The right strategy wins the war Gifts, gadgets, weather stations, software and here!\
Sep 30, 2014
Obvious failure of climate science that mainstream media ignores

Bob Tisdale

The National Science Foundation press release Cause of California drought linked to climate change found its way into the mainstream media, with science reporters around the globe adding their hype. That press release is based on the recently published study Swain et al. (2014) “The Extraordinary California Drought of 2013/2014: Character, Context and the Role of Climate Change, which can be found in the Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS report)Vol. 95, No. 9, September 2014, Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 From A Climate Perspective.

I’ll publish a few comments about Swain et al. (2014) in a few days. But this post is not about that paper.


As I was reading Anthony Watts excellent post about Swain et al. (2014), Claim: Cause of California drought linked to climate change - not one mention of ENSO or El Nino, a number of reoccurring thoughts replayed, thoughts that have struck me numerous times as the Western States drought unfolded last year and intensified this year.

Was California prepared for a drought?

Obviously, California was not prepared for a drought this intense, and the impacts of that lack of preparedness on California residents will grow much worse if the drought continues.

Why wasn’t California prepared for a short-term (multiyear) drought this intense?

The realistic blame should be the focus of climate science in general under the direction of the IPCC. In the opening paragraph of the IPCC’s History webpage, they state (my boldface and caps):

Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “ assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN-INDUCED climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The fact that the IPCC has focused all of their efforts on “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” is very important. The IPCC has never realistically tried to determine if natural factors could have caused most of the warming the Earth has experienced over the past century. For decades, they’ve worn blinders that blocked their views of everything other than the possible impacts of carbon dioxide. The role of the IPCC has always been to prepare reports that support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. As a result, that’s where all of the research money goes. The decision to only study human-induced global warming is a political choice, not a scientific one. In efforts to justify agendas, politicians around the world jumped on the climate change stump and funded computer model-based studies of human-induced global the tune of billions of dollars annually.

Because of that political agenda, the latest and greatest climate models still cannot simulate the basic underlying processes that govern the naturally occurring, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes like ENSO (El Ninos and La Ninas), like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation...processes that have strong influences on temperature and precipitation in west coast states. So there is no possible way climate models, as they exist today, could forecast what precipitation might be like in the future there. And that basic problem will persist until there is a redirection of climate-research funding. Yes, funding. Research follows the money.

What value do climate model-based studies provide?


The paper Pierce et al. (2013) The Key Role of Heavy Precipitation Events in Climate Model Disagreements of Future Annual Precipitation Changes in California provides an overview of why the climate models have no value when it comes to forecasts like California drought. In their abstract Pierce et al. write (my boldface and caps):

Of the 25 downscaled model projections examined here, 21 agree that precipitation frequency will DECREASE by the 2060s, with a mean reduction of 6-14 days yr−1. This reduces California’s mean annual precipitation by about 5.7%. Partly offsetting this, 16 of the 25 projections agree that daily precipitation intensity will INCREASE, which accounts for a model average 5.3% increase in annual precipitation. Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter.

[Hat tip to blogger “Jimbo” on the WUWT thread Claim: Cause of California drought linked to climate change [ not one mention of ENSO or El Nino.]

So some climate models say that daily precipitation intensity will increase and others say it will decrease. In other words, the climate science community is clueless about what the future might bring for west coast precipitation.

Some might say that climatologists for the State of California and other west coast states have been hampered by climate science. It’s tough to make recommendations to state and local governments for long-term planning when the climate science community provides them with nothing to work with.

Is California prepared for a drought that lasts multiple decades or even centuries?

Anthony Watts’s post included a graph from a paleoclimatological study of West Coast drought that showed past droughts have lasted for hundreds of years. For the original graph and discussion, see Figure 10 of Cook et al. (2007) North American drought: Reconstructions, causes, and consequences. (Note: That’s not the John Cook from SkepticalScience.)

Now I hate to make you think about bad news. But if it’s happened in the past, can it happen again?

Why are mainstream media simply parroting press releases?

Climate-change news reports have become echo chambers of the press releases put out by colleges, universities and government research agencies. Individual reporters might provide a more in-depth report by asking the scientist-authors for a few extra word of wisdom.

But why aren’t the media asking the tough questions, like:

Why weren’t west-coast residents warned 10 or 15 years ago that a severe drought is just a weather anomaly away?
Why aren’t there enough desalinization plants in place to supplement rainfall deficits?
Why are the people of the west coast protesting for, and why are state governments funding, more wind farms and solar arrays when they need something more basic to maintain life there, water?
Seems to me we may very soon be seeing a reversal of Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, with vast flocks of California residents migrating back to the Midwest, which also is subject to periodic droughts.

Poor planning on the parts of a few - based on politically motivated, unsound science - may make for emergencies for millions.

Sep 29, 2014
Real Climate Debate Hasn’t Even Begun

By Larry Bell

Contrary even to former Obama administration Energy Department Undersecretary for Science Steven Koonin’s admission that the climate change debate isn’t settled, there never really was one.

Koonin, who now directs New York University’s Center for Urban Science and Progress, wrote a headlined Wall Street Journal Weekend Review story that was entirely right about thing however: “We often hear there is a ‘scientific consensus’ about climate change… But as far as computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences.”

Dr. Koonin is also correct in noting that the issue isn’t whether or not the climate is changing because “the climate has always changed and always will” He points out that the main question remains to be about the relative importance of both natural and man-made influences which will effect energy and infrastructure policy decisions.

On this score, while he believes that humans can cause serious issues, “they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole”, whereas carbon dioxide emissions “directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1 percent to 2 percent.”

Still, there’s even very good reason to think that even this amount of human CO2 influence may be highly exaggerated.

He admits that “climate sensitivity,” an estimate of warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, is no different, and no more certain than it was 30 years ago. Meanwhile, global sea levels rose at almost the same rate during the first half of the 20th century as today.

At the same time, Earth’s average surface temperature rise of 0.9 degree F over the last quarter of the 20th century has slowed over the past 16 years (many say longer), while human CO2 contributions have continually risen 25 percent. Koonin adds: “Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise.” He also observes that models showing Arctic ice melting over the past 20 years forget to note almost equal growth across Antarctica which is “now at a record high.”

Incidentally, global temperatures were just as warm, or even warmer, than now from about 1910 to 1945 when atmospheric CO2 levels were lower. And let’s also recognize that no respectable surveys show consensus among experts that global warming since the industrial revolution brought smoke stacks and SUVs onto the scene is either unusual or anything to lose sleep over.

So where do the famous “climate debate is settled” and “97 percent of all scientists agree about global warming” (aka climate change) statements come from? They can be traced to an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union survey consisting of an intentionally brief two question online survey sent to 10,257 Earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois-Chicago, which asked two questions.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Few would be expected to dispute this. Thee planet began thawing out of the little ice age in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real ice age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming...and for both “better” and “worse”?

Which contributions? Land use? Deforestation? They were also not asked whether they believed the anthropogenic (human-caused) contribution was or might become sufficient to warrant concern or the adoption of stringent government regulatory policies.

Of the 3,146 who responded (a 31 percent return rate), only a small subset of just 77 (2.5 percent) were represented in the survey statistic. These are ones who listed “climate science” as their area of expertise and had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals.

In other words, that “97 percent all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered yes.

Get that - of the 3,146 Earth scientists who responded, 98 percent of the cherry-picked 2.5 percent who were counted in the survey agreed that humans have at least some unspecified influence on climate! That’s really a ton of consensus!

In his Wall Street Journal article Steven Koonin wisely cautions: “Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.” He concludes that “any serious discussion of the changing climate begin by acknowledging not only scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future.”

Yes. Only when that happens will the real debate begin. One where Mother Nature will have the final word.

Sep 23, 2014
Surprising PNAS paper: CO2 emissions not the cause of U.S. West Coast warming

Anthony Watts

The rise in temperatures along the U.S. West Coast during the past century is almost entirely the result of natural forces - not human emissions of greenhouse gases, according to a major new study released today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.



Northeast Pacific coastal warming since 1900 is often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, whereas multidecadal temperature changes are widely interpreted in the framework of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which responds to regional atmospheric dynamics. This study uses several independent data sources to demonstrate that century-long warming around the northeast Pacific margins, like multidecadal variability, can be primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, and that dynamical mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also apply to observed century-long trends.

From a Seattle Times newspaper story: (h/t Dale Hartz)

The vast majority of coastal temperature increases since 1900 are the result of changes in winds over the eastern Pacific Ocean, the authors found. But they could find no evidence that those weather patterns were themselves being influenced by the human burning of fossil fuels…

Since the ocean is the biggest driver of temperature changes along the coast, the authors tracked land and sea surface temperatures there going back 113 years. They found that virtually all of the roughly 1 degree Celsius average temperature increase could be explained by changes in air circulation.

“It’s a simple story, but the results are very surprising: We do not see a human hand in the warming of the West Coast,” said co-author Nate Mantua, with NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center. “That is taking people by surprise, and may generate some blowback.”Source.

The paper:

Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900 to 2012

James A. Johnstone and Nathan J. Mantua


Over the last century, northeast Pacific coastal sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and land-based surface air temperatures (SATs) display multidecadal variations associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, in addition to a warming trend of ∼0.5-1 C. Using independent records of sea-level pressure (SLP), SST, and SAT, this study investigates northeast (NE) Pacific coupled atmosphere ocean variability from 1900 to 2012, with emphasis on the coastal areas around North America. We use a linear stochastic time series model to show that the SST evolution around the NE Pacific coast can be explained by a combination of regional atmospheric forcing and ocean persistence, accounting for 63% of nonseasonal monthly SST variance (r = 0.79) and 73% of variance in annual means (r = 0.86). We show that SLP reductions and related atmospheric forcing led to century long warming around the NE Pacific margins, with the strongest trends observed from 1910 to 1920 to 1940. NE Pacific circulation changes are estimated to account for more than 80% of the 1900 to 2012 linear warming in coastal NE Pacific SST and US Pacific northwest (Washington, Oregon, and northern California) SAT. An ensemble of climate model simulations run under the same historical radiative forcings fails to reproduce the observed regional circulation trends. These results suggest that natural internally generated changes in atmospheric circulation were the primary cause of coastal NE Pacific warming from 1900 to 2012 and demonstrate more generally that regional mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also extend to century time scales.

Sep 23, 2014
Climate Clowns: 7 Most Ridiculous UN Climate Forum Attendees

By Mike Ciandella

On September 23, a group of liberal activists, socialists and “journalists” from MSNBC and The Nation will join UN delegates in deciding the future of the world’s environmental policy. Predictably, no skeptics or moderates will be joining this huddle of hubris. While the media are quick to hype the forum, they’re not so quick to point out just how laughable some of the attendees are.

“The global warming movement has morphed into a coalition of ‘climate cause deniers.’ They deny the hundreds of causes and variables of climate change and pretend CO2 is the ‘control knob’ overriding all the others,” Marc Morano, Publisher of Climate Depot and producer of upcoming global warming documentary ‘Climate Hustle’ told the Media Research Center.

And the list of high-profile participants in this climate forum shows it’s nothing but an exercise in left-wing groupthink.

Naomi Klein: Best-selling Author Sees Capitalism As The Enemy of Progress

Yes, she’s called out conservative groups by name for opposing “wealth redistribution” (shocking!) But Klein is so fundamentally unserious that she cited an isolated incident of a plane getting stuck on softening tarmac as evidence for climate change and then excoriated the passengers on that flight for continuing their journey home and apparently exacerbating the problem. But a quick internet search reveals that even the BBC, which nobody can accuse of being skeptical about climate change, explained away such phenomena as commonly occurring in temperatures as low as 86 degrees.

Ronan Farrow: Farrow’s claim to fame begins and ends with possibly (but not definitely) being the son of Frank Sinatra. On July 29, Farrow devoted a segment to the question of whether or not emoji, a version of emoticons popular on smartphones, are racist because of their lack of racial diversity. Hard-nosed journalism!

Al Gore: Despite being something of a deity to climate change alarmists, Gore saw no problem in selling his floundering Current TV network to terror-friendly and oil-funded Al Jazeera, owned by the emir of Qatar. Gore described Al Jazeera, which threw a birthday party for a convicted terrorist in 2008, as “feisty and relatively independent.” Apparently his love of the environment and his country was less than his love of $500 million.

Norman Lear: the rabidly liberal founder of People for the American Way and the man who gave us “Meathead” has been an outspoken opponent of evangelical Christians, the “religious right” and conservatives in general.

Jeffrey Sachs: Soros Crony, Columbia Professor

According to Sachs, more typhoons will happen unless liberal energy policies are adopted, and those who disagree have “blood on their hands.”

Ted Turner: the rabidly liberal creator of CNN, and former husband to Jane Fonda, is attending on behalf of the UN’s own foundation. Turner, in an interview with Fortune Magazine on December 9, advocated for a one child policy in the United States, saying that the world population, citing overpopulation as a significant cause of climate change. He also said that if we don’t address global warming, within a few decades “most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”

Rajendra Pachauri: as the chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he admitted in early 2013 that there had been a 17-year plateau in global temperatures. He has also been accused of conflicts of interest and working for grant money to the extent that the head of Greenpeace UK called for Pachauri to resign from his then-current position as head of the IPCC.

According to the UN website, the purpose of the United Nations Private Sector Forum 2014 is “to bring the voice of the private sector to inter-governmental debates on key topics.”

“The Climate Summit will serve as a public platform for leaders at the highest level all Member States, business, finance, civil society and local leaders to:

“Catalyze ambitious action on the ground to reduce emissions and strengthen climate resilience”
“Mobilize political will for an ambitious global legal agreement by 2015 that limits the world to a less than 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperature.”
“Green” billionaire Tom Steyer, an emerging bankroller for the left, and disgraced scientist James Hansen have promised to be in attendance for a march in New York City scheduled for September 21. The march’s organizers promise that the “People’s Climate March”

The following is a list of some of the other notable liberal activists, in order of their placement on the UN’s participant list:

The crowd funding website Kickstarter,
Lyn Lear, Norman’s wife, representing the Lear Family Foundation
Wesley Clark, former democratic presidential contender, in attendance representing Wesley Clark Associates
The Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council, the group led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Oxfam America
Oxfam International
Rockefeller Foundation
Ted Turner, rabidly liberal creator of CNN and former husband to Jane Fonda, is attending on behalf of the UN’s own foundation
World Resources Institute
WWF Global Climate and Energy Initiative
A second delegate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in addition to Rajendra Pachauri.


Not at the rally but one of the puppetmasters behind the whole socialist, antic capitalist, anti energy agendas is George Soros.

A group of wealthy businessmen with ties to the Obama political machine has put out an email blast asking Americans to submit public comments to the EPA in favor of the president’s “aggressive plan to tackle climate change.”

The new EPA rules would slap strict regulations on power plants through a plan critics say would result in millions of lost jobs and force consumers to pay more for their electricity. The EPA is accepting comments from the public through Dec. 1.

Organizing for Action, funded by billionaire investor George Soros, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and other progressive rainmakers, asks recipients of the email to “Stand with the President” by submitting a public comment to the EPA before the deadline passes.

Please take a minute and send a comment AGAINST shutting down fossil fuels while your lights are still on The EPA’s public comment period for the new rules has been extended through Dec. 1. To make a public comment click here.

Read more.

Sep 16, 2014
Extent of Antarctic sea ice reaches record levels, scientists say


By Jane Ryan and Sam Ikin
Updated 17 Sep 2014, 6:45amWed 17 Sep 2014, 6:45am

Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.


Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometers covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent.

Jan Lieser from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) said the discovery was made two days ago.

“This is an area covered by sea ice which we’ve never seen from space before,” he said.

“Thirty-five years ago the first satellites went up which were reliably telling us what area, two dimensional area, of sea ice was covered and we’ve never seen that before, that much area.

“That is roughly double the size of the Antarctic continent and about three times the size of Australia.”


The formation of sea ice around Antarctica every year is one of the biggest seasonal events on Earth.

The ice is generated in what scientists refer to as “sea ice factories” or polynia - areas of the ocean surface where currents and wind patterns combine to generate sea ice.


Antarctic sea ice covers record area. PHOTO: An area about three times the size of Australia, in the Antarctic region, is now covered by sea ice. (British Antarctic Survey) Satellite image showing Antarctic sea ice
PHOTO: A satellite image of Antarctica showing sea ice extent. The red line is the average for September. (Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC)

“As soon as sea ice is produced in these polynias it is actually transported away from that so more sea ice can be produced,” Dr Lieser said.

Record Antarctic sea ice:

Antarctic sea ice covers 19.619 million sq km.

Maximum area recorded on September 12, 2014.

Third year in a row a record has been reached.

There has been a 1.5 per cent increase each decade since records began in 1979.

Increase believed to be linked to strong westerly winds.

As the area covered in sea ice expands scientists have said the ice on the continent of Antarctica which is not over the ocean continues to deplete.

CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Tony Worby, said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns.

“The extent of sea ice is driven by the winds around Antarctica, and we believe that they’re increasing in strength and part of that is around the depletion of ozone,” he said.

ICECAP NOTE: An examination of the zonal winds at the surface (yellows and reds westerly, blues easterly) show no apparent correlation to expanded ice cover.

He said changes to sea ice levels could have implications for the entire Antarctic ecosystem.

“So the sea ice is a very important habitat for krill in particular and for the reproduction of krill and that forms one of the absolute staples of the diet for many species in the Antarctic.”

While the Antarctic ecosystem braces for change, the world’s Antarctic research vessels will also have to contend with treacherous conditions in the months ahead.

Sep 10, 2014
Big money behind brainwashing effort by NSF, GMU, AMS

From Spencer Adkins:
New National Science Foundation Grant Supports (SUBVERTS) The Nation’s TV Weathercasters As Local Climate Educators

PRINCETON, N.J.  The nation’s television weathercasters will have better tools to keep their viewers informed about the local consequences of climate change, thanks to a $3 million National Science Foundation grant awarded to George Mason University and Climate Central, a non-profit science and journalism organization.

The three-year grant Taking to Scale a Proven Climate Education Method by TV Weathercasters: Climate Matters will expand Climate Central’s current efforts to produce and deliver localized TV-ready climate science content and professional development opportunities to TV meteorologists around the country.

“We found in our prior NSF-funded research that TV weathercasters can be highly effective climate educators” said the lead investigator for the project, Dr. Edward Maibach of George Mason University. “We also found that there are many TV weathercasters around the country who are eager to inform their viewers about the local weather impacts of climate change.”


More than 150 weathercasters are participating in the program, called Climate Matters. The goal of the current grant is to add an additional 200 weathercasters to the project, although all of the nation’s approximately 1,300 weathercasters will be invited to participate.

We will make every effort to make sure they do not succeed. Maibach is no scientist but was recruited by the AMS which was frustrated that the TV mets who are the connection the science has to the public tended to be skeptical because they knew that a lot of the warming is in the cities and have ben around long enough to have seen cycles and extremes in weather. The AMS/GMU/CC/TWC climate mafia is working hard to convert the non-believers. The AMS has required all seal holders and CBMs to take special climate workshops where they are schooled on the greenhouse scam. The tests they take have climate questions. They have to parrot back the falsehoods they are taught. The young people have been brainwashed/greenwashed in the universities. Why??  The $165B since 1995 has bought a lot of compliance. Universities have been ‘purified’ by eliminating or silencing skeptics. AS one former TV met said you need only to look at the definition of bribery: Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient, where the gift is of a dishonest nature. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty. AMS represents the Academic community, which gets the lion’s share of the government and enviro booty.  They have a lot to lose if the movement were to fail. It will fail and we with your support will take back our science.

Sep 28, 2014
Justin Gillis NYT and Politifacts get it wrong

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM


Gillis points to Politifacts story as “justinification’ of his blind allegiance to all aspects of AGW. Steve Goddard in his comment has it right. The last comment actually is interesting claiming only 3% of the public doesn’t believe the climate is changing. Actually, there is not a skeptic I know that does not believe climate is changing, always has, always will.

In the Tampa Bay Times, Politfacts tackles 10 questions in a very weak analysis. I give them an F for effort and accuracy.

I will only touch on two items. These are their claims:

5. Surface temperatures on Earth “have stabilized.” -Mostly False.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has repeatedly questioned the need for proposals that address climate change, but he often tries to do it without sounding anti-science.

In an interview on Fox News in May, Rubio said he never denied that the climate was changing, but he also said that “the left loves to go around saying there is a consensus” when there is no consensus on the sensitivity of the climate, “which is why, despite 17 years of dramatic increases in carbon production by humans, surface temperatures (on) the earth have stabilized.”

Rubio has a point that over roughly the past 15 years, global surface temperatures have plateaued, particularly compared to their rapid rise in previous decades. But scientists we interviewed said the evidence suggests that the pause is temporary, with temperatures poised to rise once the oceans start releasing more heat. We rated Rubio’s claim Mostly False.

Yes that was one of 52 excuses for the pause but where is the proof the oceans are hiding the heat? From the University of Washington and the department of Trenberth’s missing heat comes a claim that we’ll have to wait another 15 years for global warming to resume. Sounds like a goalpost mover to me.

The Oceans that Slowed 21st Century Global Warming

Why did the rapid global warming that characterized the latter part of the 20th century slow down over the last 15 years or so? Many different theories have been proposed, but a new study suggests that a massive movement of heat from shallow surface waters to deep regions of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans - but not the Pacific Ocean, as many researchers had predicted - might be responsible. Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung analyzed data from profiling floats, or oceanographic sensors that can move vertically throughout the water column, and traced the pathways that heat has taken through the world’s oceans since the turn of the 21st century. The oceans are capable of storing about 90% of the world’s surface heat content, and the researchers suggest that most of the excess heat that would have otherwise continued to fuel global warming is currently stored in the basins of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans.

Atlantic Ocean heat Content.


The Atlantic is in its warm phase of the 60-70 year AMO. It explains the increased heat since 1995. When it reenters the cold mode it will accelerate the cooling.


6. “NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming.” Pants on Fire.

Fox News host Steve Doocy repeated something that’s been all over the Internet: the claim that scientists have fixed numbers to make 1998 the hottest year.

PunditFact found that scientists have adjusted historical data to account for weather stations that have moved or when temperatures were recorded at different times of day. That’s hardly the same thing as fudging the numbers in pursuit of a political agenda. We rated Doocy’s statement Pants on Fire.

REPLY: Doocy’s got it right. Politifacts response if more like Liberal Hair on Fire.


In 1999, NOAA and NASA reported 1998 was 1.1F cooler than 1934. Hansen admitted the 1930s was the warmest decade and 1934 the warmest year. See his quote in the image.

This US data set, though initially widely regarded as the world’s best because it was stable and had adjustments for urbanization contamination. But it was at odds with the global data set which did not have the same stability or adjustments.


In 2008 under pressure, NOAA redid the data set, removing the urban adjustment.


The result is that a 1998 that was 1.1F cooler than 1934 in 1998 became 0.2F warmer, a 1.3F change.  I would regard that as fudging the data in pursuit of a political agenda so Doocy was right on.

Sep 26, 2014
Obama to Shut Down 40% of U.S. Power Production

Independent Living News

Brought Down By Good Intentions

I’ve warned you many times that our power grid is unstable. The infrastructure is old. The security protecting the grid is porous. The amount of power it is able to supply is just barely outstrips the demands we place on it.

And demand is growing, while supply is being deliberately hampered. In the coming years, you’ll see my predictions begin to take shape. The grid is going to become more unreliable. More unstable.

And prices are going to go up. You read that right. You’re going to pay more for a lower quality product.

You can thank green energy policies for this unfortunate turn of events.

Government Attacks 86% Of Our Power Supply

Lets look at some basic facts.

Power companies meet demand by tapping into power plants to supply electricity when people need it. To do this, they count on plants to be able to provide more energy at a moment’s notice. As demand shifts, so does the supply of power running through the grid.

The types of power plants that have the capability to quickly adjust to meet swings in demand are natural gas, coal powered, hydroelectric, and nuclear. Currently these types of plants provide more than 86% of the nation’s power needs. And for the most part - despite the shortcomings of our grid infrastructure - they do a reliable job.

Unfortunately, the EPA has other ideas.

The EPA keeps passing regulations to “improve” coal-fired power plants. These regulations, on the surface, are meant to force coal-fired power plants to become cleaner energy producers. What these regulations are really doing is forcing coal-fired power plants to shut down. And they’re also preventing new plants from opening.

The EPA - an arm of the executive branch of government - is responsible for policies that may force 40% of the nation’s power generation to come to a standstill. In any other country, such a policy would be ludicrous. 

The EPA also has it in for natural gas power plants. And there are plenty of activists out there trying to shut down hydroelectric dams and nuclear power facilities, too.

Storms… disasters… terrorism… rolling blackouts…

There are so many ugly threats in our world that we can’t control. And have you noticed lately the rising level of social madness that is welling up out there? Well, don’t worry = you are not alone in realizing that you need to have a plan. A way to leave >> See what they’re doing to prepare here

‘I guarantee you if wind power ever got to be efficient at producing energy, it would become the target of the government, the environmentalists, or both.’ That’s because these folks aren’t pro-earth. They are anti-energy.

Anti-Energy Environmentalist Want to Send You Back to Pre-Industrial Living

Just look at the power sources that environmentalists and EPA bureaucrats do support. Wind and solar. But these alternatives aren’t practical. They don’t provide the kind of reliable flow of power that the grid demands. Wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable. They cannot sustain the grid. In fact, they put it at higher risk. When nd and solar power are tied into the grid, power companies have to depend on coal and natural gas plants for back up when the wind isn’t blowing or when the day is overcast. This forces normally reliable power producers to constantly adjust their supply to match the unpredictable shortfalls created by green energy sources.

Yet, the government subsidizes production of both wind and solar power, even though combined, they provide just 4% of our power.

Our Grid is In Danger

Setting impossible-to-meet regulations on reliable power sources while subsidizing green energy sources that disrupt the grid more than they enhance it is a crazy policy. More than that, it’s dangerous. These bad government policies have the potential to collapse the grid.

It puts average citizens like you and me in a bad position. The current administration - which is supposed to protect our national interests - seems determined to do as much damage to the power grid as possible. The best-case scenario, like I said at the beginning of this article, is higher prices and lower reliability. The worst-case scenario is no power at all.

Solar storms and terrorist attacks are very real threats to our power grid, but the biggest threat of all is our government.

I urge you to take three steps toward greater personal energy independence, starting today.

First, take stock of the most important things you use power for. If you had to go without power, what would be the hardest things for you and your family to live without?

Second, begin planning a back-up system for those things.

And third, contact your representatives in Congress. Tell them you support a smart energy policy based on coal, natural gas, and other reliable power sources and you expect them to do the same.

The Obama administration is as anti-energy as any I’ve seen. And only time will tell the extent of the damage this administration has done to our power grid. Preparing for the worst, at this point, is just prudent.

P.S. With our power grid in such fragile shape, any number of threats could deliver a crippling blow, leaving the nation in the dark. Let me show you the list of essentials you need to withstand any emergency situation.

Sep 24, 2014
Protecting the Poor from Climate Change: Which Voices Count?


Climate change: The greatest challenge facing humanity? A manageable problem? Just par for the course on a planet whose climate has always changed?

What should we do about it? Indeed, what can we do about it?

Would drastic cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions save the world from disaster, or make no significant difference in future climate? Would the cuts cost little, or condemn much of the world to more generations of abject poverty, disease, and premature death?

Are wind, solar, and other alternatives to coal, oil, and natural gas as abundant, affordable, and reliable, or would switching to them drive up energy prices and cause costly and dangerous brownouts and blackouts?

Whose opinions about climate change, and climate policy, matter?

Some climate scientists, associated with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who publish dire warnings of catastrophe, say only their opinions count. But what about other climate scientists, including those with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, plus more, who think human contribution to climate change is relatively small and not dangerous?

How about economists, who understand the economic impact of proposed climate policies? Or energy engineers, who understand the challenges of providing, abundant, affordable, reliable energy, without which societies cannot climb or stay out of poverty? Or political scientists, who study the impact of environmental regulations on liberty?

How about theologians and philosophers, who can speak to the philosophy of science and the ethics of policy to questions of justice and charity, of human life and dignity, of rights and responsibilities? Or pastors, aid workers, and others who deal with people in need - the elderly, the poor, and others who are hardest hit, whether by changing climate or by policies meant to address it?

And what about ordinary citizens, whose lives will be influenced by climate change, whether it’s largely manmade or natural, and by policies meant to respond to it, whether by trying to prevent it, or by adapting to it? It’s ordinary people, after all, who pay utility bills affected by energy policies driven by climate concerns.

Climate change and climate policy are among the most complex issues humanity encounters. No group - not even climate scientists - should have a monopoly on advising policymakers about them. Instead, this multifaceted challenge requires input from thinkers of many backgrounds.

A network of Christian theologians, scientists, economists, and other scholars believes people of all these backgrounds and more are stakeholders in the decisions facing America and other nations around the world. They can have well-informed opinions on climate change and climate policy, and they deserve to be heard by policymakers.

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which I lead, has issued a declaration, Protect the Poor: Ten Reasons to Oppose Harmful Climate Change Policies, signed by over 140 individuals so far. Nearly 50 scientists, including 21 climate scientists, are among the signers, along with 21 economists, including specialists in environmental economics; 48 theologians, philosophers, and pastors; 29 ministry leaders, and 10 media figures who believe today’s climate change policies will hurt society’s most vulnerable.

The 21 climate scientists among signers are particularly significant. Last year, an opposing group published a statement that some people, including a reporter for the prestigious ClimateWire, a publication of Energy & Environment Publishing, Inc., took to have been endorsed by nearly 200 evangelical climate scientists; it turned that only 5 (2.6%) were climate scientists.

Among 20 climate scientists endorsing the declaration are Joseph D’Aleo, co-founder of The Weather Channel and chief meteorologist of and; Neil L. Frank, former Director, National Hurricane Center; and Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist in Climatology at the University of Alabama and an award-winning NASA climate researcher. Economists include Kenneth Chilton, Founder and Senior Environmental Fellow, Center for Economics & the Environment, Lindenwood University; George Gilder, author of Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World; and Shawn Ritenour, Professor of Economics, Grove City College. Theologians, philosophers, and pastors include Bradley G. Green, Associate Professor of Christian Thought and Tradition, Union University; Henry Krabbendam, Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies, Covenant College, and President of Africa Christian Training Institute, Uganda; and Jeffrey Riley, Professor of Ethics, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

The declaration is backed by a new study, A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor 2014: The Case against Harmful Climate Policies Gets Stronger, written by two outstanding scholars, Dr. David R. Legates, Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware, and Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, Professor of Economics and Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate at the University of Victoria, in British Columbia. I provided an introduction from the perspective of a theologian and ethicist concerned about the impact of climate policies on the world’s poor.

Both the declaration and the study are available on the Cornwall Alliance’s website,

Summarizing some of the study’s findings, the declaration states that Earth’s climate system is robust, resilient, and self-correcting, reducing rather than magnifying the impact of added CO2 to the atmosphere, and that natural cycles outweigh human influence global temperature.

It points out that computer climate models, on which predictions of dangerous warming rest, have been falsified by real-world observations, which show CO2-driven warming to be far less than expected, and thus far less dangerous, possibly even mostly beneficial. And aside from its minuscule effect on temperature, “Rising atmospheric CO2 benefits all life on Earth by improving plant growth and crop yields, making food more abundant and affordable, helping the poor most of all.”

It goes on to say:

Abundant, affordable, reliable energy, most of it now and in the foreseeable future provided by burning fossil fuels, which are the primary source of CO2 emissions, is indispensable to lifting and keeping people out of poverty. Mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions, pursued to prevent dangerous global warming, would have little or no discernible impact on global temperatures, but would greatly increase the price of energy and therefore of everything else. Such policies would put more people at greater risk than the warming they are intended to prevent, because they would slow, stop, or even reverse the economic growth that enables people to adapt to all climates. They would also harm the poor more than the wealthy, and would harm them more than the small amount of warming they might prevent.

“[B]illions of the poor desperately need to replace dirty, inefficient cooking and heating fuels, pollution from which causes hundreds of millions of illnesses and about 4 million premature deaths every year, mostly among women and young children,” the declaration says. “To demand that they forgo the use of inexpensive fossil fuels and depend on expensive wind, solar, and other ‘Green’ fuels to meet that need is to condemn them to more generations of poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it.”

The declaration’s signers call on:

“Christians to practice creation stewardship out of love for God and love for our neighbors - especially the poor”;

“Christian leaders to study the issues and embrace sound scientific, economic, and ethical thinking on creation stewardship, particularly climate change”; and on

“Political leaders to abandon fruitless and harmful policies to control global temperature and instead adopt policies that simultaneously reflect responsible environmental stewardship, make energy and all its benefits more affordable, and so free the poor to rise out of poverty.”

The war on fossil fuels is, in the end, a war on the poor. It’s time to end it.

Sep 27, 2014
More criticism of the paper “Tornado Activity is Occurring Earlier in the Heart of “Tornado Alley"”

Watts Up With That

Anthony Watts

WUWT has previously covered a press release from The OAS on the paper, now, Mike Smith, a CCM at WeatherData Inc. writes at Meteorological Musings:

Another Shabby Attempt to Tie Increased Tornadoes to Global Warming

The paper, Tornado Activity is Occurring Earlier in the Heart of “Tornado Alley” brings up some interesting points about the peak of tornado season occurring earlier in the spring in the conventional “tornado alley” of the Great Plains. The paper is an attempt to link global warming to a change in tornado season between 1954 and 2009. Its primary conclusions appear sound. That result is not surprising given the rise in global temperatures during that period of time (see graph).


My objections are not with the primary thrust of the paper. It appears to be a useful addition to the literature.

My objection is the paper’s attempt to make the change in the time of the peak tornado season into something sinister. For example, the first sentence in the paper (it appears in the Abstract) is,

“Tornado frequency may increase as the factors that contribute to severe convection are altered by a changing climate.”

It also says,

“The lack of evidence is due in part to sampling effort: the number of reported tornadoes has increased over time [Dixon et al., 2011].”

The reference to Dixon has to do with Dixie tornado alley, not the one in the Great Plains.

So, let’s go through this yet again. Let’s begin with all tornadoes of F-1 intensity or greater:

Enlarged tornado-frequency-from-1954

Even though world temperatures have risen, there is absolutely no upward trend in tornadoes. This is especially surprising given the storm chase program that started in 1972 and Doppler radar installations beginning in 1991. There are many small tornadoes that now get into the books that never would have been recorded a half-century ago.

Mike has further graphs and analysis here: Another Shabby Attempt to Tie Increased Tornadoes to Global Warming

I suggest you bookmark his website, and may I recommend his book Warnings: The true story of how science tamed the weather.


I’ve read it, and I’ve lived and experienced much of what he’s written about in the quest to make forecasting, especially severe weather forecasting, more accurate, timely, and specific. For those of us that prefer practical approaches over the rampant speculation on mere wisps of connections to climate, this book is for you.

Sep 26, 2014
OH YES, you are very, very STUPID love.


Derek Alker shared Chuck Wiese's photo.
September 22 at 6:01am

OH YES, you are very, very STUPID love.

BECAUSE there is no greenhouse effect. It IS imaginary. You believe in a pseudo science based upon a falsified paradigm that is ONLY politically correct Climate has always, and always will change perfectly naturally. Belief in homocentric global

warming is, and will be remembered as the largest mass "mistake" in human history.The vast majority of man made climate change believers -

1) Do not even know what, nor have never looked at what the greenhouse effect "theory" is.

2) Do not know what the scientific method is, or who is supposed to use it, what it is supposed to be used for, nor when to use it.Answers to the two statements above

1) For those that have not looked up what the greenhouse effect "theory" actually is, and why it is currently taught in the deliberate stepped manner it is, then this link might be helpful.

2) The scientific method is for ALL. It is inclusive, it is NOT exclusive. It is so “we” the people can check what the “experts” tell us is so, and so that the scientists have a structure by which they can work together.
The scientific method is five very simple stages -

i) Observation - We observe something, preferably with empirical data / measurements.
ii) Hypothesis - Hunch to explain observation.
iii) Experiment - The hypothesis makes predictions of what will happen, these can be tested by experiment.
iv) Theory - IF the experiments confirm the hypothesis, then an explanation has been proven.

HOWEVER, at every stage the proposer must try to disprove his / her own hypothesis and experiment. ALSO, all work associated with observation, hypothesis, and experiment should be made available for all, so they can check too.

v) Law - This is when a theory has “passed” the scientific method, no one can show anything of significance wrong with it. BUT, even Laws, in the scientific method are not above question. As Lord Huxley stated many years ago,

“It only takes one ugly fact to destroy the beautiful theory.”

Science and the scientific method IS never ending, it is open and includes ALL. Anyone who says differently does not understand science, AND is not being scientific. In short, the scientific method is to protect the scientists from making mistakes, and to protect the people from being conned by incompetent, or dishonest science and scientists. This explains WHY so many who believe in the current politically correct pseudo science of homocentric global warming “Theory”, do not understand science, and are usually politically motivated too. This is because man made global warming, is, and always was a politically motivated subject / agenda / movement, by which to control us all, under a one world government headed by the United Nations and the green agenda. ALL, absolutely ALL “justified” by the pseudo science of the greenhouse effect “theory”, that IS a failed hypothesis, according to the scientific method. If only more people understood and practiced the scientific method then there would not be so many STUPID people about....

Sep 18, 2014
Are Record Ocean Surface Temperatures Real? Due to Record Low Wind Speeds?

NOAA has claimed “The August global sea surface temperature was 0.65C (1.17F) above the 20th century average of 16.4C (61.4F). This record high departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08C (0.14F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03C (0.05F).” The peak warmth is in the Gulf of Alaska again (join us at WB to see why this will have a major impact on the winter in the US again).

Enlarged. satellite ocean temperature anomaly imagery.

UAH satellite derived SSTAs show it was just +0.22C globally over the oceans. There were 73 months warmer with the warmest +0.69C in May 1998 (nearly half degree celsius warmer than August).


Are Record Ocean Surface Temperatures Due to Record Low Wind Speeds?
September 18th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The fortuitous revelation of record warm sea surface temperatures in August, only days before Climate Summit 2014, begs the question - why?

Why were SSTs so warm? (Not “Why announce it just before Leonardo DiCaprio’s coronation?")

As readers here know, I follow the “ocean products” produced by RSS from the SSM/I and SSMIS satellite sensors, and a curious thing has been shaping up in the last few years.

Global average ocean surface wind speeds have been decreasing. In fact, August 2014 had the lowest surface wind speed in about 25 years.

Even after I correct for the typically lower wind speeds that occur with El Nino approaching (-0.5 m/s wind decrease per unit Multivariate ENSO Index value), it’s still at near a record-low since the satellite record began:

SSM/I and SSMIS monthly global ocean average surface wind speed anomalies.

For those wondering what these wind fields look like, here are the average gridpoint wind speeds for August (1 m/sec is about 2 knots), both as absolute values and as anomalies (departures from the mean):

Grid point ocean surface wind speeds from SSMIS in August 2014, shown as absolute values and anomalies.
Gridpoint ocean surface wind speeds from SSMIS in August 2014, shown as absolute values and anomalies.

Why is Wind Speed Important to SST?

Wind-driven evaporation is the largest source of heat loss from water bodies, including the global oceans. Assuming a global average rate of ocean surface heat loss of 90 W/m2 (which is mostly evaporative), the August value of about 4-5% below the long-term average would mean about 4 W/m2 less cooling of the ocean surface.

Importantly, this 4 W/m2 reduction in heat loss is LARGER than the supposed anthropogenic radiative forcing of about 2.3 W/m2, the IPCC’s RCP6 current radiative forcing value. (The true radiative imbalance is actually less than that because warming has offset some of it with increase IR emission to space). The net result that the wind speed effect is probably at least 4 times the anthropogenic effect.

So, what’s my point? Natural variations in all kinds of things are going on, including a reduction in wind-driven evaporation, which likely contributed to “record warm” SSTs in August.

I have no strong opinions of why the reduction in wind speeds is occurring. Usually the best guess in climate is that it’s part of some cycle that will reverse itself at some point. Only time will tell.


The Curious Case of Record August Ocean Temperatures

September 19th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Several people have noted the apparent mis-match between the NCDC report of all-time record warmth of global average sea surface temperatures in August, and the satellite tropospheric temperatures which are nowhere near a record.

But, as I have cautioned, there tends to be a time lag between SST warming and atmospheric warming...typically 1 month during non-ENSO conditions, and 2-3 months during ENSO. Furthermore, tropospheric temperature variations are somewhat larger than the SST variations that drive them, making direct comparison of the numbers more difficult.

You can get around both of these problems by plotting one versus the other on a graph to see if the latest behavior departs from the normal relationship previously displayed by the two variables (ocean surface temperature and oceanic lower tropospheric temperature).

If you also “connect the dots”, you get what’s called a phase space diagram. If we make such a plot for the 1997-98 super-El Nino, the 2009-10 El Nino, and the current (still weak) El Nino, it looks like this:

Enlarged Phase space plot of monthly sea surface temperature versus tropospheric temperature anomalies for three El Nino events.

Phase space plot of monthly sea surface temperature versus tropospheric temperature anomalies for three El Nino events (all begin in January, anomalies are relative to 1981-2010 averages).
The time lag of tropospheric temperature behind ocean surface temperature causes a curved trajectory in the data, as I’ve indicated with the light gray line.

What is interesting is that the “record warm” SST month of August, 2014 seems to be an outlier, with the SSTs being too warm (or the tropospheric temperatures too cool) compared to the usual behavior.

Barring some mistake in data processing, the only explanation I have for this is the possibility I blogged about yesterday, that near-record low ocean winds are allowing excessive surface warming while transferring less energy through convection to warm the troposphere. As I also mentioned yesterday, such an excursion would be due to natural variability...not due to “extra” carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which basically remains unchanged from one month to the next.

Sep 28, 2014
Good-bye TWC (The Weather Channel)

Mike Mogil CCM

WEATHERTORIAL: The following opinions are mine alone. This weathertorial was very difficult to write because, as a professional meteorologist, I have been a supporter of The Weather Channel (TWC) since its inception in 1982.

I believed in The Weather Channel when it was in its infancy, when many thought it would fail. I watched TWC religiously as it reached maturity and became a major national weather force.

And then, growing beyond its optimal bounds, and succumbing to buyouts by Comcast and NBC-Universal, I watched as the behemoth grew top-heavy with corporate bureaucrats and started to topple. Now, more than 30 years old, TWC is, in my opinion, past its prime.

Hence, as of September 24, 2014, I declared The Weather Channel off limits on my TV. I decided that if I, “needed to check the radar, babe,” (referring to my wife, who has lived with my incessant channel switching for years), I would get up, walk to my computer, and call up the local National Weather Service radar image.

There are several reasons behind this important, what I consider to be earth-shattering, decision. First, many years ago, TWC removed weather from its mainstream evening hours programming and added weather movies, special series, and other features. Yet, it was during this time period that many significant weather events were occurring. Getting real-time weather information, the primary purpose behind TWC’s existence, was compromised.

Next, The Weather Channel decided that every weather event had to have a “dark side.” I can still recall weathercasts during which the weather was picture perfect and, yet, TWC meteorologists proudly announced, “(paraphrased)...but, you could die from high UV readings.”

Then, TWC jumped into the climate change cauldron. Instead of reporting weather news and giving a balanced approach to the evolving issue, TWC opted for the NBC mantra of pushing the “green agenda.” Although I don’t buy into a human-driven climate catastrophe (because, as my wife noted, “how can we be so presumptuous as to believe that we can control such major planetary forces?"), I do subscribe to being a better planetary steward. I do this with a critical mindset (asking these and other questions):

• is the approach reasonable?

• is it cost effective?

• does it attack the real problem?

• is the solution deliverable?

• what are the downside risks?

It also quickly became apparent that The Weather Channel only reported on events that supported the human-caused climate change hypothesis. They never or rarely reported when events didn’t support it. When heat waves ensued, heat was the focus. When the polar vortex struck last winter, record cold was not the watchword, just the “unusual weather pattern.” When the summer of 2014 was chilly across the northeast and Great Lakes, TWC keyed on the heat and drought in California. I won’t even go into TWC’s biased ice cap reporting!

Further, every weather event, no matter how insignificant, is almost always tied to climate change.

Big weather events (such as the Halloween Storm of 1991) are often characterized as the only time such an event has ever happened or that the event is unprecedented. EVER? In the geologic history of the Earth? Or only in the past 50 years?

It is pretty obvious to me that TWC has swallowed the whole box of Kool-Aid as it pushes the human-caused climate change agenda at every turn. The other day, Al Roker and Stephanie Abrams went over the edge. They were reporting on the 300,000 protestors who wanted immediate governmental action to confront climate change. Ms. Abrams commented, “(paraphrased) with this type of support, we should finally be able to do something about the problem” WE?

Abrams trespassed beyond reporting and jumped well past editorial boundaries on this one. And, the result was the proverbial, “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

I wanted to watch TWC for weather - real data, real storm reports, information and more, all in one place. Instead, I was subjected to politically-based rhetoric and hidden editorials (in the guise of science), movies and series that replayed incessantly (many not even really about weather and which crowded out weather reporting), and ongoing lists of weather safety rules (ad nauseum).

Hence, I have finally decided that if TWC doesn’t want me, I don’t want it.

The Weather Channel has now been in the dark for 61 hours at the Mogil-Levine household. I think I am past missing the network, although I do regret not catching Jim Cantore, the maven of reliable weather information, as he weaves his incredible and mostly honest weather reporting.

And while TWC sinks, at least two other “weather channels” are rising (Fig. 1). One, WeatherNation, remains a poor upstart to even the olden TWC. However, the other, AccuWeather’s weather channel, set to debut sometime in the next month or so, promises, “All Weather, All The Time.” That message is a direct assault on the TWC approach or non-approach to TV weather!

It is very likely that TWC will not only be losing the likes of me as storm clouds gather on all horizons. Based on discussions with others, the loss of viewership may be far more than TWC may realize.

But, stay tuned for more information. As they say in TV land, “details at 6, 10 and 11...”

H. Michael Mogil, 2014

H. Michael Mogil is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and Certified Broadcast Meteorologist, who lives in Naples, FL.

Sep 24, 2014
Was August Really The Warmest Month Ever?

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Please use Donate button on the left column of the page to help us support our effots. We write for local newspapers, give talks in schools and local town funcitons and do cable shows, did Fact Checks on the UCS and EPA and Administration climate reports, have testified to the state Science, Technology and Energy Committee, worked with scientists and lawyers on the fact checks and Amici briefs to the DC Circuit and Supreme Court on trying to stop the runaway EPA regulatory agenda.

I have worked 7 days a week for Weatherbell since March 2011. I have considered stopping work on Icecap but have felt what we do is too important. I try to find an hour each day to update it. We have 7000 posts and have had 60 million hits since inception. We may not be the biggest site but we have made a difference. Thank you for your continued interest and support. The skeptic blogs are accused of getting money from big oil or the Koch brothers but that is not true. Meanwhile groups like with Bill McKibben claim they are just poor scientists and grad students but the IRS filings show they are sitting on millions in grants. Meanwhile, the WUWTs and Icecaps operate on small donations and lose money or break even. Rest assured we would not do what we do if we did not believe it was important.

Here is a draft of the latest local weekly story.

NOAA/NASA reports that August was the warmest month on record because the oceans were the warmest ever. But contrary to the spectacular “hottest August ever” lies being propagated by NASA and NOAA -August was the coldest in five years and the second coldest in 10 years, according to far more accurate NASA satellites. NOAA and NASA climate agencies budgets depend on confirming government sponsored climate models .


There has been no warming for 18 years as of September according to satellite. NASA satellite derived sea surface temperatures in the record back to 1978 show there were 73 months warmer with the warmest in May 1998 (nearly a full degree Fahrenheit warmer than this August). Like the surface land temperatures, ocean temperature warming is being intentionally exaggerated.

Why the difference? Satellites provide an objective measure of the entire surface of the earth, land and sea. Surface data is severely contaminated by local urban and land use changes. Oceans, which cover 71% of the earth’s surface, have only been measured accurately with satellite since 1978 and later buoys since 2004.

Dr. Helmut Landsberg, the Father of Climatology was one of my mentors on urban heat effects when I taught Microclimatology in college. I authored a peer review paper assessing the many problems with surface observations including urbanization.  It addressed most all of the misinformation presented in the Letter to the Editor last Friday by our friend Bruce.

In it, I link to a 2008 paper by Hadley’s Phil Jones et al., which found that contamination by urbanization in China was a very non-trivial 1C per century which but that did not cause the data centers to begin adjusting as that would have eliminated much of the politically proclaimed global warming.

In a 2009 article, Dr. Brian Stone of Georgia Tech wrote: “Across the US as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases.”

Because of the satellite data is ground truth, the focus on data manipulation as we showed you last post shifted to cooling off the first half of the 1900s. Since the media is largely friendly to the cause, you would not hear that this September will make it 18 years of no warming globally in the satellite data set and that the models are failing miserably.

Record highs and lows tell the story that heat is not increasing. For 28 of the 50 state all-time record highs came in the 1930s and 38 before 1960 (Christy US Senate testimony). There has been more record lows than highs since the 1940s.


The trend of 90 and 100 degree days have been down for over 75 years. NOAA reported no changes in flood or drought frequency since 1900. The last two years have had the fewest total of tornadoes on record and long term trend of strong tornadoes has been down. Global hurricane activity is at a 30 year plus low. We have gone 9 years without a major landfalling hurricane in the US, by far the longest on record. Sea level rise has declined to 4 inches/century from 7 inches in the 1900s.  The last two years have had the lowest number and acreage of forest fires in the record back to 1984. Snows have increased not decreased. Arctic ice rebounded 43% since 2012 even as this was the year when the ice was supposed to have disappeared. We have a record number of polar bears. This month we blew away the all-time satellite record for Antarctic sea ice extent. All the climate models are failing miserably.

The great Physicist Richard Feynman told his Cornell students that the scientific method dictates if a theory “...disagrees with experiment (or data), it’s wrong. “In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is...If it disagrees with experiment (data), it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

The science argues the theory has failed, but politics and $165B keeps it alive.

At the rally this weekend in NYC, 120 thousand enviro radicals, Hollywood and polical ignorati converged on NYC arriving in buses and planes and leaving behind a not very green mountain of trash.

Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace when it focused on true humanitarian and animal cruelty causes. Back then we had real issues with air and water pollution. I was involved heavily with environmental causes and got my ABD on Atmospheric Chemistry.  The movement made a sharp left turn in the 1980s. Patrick Moore told the Senate earlier this year and then made a powerful presentation you can see on HCTV explaining why he left Greenpeace when radicals and extremists with other agendas (population control, eliminating fossil fuels/nuclear, destroying capitalism, one world government) abandoned humanitarian efforts and railed against man as the enemy of the planet took control of Greenpeace and most all Environmental groups. Over time they adopted global warming as a tool. Patrick wrote about the new environmental radicalism.

It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it seem as though they’re saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over very large issues like our entire energy policy, media, for sensationalism, Universities and professors for grants. You can’t hardly get a science grant these days without saying it has something to do with climate change.

It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one, and it’s taken over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities. There are millions of children dying every day from preventable vitamin deficiencies and diseases, and we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a problem that may not exist.

Some clear thinking politicians on the left see through the fog:
Democrat Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University: “Obama has long been delusional on this issue. Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves.’ I’ve been lonely working on the Hill for the Democratic Party.”

Steven E. Koonin, Undersecretary for Science during Obama’s first term, sees “climate science” as a tangle of arrogance, conjecture and dubious methods that cannot withstand the scrutiny of any reasonably sharp mind.

Next story will focus on the upcoming winter and why big government sources will again not get the forecast right.

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer in November 2010 admitted “one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Instead, climate change policy is about how
we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”

Sep 15, 2014
Leo vs. science: vanishing evidence for climate change

By Tom Harris and Bob Carter

September 14, 2014 | 8:25pm

In the runup to the Sept. 23 UN Climate Summit in New York, Leonardo DiCaprio is releasing a series of films about the “climate crisis.”

The first is “Carbon,” which tells us the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible, DiCaprio says.

But he has identified the wrong monster. It is the climate scare itself that is the real threat to civilization.

DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it’s no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled. Other climate-change fantasists, who do have a scientific background, have far less excuse.

Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.

Yes, the “executive summary” of reports from the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change continues to sound the alarm - but the summary is written by the politicians. The scientific bulk of the report, while still tinged with improper advocacy, has all but thrown in the towel.

And the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the supposed “consensus” model.

Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring...and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”


 According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.

Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.

 Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.

 A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating but it’s not part of any new trend.

The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.” He’s right - and DiCaprio’s film is just another vector for spreading the virus.

The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.

Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion a year by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century.

Lomborg, a supporter of the UN’s climate science, notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”

Al Gore was right in one respect: Climate change is a moral issue - but that’s because there is nothing quite so immoral as well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global-warming policies, using money that could instead go to improve living standards in developing countries.

That is where the moral outrage should lie. Perhaps DiCaprio would like to make a film about it?

Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition. Bob Carter is former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia.


From Dr. Cal Beisner at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

Ten Reasons to Protect the Poor.

A Call to Truth

Signers of Protect the Poor

A better climate for the World’s Poor

Which Voices Count

Sep 28, 2014
Sea level forecast massive failures and continued lies

See the NIPCC very detailed assessment of the data that falsifies the data predictions made by Hansen, Gore, IPCC and the continued nonsense we get from the world’s governments on the national and local level here.

See also RISING SEA LEVEL FORECASTS: FACT OR FICTION? by Professor Cliff Ollier here.

He summarizes:

Summary of Sea Level Predictions by N.J. Ford

Actual sea level rises to date, may be somewhere between 1.4mm per year (Skeptic scientists) and 1.7mm per year (IPCC position).  In calculating the prediction errors, the IPCC figure has been used.  The errors would be larger if the skeptical scientists’ figure was used.  These figures assume that the natural sea rises are included in their predictions.

IPCC First Report (1990-1992), Summary for Policy Makers, p.52.  Sea levels will rise by one meter by the year 2100 (110 years-times).  This is 9.1mm per year.  Error to date is 535%

IPCC Second Report (1995), Summary for Policy Makers, p.23.  Sea levels will rise by 95cm by the year 2100 (105 years-times).  This is 9.0mm per year.  Error to date is 532%

IPCC Third Report (2001), Summary for Policy Makers, p.32.  Sea levels will rise by 88cm by the year 2100 (99 years-times).  This is 8.9mm per year.  Error to date is 523%

IPCC Fourth Report (2007), Summary for Policy Makers, p.7-8.  Sea levels will rise by 59cm by the year 2100 (93 years-times).  This is 6.3mm per year.  Error to date is 373%

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 1988 predicted sea levels would rise two meters by the year 2100 (112 years-time). This is 17.9mm per year.  Error to date is 1,050%

Al Gore and his NASA scientific advisor James Hansen predicted sea levels would rise six meters by 2050 in 1988, a meter each decade (62 years-time), with the Florida Keys being one meter under water by the year 2000.. This is 96.8mm per year.  Error to date is 5,693%

NSW Councils (e.g. Gosford, quoting the best international scientists including CSIRO and ANU) in 1995 was advising residents with water front properties that by 2015 (20 years-time) sea levels would rise by 6 metres. This is 300mm per year.  Error to date is 17,647%

NSW Councils (e.g. Gosford, quoting the best international scientists including CSIRO and ANU) in 2011 was advising residents with water front properties that by 2100 (89 years-time) sea levels would rise by 90cm. This is 10.1mm per year.  Error to date is 595%%

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 1995 predicted sea levels rises would result in 50 million climate refugees by the year 2010.  No climate refugees by that year.  Very large Error

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 2011 re-predicted sea levels rises would result in 50 million climate refugees by the year 2020.  This is likely to be another very large Error

For the last twenty years the Greens and their scientists have been telling us the islands of the Tuvalu and Maldives were sinking into the ocean.  In 2011 aerial photographs taken 60 years apart show the land area of all Tuvalu islands have grown by 5-30%.  No discernible change in the Maldives. Very large Error

In 2005, Professor Flannery, a climate advisor to the Australian Government, predicted Sydney would be covered by 20 meters of water by the year 2050 (45 years-times). This is 444mm per year.  Error to date is 26,144%

Sep 18, 2014
DiCaprio fights ‘carbon monster’ in new eco-documentary featuring Joe Romm & Sen. Bernie Sanders

8 min. video also makes all kinds of renewable energy claims.

DiCaprio fights ‘carbon monster’ in new eco-documentary featuring Joe Romm & Sen. Bernie Sanders

Leonardo DiCaprio: ‘We no longer need the dead economy of the fossil fuel industry.’

‘DiCaprio and climate scientists argue that coal, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are a “monster” that has created catastrophic surges in the earth’s surface temperature. In response, some lawmakers around the world are tinkering with ways to make carbon more expensive, and sustainable forms of energy - such as wind power - cheap.’

Leonardo DiCaprio, Environmental Hypocrite: Owns at last 5 luxury homes. Flies the world

Leonardo DiCaprio: ‘I will fly around the world doing good for the environment’

DiCaprio in new video: ‘We must put a price on carbon’

The first film in the series, titled “Carbon,” calls for more federal action to control carbon dioxide pollution. We cannot sit idly by and watch the fossil fuel industry make billions at our collective expense. We must put a price on carbon - now,” DiCaprio said in a statement. The eight-minute long film argues that a tax should be placed on carbon in order to keep global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius.

DiCaprio produced an AGW movie 11th Hour that bombed in the box office. Here he shows how little science and how few people saw his film.


See also New paper finds Asian aerosols are not a valid excuse for the ‘pause’’ in global warming


Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax: “...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth” H/T Tom Nelson.


See also Dr Craig Loehle’s analysis on WUWT Climate Change Impacts In The USA is Already [NOT] Happening.


See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”


See John Coleman’s excellent video summary ”There is NO Significant Global Warming” on KUSI Coleman’s corner. No one communicates better to the public.


See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.


From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge


Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.


See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.

Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV.  If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.


See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.


See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.


1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

See still more annotated here.


Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.


See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.

See sister sites:

WeatherBell Analytics here.

Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.

John Coleman’s Corner here.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)