By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Recipe for Australia’s climate ‘truth bomb’: dubious manipulations of the historical temperature record, ignorance of the climate dynamics of the Southern Hemisphere, and ignorance of Australia’s ecological and social history.
A correspondent of The Guardian newspaper writes that her personal ‘climate truth bomb’ hit her while she was picking ash from her glass at a wine tasting event – the Sydney Harbour bridge being dimly seen through the murk of bushfires. The truth came to her, she wrote, in the eloquent rage of Greta Thunberg and also in heat, smoke and fire.
The Week That Was: February 22, 2020, Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week: “I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. [H/t Eric Wagner]
The Scientific Method: There appears to be no clear, widely accepted definition of science or the scientific method. Professor of Applied Mathematics and philosopher Christopher Essex considers science to be an adventure. A long game of generations and part of the ascent of Man. Not just a fad invented in the 17th century. In an unpublished paper, “The Scientific Adventure,” he wrote for the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s 1905 discoveries, he stated:
“Others try to embrace it as a recipe. They say, to be scientific, do this, then do that, but not the other way around. They talk of the scientific method as if there is just one; as if scientific discovery were clean, orderly and uncontroversial, supervised by grizzled elders of authority. But the search for scientific discovery is anything but. It is messy, contentious, factional, but also wondrous, inspired, and above all serendipitous. It is human.”
Re-Blogged From WUWT
Today, at the big 100 year anniversary shindig of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) there was a press release session that featured NOAA and NASA GISS talking about how their climate data says that the world in 2019 was the second warmest ever.
Here is their slideshow presentation, released today: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/20200115.pdf
In my opinion, the NOAA/NASA press release (and slideshow) is inconsistently presented. For example, they can’t even agree on a common base period for comparisons. Some graphs use 1951-1980 while others compare to 1981-2010 averages to create anomaly plots. NOAA and NASA owe it to the public to present climate data with a consistent climate period for comparison, otherwise it’s just sloppy science. NASA GISS has consistently resisted updating the 1951-1980 NASA GISS baseline period to the one NOAA and other datasets use, which is 1981-2010. GISS stubbornly refuses to change even though they have been repeatedly excoriated for keeping it.
The world has been warming since the middle of the 19th century. Human-caused warming has become the dominant cause of warming since roughly WWII. The core consensus of climate scientists, proven by a bizarre number of studies (pouring more water on a rock doesn’t make it wetter), was clearly stated in the Summary of Policymakers by Working Group I of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report.
“It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”
Summary: Let’s take a break from political bickering to see how fast the Earth is warming. Just the facts, please.
By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From WUWT
A review of state-of-the-art climate data tells a different story than what NOAA tells the public.
While media outlets scream “hottest ever” for the world in June and July (it’s summer) and opportunistic climate crusaders use those headlines to push the idea of a “climate crisis” the reality is for USA is that so far most of 2019 has been below normal, temperature-wise.
Little known data from the state of the art U.S. Climate Reference Network (which never seems to make it into NOAA’s monthly “state of the climate” reports) show that for the past nine months, six of them were below normal, shown in bold below.
By Rich Enthoven – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Recently, NASA released its annual report on global temperatures and reported that 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record, surpassed only by three recent years. This claim was accompanied by dire predictions of climate change and for immediate action to dramatically curtail CO2 emissions around the globe. Like every concerned citizen read this report with interest. I also read it as an informed and trained climate analyst – and I can tell that there are some serious problems with the report and its conclusions.
For starters, I can assure my readers that I am not a climate change “denier.” No one doubts the climate changed when it experienced the Ice Age that ended 12,000 years ago. I have read enough scientific literature to believe the well documented view that the planet experienced the Medieval Warm Period (950 – 1250 AD) and Little Ice Age (1550 – 1850 AD) when global temperatures changed materially. I have also read enough scientific literature to understand that solar and ocean cycles affect global climate.
By Jay Lehr and Tom Harris – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Alarmists try to frighten people, and stampede them into terrible energy decisions
For the past 50 years, scientists have been studying climate change and the possibility of related sea level changes resulting from melting ice and warming oceans. Despite the common belief that increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere could result in catastrophic sea level rise, there is no evidence to support this fear. Tax monies spent trying to solve this non-existent problem are a complete waste.
By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From WUWT
The east coast of America experienced a storm surge, heavy rain, flooding, and strong winds that blew down trees. Also, regrettably, a few people who live in the area lost their lives. These are all normal events, except the loss of lives which only began after people occupied the region. In fact, the total impact was below the normal for long-term averages of hurricanes in this region. Being surprised by the impacts of a hurricane in this region is like being surprised by flooding when you live on a floodplain.
The whole story of hurricane Florence underscores the degree of corruption of natural events for a political agenda. All the players, from the bureaucrats at the National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), through the media, and the historical role of Insurance companies, created misinformation, misused and omitted data, to nakedly distort the reality. They took a perfectly normal, well within even brief historical sequence event, and turned it into a never before seen monster.
By Paul Homewood – Re-Blogged From WUWT
We’ve been told time and again by climate alarmists that global warming would make more severe weather. In fact, the opposite is true according to recently released tornado data from NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center.
The Trump administration appears to be planning to shift the mission of one of the most important federal science agencies that works on climate change — away from climate change.
Here are two charts, both relating to Climate, that I find very interesting.
NOAA collects US temperature data from over 1000 stations across the country. They’ve been doing this every day (mostly) for years and years. They go through the data as it comes in to correct mistakes – the usual QA process. But in recent years, they have started historical adjustments – 5 major adjustments over a recent 6 year period.
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
Group Think: Author and journalist Christopher Booker has produced an extensive booklet for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) applying the concept of groupthink to the climate establishment. This is not the first time the concept has been so employed. Others, such as Tim Ball, have used the concept, but Booker’s effort is the most systematic and comprehensive.
Groupthink describes systematic errors made by groups when making collective decisions. It was popularized by Research Psychologist Irving Janis in his 1982 book of that title. Janis used it to describe the poor US preparation, despite warnings, for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the failed US-supported invasion of Castro’s Cuba in 1961. His work suggests that pressures for conformity restrict independent and critical thinking by individuals of the group, biasing the group’s analyses.
Via James Delingpole at Breitbart – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data.
This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org, The Science and Environmental Policy Project
By Ken Haapala, President
Quote of the Week. “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain [H/t Joe D’Aleo]
Number of the Week: 82%
COP-23: After two weeks of the participants declaring how they are out to save the world from carbon dioxide-caused warming, the 23rd Conference of Parties (COP-23) of the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) has ended with the promise – wait until next year. It is at COP-24 that the delegates of the various countries promise to address the hard task of developing the complex rules needed to fulfill the promises and pledges they made to achieve the Paris Agreement in 2016.
By Alberto Zaragoza Comendador – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Climate scientists don’t usually propose anything specific to ‘tackle climate change’ other than, well, doing something. Because according to them nothing is being done, or at least nothing was being done until very recently.
(Apparently, in climate scientists’ minds the $4 trillion invested in renewable electricity between 2000 and 2016, and hundreds of billions invested in non-electric renewable energy, count as nothing).
While some may interpret this lack of detail as a sign that they don’t want to politicize the issue, those of us who follow the debate know many climate scientists don’t exactly make a big effort to stay apolitical. Thus in this article I put forward another hypothesis: climate scientists are clueless about energy and the economy. Knowing little to nothing on what has been and could be done, or even how to measure progress in reducing emissions, their exhortations and pontifications remain as vague as any motivational quote you may find lying around on the interwebz.
By Michael Thomas – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
An important aspect of the climate change debate can be summed up like this: “One position holds that medieval warm temperatures reached levels similar to the late twentieth century and maintained that the LIA was very cold, while another position holds that past variability was less than present extremes and that the temperature rise of recent decades is unmatched”. This video challenges whether the rise of recent decades is unmatched.
The overall trend since 1880 when instrumental data started is 0.11 degrees Celsius per decade. This is according to NOAA data for northern hemisphere land records. The most extreme trend occurs between 2006 and 2016 and is, according to NOAA, is 0.38 degrees Celsius per decade.
Eight separate studies of historical data, all of which are referenced by the IPCC in the 2013 report, are examined to see whether the trend between 2006 and 2016 is indeed unmatched over the past two thousand years.
Multiple examples were found where trends equaled or exceeded over the past two thousand years.
By Bob Hoye- Re-Blogged From http://www.Silver-Phoenix500.com
As an out and out promotion, climate concerns seemed to peak with Copenhagen in December 2009. The media was full of countdowns to the “end of the world”. England’s prime minister proclaimed “There are only 50 days to save the planet”. A newspaper headlined “Sun Going Down on Climate Skeptics”.
And then there was the recent magnificent signing of the Paris Agreement, which was opened for signing on Earth Day, April 22, 2016. Christina Figueres at the UN stated that the agreement was “not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism”. This was widely reported and described the full truth about climate activism.
So far as the promotion goes, a Google sweep finds no headlines about “Only 50 days…etc.” preceding the Paris confab.
This week, the Daily Mail reported “NOAA breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible…on the UN climate conference in Paris”.
[When I discuss Global Warming with Alarmists, I frequently ask, “If their case is so strong, then why do they need to resort to lying?” This article is one of several – as a result of a whistle blower in a government agency – dealing with the regular practice at NOAA, GISS, GHCN, and other climate data agencies of manipulating and adjusting historical data in inappropriate ways to lower older readings in order to show a stronger uptrend in the dataset. In other words, they LIE! While I would be satisfied if President Trump merely can end the Global Warming hysteria coming out of taxpayer funded agencies, if it were up to me, the liars would go to jail. – Bob]
By Rud Istvan – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
The disclosures by Dr. Bates concerning Karl’s ‘Pausebuster’ NOAA NCEI paper have created quite the climate kerfuffle, with Rep. Smith even renewing his NOAA email subpoena demands. Yet the Karl paper actually is fairly innocuous by comparison to other NOAA shenanigans. It barely removed the pause, and still shows the CMIP5 models running hot by comparison. Its importance was mainly political talking point pause-busting in the run up to Paris.
Here is an example of something more egregious but less noticed. It is excerpted from much longer essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke. It is not global, concerning only the continental United States (CONUS). But it is eye opening and irrefutable.
By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
They played fast and loose with the figures -NOAA whistleblower
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
By Bob Tisdale – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Figure 1 presents two model-data comparisons for global sea surface temperatures, not anomalies, for the past 30-years. I’ve included a comparison for the global oceans (90S-90N) in the top graph and a comparison for the global oceans, excluding the polar oceans (60S-60N), in the bottom graph. Excluding the polar oceans doesn’t seem to make a significant difference. It’s obvious that global sea surfaces simulated by the GISS climate model were warmer than observed and that the GISS model warming rate is too high over the past 3 decades. The difference between modeled and observed warming rates is approximately 0.07 to 0.08 deg C/decade, more than 60% higher than the observed rate. And in both cases the 30-year average sea surface temperature as simulated by the GISS models is too high by about 0.6 deg C.
Figure 1 – Global Oceans
This post will serve as part 2 of the 2015 update of the model-data comparisons of satellite-era sea surface temperatures. The 2014 update is here. This, the second part, contains time-series graphs. But the data and model outputs are being presented in absolute, not anomaly, form.
The climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not simulating climate as it exists on Earth. That reality of climate models will likely come as a surprise to many climate laypersons.
We presented in part 1 of this series how the spatial patterns of the modeled warming rates for the surfaces of the global oceans from 1982 to 2015 (the era of satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature observations) show no similarities to the spatial patterns of the observed (data-founded) warming and cooling. And we discussed why it’s important that the models used by the IPCC are capable of simulating where and when and why the temperatures of the ocean surfaces vary. It’s relatively easy to understand. Where and when the surfaces of the oceans warm, don’t warm, or even cool naturally and by how much—along with other naturally occurring factors—dictate where and when land surface air temperatures rise and fall and where precipitation increases or decreases…on annual, decadal and multidecadal bases.
In part 2, we’re presenting the model-data comparisons in time-series graphs globally and for a number of subsets. And as noted earlier, the data and models are being presented in absolute form. The use of sea surface temperatures instead of anomalies helps to illustrate addition problems with the models.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon and David R. Legates
Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Ten killer questions that expose how wrong and ideologically driven they are
A century or so from now, based on current trends, today’s concentration of carbon dioxide in the air will have doubled. How much warming will that cause? The official prediction, 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7-8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) per doubling of CO2, is proving a substantial exaggeration.
Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption that CO2’s direct warming effect is about a factor of two higher than what is actually happening in the real world. This is due to incorrect representations of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.
As if that were not bad enough, the official story is that feedbacks triggered by direct warming roughly triple the warming, causing not 1 but 3 degrees of warming per CO2 doubling. Here, too, the official story is a significant exaggeration, as demonstrated by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the world’s most knowledgeable climatologist.
By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
They are physically cleaning up after the “Blizzard of 2016” in the northeastern US. The job is not as onerous as anticipated and is going slowly because the government is in charge. However, it is time for an intellectual clean-up because of what went on. The entire sequence of events is a classic example of environmental and climatic exploitation that parallels the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception. They show what is wrong with weather and climate forecasts, and how it is all amplified and perpetuated by people who don’t know what they are talking about, or, worse, want to know.
The Week That Was: December 19, 2015 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
COP-21: The Conference of Parties (COP-21) of the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is over. With great fanfare, an agreement was signed. The parties agreed to agree to try to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The agreement will have no identifiable effect on global climate change, because the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has failed to establish the influence that human carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) have on climate. This “scientific body” has failed to distinguish between natural variation of climate, which has been ongoing for hundreds of millions of years, and the human influence, if any, of CO2 on this natural variation. Multiple studies that have the same flaw are just more of the same.
Further, no global climate model has been validated and there has been no effort, announced to the public, to validate one, in spite of billions of dollars spent by governments. This failure indicates there is a major problem in the publicly announced IPCC science, most likely because the influence of CO2 on climate is small, rendering these costly efforts to regulate CO2 insignificant. As Richard Lindzen said of the effect of CO2 on climate: “[It is] trivially true and numerically insignificant.”
A diverse array of views on the agreement is found below. In the major additions, it is an agreement, not a treaty, in the sense that it has no binding effect on the United States. A treaty would require approval of two-thirds of the Senate present. One purpose of this requirement in the US Constitution is to provide a check on presidential powers. Unlike in many other countries, a treaty in the US has the force of law. The Obama Administration realized it would not obtain approval of two-thirds of the Senate, thus delegates representing the Administration made last minute changes to the Agreement making it nonbinding and thereby avoiding Constitutionally required approval.
By Kip Hansen – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
WARNING: This is not a technical essay. There is almost no science in it. It is not about AGW or any issue involved in the Climate Wars. My editor describes it as “chatty”. It does ask two extremely important questions.
We are all constantly bombarded by numbers….in the press, on the radio news, on the TV news, here at WUWT. Numbers as sheer numbers, numbers as graphs, charts, images, and in words and more words. Putting a number with an idea has a magical power over our minds – it makes the idea ‘more true’ – it offers to our minds a sort of proof for ideas and concepts.
In this essay, I look at an important question, one we must all ask – ask ourselves and ask the sources of these numbers – What exactly are they really counting? In our little introductory image (cute, huh?) we see they are counting “counting bears”. 1 bear, two bears. But, what exactly? In the upper panels, they are counting green plastic counting bears. Their count = 1 (and in words – one). In the bottom panels, they are still counting plastic counting bears, but one red bear and one blue bear, or 2 (in words – two) bears altogether. Even more exactly though, the bottom panels have one red bear, one blue bear and zero green bears.
This is not just being fussy. When we have only the information in the top panels, we count one bear (and maybe note that it is green). As far as we know, all bears in this context are the same color, and color doesn’t matter. If these were real seal-eating/fish-eating bears, some might be white, some brown, some grizzled, some a cross-breed mixture. For biologists, the difference is important – refer to the Polar Bear Wars. For a camper on the tundra, one very hungry bear, possibly man-eating, is more than enough, regardless of color.
For this kindergarten example, we see that even in the most elementary types of counting , there are details that may need to be explored and explained.
Just to be clear, all measurement is the same as counting in this regard.
meas·ure ‘meZHər/ verb to ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object of known size. “the amount of water collected is measured in pints” some synonyms: count, calculate, compute, quantify
By Dr Tony Phillips – Re-Blogged From http://www.spaceweather.com/
LUNAR ECLIPSE DETECTS GLOBAL COOLING (BUT ONLY A LITTLE): On Sept. 27th, millions of people around the world watched the Moon pass through the shadow of our planet. Most agreed that the lunar eclipse was darker than usual. Little did they know, they were witnessing a sign of global cooling. But only a little.
Atmospheric scientist Richard Keen of the University of Colorado explains: “Lunar eclipses tell us a lot about the transparency of Earth’s atmosphere. When the stratosphere is clogged with volcanic ash and other aerosols, lunar eclipses tend to be dark red. On the other hand, when the stratosphere is relatively clear, lunar eclipses are bright orange.”
The Week That Was: August 29, 2015 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Divergence: It is summertime in the US, and temperatures are warmer. Several readers have asked TWTW for comments on the recent claims that July 2015 was the hottest month ever and similar announcements by certain US government entities, including branches of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). These entities are making strong public statements that the globe continues to warm, and the future is dire. A humorist could comment that the closer we are to the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to be held in Paris from November 30 to December 11, the hotter the globe becomes.
By Sheldon Walker – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
This article presents a method for calculating the Earth’s rate of warming, using the existing global temperature series.
It can be difficult to work out the Earth’s rate of warming. There are large variations in temperature from month to month, and different rates can be calculated depending upon the time interval and the end points chosen. A reasonable estimate can be made for long time intervals (100 years for example), but it would be useful if we could calculate the rate of warming for medium or short intervals. This would allow us to determine whether the rate of warming was increasing, decreasing, or staying the same.
The Week That Was: June 27, 2015 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Delayed Offensive: On June 22, the White House and the EPA announced a new offensive on global warming, now called climate change. “The plan wraps in a handful of federal departments that deal with health, the environment or both, from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”
The EPA report announcing the plan asserted global warming/climate change a dire threat to the economy and to human health. One of the bolder claims was that up to 57,000 Americans could die per year from poor air quality by 2100, if action is not taken now. “This report summarizes results from the Climate Change Impacts and Risks Analysis (CIRA) project, a peer-reviewed study comparing impacts in a future with significant global action on climate change to a future in which current greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.”
The EPA fails to establish that “poor air quality” is directly related to human-caused global warming.
By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Weakest Solar Cycle In More Than A Century
The sun is almost completely blank. The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. The sun’s X-ray output has flatlined in recent days and NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 1% chance of strong flares in the next 24 hours. Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. –Paul Dorian, Vencore Weather, 30 April 2015
The Week That Was: February 21, 2015 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Sea Level Change: The threat of global warming is no longer intensely promoted by governments. No significant temperature rise for over a decade has had its effects. The threat of climate change is apparently wearing thin with the public, Perhaps the public realizes that the climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, long before humanity existed. It appears that some governments, including the US Administration, are using the threat of significant sea level rise to compel the public to do their bidding.
Guest essay by Paul Driessen – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
College students who support divestment of fossil fuel stocks are passionate about their cause. Just look at their word choices. Though they could never function even one week without hydrocarbon energy, they call fossil-fuel companies “rogue entities,” assert that oil, coal and natural gas interests have the “political process in shackles,” and believe most of the world’s known fossil fuel resources must “stay in the ground” to avoid “catastrophic global warming.” It’s a shortsighted view of energy ethics and corruption.
Their over-heated hysteria over climate change is fanned by groups like 350.org and college professors who rehash doom-and-gloom forecasts about rising seas, dying species and other cataclysms that they insist can be remedied only by terminating fossil fuel use and investments in fossil fuel companies.
The Week That Was:February 14, 2015 Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
US National Security – Threat of Climate Change: The Obama Administration continues to insist that global warming/climate change is a threat to US National Security. Such a claim can be used to expand the powers of the presidency. The President has already ordered that government agencies consider what the government states are the impacts of climate change in funding major government-funded improvements, particularly rising sea levels, into account on federally funded projects, such as military installations, roads, hospitals, etc. The underlining assumption in all this is that human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the principal cause of global warming, also called climate change, climate disruption, climate chaos, or whatever is fashionable at the moment. In a television broadcast, Susan Rice, the US National Security Advisor, declared climate change is an existential threat. Perhaps, she assumed it was human caused. But, those who re-call existential literature may remember it to be vague and confused.
Humans aren’t the only source of CO2. Underwater volcanoes and other seabed eruptions, caused by natural celestial cycles may be at fault.
By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From http://www.WatsUpWithThat.com
New data show strikingly regular patterns, from weeks to eons
Vast ranges of volcanoes hidden under the oceans are presumed by scientists to be the gentle giants of the planet, oozing lava at slow, steady rates along mid-ocean ridges. But a new study shows that they flare up on strikingly regular cycles, ranging from two weeks to 100,000 years–and, that they erupt almost exclusively during the first six months of each year.
Guest Post by Bob Tisdale – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
The media has been abuzz with claims that the January 2015 New England Blizzard was worsened by human-induced global warming. One of the outspoken activist members of the climate science community who has been quoted often on the storm is NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth. An example of Trenberth’s interviews can be found in the ClimateNexus post Blizzard of 2015: Normal Winter Weather, Amplified by Climate Change. The subtitle is actually quite funny, bringing back the old “consistent with climate models” nonsense: “Above average sea surface temperatures increase snowfall, consistent with model projections.”
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
KEYSTONE XL: As promised by the Republican leadership, the Senate passed S.1 the bill authorizing the TransCanada Corp. to proceed in planning and building the Keystone Pipeline to transport up to 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada and shale oil from the Bakken formation in North Dakota to Steele City Nebraska. From there it will be transported by existing pipelines to Gulf Coast refineries. Once completed, the pipeline system would span 1,700 miles and cross six U.S. states. Nine Democrats voted with all Senate Republicans in approving the bill.
Once the details are reconciled with a similar House bill, it will go to President Obama who has promised to veto it. The Administration has had six years to study the pipeline, so arguments
By James Delingpole – Re-Blogged From http://www.breitbart.com
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.
Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
We were told in October, before 2014 was over, that it was heading toward being the warmest year on record (Figure 1). The visual link of Polar Bears underscored the message. In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.
Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com By Anthony Watts
‘Warmest Year On Record’ Claims Falling Apart Under Scrutiny
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. Yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 18 January 2015
The Week That Was: January 17, 2015
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org – Ken Haapala, President
NOAA – NASA Temperature Announcement: Perhaps few public statements exemplify the willingness of certain government agencies to mislead the public as clearly as this week’s joint announcement by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The press release reads as if the announcement was considered more an opportunity for self-promotion than a scientific statement.
The Week That Was: 2015-01-10
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (www.SEPP.org )
Fooling Nature? Before the UN Climate Conference in Peru in December, several US government agencies, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS), guessed at the average global temperatures for 2014, stating 2014 will be the hottest year on record. They guessed wrong.