Climatology

Four years old but so accurate for today, Thomas Sewell on Global Warming and other causes

Author Thomas Sowell argues that public demand for intellectuals is largely manufactured by intellectuals themselves. He says intellectuals make alarming predictions using causes like global warming to create a need for their services.

Which brings us to New Zealand.    Read more »

Top meteorologist claims Climate change PROVED to be ‘nothing but a lie’

The wheels are systematically coming off the climate change trolley.

Now a top meteorologists claims that climate change is nothing but a lie.

THE debate about climate change is finished – because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s leading meteorologists has claimed.

John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.

Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.

In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: “The ocean is not rising significantly.

“The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.  Read more »

Wheels coming off the global warming trolley

For sometime now it has become increasingly obvious that none of the predictions of the climate change alarmists have come true.

The models are hopelessly flawed, the glaciers aren’t disappearing, neither is the sea ice at either pole.

Basically pretty much everything is being shown to be a lie.

Now the statistics are unravelling as Judith Curry points out in the Wall Street Journal. The numbers simply don’t add up.

According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing “dangerous human interference” with the climate is defined, rather arbitrarily, as limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850-1900. This leaves 1.2 degrees Celsius (about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to go.

In its most optimistic projections, which assume a substantial decline in emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the “dangerous” level might never be reached. In its most extreme, pessimistic projections, which assume heavy use of coal and rapid population growth, the threshold could be exceeded as early as 2040. But these projections reflect the effects of rising emissions on temperatures simulated by climate models, which are being challenged by recent observations.

Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but also on how “sensitive” the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower, and it may be several generations before we reach what the U.N. considers a dangerous level, even with high emissions.

The IPCC’s latest report (published in 2013) concluded that the actual change in 70 years if carbon-dioxide concentrations double, called the transient climate response, is likely in the range of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius. Most climate models have transient climate response values exceeding 1.8 degrees Celsius. But the IPCC report notes the substantial discrepancy between recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity and estimates from climate models.

Read more »

13 useful facts about Climate Change to rebut the Green taliban

Sick to death of having Green taliban busy bodies look down their nose at you, clucking their tongues and wagging their fingers that they know best about climate change.

Here are 13 facts to learn up to shove back into their faces.

Here are the known facts. Use them to protect yourself against the Green assault the truth:

  1. Both the Earth and the Sun pass through natural cycles. The Sun is currently in a cycle of lower radiation as signaled by fewer sunspots representing magnetic storms.
  2.  There is currently no global warming. The Earth has been in a cooling cycle for 19 years. No child who has passed through K-12 classes in school has experienced a single day of “global warming.
  3. Not one computer model that predicted increased warming has been accurate.
  4.  Carbon dioxide, (CO2) blamed for global warming, is not a “pollutant” despite a Supreme Court decision stating this. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% of CO2.
  5.  How can carbon dioxide be called a “pollutant” when it is directly responsible for the growth of all vegetation on the planet? Without CO2 there would not be a single blade of grass or a redwood tree. Or the animal life that depends on vegetation; wheat and rice, for example, as food.
  6.  There is zero evidence that carbon dioxide generated by human activities is causing catastrophic climate change. Climate is measured in centuries or shorter periods of many decades in order to determine its cycles. The weather is what is occurring where you reside and it changes every day.   Read more »

Where has all the warming gone?

People are starting to wake up to the fraud that is global warming.

A massive fraud perpetrated by vested scientific interests and busy body global politicians.

But it is a fraud nonetheless.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. Areport from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

Read more »

A reader emails about Climate Change

I received this polite email about climate change yesterday.

Hi Cameron,

I have been a regular reader of your blog for a number of years, and while your attitude can be at times combative, I appreciate the straight-up, “no bullshit” approach you take to both your content and your readers, and your emphasis on facts over rhetoric is refreshing, particularly in an environment where many of your peers in the information industry cannot be relied on to get things right. Unfortunately, there’s one subject on which I feel you have failed to meet your own high standards. That subject is climate change.

I have no doubt that your position on climate change was based on what you believed to be legitimate information at the time you formed your current views, but I do think that it’s an area you have neglected to look at again after making up your mind, and continuing to promote this position without ensuring that it can be reconciled with the actual state of the planet is doing both yourself and your readers a disservice. Every time you publish a post along the lines of “colder than average / coldest event ever, therefore global warming is a con”, you’re ignoring the fact that climate change / global warming on a planetary scale doesn’t mean that every part of the planet is warmer 100% of the time, nor that the warming of Earth’s climate as a whole can actually cause cooling in some areas. You’re also ignoring a very large body of evidence that the planet is in fact warming considerably.

I would like to respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue, openly, and from a neutral perspective. If you still feel that the evidence supports your position after genuinely researching the topic, I will be very much surprised.

I am fully aware you are more than capable of doing your own research, and finding your own sources which you believe to be trustworthy. Noting how busy you are though, I would like to point you in the direction of one resource I feel you may find useful if you’re pressed for research time – Ramez Naam’s book “The Infinite Resource – The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet” (I am happy to purchase an ebook copy for you if that would be useful). If you do nothing else, please at least read chapter five of this book – it’ll point out more than a few holes in your current position. All conclusions drawn or facts provided are fully cited, with an extensive bibliography of sources should you wish to follow up further. I should also point out that the book’s style alternates positive / negative perspectives, so if you do not read any part of the book other than chapter five, you’re only seeing a part of what the author’s trying to get across.

I have every faith that you will act with integrity and have the courage to change your currently held beliefs on climate change once you are in possession of the relevant facts – I only ask that you are open enough to take another look.

Read more »

Washington Post further dents Green’s raison d’ĂȘtre

The Greens are no good at economics or education or other things that matter to the general populace.

They turn to global warming as their scare story for the young to try and maintain a base.

The story is getting thinner and thinner with the Washington Post now declaring at the conclusion of their article:

To be sure, both sets of data points show an overall rise in temperature of +0.01C during the 2000s. But, if current trends continue for just a few more years, then the mean change for the 2000s will shift to negative; in other words, the warming would really stop. The current +.01C increase in temperatures is insufficient to verify the climate change projections for major warming (even the low end +1-2C) by mid-to-late century. A peer reviewed study in Nature Climate Change published in 2013 drew the same conclusion: “Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models,” it says.

Time to pack up the hemp bags and get a real job.

Their article though begins with showing a chart…and not the usual hockey stick lie, rather a chart that shows we are cooling not warming.

An article in Nature earlier this year discusses some of the possible causes for what some have to referred to as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus”.  Explanations include the quietest solar cycle in over a hundred years, increases in Asian pollution, more effective oceanic heat absorption, and even volcanic activity. Indeed, a peer-reviewed paper published in February estimates that about 15 percent of the pause can be attributed to increased volcanism. But some have questioned whether the pause or deceleration is even occurring at all.   Read more »

Five reasons voters don’t believe politicians about global warming

The Washington Post has an article about the five reasons why people don’t believe the White House about global warming…it applies here as well.

1. Overreach. The White House doesn’t just want it both ways, it wants it every way. Increasingly, when there is a topical weather event, be it a warm typhoon in the Pacific or a cold snap in the United States, we hear it is caused by global warming.  But non-events, such as fewer tropical storms becoming hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico or the frustrating, inconvenient truth that there hasn’t been any warming in the past 15 years, are dismissed as meaningless because we are told you must evaluate climate change over the long term. On Tuesday, President Obama even took time to meet with local and national weather reporters as a way of emphasizing the effects of global warming on today’s weather. The left is inconsistent in its selection of what factors and events “prove” that manmade global warming is real.

2. Hypocrisy. Voters notice that the founding father of the global warming movement, Al Gore, has become fabulously wealthy by selling out to Middle Eastern oil and gas interests. Voters notice the mansions, private planes and the super-wealthy lifestyle.  And Gore is not the only global warming hypocrite. I would guess that after he leaves office, President Obama will never again fly on a commercial airline – and he will probably be traveling by Global Expresses, Gulfstreams and the occasional large Falcon, not even on the more modest, smaller private jets. Voters are on to the fact that the global warming crusaders want us to pay more and live with less — but, of course, the rules don’t apply to the politicians who want everybody else to sacrifice. Not to mention, the people who insult and belittle anyone who has a question about the “science” of man made global warming are often the same people who categorically dismiss the scientific proof of the viability, safety and reliability of nuclear energy. I have a little test for the global warming crusaders: If you’re not for nuclear energy and against ice cream, your commitment to the cause is questionable.    Read more »

State funded Australian academic advocates for prosecution of climate deniers

Lawrence Torcello

Lawrence Torcello

On 13 March 2014 Australian academic, Lawrence Torcello, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote a post on a state funded website advocating for the prosecution of people for simply holding a contrary view on climate change to him.

For someone who studies ethical theory, and applied ethics, social and political philosophy he sure has a funny way of showing his support for freedom of speech…in other words he wants to silence dissenters.

The site he posted on is funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, ACU, ANU, ASB, Canberra, CDU, Curtin, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, JCU, La Trobe, Massey, Murdoch, Newcastle, QUT, SAHMRI, Swinburne, Sydney, UNE, UniSA, USC, USQ, UTAS, UWS, VU and Wollongong.

This is what he advocates:

The importance of clearly communicating science to the public should not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death. When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on. With such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.

[…]

We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.

Criminal negligence is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can reasonably predict the public’s diminished ability to respond to climate change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists.  Read more »

The climate essay warmists are trying to suppress

NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on politix.topix.com only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the topix.com editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.

Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso

Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso

The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to “wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,” while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that “unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.” 

Really? Is Earth’s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?

In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).    Read more »