National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

And the Greens and other left-wing parties want this to all stop?

The planet is greening, literally, and you’ll never guess what is causing it.

Yep, that awful killer trace gas called carbon dioxide…the very same element the left-wing warmists tell us is killing us all.

But before we get started with the blame game…it is NASA who has released the data.

From a quarter to half of Earth?s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA?s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet?s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth. ? Read more »

The Pause is real, even Michael Mann now agrees

About that “science is settled” thing the warmists keep telling us…not so fast…seems it isn’t settled at all.

Dissent is breaking out, with even Michael Mann now co-authoring a paper confirming the pause in warming.

The ?Pause? in global warming is real ? not an urban myth concocted by evil ?deniers? ? a study has found, signalling the development of a major schism within the climate alarmist camp.

?It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims,? the paper in Nature Climate Change says.

Though the paper?s findings are not controversial ? few serious scientists?dispute the evidence of the temperature datasets showing that?there has been little if any global warming for nearly 19 years ? they represent a tremendous blow to the climate alarmist ?consensus?, which has long sought to deny the ?Pause?s? existence.

First, the study was published in Nature Climate Change?a fervently alarmist journal which rarely if ever runs papers that cast doubt on?the man-made-global-warming scare narrative.

Secondly, it directly contradicts a widely-reported study produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) last year which attempted to deny the existence of the ?Pause? (also known as the ?hiatus?). This NOAA study was widely mocked, quickly debunked and is now the subject of a Congressional investigation by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX).

What?s novel about this new study in Nature Climate Change, though, is that it?s not skeptics and Republicans doing the mocking and the debunking: it?s the kind of people who in the past were very much in the alarmist camp, including ? bizarrely ? none other than Michael ?Hockey Stick? Mann, who co-authored the paper. ??

Read more »

Killing truth by degrees

The last two days in Auckland have been?very warm days. There were a few wisecracks around it being global warming. The ?official? temperature in Auckland was around 29 degrees. But hang on a minute. It was 31? in Botany and only 28? in Piha. So is 29? an average? No, there is only one recording place. So there were large areas of Auckland that were not 29?. Could 29? be categorised as ?an average? for Auckland? We could try but it would not be accurate. We don?t know which areas were 31? and which were 29?. We don?t know how big those areas were. Some places may have been 27?. Some temperatures were recorded at midday others at 3.00pm. Recording temperature is problematic, nigh impossible.

OK, so what if we take one spot and record the temperature every day at exactly the same time wouldn?t that give us a pattern over time? ?Yes, but what pattern? Take Botany. Fifty years ago it was open fields. Now it?s all tin roofs, tarseal and concrete. That would distort the pattern.

So let’s take Botany out and use the other recordings around Auckland. Piha might work but Auckland City is also distorted by growing urbanisation. For historical accuracy, using temperature recordings in Auckland is well-nigh useless.

Who cares? Who can ?feel? a one-degree change in temperature anyway? Not too many people I guess but a degree difference in global warming land is massive. In the rarefied atmosphere of global warming a tenth of a degree is hugely statistically significant.

Over the last month the climate change enthusiasts have been crowing about 2015 being the hottest year on record. It broke the record by 0.02? F. Wow! One fifth of one tenth of one degree. Did you feel that? Take your shirt off? ? Read more »

Predicting climate change from temperature readings total guesswork

The science is settled huh?

Not remotely close. The data is far from accepted as a new report shows:

Temperature readings from the Arctic and Antarctic used to estimate the effects of global warming are?nothing more than guesswork, a climate researcher has said. Dr Benny Peiser heads up the?Global Warming Policy Foundation, which last month announced its intention to launch a wide-ranging review of the data underpinning claims on global warming.

The review was launched primarily in response to interested parties flagging up major discrepancies? between data gathered from weather stations, which marked 2014 out as the hottest year on record, and data gathered from satellites, which showed no warming for over 18 years. The scale of the discrepancy lead to accusations that weather station data had been ?adjusted?, thereby exaggerating the effects of global warming, something which the Foundation is keen to investigate.

The review panel, headed by Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham,?will be taking submissions for evidence until the 30th June, but Dr Peiser has said that questions and concerns have already been raised about how the discrepancy could have come about. ? Read more »

New climate reports slays another myth

Breitbart reports on “A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

The paper ? Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal ? finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Aerosols are the minute particles added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (as well as by non-anthropogenic sources, like volcanoes). The reason they are important is that they are so often cited by alarmists to excuse the awkward fact that the world has stubbornly failed to warm at the disastrous rate they predicted it would.

Apparently ? or so the excuse goes ? these aerosols are masking the true extent of runaway climate change by cancelling out the effects of man-made CO2.

Here, for example, is a NASA expert in 2009:

Using climate models, we estimate that aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the surface of the Earth ?? Read more »

The dishonesty of our manipulated temperature records

James Delingpole explains the inherent dishonesty of climate change proponents and their manipulated temperature records.

How can we believe in ?global warming? when the temperature records providing the ?evidence? for that warming cannot be trusted?

It?s a big question ? and one which many people, even on the sceptical side of the argument, are reluctant to ask.

[…]

[B]efore I go into technical detail about why the temperature records are suspect, let me provide an analogy which ought to make it perfectly clear to any neutral parties reading this why the problem I?m about to describe ought not to be consigned to the realms of crackpottery.

Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot ? even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.

What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?

Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.

Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world?s leading global warming experts ? say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State ? and they studied your records for a moment and said: ?This isn?t right.? What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.

You?d be gobsmacked, would you not?

Read more »

Looks like ocean acidification was made up too

The supporters of global warming theory always come up with new doomsday scenarios, usually when the last one failed.

The latest one that is pushed hard is ocean acidification as a result of global warming…except it looks like it is as fraudulent and Michael Mann’s hockey stick.

James Delingpole explains:

Ocean acidification is said to be caused when excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by the sea, reducing its pH levels to make it more acidic.

But, as Watts Up With That reports new evidence unearthed by an inquisitive graduate student suggests that ?ocean acidification? may be a scientific fraud to rank with the great ?man-made-global warming? scare.

At the centre of the scandal is NOAA, the US federal scientific agency which measures and researches changes in the oceans and atmosphere, and which maintains one of the temperature datasets used to measure ?global warming.?

One of NOAA?s departments ? the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) ? also happens to be one of the mainstays of the alarmist narrative about ?ocean acidification.?

A 2004 paper by two of PMEL?s senior oceanographers ? Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine ? is often cited in support of ?ocean acidification? theory and is reproduced, in simplified form, at NOAA?s website. ?It also formed part of testimony that Feely gave to Congress in 2010, again to the effect that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing a reduction in seawater pH. ? 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 »

Global Warming hasn’t happened, new data shows US been cooling since 1930s

The frauds are starting to be revealed and one of the biggest frauds in?the?history of mankind hasn’t been a committed by corporate bankers, rather by socialists and their useful idiots in the universities and scientific community.

Global Warming is dead, the evidence is building that is showing the skeptics were right all along.

Christopher Booker writes at The Telegraph:

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard?s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world?s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Read more »

Eating baby seals is only the beginning

Apparently I eat babies…am evil personified…and should be ignored.

But you can’t ignore Killer Whales…you can only seek to understand them.

Fortunately The Atlantic earlier last year compiled a list of 7 reasons why Killer Whales are Evil geniuses.

Over at Wired Science, a photographer caught a stunning sequence of a killer whale in Monterey Bay?flipping a dolphin out of the water?and then eating it. Apparently, they do this regularly! “I have seen this with several different species of dolphins from various places around the world, so I think that killer whales probably do this regularly but not commonly,” a NOAA ecologist told Nadia Drake. “With slower swimming species, like seals and sea lions, killer whales prefer to use their tails to swat them out of the water.”?Just go look at?the ridiculous photographs.

Yikes. So that’s reason number one:?they kill dolphins, and who doesn’t love dolphins?

Perhaps, though, we should more firmly establish that they are evil.*?They kill baby things.?So many baby things and in so many innovative ways!Baby seals.?Baby sea lions. Even?baby sperm whales! ? Read more »

×