Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #412

Re-Blogged From WUWT

Quote of the Week: “Aqueous vapor [water vapor] is a blanket, more necessary to the vegetable life of England than clothing is to man. Remove for a single summer-night the aqueous vapor from the air which overspreads this country, and you would assuredly destroy every plant capable of being destroyed by a freezing temperature. The warmth of our fields and gardens would pour itself unrequited into space, and the sun would rise upon an island held fast in the iron grip of frost.” – John Tyndall (“Heat: A Mode of Motion”, 1861) [H/t William Happer]

Number of the Week: Daily change of 100⁰C (or daily change of 180⁰F)

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #406

The Week That Was: April 18, 2020, Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits.” – Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics [H/t Demetris Koutsoyiannis]

Number of the Week: 2 cents

Limits of Models: In the midst of the lock-down of much of the U.S. public and the collapsing economy; some Americans are learning a few important lessons. One, the country is a republic with a written Constitution. As President Trump realized this week, that Constitution grants the Federal government limited powers, even during a health emergency. And two, numerical models are not infallible. Indeed, almost daily, Drs. Birx and Fauci repeat on television that: “this model is only as good as the data we put into it.” Speculation, scenarios or projections, may be interesting but must be supported by evidence fitting the issue. Unfortunately, all too frequently government policy has been based on models using inappropriate data.

Continue reading

Climate Change – Ebb and Flow of the Tide Part 1 of 3

By Dr Kelvin Kemm – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Emotional, agenda-driven politics confronts sound, evidence-based science

The topic of global warming and climate change is far more scientifically complex than the public is led to believe.

Myriads of newspaper, magazine and TV items over decades have tended to simplify the science to the point at which the general public believes that it is all so simple that any fool can see what is happening. Public groups often accuse world leaders and scientists of being fools, if they do not instantly act on simple messages projected by individuals or public groups.

One often hears phrases like: ‘The science is settled.’ It is not. Even more worrying is that the reality of the correct science is actually very different to much of the simple public perception.-

Continue reading

Will 5G Undermine Weather Prediction?

By Cliff Mass – Re-Blogged From WUWT

There have been a number of media stories this week about a major threat to weather prediction:  the sale of electromagnetic spectrum for new 5G cellphone service.   The problem is that some of the wavelengths being auctioned off for 5G are critical for an important class of weather satellites, with 5G signals potentially undermining our ability to forecast the weather.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #359

The Week That Was: May 11, 2019, Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “…we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, Discover, pp. 45–48, October 1989.

Number of the Week: 0.05ºC in 25 years

Honest Science: The full comment by Stephen Schneider in the 1989 interview in Discover magazine, cited above, is:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Continue reading

April Snowstorms: The Rule, Not the Exception

By Chris Martz – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Last week, the Great Plains and upper Midwest were pummeled with a late-season blizzard. A wide swath of 10 to 20+ inches of snow buried parts of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, with the highest totals in the 20 to 30 inch range centered in far western Minnesota, and much of South Dakota (Figure 1).¹ The storm was not technically a “bomb cyclone” because the air pressure didn’t drop 24 millibars within 24 hours, although it did get close.

Figure 1.Observed snowfall from Winter Storm Wesley – NWS Twin Cities.

The highest official snowfall report was 30.8 inches in Wallace, South Dakota, although higher amounts in scattered areas were more than likely.² On top of that, an ice storm occurred in numerous Midwestern states, a dust storm moved through the southern Plains, and 80 mph wind gusts were observed in Texas and New Mexico, while thundersnow was reported in other locations.²

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #353

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org, The Science and Environmental Policy Project

By Ken Haapala, President

Letter to President Trump: On March 18, under the leadership of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and The Heartland Institute, about forty independent organizations and over one hundred individuals sent a letter to Donald Trump supporting the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security under the direction of William Happer of the National Security Council staff. Robert Bradley posted the entire letter on the web site Master Resource. A few key points are quoted below:

“The commission would consist of a small number of distinguished experts on climate-related science and national security. It would be charged with conducting an independent, high-level review of the Fourth National Climate Assessment and other official reports relating to climate and its implications for national security. Its deliberations would be subject to the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committees Act.

Continue reading

Stop the Personal Attacks and Answer the Climate Questions

By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From WUWT

When you realize you are losing an argument, it is common to abandon the argument and attack the person. It is one of many forms of arguments called ad hominem, or to the person. A disagreement between two people makes an ad hominem argument easy to notice. The loser and the winner are clear, and a shift in the tone and focus of the discussion is relatively apparent.

The structure and method chosen to create the myth of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) guaranteed an ad hominem situation. The evidence against the hypothesis was overwhelming from the start. The only question was left academic. Can you have a collective ad hominem, that is a personal attack on a group, or does it only apply to an attack on an individual? The answer is not about the number but the nature of the attack. When it is an individual, the attack occurs because the debate on the issue is lost, and that is true when it is a group.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #332

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org, The Science and Environmental Policy Project

By Ken Haapala, President

Specific Problems in IPCC Science: New Zealand is one country whose politicians have accepted the questionable science of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As such, the government is implementing measures that are destructive to the livestock industry, primarily cattle and sheep, based on hollow calculations by the IPCC – that is, calculations that have little meaning, no matter how precise. The calculations are on the greenhouse warming potential (GWP) of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), which are calculated to comprise 50% of New Zealand’s emissions of greenhouse gases. These actions illustrate how acceptance of the shoddy science of the IPCC by government entities can become economically destructive to westernized nations.

Continue reading

Empirical Evidence Shows Temperature Increases Before CO2 Increase

By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From WUWT

The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?

The most important assumption behind the hypothesis that human activities are causing global warming is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The assumption became almost the total focus of the IPCC because of the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #316

By Ken Haapala, President

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Constant, Not Accelerating: On May 16, SEPP Chairman emeritus S. Fred Singer had an essay in the Wall Street Journal explaining why there is little humanity and governments can do to stop the constant rate of sea level rise. Unfortunately, in the print edition, the sentence “But there is also good data showing sea levels are in fact rising at a constant rate,” was muddled into reading “But there is also good data showing sea levels are in fact rising at an accelerating rate.” [Boldface added]. The error was corrected in the online editions. The central issue of Singer’s essay is” that sea-level rise does not depend on the use of fossil fuels.”

Continue reading

The Biggest Deception in the Human Caused Global Warming Deception

By  Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

It is likely that every year annual variance in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere exceeds the warming effects of human CO2. I can’t prove it, but nobody can disprove it with any reasonable measure of evidence because there is insufficient data or understanding of natural processes. However, it is likely true, and alone destroys the human-caused global warming (AGW) narrative. This is one reason why AGW is the biggest, most pervasive, and longest lasting ‘fake news’ story to date. It is also a ‘deep state’ story created and perpetuated by and through the bureaucracies.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #252

The Week That Was – Dec 16, 2016 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President Science and Environmental Policy Project

Data Manipulation: As twice-elected president of a science society formed in 1871, with early members important to the beginning of climate measurements covering the US, this author has been very concerned with the manipulation of historic data that seems to have taken place over the past few decades. In effect, a warming trend seems to have been established in the data where one did not exist before. As we saw during Climategate, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia “lost” historic data when data was mathematically adjusted.

Similarly, as researchers Joe D’Aleo and Tony Heller have demonstrated, the data entrusted to NOAA; and its subordinate organizations the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); seem to have been manipulated to give the illusion of a warming trend by lowering the earlier data. Now, Paul Homewood, of the UK, points out that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS) has changed its own data since 2011 without notification as to why. The adjustments to its December 2016 version give the illusion of a stronger warming trend than existed in their 2011 data.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #234

The Week That Was: July30, 2016 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Accusation Is Evidence? Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) claims he is seeking evidence of wrongful influence by Exxon for raising doubt that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary cause of global warming, now called climate change. He claims he is not suppressing scientific inquiry, or freedom of speech, but merely seeking evidence. The question is what constitutes evidence to Senator Whitehouse and his group. Is it direct physical evidence, such as comprehensive temperature measurements by satellites showing atmospheric temperatures are rising in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide? Which is not occurring. Of course, with the latest El Niño there is little doubt that atmospheric temperatures also rise in response to El Niño weather events. Is it indirect evidence, such as surface temperatures, which are sparse (the globe is poorly covered) and measure many natural and human caused influences in addition to CO2. Or is it hearsay, rumor, such as 97% of scientists say… or scientific organizations (which have not rigorously polled) say…

Senator Whitehouse organized a teach-in given on the Senate floor on week of July 11 by Whitehouse and eighteen of his senate colleagues. A major claim is that “According to Climate Investigations Center research, your groups have received over $92 million from the Koch family, Donors Trust, Donors Capital, and ExxonMobil. And that’s just what investigators can figure out.”

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #233

The Week That Was: July23, 2016 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Political Fads: Roy Spencer has written a 22-page booklet, “A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data,” published by the Texas Public Policy Foundation and available on the web at no cost. The booklet covers some of the scientific research that demolish a number of fashionable beliefs on global warming/climate change. First and foremost is the fad seized upon by some politicians that global warming skeptics are funded, or paid-off, by Exxon or other oil companies, etc. The recent antics by certain Senators and state attorneys general failed to present convincing evidence. In fact, later it was claimed that the purpose of the investigations was to find evidence – as if IRS filings of Exxon are not available or not reviewed. The US Government has spent over $40 Billion since 1993 on what it calls climate science. Comparable spending by Exxon cannot be hidden.

Unlike the US government, which has not undergone a full audit since the 1990s, stockholder-held corporations are subject to rigorous audits. Conversely, a February 26, 2015 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) states that major impediments, uncertainties, and material weaknesses prevent its ability to conduct an effective audit. The IRS and the SCC would not permit such a report from Exxon.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #227

The Week That Was: May 21, 2016 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Observation and Experiment: Last week’s TWTW discussed a climate model that may work, the Russian Institute of Numerical Mathematics Coupled Model, version 4.0 (INM-CM4). The model tracks historic atmospheric temperature data very well. Virtually, all the other models do not. If a model cannot track historic data well, there is no logical reason to assume it can be successful in predicting the future.

Continue reading

Long -Term Climate Change: What Is A Reasonable Sample Size?

By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Recent discussion about record weather events, such as the warmest year on record, is a totally misleading and scientifically useless exercise. This is especially true when restricted to the instrumental record that covers about 25% of the globe for at most 120 years. The age of the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years, so the sample size is 0.000002643172%. Discussing the significance of anything in a 120-year record plays directly into the hands of those trying to say that the last 120-years climate is abnormal and all due to human activity. It is done purely for political propaganda, to narrow people’s attention and to generate fear.

The misdirection is based on the false assumption that only a few variables and mechanisms are important in climate change, and they remain constant over the 4.54 billion years. It began with the assumption of the solar constant from the Sun that astronomers define as a medium-sized variable star. The AGW proponents successfully got the world focused on CO2, which is just 0.04% of the total atmospheric gases and varies considerably spatially and temporally. I used to argue that it is like determining the character, structure, and behavior of a human by measuring one wart on the left arm. In fact, they are only looking at one cell of that wart for their determination.

Continue reading

Stop The Devastation of Peoples Lives By Speculating with No Data: Remembering Cattle And Methane Emissions

By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Release of early data from NASA’s OCO2 satellite triggered the typical nonsense. The usual people talked about the modern equivalent of how many angels on the head of a pin, when they haven’t even established the existence of angels. The initial OCO2 data appears to show most estimates and assumptions were wrong. This might explain NASA’s hesitancy to release all the information, especially with regard to sources and sinks. If nothing else, the maps show the CO2 is not well mixed. The wider truth is that every piece of data in the climate debate is a very crude estimate created for a political or scientific agenda, including those used by many skeptics.

Kip Hansen’s essay “Are we Chasing Imaginary Numbers?” speaks to an important point about approximations. It reminded me about learning navigation and taking what was called “a three star fix”. The result almost always was a triangulation and all you knew was you were somewhere in the triangle. To narrow it down, but still not be precise, you dropped perpendicular lines from the centre of each side of the triangle to create what Hansen would recognize as the data point, we called it a Most Probable Position (MPP). Hansen’s discussion is very valuable, but in climate science the problem begins long before the point of determining accuracy.

Continue reading