the 22nd century. This post dissects how liberals, as well as many people of good will, could be so wrong for so long and why many cling to the man-made warming myths and won’t abnegate despite a preponderance of evidence they are wrong.

  1. They wanted to believe. Liberals  were eager to believe because warming is a key tenet of their religion; they blindly and uncritically accepted man-made warming. They swallowed all the warming myths just as they gullibly bought into earlier panics about  fluoridation, pesticides, vaccines, overpopulation, swordfish overfishing, Mad Cow, SARS, landfill shortage, Avian Flu, Thimerosal, Swine Flu, global cooling, electromagnetic transmission, Laetrile, Alar, silicon implants, GMOs, dioxin, PCBs, BPA, pink slime and ad infinitum. Non liberals believed because they trusted government and the statist media. They couldn’t conceive so many people, so powerful would lie for so long.

  2. They confused politics and science – either intentionally or with reckless disregard. The UN-IPCC always was more about politics than science. The summary reports were the only ones the media read; these were prepared by appointed political bureaucrats pushing a big government agenda. The summaries often contradicted the main body of the report. Al Gore and the now infamous “Earth in the Balance” and “An Inconvenient Truth”  never were anything but advocacy pieces and  affronts to truth, science and logic.

  3. They vastly overestimated the number of scientists believing in man-made warming. There probably never was a majority who bought into the IPCC party line; many opponents were too afraid to speak up. Most scientists supporting anthropogenic warming were corrupted, or at least tainted, by past, present and hoped-for-future government grants; hence, they were not independent. Liberals chose to ignore the large number of  independent, non-tainted scientists who were critical. There always was a large cohort, now a large and increasing majority, who did not accept the warmist mythology.

  4. They failed to understand and to respect the nature of science. With reference to number 3 supra, the number of scientists who believed or disbelieved was meaningless and is antithetical to science. Science is about the scientific method – objective proof and replication and decidedly is not about opinion polls of scientists. Far too much faith was placed in computer models – now disgraced and discredited – which also is not science.

  5. They ignored powerful and abundant warning signs they were wrong: (1) No scientists or warming advocates (Al Gore) would debate. If the science truly were settled, the pro warming advocates should have been eager for a debate as they could have crushed their opponents. (2) Temperature readings elsewhere in the solar system moved in lockstep with Earth’s providing powerful evidence warming was solar and not man-made. (3) The Antarctic icecap (10 times the size of the Arctic icecap) has been increasing. (4)  There has been no observed warming for the past 17 years. (5) Vast unexplained discrepancies arose between real world events and climate computer models. (6) There was mounting evidence that warming, far from being a grave peril, was a boon to both man and planet.
      Even if the warmists had been right, their proposed cures were disastrous. Their cure was to bankrupt the entire planet to bring about tiny marginal gains over a great period of time. They would have wrought untold misery for everyone. If we instead followed policies promoting economic growth, the increased wealth generated over time would have permitted even Bangladesh to build a world class (think Holland) flood control system long before it was needed. Moreover, the Bangladeshis would all have been rich rather than impoverished by liberal dogma. The liberal solution was to destroy Bangladesh in order to save it.
“From fluoridation to pink slime and everything in between, liberalism is a lie.” 
     Liberal religion always trumps truth, science and logic. Liberals have been wrong since at least the 1950s – from fluoridation to pink slime and everything in between. Even rats eventually learn to avoid electrical shocks – but then again it is not about religion to them.
     There is no significant anthropogenic warming and natural solar warming is a benefit to our planet and to all its denizens – perhaps until the 22nd century. Get used to it and learn to like it!