By David Middleton – Re-Blogged From WUWT
From some SJW rag, via Real Clear Politics…
We Still Don’t Understand the
Superstorms of the AnthropoceneBy Caroline Haskins, Oct 12 2018
As of this morning, five people have died in as a result of Hurricane Michael—in Virginia. That’s more than 800 miles away from where Hurricane Michael first made landfall in Florida.
By Bob Tisdale – Re-Blogged From WUWT
This post provides updates of the values for the three primary suppliers of global land+ocean surface temperature reconstructions—GISS through September 2018 and HADCRUT4 and NOAA NCEI (formerly NOAA NCDC) through August 2018—and of the two suppliers of satellite-based lower troposphere temperature composites (RSS and UAH) through September 2018. It also includes a few model-data comparisons.
This is simply an update, but it includes a good amount of background information for those new to the datasets. Because it is an update, there is no overview or summary for this post. There are, however, simple monthly summaries for the individual datasets. So for those familiar with the datasets, simply fast-forward to the graphs and read the summaries under the headings of “Update”.
By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From WUWT
I saw a few headlines today that got me to thinking. One said:
THIRD-STRONGEST HURRICANE AT LANDFALL IN RECORDED U.S. HISTORY
The second said:
HURRICANE MICHAEL PROJECTED TO CAUSE $30 BILLION IN DAMAGES
The third said:
155 MPH WINDS, 490,000 WITHOUT POWER, TWO DEAD
By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From WUWT
The Dutch court of appeals has upheld a 2015 ruling which demanded that the government cut CO2 emissions by 25% in five years.
Dutch appeals court upholds landmark climate change ruling
Netherlands ordered to increase emissions cuts in historic ruling that puts ‘all world governments on notice’
A court in The Hague has upheld a historic legal order on the Dutch government to accelerate carbon emissions cuts, a day after the world’s climate scientists warned that time was running out to avoid dangerous warming.
Appeal court judges ruled that the severity and scope of the climate crisis demanded greenhouse gas reductions of at least 25% by 2020 – measured against 1990 levels – higher than the 17% drop planned by Mark Rutte’s liberal administration
By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From WUWT
The question occurs after the muted reaction last week to the latest forecast from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In case you hadn’t heard we’re all doomed, yet the world mostly yawned. This is less complacency than creeping scientific and political realism.
The U.N. panel says the apocalypse is nigh—literally. According to its calculations, global carbon emissions must fall 45% by 2030—twice as much as its earlier forecasts—and the world must wean itself entirely off fossil fuels over three decades to prevent a climate catastrophe that will include underwater coastlines and widespread drought and disease.
By Jim Steele Re-Blogged From WUWT
I just received notice that my article, Wildfires: Separating Demagoguery from the Science
published in RANGE magazine received a joint 2nd place honor for Best Investigative or In Depth Story by the Nevada Press Association noting it was a “Good overview of fire ecology in the region.” I also cross published the article here on WUWT. I proudly cross publish all my article here on WUWT as it is the best place for independent thinkers to share with the public. I am very pleased that articles published on WUWT are also widely recognized elsewhere as important scientific journalism.
By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From WUWT
A fascinating 2006 paper by Essex, McKitrick, and Andresen asked, “Does a Global Temperature Exist.” Their introduction sets the scene,
It arises from projecting a sampling of the fluctuating temperature field of the Earth onto a single number (e.g. [3], [4]) at discrete monthly or annual intervals. Proponents claim that this statistic represents a measurement of the annual global temperature to an accuracy of ±0.05 ◦C (see [5]). Moreover, they presume that small changes in it, up or down, have direct and unequivocal physical meaning.
The word “sampling” is important because, statistically, a sample has to be representative of a population. There is no way that a sampling
