The right strategy wins the war WeatherShop.com Gifts, gadgets, weather stations, software and more...click here!\
The Blogosphere
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Lessons from Dorian and more

image
image
Hudson Litchfield News September 20, 2019

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM , AMS Fellow

WEATHER

Dorian was a classic hurricane.

image

It’s hurricane winds savaged the northernmost Bahamas as a CAT5 storm but then as a weakening hurricane skimmed the southeast coast, southeast New England until pounding the Canadian Maritimes, often the graveyard for tropical and winter storms.

image

Nothing is new in weather. Great Colonial hurricanes in the northeast with storm surges up to 20 feet occurred in 1635 and 1675. In the Caribbean, the Great Hurricane of 1780 killed an estimated 27,500 people while ravaging the islands of the eastern Caribbean with sustained winds estimated to top 200 mph. It was one of three hurricanes that year with death tolls greater than 1000. 

The late 1880s and 1890s were very active.  1893 had at least 10 hurricanes. Of those, 5 became major hurricanes. Two of the hurricanes caused over two thousand (2000) deaths in the United States; at the time, the season was the deadliest in U.S. history. The great Galveston hurricane in 1900 killed as many as 12,000 people as its storm surge flooded the island.

Hurricanes recurve north as soon as the opportunity presents itself. Like the ocean currents and non tropical storms, these storms help move heat north from the tropics where there is a net surplus of heat to northern latitudes where there are deficits. It this exchange did not happen, the northern areas would continue to get colder, tropical regions warmer.  Sometimes the storms stall or loop if a blocking high pressure prevents their escape north. Often this happens over the open ocean. In Dorian’s case, sadly the stall occurred over the Grand Bahama and Great Abako islands with catastrophic results.

It was the 10th strongest Atlantic storm since 1900. The strongest, also a Labor Day storm, hit the Florida Keys in 1935.

Hurricane and major hurricane landfall trends have been down since the late 1800s. We had a record stretch of almost 12 years without a major landfalling hurricane before Harvey and Irma in 2017 and last year Michael. Dorian made first U.S. landfall in North Carolina but was no longer a major storm.

image

We have passed the peak of the hurricane season (September 10) but are still vulnerable into October even here in the northeast.

Should we worry here in New Hampshire?  Yes, we should increase the awareness of the real threats and ways to protect your home and family.

Thanks to Hudson Cable TV, we have been given the chance to produce a series on the great hurricanes of the past called “Preparing for the Inevitable” with Joe Bastardi, his dad Matt and son Garrett, meteorologist Herb Stevens and storm chasing meteorologist Ron Moore (who last week was in Dorian’s outer bands).

We are very concerned about the inevitable return of a storm like the CAT3 Hurricane of ‘38, which fell 2 billion trees in the northeast as it traveled at 47 mph on a southeast to northwest path through New England. Matt Bastardi was in that hurricane as a boy in Providence, RI. He and I were both survived Hurricane Carol in 1954. Parts I and II were meteorological reviews of the great storms, Part III with FLASH’s Leslie Chapman-Henderson provided recommendations about how you should prepare here for the eventual return of a big one that could damage your home and keep us in the dark for many weeks even as winter comes on. Part IV has been added where we discuss and show how we can prepare for a storm like that. They also apply to the ice storms we get that can bring down trees and put us in the dark for many days. The shows cycle on cable but can be found here anytime.

SHOW 1 here.

SHOW 2: here

SHOW 3: here

Show 4: here

CLIMATE

Do we have an existential threat due to climate change as the seven hour CNN climate change scareathon and the candidates now barnstorming the state are claiming. The answer is an absolute NO. In the 1970s we were told because of population growth, climate stress (then cold), insufficient energy and crop failures within a decade, 100,000s of millions would die, tens of millions in the U.S. and it was too late to stop.  Even as each dire forecast failed, the scares continued, with the date just push forward - 2000, 2020, and now 2030. BTW, they quietly removed snow and ice covered signs at Glacier National Park this season that said, “Warning: glaciers will be gone by 2020.”

We put together a team of scientific experts and looked at the 12 most commonly reported claims and found them all unfounded see

Instead, as energy production increased and prosperity improved, global extreme weather related losses as a function of GDP declined 50% the last 3 decades and here in the U.S., there was a 98% decline in extreme weather deaths in the 20th century. 

In the U.S., with low cost energy, lowered taxes and reduced unnecessary regulations, we now have the lowest unemployment for the nation, for blacks, hispanics, women, young people in decades or history and for the first time in a long time significant wage increases! Here in NH, we have the lowest unemployment in the nation. The U.S. is energy independent, a long time thought unachievable goal. Our air and water is cleanest in our lifetimes well below the tough standards we out in places decades ago.

The real existential threat comes would come from radical environmentalism and the prescribed remedies. The scare is not based on fact but is politically driven, all about big government and control over every aspect of your life. They assume as Jonathan Gruber of MIT, an Obama advisor of health care, opined most people are ‘stupid’ and will believe what you say especially if the media provides an echo chamber. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff recently admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing"-- nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy.

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all, Saikat Chakrabarti said in May. He was echoing what the climate change head of the UN climate chief and the UN IPCC Lead Author said - that is was our best chance to change the economic system (to centralized control) and redistribute wealth (socialism).

The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path has been hurt. Renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow and sun shine. And don’t believe the claims millions of green jobs would result. In Spain, every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies and resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs were permanent.  Industry left and in Spain unemployment rose to 27.5%.

Many households in the countries that have gone green are said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). Their energy costs are up to 3 times higher than the U.S. The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating” and there are life-threatening blackouts.

image

Extreme cold kills 20 times more than heat according to a study of 74 million deaths in 13 countries. A new report by consulting giant McKinsey finds that Germany’s energy transition to renewables, poses a significant threat to the nation’s economy and energy supply which one of Germany’s largest newspapers Die Welt, summarized in a single word: “disastrous.”

I was asked by the NH Taxpayers Association to address ”Real Facts about the Climate”. I review all the climate facts and the scary dangerous impacts of radical environmentalism and big government takeover of our energy system (and with ‘healthcare for all’, all aspects of our lives).

See more on the fallacy of the millions of green jobs as promised by the scheming socialist candidates here. The GND that would cost the average family over $10,000 more per year. 

Also note:

Staggering energy prices are taking a toll on those unable to pay their bills, a UK regulator has admitted, confirming that thousands of people may have died because of fuel poverty and lack of heating during winter.

The most vulnerable households spend more on their energy bills than wealthier ones, and “can therefore be at greater risk of fuel poverty,” according to a comprehensive new study by the Office of Gas and Energy Markets (Ofgem) on Thursday.

Fuel poverty, a common UK term for customers who cannot afford to keep adequately warm at an affordable cost, “increases the risk that people [will] develop ill health,” it acknowledged.

Over winter 2017-18, we estimate that fuel poverty may have contributed to 5,500 excess winter deaths and that 16,500 excess winter deaths may have been linked to people living in cold homes.

Posted on 09/24 at 09:41 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Saturday, September 07, 2019
There is NO climate emergency!

UPDATE:

Epoch Times

In Unprecedented Move, Head of World Meteorological Organization Slams ‘Climate Extremists’

image

Petteri Taalas, the secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), told the Talouselama magazine in Finland that he disagrees with doomsday climate extremists who call for radical action to prevent a purported apocalypse.

Talaas said that establishment meteorological scientists are under increasing assault from radical climate alarmists who are attempting to move the mainstream scientific community in a radical direction. He expressed specific concern with some of the solutions promoted by climate alarmists, including calls for couples to have no more children.

“While climate skepticism has become less of an issue, now we are being challenged from the other side. Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists. They make threats,” Taalas said.

“The latest idea is that children are a negative thing. I am worried for young mothers, who are already under much pressure. This will only add to their burden.”

According to Myron Ebell, the chair of the Cooler Heads Coalition - an organization that challenges climate alarmism - Talaas’s remarks are significant because he heads the WMO. The WMO is one of the two organizations that founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

Climate activists claim we face a global warming emergency that demands we replace dependable, inexpensive fossil fuels with so-called “green” energy, such as wind and solar power. Not only would this starve society of the energy we need to survive. Real-world data demonstrate that there is no climate emergency! It is a manufactured crisis, created by vested interests - activists, scientists and crony capitalists - and adopted without question by opportunistic politicians, regulators and media pundits for their own interests.

But Climate Central and Michael Mann, of Mann made climate change fame, cherry pick data to try and keep the big lie alive.

John Christy shows the temperatures if you do not cherrypick the start of 1970 as Climate Central did and Michael Mann used.

image
Enlarged

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

In the below article, Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris explain that climate fluctuation we are witnessing today is simply the normal climate variability that has occurred throughout Earth and human history. The climate scare is based primarily on the output of computer models that do not work, because they focus predominantly on greenhouse gases, and because we do not yet understand planetary climate well enough to know what mathematical equations to program into the models.

However, there is a climate-related emergency, they conclude. It is the threat to our way of life, imposed on us by climate alarmists, many of whom do not really care about climate change, people or the environment. It’s time for people and governments to fight back.

Thank you for posting their article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,

Paul Dreissen

-----------

There is NO climate emergency!

Climate models predict disaster - but real world evidence shows no such thing

Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris

Speaking at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change, held July 25 in Washington, DC, Dr. Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville said: “There is no climate crisis. Even if all the warming we’ve seen in any observational dataset is due to increasing CO2 (carbon dioxide), which I don’t believe it is, it’s probably too small for any person to feel in their lifetime.”

And yet, that same month, Democrat Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Earl Blumenauer and Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a non-binding resolution that demands a “national, social, industrial and economic mobilization” - to “halt, reverse, mitigate and prepare for the consequences of the climate emergency, and to restore the climate for future generations.” Six Democrat presidential candidates immediately supported the resolution, as a way to spur “sweeping reforms” to stem a “dangerous rise in global temperatures.”

In their view, apparently, asserting a climate emergency makes it a reality and justifies national or even global control and transformation of our energy, social, industrial, economic, legal and social systems.

Thus, in an effort to drum up support for its costly “carbon tax,” the Liberal government of Canada has also declared a climate emergency. So has Britain’s Parliament, to back up a call by opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for “rapid and dramatic action” to protect the environment , following weeks of protests by the Extinction Rebellion climate movement, the Reuters News Agency reported.

The Climate Mobilization group proclaimed that “Over 790 local governments in 17 countries have declared a climate emergency and committed to action to drive down emissions at emergency speed.”

In considering whether this makes any sense, let’s take a page out of Blumenauer’s book and, as he put it, “tell the truth about the nature of this threat.”

The so-called emergency is based on nothing but the over-active imaginations of activists who put too much faith in computer model forecasts, while ignoring historic records and observational data that tell us nothing extraordinary or unprecedented is happening - and demonstrate that the models are wrong.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies asserts that between 1880 and 2017 there has been only slightly more than 1 degree C (1.8 F) rise in the so-called global average temperature, despite a supposed 40% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) database of state-wide extreme weather records, arguably the best of its kind in the world, shows that so far in 2019 only one weather record has been set: the lowest temperature in Illinois history.

In 2018, the only records set were: the largest hailstone in Alabama history; the most rainfall in a 24-hour period in Hawaii; and the most precipitation in one year in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia. Many of these records broke, sometimes barely, records that had stood for many decades. 

In 2017, the only record set was for the fastest wind gust in California. No records were set in 2016. In 2015, only two records: the most precipitation in a year in Arkansas and the largest hailstone in Illinois history. In 2014, only one record: the most rainfall in a 24-hour period in New York.

And so it goes, year after year, as we move into the past with the occasional state record set, as one would expect due to natural climate variability. In the first 18+ years of the 21st century, only two states recorded their maximum temperatures: South Carolina in 2012 and South Dakota in 2006. Contrast that with 1936, when 15 states set their all-time maximum temperature records.

Meanwhile, NOAA’s updated coastal sea level tide gauge data for 2016 show no evidence that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. Seas are rising no faster than they have for many decades.

NOAA’s hurricane records go back to 1851. The data show that for almost 12 consecutive years - October 24, 2005 (after Wilma) until August 25, 2017 (Harvey) - not one major or moderate (Category 3-5) hurricane made landfall in the continental United States. That is the longest such period in history. In 2018, for the first time ever, not one “violent” (F4-5) tornado touched down in the United States.

To the great frustration of climate alarmists, the real-world instrumental record clearly shows that, not only is no climate emergency underway, but today’s climate is actually quite stable. Aside from the drive for world socialism, the climate scare is based on only one thing: computer model forecasts of what some say could happen someday if we do not restrict our use of fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions.

However, the models do not work. That’s because they focus predominantly on greenhouse gases, and because scientists do not understand planetary climate processes well enough to know what mathematical equations to program into the models. Observations demonstrate that the actual rate of warming between 1979 and 2017 is one-third of what the average of 102 different climate models predicted. In fact, that climate model average is now almost one full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites have measured!

It is also important to realize that your own local weather forecasts just one week ahead are accurate only half the time. Let’s drill a bit deeper into this scandal.

For the better part of three decades, governments have financed more than one hundred efforts to model our planet. They continue to do so even though none of the models has been able to recreate (hindcast) the known past, or after a decade of study accurately predict what was to happen just ten years later.

People are led astray, because generally speaking, the public has no clue what mathematical models actually are, how they work, and what they can and cannot do. To provide a simple insight into this complex subject, before we build airplanes or buildings, we make small scale physical models and test them against the stress and performances that will be required of them when they are actually built.

When dealing with systems that are totally beyond our control, we try to describe them with computer programs or mathematical equations that we hope may give answers to questions we have about how the system works today and in the future. We attempt to understand the variables that affect the system’s operation. Then we alter the variables and see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing and is the very best use of mathematical models.

Historically, we were never foolish enough to make economic decisions based on predictions calculated from equations we think might control how nature works. Perhaps the most active area for mathematical modeling is the economy and stock market. No one has ever succeeded in getting it right, and they have far fewer variables than Earth’s climate, which is governed by many powerful natural forces.

Yet, today, in the climate sphere, we are doing just that - and using the models to justify massive changes in our energy and economic systems. While no one knows all the variables affecting climate, there are likely hundreds of them. Here are some important factors for which we have limited understanding:

1) seasonal, annual and decadal changes in solar irradiation; 2) energy flows between the ocean and atmosphere; 3) energy flows between the air and land; 4) balance between Earth’s water, water vapor and ice; 5) the impacts of clouds, both trapping heat below and preventing solar radiation from reaching Earth; 6) understanding the planet’s ice; 7) changes in mass among ice sheets, seal levels and glaciers; 8) our ability to factor in hurricanes and tornadoes; 9) the impact of vegetation on temperature; 10) tectonic movements on ocean bottoms; 11) differential rotation between Earth’s surface and its core; and 12) solar system magnetic field and gravitational interactions.

Despite this vast uncertainty, today’s modelers claim they can forecast our planet’s climate for decades or even a century in the future - by looking primarily or solely at “greenhouse gases.” And they want our leaders to manage our energy, economic, agricultural, transportation and other systems accordingly.

Yes, there is a climate-related emergency. It is the threat to our way of life in the free democratic world - imposed on us by climate alarmists, many of whom do not really care about climate change, people or the environment. It is an assault no less frightening and damaging than the wars that have plagued mankind since the dawn of time. It’s time for people and governments to stand up to the power-hungry alarmists.

Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Advisor with of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute, in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of ICSC and a policy advisor to Heartland. 

Posted on 09/07 at 01:55 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Wednesday, June 05, 2019
Global warming a ‘fear campaign’ by scientists ‘hooked on government grants’: Greenpeace founder

ICECAP.US is 12 years old with 117 million views.  We also maintain other sites like Redneckusa, THSResearch, and ACResearch). All these are done pro-bono. I have been part of and produced many cable TV weather shows on weather and climate including Winds of Change series for educators, also pro bono. I recently gave a talk to NH Taxpayers

And we are producing a four part series on “Preparing for the Inevitable” - the eventual return of a storm like the hurricane of ‘38 in the northeast. 

We have UPDATED on this site the 12 hyped climate claims. WE HAVE ADDED ALASKA AND UPDATED 5 more this week. The latest is always available by clicking on AC Research at the top of this page. IF YOU CAN SUPPORT THE TEAM’S EFFORTS IN ANY SMALL WAY, IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. Donate button is on the left.

Here is a video and post by Tony Heller on the laughable Union of Concerned Scientists

Link to post here.

A commenter Johansen said:

I just find this interesting...one determined citizen, armed with a computer and using publicly available information, “completely demolishes” a 52-page(!) bloated scientific piece written by 10(!) senior scientists over several months, plus 17(!) additional team members - no doubt funded by a $75,000 grant - published in one of our “best” scientific journals, complete with giant photographs of suffering people which have no connection to the story-line...and does it in one afternoon after lunch using quantitative-historical analysis. This illustrates so many thing…

Icecap worked with 14 real scientists to respond to a press release in 2014 by UCS rebutting all 8 claims here.

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

Global warming a ‘fear campaign’ by scientists ‘hooked on government grants’: Greenpeace founder

image

By Patrick Moore

March 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) - Conservatives have long argued that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a politically motivated distortion of climate science. Now that argument is being bolstered by an unexpected source: the co-founder of the leading environmental organization Greenpeace.

Patrick Moore, who is also a former president of Greenpeace Canada, appeared on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight for an interview with Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak.

“Fear has been used all through history to gain control of people’s minds and wallets and all else, and the climate catastrophe is strictly a fear campaign,” he said, adding that proponents of AGW - the view that human activity rather than natural phenomena is primarily responsible for Earth’s changing climate - is also fueled by “guilt” that “you’re killing your children because you’re driving them in your SUV and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

Moore argued that on top of “the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public” and the “media echo chamber ... repeating it over and over and over again to everybody,” the narrative is bolstered by “green politicians who are buying scientists with government money to produce fear for them in the form of scientific-looking materials” and “the green businesses, the rent-seekers, and the crony capitalists who are taking advantage of massive subsidies, huge tax write-offs, and government mandates requiring their technologies to make a fortune on this.

“And then, of course, you’ve got the scientists who are willingly, they’re basically hooked on government grants,” he continued. “Most of the scientists - put it in quotes, ‘scientists’ - who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money[.] [M]ost of what these so-called scientists are doing is simply producing more fear so that politicians can use it to control people’s minds and get their votes because some of the people are convinced, ‘Oh, this politician can save my kid from certain doom.’”

AGW proponents suffered a blow in 2010 with the discovery that their leading researchers, such as East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, had engaged in widespread data manipulation, flawed climate models, misrepresentation of sources, and suppression of dissenting findings.

Left-wing activists continue to claim there is a “97% scientific consensus” in favor of AGW, but that number is a misrepresentation of an overview of 11,944 papers from peer-reviewed journals. Sixty-six point four percent expressed no opinion on the matter; the 97% number refers only to the minority who did, and even that is disputed. The authors of the overview emailed the papers’ 29,083 authors, only 4% of whom responded at all. Many of the authors identified as endorsing the “consensus” later spoke out to say the overview had misrepresented their position.

“It is the biggest lie since people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. This is Galileo-type stuff,” Moore went on. “If you remember, Galileo discovered that the sun was at the center of the solar system and the Earth revolved around it. He was sentenced to death by the Catholic Church, and only because he recanted was he allowed to live in house arrest for the rest of his life.”

Moore’s retelling of the Galileo story reflects a prevalent myth rather than the historical facts. The point, per Moore, is the disconnect between AGW proponents’ conduct and their self-image as champions of scientific inquiry.

“This abomination that is occurring today in the climate issue is the biggest threat to the Enlightenment that has occurred since Galileo,” he declared. “Nothing else comes close to it. This is as bad a thing that has happened to science in the history of science. It’s taking over science with superstition and a kind of toxic combination of religion and political ideology. There is no truth to this. It is a complete hoax and scam.”

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

Icecap note: The AGW movement has indoctrinated the youth - following the Hitler meme “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future” Adolf Hitler

Posted on 06/05 at 12:40 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Friday, May 31, 2019
Rebutting claim: The active tornado season and spring flooding are caused by CO2 warming

Note the following is an addendum to the tornado alarmist claim rebuttals relative to the May tornado streak. The image at the top of the page can take you to the full updated alarmist claim rebuttal site with the latest updates as each season passes.

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

Just like the hurricane impact spikes in 2017 and 2018 after a record almost 12-year period without a landfalling major hurricane, tornadoes have bounced back big-time after 7 quiet years ending in 2018, the quietest in the entire record. But we will show you it was not global warming but actually a pattern with extreme persistent central and southwestern cold and precipitation that led to the tornado rebound and also the flooding that accompanied it.

image
Enlarged

This has been a cold winter and spring in much of the nation (except the southeast) and that has lingered through the entire spring.

In the cold air, snowpack has persisted in the west. Water and snowpack in the mountains of California ran 30% above normal for the Water Year (since October 1). This is true into the Rockies. The Denver Post on May 22 reported:

One year has made a massive difference in boosting Colorado’s snowpack.

Statewide snowpack was at a remarkable 202 percent of its season-to-date average as of Tuesday, according to official data from the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) website. This year’s snowpack is approximately five times larger than it was a year ago at this time. An NRCS estimate placed this year’s Colorado snowpack at 519 percent of May 21, 2018 levels.

Some parts of the state are running at more than three times their typical snow levels for the third week of May. In the San Juan Mountains, snowpack was at 302 percent of its season-to-date average. Here is a May 28 image from Silverton, Colorado.

image
Enlarged

That deep and very cold for May western trough helped pump up a warm southeast ridge the last few weeks.

image
Enlarged

During the winter and spring the pattern was very wet for most of the nation but especially the central. The soil moisture is at the highest levels - above the 99% percentile in parts of the central and the areas of drought is at the lowest level of the record.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

The late winter and spring rains, snowmelt and runoff from over frozen ground led to waves of extreme, in places record flooding.

image
Enlarged

When heat energy built in the ridge in Mid-May, the thunderstorms bringing heavy rains in the disturbances became increasingly severe, a phenomenon meteorologists call the ring-of-fire. 13 straight days of tornado outbreaks increased the tornado totals to well over 400 in May. The final tally will take months to reconcile as they remove duplication (often15%). May is the climatological peak but June is a close second.

image
Enlarged

The early season was active, mainly in the Gulf, fitting climatology. Since April, action has moved to the central and points east.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

In 2011, the last active tornado season, we had very extreme severe weather in the spring. It quieted in June.

image
Enlarged

We currently trail 2008 and 2011 year to date.

image
Enlarged

Claims that the increased storms are the result of climate change/global warming are not supported by the data.

2018 was the quietest tornado season - with 170 tornados in May compared to 442 to date this year. 2018 had a very warm May. Storms require contrast of warm and cold. We had very strong contrast this spring providing the ideal environment for heavy flooding and frequent strong tornados.

image
Enlarged

Major storms that produce heavy rains and outbreaks of severe weather occur with a rich moisture environment and strong jet streams that result from a significant contrast of warm and cold. In 2019, the U.S. faced high moisture levels and, as shown below, a very large temperature differential this spring providing the ideal environment for heavy flooding and frequent and strong tornados.

image
Enlarged

Major storms that produce heavy rains and outbreaks of severe weather occur with a rich moisture environment and strong jet streams that result from a significant contrast of warm and cold. In 2019, the U.S. faced high moisture levels and, as shown below, a very large temperature differential this spring providing the ideal environment for heavy flooding and frequent and strong tornados.

The most commonly used measure of the Pacific Basin temperatures is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO. When the eastern Pacific is cold, the PDO is negative.
The chart below depicts in orange columns, the number of strong EF3+ tornadoes per year since 1954. The annual PDO is the blue dashed lines. As shown in the figure, tornados are more frequent and likely to be stronger when the eastern Pacific is cold as it was from the 1950s to mid-1970s, as well as around 1999 and 2008 and 2011. This is because, as occurred this year, a cold eastern Pacific favors cold winters and springs in the west and central U.S. as well as warmer southeastern states.

image

The official, final value for the number of EF3+ storms in 2018 has not yet been released, but the number of EF3+ storms reported unofficially was less than half that of 2017, a new low.

Notice how cold eras and years tend to correspond with increased tornadic activity. This year, the PDO has behaved as it did in 1999, 2008 and 2011 when there were spikes in tornadic activity as noted above. Over at least the past century, the PDO has had a multi decadal cycle, and the warm phase is now over 40 years old. Thus, totally unrelated to CO2 emissions, a return of the cold PDO mode resulting in more tornadoes on an annual average basis is certainly now possible.

Posted on 05/31 at 04:54 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Wednesday, May 29, 2019
We Shouldn’t Be Surprised Renewables Make Energy Expensive Since That’s Always Been The Greens’ Goal

Note see also Shutting down middle and blue collar America by Paul Dreissen here.
Michael Shellenberger

The Green Party’s success in last weekend’s European elections will likely result in demands to expand and extend decades-old subsidies to renewables.

Like a lot of people, I used to think that subsidies to promote the switch from fossil fuels to solar and wind would be a one-time thing. Once a solar or wind farm was built, I thought, it would produce electricity forever, without further subsidy, because sunlight and wind are free. Renewables would thus allow a “sustainable” and even “circular” economy without waste or mining because everything would be recycled.

But it turns out that only nuclear can produce sufficient clean energy to power a circular economy.  That’s partly because nuclear plants have seen their efficiency increase dramatically. Nuclear plants used to operate for just 50% of the year. Now, thanks to greater experience in operations and maintenance, they operate 93% of the year. Nuclear plants were expected to run for 40 years, but thanks to greater experience, they’re expected to run for 80. And simple changes to equipment allowed the amount of power produced by existing nuclear plants in the US to increase the equivalent of adding eight full-sized reactors. 

By contrast, the output of solar panels declines one percent every year, for inherently physical reasons, and they as well as wind turbines are replaced roughly every two decades. As for circularity, solar panels and wind turbines are rarely recycled because the energy and labor required to do so are much more expensive than just buying raw materials. As a result, the vast majority of solar panels and wind turbines are either sent to landfills or join the global electronic waste stream where they are dumped on poor communities in developing nations.

And that’s just at the level of the solar and wind equipment. At a societal level, the value of energy from solar and wind declines the more of it we add to the electrical grid. The underlying reason is physical. Solar and wind produce too much energy when we don’t need it and not enough when we do. In 2013, a German economist predicted that the economic value of solar would drop by a whopping 50% when it became just 15% of electricity and that the value of wind would decline 40% once it rose to 30% of electricity. Six years later, the evidence that solar and wind are increasing electricity prices in the real world, often without reducing emissions, is piling up.

In 2017, The Los Angeles Times reported that California’’s electricity prices had risen sharply, and hinted it might have to do with the deployment of renewables. In 2018, I reported that renewables had contributed to electricity prices rising 50% in Germany and five times more in California than in the rest of the US despite generating just 17% of the state’s electricity.

And in April, a research institute at the University of Chicago led by a former Obama administration economist found solar and wind were making electricity significantly more expensive across the United States. The cost to consumers of renewables has been staggeringly high.

Two weeks ago, Der Spiegel reported that Germany spent $36 billion per year on renewables over the last five years, and yet only increased the share of electricity from solar and wind by 10 percentage points. It’s been a similar story in the US. “All in all,” wrote the University of Chicago economists, “consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy.”

Some renewable energy advocates protest that more evidence is needed to prove that it is renewables and not some hidden factor that is making electricity expensive.

But there is a growing consensus among economists and independent analysts that solar and wind are indeed making electricity more expensive for two reasons: they are unreliable, thus requiring 100% back-up, and energy-dilute, thus requiring extensive land, transmission lines, and mining.

After The Los Angeles Times failed to plainly connect the dots between California’s simultaneous rise in electricity prices and renewables, a leading economist with the University of California pointed out the obvious.

“The story of how California’s electric system got to its current state is a long and gory one,” James Bushnell wrote, but “the dominant policy driver in the electricity sector has unquestionably been a focus on developing renewable sources of electricity generation.”

Renewables Are For Degrowth

We shouldn’t be surprised that renewables are making energy expensive. For as long as Greens have been advocating renewables they have viewed their high cost as a feature, not a bug. Environmentalists have for decades argued that energy is too cheap and must be made more expensive in order to protect the environment. Greens viewed energy as the source of humankind’s destruction of the natural world and sought to restrict energy supplies in order to slow and eventually reverse the destruction.

Indeed, the reason environmentalists turned against nuclear energy in the 1960s was that it was cheap and effectively infinite. In the early 1970s, the Sierra Club’s Executive Director advocated scaring the public about nuclear to increase regulations to make it more expensive. And that’s what his organization, and many others, proceeded to do over the next four decades. But Greens got the relationship between energy and the environment backward.

As people consume higher levels of energy the overall environmental impact is overwhelmingly positive, not negative. As we consume greater amounts of energy we can live in cities, stop using wood as fuel, and afford to have fewer children.

And as humans use more energy for agriculture in the form of tractors and fertilizers, we are able to grow more food on less land, allowing marginal lands to return to grasslands, forests, and wildlife.

Over time, rising electricity consumption, such as for high-speed trains in population-dense places like Europe and Asia, drives the transition from fossil fuels to zero-emissions nuclear.

Engineers and other critics of renewables often assume Greens are simply misinformed. Many if not most of them are. I certainly was.

Few university environmental studies students today, for example, ever learn of the mostly positive relationship between rising energy consumption and environmental protection.

Fewer learn that the energy density of the fuel, whether wood, coal, sunlight, wind or uranium, determine energy’s environmental impact.

Because sunlight is energy-dilute, solar panels are the most extractive of all energy resources, requiring 17 times the resources as nuclear while returning just 2% the energy invested.

But the ideologically-driven leadership of European Greens and American environmentalists knows renewables make energy expensive and view raising energy prices as a high priority.

In 1994, then-Vice President Al Gore pushed an energy tax as a central plank in the Clinton administration’s environmental agenda, which later evolved into a complicated and corrupt “cap and trade” proposal. Such taxes hurt the poor the most and were wildly unpopular. As energy taxes failed politically, environmentalists in the US and Greens in Europe focused instead on subsidizing or mandating renewables.

At bottom, renewables make electricity expensive by returning so little energy relative to the energy invested. For instance, solar panels with storage deliver just 1.6 times as much energy as is invested as compared to the 75 times more energy delivered with nuclear. Greens and environmentalists also seek to make food, another form of energy, more expensive. They do so by making agriculture more labor-intensive, land-intensive, and resource-intensive.

Moving to organics, as Greens demand, and away from synthetic fertilizer to manure, would require doubling the amount of land required for agriculture. Currently, humans use a whopping 38% of the ice-free surface of the earth for agriculture. Moving to organics would thus decimate the 15% of the ice-free surface of the Earth that humans have to date protected for wildlife conservation, and destroy much beyond that, too.

Making farming more labor-intensive would take humankind back toward an agrarian economy where far more people work in farming, and everybody is much poorer.

Unlike the original New Deal, a Green New Deal would thus result in what Greens call “de-growth,” not growth. The idea of de-growth came out of efforts by Malthusian Greens in the 1960s and 70s to persuade developing nations to cede control of their natural resources to Earth scientists under the auspices of the United Nations.

Originally the Green Party in Britain advocated “deindustrialization, a return to living in small peasant communities, the sterilization of women and an end to all immigration.” It was only in the last decade that Greens started insisting that the renewables transition would “create jobs” as part of a Green New Deal. What they rarely mention is that the jobs are usually low-paying and low-skill, like spreading low-yield solar and wind collectors across landscapes, or collecting and spreading manure at organic farms.

Circling Down

There is a perfect fit between the abstract physical theories, economic predictions, and real-world effects of renewables. It was predictable that energy-dilute renewable fuels like sunlight and wind would require far more land than either fossil fuels or nuclear, and they do. It was predictable that renewables with such a low return-on-energy-invested would fail to produce enough energy to make recycling worthwhile, and they have.

And it was predictable that such unreliable technologies would make energy so expensive, and they did. Consider that while our high-energy economy can produce solar panels and wind turbines, a low-energy economy cannot. Imagine solar panels powering the mining, trucks, and factories needed to manufacture solar panels. There would hardly be any energy left over for society’s other needs.

In that sense, the renewables-powered economy is circular, but not in a way that produces abundant energy for infinite recycling. Rather, renewables-powered economies are circular in the sense of spiraling downward, as in a drain, or like a snake eating its tail until there is nothing left.

Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment.”

Posted on 05/29 at 08:18 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Friday, May 17, 2019
‘Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment’

Joe Bastardi, Daily Caller

Apparently, the new strategy to fight climate change is shock therapy. It’s like today’s environmental crusaders are channeling the Ramones song “Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment.” Here are some illustrations.

Example #1:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said she was only kidding around when she made a big deal about the world ending in 12 years.

Interesting.

I wonder if she had any idea that many of her followers believed her. So much so that mass-extinction protests started breaking out everywhere, with many of the participants quite young. Frankly, I don’t think yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is a joke, nor do I think joking about the world ending in 12 years is funny. But if it’s such a joke, why was it tied in with the Green New Deal? (Answer: That’s a joke too.)

Example #2:

Let’s take what Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf has enacted to combat climate change. It’s estimated his plan would drain billions of dollars from the state economy. It’s basically the PA version of the Green New Deal. Yet how much warming would it save? According to the chart below, no more than 0.0061F by 2100.

image
Enlarged

You can read the shocking details of what this is all about here.

Example #3:

Bill Nye decided on shock treatment in a recent video. Now, unlike a lot of people on my side of the issue, I have no animosity toward Bill. As a matter of fact, what Bill has done in bringing people to science at a young age is a great thing. I disagree with him on this matter, as you all know. But in an effort to shock the generation that grew up listening to him, he started using words that many of us from that generation no longer use. But the point is that, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Pennsylvania climate-action plan, this is designed as a “shock treatment” to set the stage for other things.

Shock treatment is for extreme measures. But take, for example, this Dr. Willie Soon plot of solar irradiance (a measure of solar energy) vs. water vapor:

image
Enlarged

Water vapor is the number-one greenhouse gas. So it’s no secret what temperatures do when water vapor increases.

image
Enlarged

That certainly appears more linked to temperature trends than does CO2.

image
Enlarged

Here is another example:

image
Enlarged

It’s interesting that geologists are not on board with the “consensus.” You’ll find a good read on this issue here.

Fact is, the cost of postage stamps is linked more closely with warming temperatures than is CO2. So should we demand the Post Office quit raising the price of mail?

image
Enlarged

Dr. Soon has published and been cited many times. I would venture to say more so than Bill Nye.

image

While shock treatment may be a remedy for some, it is generally considered a last-ditch effort. There is so much to be skeptical about regarding the cause of warming that it appears there is a form of desperation emerging here. Is it because environmental crusaders are truly concerned?

My better angels say yes, there are honest people who have true intent and absolute commitment. But when I look at the shock treatment occurring in Pennsylvania and its tiny impact on temperatures, one has to wonder if the intent is to slow down the American economy. Then when I look at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s comments, it reminds me of a child who said something wrong and then said he was only kidding.

This is all a form of shock treatment. It will be interesting to see what the next shock is.

Joe Bastardi, a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting, is a contributor to The Patriot Post on environmental issues. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore - and Others.”

Posted on 05/17 at 02:22 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Wednesday, April 03, 2019
The Biggest Lie Ever Told - Man-made Global Warming

We have started a new series of panels on this issue for presentations at venues in the northeast. We had 80+ in attendance at the first. Though we had problems syncing with the overhead projector at the venue. I provided a studio version in two parts. Please help support our efforts by clicking on the DONATE button on the left column where you can safely use PAYPAL.

We appreciate your support the last few years which helps defer some of the maintenance costs. This spring and summer we will be working on initiatives to fight the dangerous moves to abandon low cost energy sources for unreliable renewables. These energy sources ARE NOT FREE. Countries that have moved that way have seen electricity skyrocket. Look at your electrical bills and multiply by 3 and see what the future would look like. The real motivation is deindustrialize the west which means higher energy costs and lost jobs. As IER stated: “Escalating electricity prices are regressive-poorer people pay a much higher proportion of their incomes heating and cooling their houses than do richer people. As a result, these European countries have experienced an increase in energy poverty, and increasing signs of unrest related to energy pricing, such as the yellow vests movement in France.”

See how though the rich to whom the increased cost is pocket change can fly around the world in their private jets pushing people to deindustrialize and depopulate for the good of the planet, the families who earn less than $20,000/year already spend over 40% of their income on electricity, gasoline and gas/heating oil. How could they afford the 100-250% increases the move to renewables will produce?

image
Enlarged

Though they love to claim renewables will lower cost, the test regions the northeast with RGGI and California show the opposite is true.

image
Enlarged

See the heavy renewable countries worldwide are paying much higher prices. The renewables are unreliable and brownouts and blackouts are an issue, forcing them to rush build coal plants to keep their lights on. Here we have become energy net producer and have the cleanest air.

image
Enlarged

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

See Dr. Richard Lindzen’s lecture on Thoughts on the Public Discourse over Climate Change. See a team of scientists address those alarmist claims here.

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

Carbon Dioxide Only Causes Climate Change in UN IPCC Climate Models
Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris

Today’s climate change is well within the range of natural climate variability through Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history. In fact, it is within the range of the climate change of the last 10,000 years, a period known as the Holocene, 95% of which was warmer than today. Indeed, it is now cooler than the Holocene Optimum, which spanned a period from about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago. The Optimum was named at a time when warming was understood to be a good thing in contrast to the miserable cold times that periodically cripple mankind. A small group fooled the world into believing that warming is bad and that today’s weather is warmer than ever before, all caused by the human addition of a relatively trivial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. It is the biggest lie ever told, and that reason alone caused many to believe.

The lie began with the assumption that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature. In the historical record, temperature increases before CO2, so the benign gas is not causing temperature rise. Indeed, it cannot cause global warming or climate change. The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the computer models promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the main reason why the model predictions are always wrong. However, the objective of a big lie is to override the truth for as long as possible. Here are the original definition and objective of the big lie, quoting from Adolf Hitler]s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”

The comments relate to a big lie in a nation-state, but it, like the big lie about climate, was intended to achieve global status. Goebbels applied the big lie of Nazism with its ultimate goal of a Third Reich to rule the world for a thousand years. The UN created the big lie of global warming because it identified the enemy - industry and capitalism - while threatening the world with a potential global disaster. This supposed threat exceeded the ability of any individual nation-state to ‘solve,’ and that dictated the need for a world government. This is why the human-caused global warming lie was created by and perpetuated through the UN.

Some of the small lies used to perpetuate the big lie include:

- It is warmer now than ever before.

- There is more severe weather now than ever before.

- CO2 levels are the highest ever.

- Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels are the lowest ever.

- Extinction rates are the highest ever.

- Polar bear populations are in serious decline.

- Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.

The Obama administration ably perpetuated the lie through the bureaucracies of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Former vice-president Al Gore continues to spread the lie and tout it through his ironically;named movies, An Inconvenient Truth and An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. The real inconvenient truth is that in the week before he received the Nobel Peace Prize, a UK court ruled his first film was political propaganda with nine major scientific errors. He did not correct the errors and still spreads false information. Yet Gore is welcomed by mainstream media, who never question him about the errors or why his 2006 prediction that we had only ten years left to save the Earth from dangerous global warming was obviously wrong. This is not surprising because they never asked him about his lack of science and climate qualifications either. Goebbels understood this when he wrote,

“Let me control the media and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs.”

The big difference between the global warming lie and Goebbels’ big lie concept is that an open mechanism of changing government prevents the perpetuation of the climate lie. The Trump administration has proposed to establish a Presidential Commission on Climate Security, headed by former Princeton physicist Will Happer, to expose the climate lie by disclosing how the IPCC only examined human causes of climate change. They will show how natural climate change completely overwhelms any human effect. For example, human production of CO2 is less than the uncertainty in the measurement of the transfer of CO2 from two natural sources: the oceans, and vegetation and land. In other words, if we removed all the people from the planet, a scientist left behind to measure the CO2 levels would not detect any difference.

The ultimate lie is that members of the IPCC community are telling us the truth about the dangers of man-made climate change. In 1998, Kyoto Protocol supporter professor Tom Wigley estimated that, even if we met all the Kyoto reduction targets, it would only lower temperatures by 0.05C by 2050. After the Paris Agreement, Danish Statistician Bjorn Lomborg calculated that, if fully implemented, Paris would reduce the global temperature by 0.048C by 2100. And neither of these people question the politically-correct but scientifically-flawed view that CO2 is driving climate change.

Goebbels noted that the state can only maintain the lie as long as it can shield people from the economic consequences. Clearly, that is no longer possible as the costs of achieving such inconsequential results becomes better known.

image
Enlarged

The first group to do this thoroughly and objectively was the U.S. Senate. They realized that they would soon be required to consider the Kyoto Protocol. Rather than vote on it directly, they created the Byrd/Hagel Resolution which stated that America shouldn’t be a signatory to any agreement based on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that would seriously damage the U.S. economy and didn’t include emission reductions for developing countries that were similar to those imposed on the U.S. Like the 2015 Paris Agreement, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was based on the UNFCCC and had the potential to seriously damage the U.S. economy, while not holding developing countries to emission reductions similar to those imposed on America. That’s why Senators from across the aisle unanimously endorsed Byrd/Hagel, and why former President Bill Clinton never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification.

Even though the Senators were not questioning the big lie about CO2 and climate change in 1997, they saw clearly that action on any climate treaty or agreement by the U.S. did not justify the economic costs or job losses. And today’s Paris Agreement costs are also extraordinary. Based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise, the costs are forecast to be $1 - 2 trillion every year. It’s time for today’s Democrats to be as practical as their Congressional forebears.

About Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chief Science Advisor of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. Dr. Ball a renowned environmental consultant and award-winning former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, where he founded and directed the Rupertsland Research Centre. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. He has 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament.

Posted on 04/03 at 09:21 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Tuesday, April 02, 2019
Climate Change scientists who faked data are now desperately archiving it to cover their tracks

By Don Wrightman

image

The latest fake news on climate change suggests that scientists are copying as much US climate data as possible, because they fear the data might be wiped out under the Trump administration. The misleading article doesn’t account for the past three decades of corrupt climate data from politicized activist scientists, who may be getting the boot from the incoming administration. If anything, those scientists should be deleting the data to cover their behinds, not copying it.

The recent fake news headline, “Scientists are frantically copying US climate data fearing it might vanish under Trump,” would pose major problems for the scientists, if it were true. Government employees, who protect government data by transferring it into private servers, would be committing the same federal crime that plagued Hillary Clinton’s campaign efforts.

Among the shocking revelations from 2009’s Climategate emails was the destruction of raw temperature data, by scientists who were supposed to maintain it. At the admission Phil Jones, a Climatic Research Unit member at the University of East Anglia, original raw data had not been kept due to storage availability. That seems more inline with something corrupt scientists would be inclined to do, opposed to preserving data. The Competitive Enterprise Institute launched a lawsuit over climategate because the EPA’s climate policies rely on the data that had been destroyed.

It’s typical to see the climate alarmist establishment freaking out over a Trump presidency; they are now at risk of having their lies exposed. Donald Trump is in no mood to show mercy to those who have manipulated raw temperature data to exaggerate global warming. Climate alarmists are claiming that the Trump administration won’t look after the data.

A Trump advisor has called for NASA to return to its roots, and focus solely on space exploration, not climate research. NASA’s focus on climate research was a bureaucratic overreach for the aeronautic space administration.

Trump’s transition team has sent an inquiry to the Department of Energy asking for the names of employees who are associated with climate change. The incoming administration wants to know which members have been attending annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations, which department workers have attended meetings regarding the social cost of carbon, which employees receive the highest salaries, and which websites were maintained, or contributed to, by lab staff during scheduled work hours.

The questioning of the Department of Energy shows that Trump administration is preparing to do good work. Since the left-wing considers climate change to be among the highest of government priorities and a threat to national security, they should be happy to see Trump’s team making those inquiries.

image
Enlarged

Posted on 04/02 at 01:35 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Friday, March 15, 2019
Global climate change is political not scientific

UPDATE: We have updated the top 10 alarmist claims and added one on the recent nonsense that agriculture yields will collapse with continued change. See them here.

---------

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H. L. Mencken

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H. L. Mencken

Well before the climate change scare started, we were warned in 1961:

“… [In] the technological revolution during recent decades… research has become central ... complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government ... the solitary inventor ... has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields ... the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”
- President Eisenhower in his Farewell address

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

His words have been proven remarkably prophetic. What follows are quotes from some of the leaders in that movement. It exposes their true motivations and intentions. It proves this is political not scientific.

ONE WORLD GOVERNANCE IDEAS BASED ON POPULATION AND RESOURCE WORRIES

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
- The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE USE OF MODELS TO HYPE THREATS

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

”The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
- Al Gore, Climate Change activist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
- Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis...”
- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

‘The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”

- David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism.  I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
- Judi Bari, Principal organizer of Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environment Programme

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”

- Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund, Princeton Professor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

- Professor Maurice King

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
- David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance.”
- Former Washington State Democratic governor Dixy Lee Ray

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes challenge scientists to define a new social contract...a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding.”
NOAA’s Administrator Jane Lubchenko, when she was president of AAAS in 1999

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” In simpler terms, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.
- UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. “It is not. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
- IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE FACT THE MODELS AND ALARMIST CLAIMS ARE FAILING MISERABLY IS IGNORED VIOLATING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The great Nobel Laureate Physicist Richard Feynman taught students: “If a theory disagrees with experiment (or data), it’s wrong… That simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, or what your name is… If [your hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Einstein schooled his fellow scientists: “A model or a hypothesis cannot ‘prove’ anything. But data can invalidate a hypothesis or model. It takes only one experiment to prove me wrong.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

image
Enlarged

“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc). There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

See Dr. Patrick Moore, ecologist, radical environmental activist and co-founder of Greenpeace talk about his journey to the truth and skepticism. He speaks about the benefits of the demonized gas CO2.


Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change. This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.”
- Stephen Moore, author of Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic...on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections...proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
- MIT professor of atmospheric science Richard Lindzen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


- Nobel Laureate physicist Ivar Giaever changes his mind on global warming, recognizes it as a psuedoscience.

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

Above we have shown in their own words how the indoctrination of the world on the alleged perils of global warming evolved.

My philosophy when I taught college was to show my students how to think - not what to think. As Socrates said, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” I told my students that data is king, and models are only useful tools. Any model’s output or any theory needed to be examined and validated using data, and must always used with caution.  We have found no evidence here and here and even more here and here) that any of the claims are right.

See Stephen Moore’ right-on assessment here.

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

Judith Curry writes:

Kelly (2008) argues that “a belief held at earlier times can skew the total evidence that is available at later times, via characteristic biasing mechanisms, in a direction that is favorable to itself.” Kelly (2008) also finds that “All else being equal, individuals tend to be significantly better at detecting fallacies when the fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they disbelieve, than when the same fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they believe.” Kelly (2005) provides insights into the consensus building process: “As more and more peers weigh in on a given issue, the proportion of the total evidence which consists of higher order psychological evidence [of what other people believe] increases, and the proportion of the total evidence which consists of first order evidence decreases… At some point, when the number of peers grows large enough, the higher order psychological evidence will swamp the first order evidence into virtual insignificance.” Kelly (2005) concludes: “Over time, this invisible hand process tends to bestow a certain competitive advantage to our prior beliefs with respect to confirmation and disconfirmation… In deciding what level of confidence is appropriate, we should taken into account the tendency of beliefs to serve as agents in their own confirmation.  Kelly refers to this phenomenon as ‘upward epistemic push.’

I wrote about that same time on Icecap Why Bringing Sanity Back on Climate Change Won’t Be Easy.

And see the real story about the Paris Accord and Poland UN Climate Summit: Poland_real_story.pdf

Posted on 03/15 at 03:47 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


No, Climate Change Is Not Reducing Global Fish Catch

More lies meant to scare you from the fake news media like CNN, The Weather Channel, USA Today

By James Taylor

The news media recently published a barrage of stories claiming climate change is harming the global fish catch, but objective data show just the opposite. As the earth continues its modest warming, fishermen around the world continue to set new fish catch records nearly every year.

The lead article showing up in a Google News search for “global warming” on March 1 was an article published by Inside Climate News titled, “Climate Change Is Cutting Into the Global Fish Catch, and It’s on Pace to Get Worse.” Similar stories were published the same day by USA Today, CNN.com, The Weather Channel, and others.

The problem is, an examination of global fish data show there has been no reduction in the global fish catch. In reality, exactly the opposite is happening.

The World Bank hosts a webpage, “Total fisheries production,” that tracks the historical global fish catch. The World Bank data show a jaw-dropping increase in global production as the earth has warmed. Publishing data through 2015, the World Bank reports:

* 2015 was a record year for global fish production.

* The last year that did not set a new global fish production record 2001.

* From 2010 through 2015, global fish production increased by 19 percent.

* Since 2000, global fish production has increased by 46 percent.

* Since 1980, global fish production has more than doubled, up 165 percent.

* Since 1960, global fish production has more than quadrupled, up 440 percent.

By any measurement, over any time frame, global fish production is rising rapidly as the earth warms. And the pace of increase in the global fish catch is accelerating, especially since 2010. Yet climate alarmists and their compliant media allies spread the myth that “Climate Change Is Cutting Into the Global Fish Catch, and It’s on Pace to Get Worse.”

Sadly, the media’s misrepresentation of the global fish catch is similar to the media’s misrepresentation of virtually every topic regarding global warming. The environmental left and their media allies would have us believe global warming is causing an increase in crop failures, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and just about everything else that has to do with weather and climate. The objective data show exactly the opposite. Global crop production sets new records virtually every year. There has been no increase in drought. There has been a modest long-term decline in global hurricane frequency. There has been no increase in tornado activity, with a substantial decline in the occurrence of the strongest tornadoes.

Ultimately, the question is which is more credible; speculative theories and models presented by global warming alarmists or objective real-world evidence presented by climate realists that directly contradict alarmist assertions?

The ridiculous claims of a declining and worsening global fish catch perfectly illustrate the credibility gap in the global warming debate. The media articles on global fish production were based on a newly published paper that, according to the paper, “used temperature specific models and hindcasting” to report “an overall reduction in yield has occurred over the past 80 years.” Yet objective data falsify the models and hindcasting and show fishermen are catching quadruple as many fish as they did a half century ago.

Which do you believe, a hindcasting model claiming global warming has reduced fish yields or the objective data showing a tremendous increase in global fish production? The answer to that question illustrates the differences between alarmists and skeptics in the overall global warming debate.

James Taylor (JTaylor@heartland.org) is senior fellow for environment and climate policy at The Heartland Institute.

Posted on 03/15 at 09:29 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Friday, March 08, 2019
Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’

Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore described the cynical and corrupt machinations fueling the narrative of anthropocentric global warming and “climate change” in a Wednesday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak.

Moore explained how fear and guilt are leveraged by proponents of climate change:

Fear has been used all through history to gain control of people’s minds and wallets and all else, and the climate catastrophe is strictly a fear campaign - well, fear and guilt - you’re afraid you’re killing your children because you’re driving them in your SUV and emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and you feel guilty for doing that. There’s no stronger motivation than those two.

Scientists are co-opted and corrupted by politicians and bureaucracies invested in advancing the narrative of “climate change” in order to further centralize political power and control, explained Moore.

Moore noted how “green” companies parasitize taxpayers via favorable regulations and subsidies ostensibly justified by the aforementioned narrative’s claimed threats, all while enjoying propagandistic protection across news media”

And so you’ve got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You’ve got the media echo chamber - fake news - repeating it over and over and over again to everybody that they’re killing their children, and then you’ve got the green politicians who are buying scientists with government money to produce fear for them in the form of scientific-looking materials, and then you’ve got the green businesses, the rent-seekers and the crony capitalists who are taking advantage of massive subsidies, huge tax write-offs, and government mandates requiring their technologies to make a fortune on this, and then of course you’ve got the scientists who are willingly, they’re basically hooked on government grants.

When they talk about the 99 percent consensus [among scientists] on climate change, that’s a completely ridiculous and false numbers, but most of the scientists - put it in quotes, scientists - who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money. They are not being paid by General Electric or Dupont or 3M to do this research, where private companies expect to get something useful from their research that might produce a better product and make them a profit in the end because people want it - build a better mousetrap type of idea - but most of what these so-called scientists are doing is simply producing more fear so that politicians can use it control people’s mind and get their votes because some of the people are convinced, ‘Oh, this politician can save my kid from certain doom.’

The narrative of anthropogenic global warming or “climate change” is an existential threat to reason, warned Moore:

It is the biggest lie since people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. This is Galileo-type stuff. If you remember, Galileo discovered that the sun was at the center of the solar system and the Earth revolved around it. He was sentenced to death by the Catholic Church, and only because he recanted was he allowed to live in house arrest for the rest of his life.

So this was around the beginning of what we call the Enlightenment, when science became the way in which we gained knowledge instead of using superstition and instead of using invisible demons and whatever else, we started to understand that you have to have observation of actual events and then you have to repeat those observations over and over again, and that is basically the scientific method.

“But this abomination that is occurring today in the climate issue is the biggest threat to the Enlightenment that has occurred since Galileo,” declared Moore. “Nothing else comes close to it. This is as bad a thing that has happened o science in the history of science.”

Moore concluded, “It’s taking over science with superstition and a kind of toxic combination of religion and political ideology. There is no truth to this. It is a complete hoax and scam.”

Posted on 03/08 at 07:09 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Sunday, February 24, 2019
Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion

By Norman Rogers, American Thinker

William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States.  He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government.  His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive.  Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council.

The Trump administration is thinking of forming a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.” The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer.  That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can’t stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change.  The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer.

Following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization.  In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure.  A climate scientist at Georgia Tech says Happer has “false, unscientific notions.” We are reassured that the global warming scare is absolutely solid science, as everyone except climate deniers knows.

What everyone may not know is that climate science is an industry, and the product is the global warming scare.  If the global warming scare is discredited, the huge industry will collapse.  Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field.  The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world.  They won’t give up the glory without a fight.

Climate computer models, the basis of the doomsday predictions, disagree with each other and disagree with the climate of the Earth.  But according to the climate science mafia, anyone who brings up such embarrassing information is a tool of the fossil fuel industry.  As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry.  The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers.

Climate science has gone off the rails.  President Eisenhower nailed the problem in his 1961 farewell address.  He expressed the fear that because science had become heavily dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color the science in order to increase the flow of federal money.  Nothing works better for increasing the flow of federal scientific money than predicting a future disaster.  If scientists predict a disaster, we have to give them more money to research methods of preventing the disaster.

Since Eisenhower’s address, we have been treated to a parade of scientific doomsday predictions, none of which measured up to the hype.  There was global cooling that preceded global warming.  There were acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, overpopulation, and many others.  It is not only scientists who use a parade of disaster predictions.  Environmental organizations need doomsday predictions, too, in order to keep their members interested.  The press has a bias for sensationalism, so it too promotes the latest doomsday predictions.

Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers are supposed to put the interests of their clients above their own interests.  Doctors are supposed to put their patients’ welfare above their own pecuniary interests.  Journalists are supposed to be objective and not color their work with their own political preferences.  We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code.  Scientists are not different.  They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work.  They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing.  But these things happen.

Most scientists are not in a position to contradict global warming hype.  Science is a profession characterized by ideological schools and groupthink.  Groupthink is worst in sciences where the rules are not clear and the data are confusing - for example, climate science.  Young scientists depend on older, more senior scientists for recognition and promotion.  They are in no position to contradict groupthink.  They have families to feed.  The senior scientists may be running large scientific enterprises financed by federal money.  To express doubts about the mission or the truth of the groupthink would be to threaten their money and the jobs of people in their organization.

The consequence of the groupthink atmosphere is that dissenters come from the ranks of scientists removed from the pressure to conform - for example, retired scientists, amateur scientists, and scientists so accomplished as to be immune to threats and group pressure.  There are thousands of such scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hype.  When they speak out, they are attacked, and the attacks are usually vicious.  The members of the global warming establishment will almost never debate skeptics.  When this was done years ago, the skeptics were too credible.

Science is great, and our modern world is a product of science.  But scientists are humans, not gods.  They play the same games that other beneficiaries of federal money play.  We have been fooled over and over again by fake predictions of disasters or one sort or another.  The fake predictions are never completely fake.  There is usually some real science buried in all the hype.  For example, it is reasonable to expect that some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  What is probably a modest effect has been twisted and exaggerated into a doomsday scenario that demands that we save the planet.  The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored.  Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better with less water.  Greenhouse-operators use CO2-generators in their greenhouses.  CO2 is greening deserts.  How often to you hear about these benefits of CO2?

DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer.  But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria.  The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa.  DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.

Science has created institutions that serve to enhance the image of science.  For example, peer review often degenerates into pal review.  Scientific journals are often filled with papers of dubious value generated by a system that values quantity over quality.  The National Academy of Science pretends to give objective advice to the government, but often the advice is to appropriate more money for science.

Typically, when science invents a new doomsday theory, the environmental organizations embellish it with unscientific flourishes.  The scientist inventors of the theory don’t correct the environmental organizations because that would slow the momentum toward a new surge of federal money.  That should be an ethical violation.  Scientists should have a duty to set the record straight in such circumstances.

There is no simple solution to the parade of doomsday theories.  It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem.  Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending.

Norman Rogers is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.

Posted on 02/24 at 11:25 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Greatest Scientific Fraud of All-time: Part XX

By Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian

Since last October, this series has been sitting at the rather awkward number of 19 (or “XIX") posts.  Time to round it off at an even XX.

For those new to this topic, the Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the systematic downward adjustment of early-year temperatures in order to create a fake enhanced warming trend, the better to bamboozle voters and politicians to go along with extreme measures to try to avert the impending “climate crisis.” Prior posts in this series have documented large and unexplained downward adjustments at hundreds of stations around the world that are used by official government organizations (in the US, primarily NOAA and NASA) to wipe out early-year high temperatures and thereby proclaim that the latest month or year is “the hottest ever!” To read all prior posts in this series, go to this link. 

You might ask, with the extensive exposure of these unsupportable downward adjustments of early-year temperatures by official government organizations - accompanied by highly credible accusations of scientific fraud - haven’t the adjusters been cowed by now into a smidgeon of honesty?  It sure doesn’t look that way.

The latest news comes out of Australia, via the website of Joanne Nova.  Nova’s February 17 post is titled “History keeps getting colder - ACORN2 raises Australia’s warming rate by over 20%.” ACORN2” is a newly revised and updated temperature series for Australia, with temperatures going back to 1910 based on records from 112 weather stations on the continent, some 57 of which have records that go back all the way to the 1910 start date.  “ACORN” stands for Australian Climate Observations Reference Network.  The ACORN2 data compilation is so called to distinguish it from ACORN1, which was only released some 7 years ago in 2012.  The people who put out these things are the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

According to Nova, the latest temperature adjustments were released “oh-so-quietly.” I guess that the plan is just to start using the new figures as the historical comparisons and bet that journalists will be too stupid or ignorant to figure out that the earlier temperatures have been altered.  That’s actually a pretty good bet.  However, down in Australia they do have a hard-working group of independent researchers who are on top of this issue.  One of them is Nova, and another is Chris Gillham.  Gillham has done his own very detailed analysis of the adjustments in the ACORN2 report, and has also put up a post on same at Watts Up With That.  So there is plenty of information out there for intelligent people to make an independent judgment.

A few excerpts from Nova:

Once again we find that the oldest thermometers were apparently reading artificially high, even though many were newish in 1910 and placed in approved Stevenson screens.  This is also despite the additional urban warming effect of a population that grew 400% since then. What are the odds?!  Fortunately..., sorry scientists have uncovered the true readings from the old biased thermometers which they explain carefully in a 67 page impenetrable document… The new ACORN version has nearly doubled the rate of warming in the minima of the longest running stations.

Nova has put together several charts to show the magnitude of the adjustments, not only from ACORN1 to ACORN2, but also from the prior AWAP compilation to ACORN1.  To no one’s surprise, each round of adjustments makes the earlier years cooler, and thus enhances the apparent warming trend.  Here is Nova’s chart showing the amount of warming from the beginning to the end of the series, for each of AWAP, ACORN1 and ACORN2, and for minimum, mean and maximum temperatures:

image
Australia ACORN 1 and 2.gif

For example, the average minimum temperature had increased over the century covered by 0.84 deg C in the AWAP series.  That increased to 1.02 deg C in the ACORN1 series, and to 1.22 deg C in the ACORN2 series.

You need to go over to Gillham’s work to see how these changes derive mostly from decreases in early-year temperatures.  Here is a chart from Gillham on the changes to minimum temperatures at the 57 stations that go back all the way to the 1910 start:

image
Enlarged

As you can see, the “raw” and “v1” temperatures tend to be close - sometimes one higher, sometimes the other.  But v2 is significantly lower across the board in the earlier years.  Then, suddenly, in the recent years, it tracks the “raw” almost perfectly.

Do they offer a justification for these downward adjustments?  Yes, but nothing remotely satisfactory.  The one-word explanation is “homogenization.” OK, we understand what that is.  For example, sometimes a station moves, and that causes a discontinuity, where, say, the new location is systematically 0.1 deg C lower than the old.  An adjustment needs to be made.  But these sorts of adjustments should cancel out.  How is it possible that every time some official meteorological organization anywhere in the world makes some of these “homogenization” adjustments, the result is that earlier years get colder and the supposed “global warming” trend gets enhanced - always to support a narrative of “climate crisis.”

Well, fortunately, this time the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has put out a very long 57-page document explaining what they have done.  Here it is.  Is it any help?

As far as I am concerned, this is the definitive proof of the fraud.  If this were even an attempt at real, credible science, the proponents would put out a document complete with the details of the adjustments - and all of their computer code - so that an independent researcher could replicate the work.  Nothing like that is here.  This is pure bafflegab.  Nova calls it “impenetrable,” which is way too nice a word as far as I’m concerned.  Let me give you a small taste:

3. HOMOGENISATION METHODS

3.1 Detection of inhomogeneities - use of multiple detection methods in parallel

In version 1 of ACORN-SAT, a single statistical method for detection of inhomogeneities was used (Trewin, 2012). This method was based closely on the Pairwise Homogenisation Algorithm (PHA) developed by Menne and Williams (2009), and involves pairwise comparison of data between the candidate station and all sufficiently well-correlated stations in the region, with the Standard Normal Homogeneity Test (SNHT) (Alexandersson, 1986) used to identify significant breakpoints in the difference series. The test was carried out separately on monthly mean anomalies (as a single time series with 12 data points per year), and seasonal mean anomalies, with a breakpoint flagged for further assessment if it was identified in either the monthly series, or (within a window of plus or minus 1 year) in at least two of the four seasons. Further details of the implementation of the PHA in the ACORN-SAT dataset are available in Trewin (2012).

A range of other detection methods have been developed in recent years, many of which were the subject of the COST-HOME intercomparison project (Venema et al., 2012). Three of these methods were selected for use in ACORN-SAT version 2, the selection primarily based on ease of implementation. These methods were:

* HOMER version 2.6, joint detection (Mestre et al., 2013)

* MASH version 3.03 (Szentimrey, 2008).

* RHTests version 4 (Wang et al., 2010).

All of these methods, which use different statistical approaches, have been successfully used across a range of networks since their development. Further details on their implementation are given in Appendix C. 

My favorite part is that reference at the end to “Appendix C.” This document has no Appendix C.  There are three appendices, numbered Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.  That’s about the intellectual level we are dealing with.

Anyway, try going to this document and see if you can figure out what they are doing.  Believe me, you can’t.

And finally:  over the years as I have accumulated posts on this topic, several commenters have suggested that I must be alleging some kind of conspiracy among government climate scientists in making these adjustments.  I mean, without that, how does it come about that the Australians just happen to be making the exact same kinds of adjustments as NASA, NOAA, and for that matter, as the Brits at the Hadley Center in the UK?

If your brain is wondering how that could be, I would suggest that we have the same kind of phenomenon going on here as the hate crime hoax phenomenon.  How does Jussie Smollett just happen to fake a hate crime playing right into the progressive narrative of the moment - just as did the Duke lacrosse team hoaxer, and the Virginia fraternity hoaxer, and the Harvard Law School black tape hoaxers, and many dozens of others?  (Here is a compilation of some 15 recent hate crime hoaxes.) Did they all coordinate in one grand conspiracy?  Or did they all just realize what was needed from them to support their “team” and its narrative?

Posted on 02/20 at 10:08 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Tuesday, February 12, 2019
If Saving The Climate Requires Making Energy So Expensive, Why Is French energy so cheap?

Michael Shellenberger, Forbes

Ask almost any economist and she’ll tell you the same thing: if you want to save the planet from ‘runaway climate change’, you have to make energy expensive.

“Economics contains one fundamental truth about climate change policy,” wrote Yale University economist William Nordhaus in 2008, who won the 2018 Nobel Prize for his work. “For any policy to be effective in solving global warming, it must raise the market price of carbon, which will raise the market prices of fossil fuels and the products of fossil fuels.”

Various policies can be used to make electricity more expensive. For example, you can tax carbon emissions or put in place air pollution regulations.

However, the most popular way to make energy expensive is to do what Germany has done and that’s to subsidize solar and wind energies through a surcharge (or tax) on electricity

But such efforts beg the question: why, if making energy expensive is required to reduce emissions, does France generate less than one-tenth the carbon emissions of Germany at nearly half the cost?

Germany vs. France

Few nations have done more to make energy expensive in the name of saving the climate than has Germany.

A new study by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows how Germany, between 2006 and 2017, increased the cost of electricity for households by 50%.
image
Enlarged

The report, “The Costs of Decarbonization,” documents how the German government made electricity expensive by requiring consumers to subsidize solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy.

Lower costs of solar panels and wind turbines haven’t allowed Germans to spend less on renewable energy. In fact, they’ve had to spend more.OECD

This reality will surprise many journalists and other advocates of renewables who have noted how, over the exact same period, the cost of solar panels and wind turbines has declined dramatically.

It turns out that those lower costs haven’t allowed Germans to spend less on renewable energy. In fact, they’ve had to spend more.

Because solar and wind are inherently unreliable and energy-dilute, Germany has had to spend 27% more on things like transmission lines from distant solar and wind farms spread all throughout the country.

Has expensive German electricity lowered carbon emissions? It hasn’t. The country’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009. A big part of the reason has been due to the country’s attempt to replace nuclear power plants with solar and wind energies.

In 2018, German carbon emissions declined modestly, but only because of unusually warm weather and - ironically - higher nuclear output (4.9%) which grew more than renewables did (3.1%).

Promoters of renewable energy subsidies claimed in 2015 that the cost of electricity would peak in 2023, but the new OECD report concludes that electricity prices will increase as long as Germany keeps deploying solar and wind - in other words, indefinitely.

French electricity costs are just 59% of German electricity prices. As such, according to the prevailing economic wisdom, French electricity should be far more carbon intensive than German’s. And yet the opposite is the case. France produces one-tenth the carbon pollution from electricity.

Why? Because France generates 72% of its electricity from nuclear, and just 6% from solar and wind.

For years, Germany has been pressuring France, which has a smaller economy, to follow its lead and shut down its nuclear plants and scale up solar and wind.EP

Will France Follow Germany?

For years, Germany has been pressuring France, which has a smaller economy, to follow its lead and shut down its nuclear plants and scale up solar and wind.

France has increasingly done what Germany wants. According to the Commision de Regulation de L’Energie, Euro29 billion (US$33) billion was used to purchase wind and solar electricity in mainland France between 2009 and 2018.

But the money spent on renewables did not lead to cleaner electricity, according to a new analysis by my Environmental Progress colleagues, Mark Nelson and Madison Czerwinski.

In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity has increased. After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016.

The reason? Record-breaking wind and solar production did not make up for falling nuclear energy output and higher natural gas consumption. And now, the high cost of renewable electricity is showing up in French household electricity bills.

image
Enlarged

German electricity is nearly 10 times more carbon-intensive than France’s EP

According to Eurostat, although French households pay 41% less than German households, electricity in France has, over the past decade, been increasing in price much faster than electricity in Germany.

“French prices have increased 45% since 2009 as compared to 29% in Germany and 25% in the EU,” note Nelson and Czerwinski.

This is a problem, they note, because “Expensive electricity acts as a disincentive to electrify transportation, heating, and cooking, which together constitute a larger share of energy, and carbon emissions, than electricity.”

The two arrive at a shocking conclusion: “France could have completely decarbonized its electricity sector had it spent $32 billion on new nuclear plants rather than on renewables like solar and wind.”

And were France to keep operating Fessenheim, a nuclear plant scheduled to be closed in 2020, start-up a new nuclear plant called Flamanville, build three more reactors the same size, and operate each nuclear plant an average of 85 percent of the year instead of its current average of 70 percent, it could generate sufficient zero-carbon electricity to completely decarbonize its road transportation sector.

But France appears unwilling to do that. Instead, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, announced recently that he will stick with plans to reduce the nation’s usage of its nuclear plants, increase its output of renewables, and thus - necessarily - increase energy prices.

As such, Macron appears to have learned little from last year’s Yellow Vests protests, which were triggered after he did what economists and Germans alike have long insisted he must do in order to address climate change: raise gasoline and diesel prices by taxing carbon emissions.

Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment.”

Posted on 02/12 at 11:54 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Friday, February 08, 2019
Climate change alarmists burned by studies showing destructive wildfires in decline

Update see more here and as part of the 11 rebuttals here.

Global burned area dropped by about 25 percent over the previous 18 years, study shows

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Monday, July 30, 2018

image

Scenes of Californians fleeing their homes and Greeks swimming out to sea have fueled alarm about climate change fueling deadly wildfires, but recent studies show that such destructive blazes are on the decline worldwide.

A September 2017 report in the journal Science found that global burned area dropped by about 25 percent over the previous 18 years, a finding consistent with a May 2016 paper published by the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

“[G]lobal area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago,” said the study by British researchers at Swansea University.

Even in California, which for years has wrestled with fire devastation, a study in the International Journal of Wildland Fire found that the number of wildfires burning more than 300 acres per year has been tailing off since a peak in 1980.

“The claim commonly made in research papers and the media that fire activity is increasing throughout the western USA is certainly an over-statement,” the authors, Jon E. Keeley and Alexandra D. Syphard, said in The Orange County Register.

Mr. Keeley is a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and Ms. Syphard is with the Conservation Biology Institute.

Such findings appear to fly in the face of widespread reports that human-caused global warming is increasing the severity and frequency of wildfires by fueling drought and higher temperatures.

“Extreme heat and wildfires made worse by climate change, say scientists,” an Associated Press article proclaimed this week on NBC News.

“We now have very strong evidence that global warming has already put a thumb on the scales, upping the odds of extremes like severe heat and heavy rainfall,” Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh told the AP.

Yale Environment 360 declared in an Oct. 2 article, “Stark Evidence: A Warmer World Is Sparking More and Bigger Wildfires,” and concluded that “the fires being seen today ... are man-made, or at least man-worsened.”

This year’s U.S. wildfire season was forecast to be worse than average, and so far it has kept with predictions, with 98 wildfires blackening 4.6 million acres as of Monday, more than the 10-year average of 3.7 million acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

California has been hit hardest, but firefighters made progress Monday. They lifted some evacuation orders on the Carr fire in Shasta County about 150 miles north of Sacramento, the deadliest and most destructive of the blazes, and reached 30 percent containment on the Ferguson fire near Yosemite National Park.

Six people have been killed so far in the California wildfires, including two firefighters, a great-grandmother and two of her great-grandchildren. About 410,000 acres have burned across the state amid unpredictable winds and high temperatures.

The death toll in Greece rose to 91 on Sunday as wildfires swept through seaside communities, at one point sending dozens of people out to sea to escape the flames engulfing the resort town of Mati, as shown on a dramatic video.

California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, cited global warming last week as a factor in his proposal to reduce the legal liability of Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the utility company whose equipment was found to have sparked 15 of the state’s 2017 wildfires.

Mr. Brown and legislative leaders announced amended legislation July 2 to heighten California’s wildfire response, saying the effort “will help prepare the state to deal with the increasingly extreme weather and natural disasters caused by climate change.”

In a May report, “Indicators of Climate Change in California,” state Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Matthew Rodriguez said extreme weather events like wildfires are “not isolated incidents.”

“They are suggestive of the significant and increasingly discernible impacts of climate change in California,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “The most dramatic impacts include wildfires that are larger and more frequent, and the most severe drought since recordkeeping began.”

Others have argued that news coverage of fire disasters has contributed to the perception that wildfires driven by increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are raging out of control, despite evidence to the contrary.

“[M]any consider wildfire an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses,” said the Royal Society paper. “However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived trends.”

In the Western United States, the study found that the limited data on fire severity “indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement.”

What’s responsible for the drop-off? The Science article pointed to an expansion of agriculture production in savannas and grasslands, resulting in a roughly 25 percent decrease in global burned area “despite the influence of climate.”

The discrepancy was not lost on climate skeptics such as Australia’s JoNova, who concluded Monday, “Global warming means a global fall in wildfires.”

Anthony Watts, who runs the Watts Up With That website, added: “Remember when we were told that wildfires would increase due to global warming? Never mind.”

University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor Clifford Mass said a host of factors may have contributed to this year’s California wildfires, including a modest temperature increase over the past several decades.

Add to that the drought, an increase of non-native invasive species, a huge influx of homeowners in fire-prone areas and aggressive fire suppression in the first half of the 20th century that left some forests overgrown and ripe for ignition.

“So there is a lot of talk of climate change ‘supercharging’ fires, but really no proof of it,” Mr. Mass said in an email. “And some fires are clearly NOT associated with climate change, like the wine country fires of last October.”

His conclusion? “I suspect climate change is a minor element in the CA wildfires, while fire suppression and human population growth into the wildlands are the dominant elements.”

See more on the 11 major alarmist claims here. More detail with charts and data is provided in the clicks following each summary.

Posted on 02/08 at 07:59 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink


Page 1 of 92 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »
Blogroll

Raptor Education Foundation

Climate Skeptic

John Daly’s What the Stations Say

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog

CO2 Sceptics

Tom Skilling’s Blog

Demand Debate

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Landsurface.org, The Niyogi Lab at Purdue

Scientific Alliance

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint

James Spann’s Blog

The Week That Was by Fred Singer

Weatherbell Analytics

The Inhofe EPW Press Blog

Anthony Watts Surface Station Photographs

The Weather Wiz

Tom Nelson Blogroll

Accuweather Global Warming

CO2web

MPU Blog

Carbon Folly

Climate Research News

Global Warming Scare

Warmal Globing

Right Side News

The Resilient Earth

World Climate Report

Raptor Education Foundation

Climate Resistance

Bill Meck’s Blog

Gary Sharp’s It’s All About Time

Art Horn’s “The Art of Weather”

Tallbloke

Bob Carter’s Wesbite

Redneck USA

Climate Audit

Wisconsin Energy Cooperative

Watts Up with That?

Prometheus

Vaclav Klaus, Czech Republic President

John Coleman’s Corner

Ice Age Now

Climate Police

The Climate Scam

Dr. Roy Spencer

Climate Depot

Digging in the Clay

Roy Spencer’s Nature’s Thermostat

Climate Debate Daily

COAPS Climate Study US

Dr. Roy Spencer

APPINYS Global Warming

Hall of Record

Science Bits

Craig James’ Blog

CO2 Science

Gore Lied

Omniclimate

Earth Changes

Greenie Watch

The Cornwall Alliance

John McLean’s Global Warming Issues

Ross McKitrick Google Home Page

Middlebury Community Network on The Great Global Warming Hoax

Science and Public Policy Institute

Joanne Nova- The Skeptic’s Handbook

Where is Global Warming (Bruce Hall Collection)

Climate Cycle Changes

Climate Change Fraud

Warwick Hughes

Cornwall Alliance

Carbonated Climate

Marshall Institute Climate Change

Junk Science

I Love My Carbon Dioxide

TWTW Newsletters

Metsul’s Meteorologia

Powerlineblog

Analysis Online

Global Warming Hoax

Global Warming Skeptics

Reid Bryson’s Archaeoclimatology

Science and Environmental Policy Project

Global Warming Hoax

Web Commentary

Musings of the Chiefio

The Heartland Institute

The Reference Frame - Lubos Motl’s weblog

Climate Debate Daily

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

Blue Hill Observatory, Milton MA

Energy Tribune

Bald-Faced Truth

Climate Debate Daily

Tropical Cyclone Blog of Ryan Maue COAPS

Dr. Dewpoint on Intellicast

Blue Crab Boulevard

Finland Lustia Dendrochronology Project

AMSU Global Daily Temps