Climatology

Christopher Booker on climate fraudsters and charlatans

Christopher Booker writes at the Telegraph about climate scaremongers who are still twisting the evidence over global warming:

When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.

They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt. But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.

Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports – another emerged last week – and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.  Read more »

Haven’t they got plenty already?

NIWA is seeking amateur scientists….snigger.

Jamie Morton reports:

Fancy yourself as a climate scientist?

A new climate science experiment, launched online today, is allowing weather enthusiasts to be part of the picture by lending their computers’ processing power.

Volunteers are being sought for the Weather@home ANZ project, launched today by the National Institute for Water and Atmosphere in collaboration with researchers from the UK and Australia.

It will enable the public to contribute to scientists’ understanding of how climate change might be affecting weather in New Zealand and Australia – and a desktop computer and internet connection is all that’s needed.

NIWA climate scientist and New Zealand programme leader Dr Suzanne Rosier said the initial aim of the project was to improve understanding of how extreme weather conditions such as heatwaves and drought may be changing.  Read more »

Perhaps the extreme weather is actually caused by Global Cooling

The warmist claim, every time there is a severe weather event, that it has been caused by the ever increasing global temperature. They use extreme weather events to force people to believe their manufactured liesa bout catastrophic human induced global warming.

Never mind that the planet hasn’t warmed a bit in over 17 years. Ignore the fact that all of the computer models predicting massive temperature rises have failed to come remotely close to actuality.

And never mind that in 1974 scientists were warning that ever worsening global cooling would lead to more catastrophic extreme weather events.

Steve Goddard tips me to this article in the Canberra Times on May 16th, 1974:

SUPPORT FOR A THEORY OF A COOLING WORLD   Read more »

Top Ten Reasons for the “Pause” in global warming

via Watts Up With That

The latest theory for the “pause” in global warming is…wait for it…coincidence. I kid you not…now there are 10 supposed reason for the “pause”…here they are:

There is a new paper by Gavin Schmidt et al that comes in as #10 in the growing list of explanations for ‘the pause’. Now that we have a top ten list, let’s review:

  1. New study claims hi caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!
  2. THE OCEANS ATE OUR GLOBAL WARMING! Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013. But the heat will come back when you least expect it.
  3. Chinese coal caused the ‘pause’, published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The study blamed Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. Global warming proponents essentially claimed that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming. Kaufmann et al 2011.
  4. The Montreal Protocol caused the ‘pause‘, which reduced CFC’s – but warming will return soon. Estrada 2013.
  5. Cowtan and Way’s (2013) underrepresented Arctic stations get adjustment to fiddle the numbers so that ‘pause’ never existed, but not so fast. It seems all isn’t quite as it seems. Dr. Judith Curry doesn’t think much of it either.    Read more »

More from Krauthammer on Climate Change and ‘settled science’

Yesterday I posted a video from Charles Krauthammer…today we can read a bit more from his Washington Post article.

I repeat: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less) or be subject to termination.

Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery.

So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?

The science is never settled…as we learn more we discover more.

They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.” Not surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly wrong” in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy — and always, amazingly, in the same direction.   Read more »

Over-the-top “catastrophism.”

Richard Lindzen brings some clarity to the “over-the-top “catastrophism” of the politicians and green taliban pushing the global warming/climate change agenda.

Though Lindzen is a warmist…it looks like he has had enough of the machinations, manipulations and out-right deceptions of politicians and green taliban.

A leading climate change figure has come out against the government’s continued and ridiculous climate change hysteria.

Speaking in regards to Massachusetts’ new $50 million climate change proposal, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a leading figure in the climate change movement, pointed out the absurdity of blaming every weather event on global warming and climate change.   Read more »

Climate Change is actually good for humanity

At The Atlantic they have recruited 21 economists to assess global problems and come up with a scorecard to asses whterther challenges will be positive or negative for humanity.

[R]ather than cherry-picking anecdotes to fit an overarching narrative, we should find a new way to compare global problems. Together with 21 of the world’s top economists, I have tried to do just that, developing a scorecard spanning 150 years. Our idea was to measure the damage inflicted by 10 important problems—including health, education, air pollution, and climate change—on a comparable scale, without reinforcing one viewpoint or the other.

Using classic economic valuations of everything from lost lives to bad health, considering factors including forfeited income from illiteracy and increased hurricane damage from global warming, the economists found the cost of each of our problems for every year from 1900 to 2013, and then made predictions out to 2050. To estimate the size of the problem, they then compared the challenge to the total resources available to fix it. This gives us the size of the problem in percent of gross domestic product (GDP).   Read more »

Mark Steyn on the Ship of Fools

Mark Steyn comments on the hapless Ship of Fools in his latest column.

Yes, yes, just to get the obligatory ‘of courses’ out of the way up front: of course ‘weather’ is not the same as ‘climate’; and of course the thickest iciest ice on record could well be evidence of ‘global warming’, just as 40-and-sunny and a 35-below blizzard and 12 degrees and partly cloudy with occasional showers are all apparently manifestations of ‘climate change’; and of course the global warm-mongers are entirely sincere in their belief that the massive carbon footprint of their rescue operation can be offset by the planting of wall-to-wall trees the length and breadth of Australia, Britain, America and continental Europe.

But still: you’d have to have a heart as cold and unmovable as Commonwealth Bay ice not to be howling with laughter at the exquisite symbolic perfection of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition ‘stuck in our own experiment’, as they put it. I confess I was hoping it might all drag on a bit longer and the cultists of the ecopalypse would find themselves drawing straws as to which of their number would be first on the roasting spit. On Douglas Mawson’s original voyage, he and his surviving comrade wound up having to eat their dogs. I’m not sure there were any on this expedition, so they’d probably have to make do with the Guardian reporters. Forced to wait a year to be rescued, Sir Douglas later recalled, ‘Several of my toes commenced to blacken and fester near the tips.’ Now there’s a man who’s serious about reducing his footprint.

But alas, eating one’s shipmates and watching one’s extremities drop off one by one is not a part of today’s high-end eco-doom tourism. Instead, the ice-locked warmists uploaded chipper selfies to YouTube, as well as a self-composed New Year singalong of such hearty un-self-awareness that it enraged even such party-line climate alarmists as Andrew Revkin, the plonkingly earnest enviro-blogger of the New York Times. A mere six weeks ago, pumping out the usual boosterism, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported that, had Captain Scott picked his team as carefully as Professor Chris Turney, he would have survived. Sadly, we’ll never know — although I’ll bet Captain Oates would have been doing his ‘I am going out. I may be some time’ line about eight bars into that New Year number.   Read more »

Alarmists alarming

Day one of the New Year and the alarmists are alarming again…this time we are all going to die in 200 years from an 8 degree rise in temperature.

If I was a university that enjoys taxpayer largesse I think I might have noticed a change in government and funding for eco-loons and their ridiculous forecasts of which NONE have come to pass might start to dry up.

Predicting 8 degree temperature rise in two hundred years time might have someone in Tony Abbot’s government take a closer look at how much funding this sort of nonsense receives.

Global temperatures could soar by at least 4°C by 2100 if carbon dioxide emissions aren’t slashed, new research warns.

Climate scientists claim that temperatures could rise by at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200, which could have disastrous results for the planet.

The research, published in the journal Nature, found that the global climate is more affected by carbon dioxide than previously thought.   Read more »

Turns out the Arctic isn’t melting, temps peaked before 1950

This is going to end the hippies into an apoplectic shock…the Arctic isn’t melting and temperatures peaked before 1950 a new study has revealed.

Watts Up with That reports:

A new paper published in Climate of the Past reconstructs temperatures over the past 1100 years from Eastern Arctic ice cores. The dating was done by Oxygen 18 isotope dating and the O18 data shows the highest Eastern Arctic temperatures of the 20th century occurred in the 1920′s-1940′s. The data shows that after that peak, there was a cooling or a warming ‘pause’ over the remainder of the 20th century.  Read more »