Precision Forecasts
Jul 10, 2017
Hot Temperatures In Summer Have Been Declining For Decades

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

This is a supplement to the On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding Abridged Research Report of June 2017 New Research Report. This post contains some of the same charts and some new ones.

Meanwhile, the NRDC comes out with another report that will fail like all their prior scares. They claim that heat deaths will explode unless we redistribute our wealth as prescribed by the Paris Accord. Heat extremes have been forecast for decades to be increasing and if listen to the media, you would believe it has.  CEI takes them to task for their alarmist hype here.


Here is my take on it.

The fact is heat has been declining for decades using real data.

Iowa State University Mesonet posted this chart showing that for many areas through July 4th, the number of 90F+ days relative to the 1981-2016 to date average is below normal (so far) in 2017 in many areas, especially the southeast.


They also last year posted that the number of 90F days has declined for the 1981-2010 period relative to 1951 to 1980.


This agrees with the plot of the annual number of 90F days for all USHCN stations (Heller).


Which reflects the EPA Heat Wave Index annual plots since 1895 (Kunkel) and the number of decadal all time state records (Christy).

EPA Depiction of Heat Wave Index (Kunkel) Since 1890

This agrees with the plot of all-time state record high (and low) temperatures (Christy). The 1930s had 23 of the 50 state all time heat records and there were 38 before 1960 with more record lows than highs since the 1940s.


The average percent of 95F days has declined for all USHCN stations (Heller).


The U.S. growing areas (Primary Corn and Bean Belt) summer average maximum temperatures are cyclical and declining (NCEI CAAG).



Dr. Roy Spencer showed how the summer Corn Belt temperatures have diverged from climate model forecasts.


Precipitation has increased slightly and with better farm practices and hybrids and increasing amounts of the plant fertilizer CO2, lead to record crop yields. Even in droughty summers like 2012, yields were 50% higher than a similar drought in 1988.



Graphs of the number of 100F days by decade for Chicago, Detroit and New York City also show a multidecadal mostly declining decadal trend.




Jun 30, 2017
Former UN climate chief: Only three years left to save the planet (this time)

by Michael Bastasch

The United Nation’s former global warming czar has published a paper claiming humanity only has three years left to avert dangerous global warming and meet the goals of the Paris climate accord.

To do that, Christiana Figueres says governments and businesses need to pony up $1.3 trillion a year by 2020 earmarked for “climate action” to decarbonize the global economy. That’s on top of boosting green energy and phasing out fossil fuels, mostly coal.

“[S]hould emissions continue to rise beyond 2020, or even remain level, the temperature goals set in Paris become almost unattainable, Figueres, the former head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, wrote in an article published in Nature. “The UN Sustainable Development Goals that were agreed in 2015 would also be at grave risk.”

“These goals may be idealistic at best, unrealistic at worst. However, we are in the age of exponential transformation and think that such a focus will unleash ingenuity,” Figueres wrote in her article, which was co-authored by a few environmentalists and scientists.

The Paris accord aims to “significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change” by keeping global warming “well below” two degrees Celsius by 2100. Beyond that, many activist scientists say global warming poses a danger to humanity.

World leaders are set to meet at the G20 summit in July, and Figueres wants them to “highlight the importance of the 2020 climate turning point for greenhouse-gas emissions’’ by imposing more policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and putting up more money for climate programs.

Figueres isn’t the first to propose a costly plan to limit future global warming. A group associated with former Vice President Al Gore issued a report in April calling for $15 trillion to be spent on green energy and other programs to limit global warming.

The Gore-affiliated Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) called for “investment in renewables and other low-carbon technologies some $6 trillion higher ($300 billion per year); while the largest required increases - of almost $9 trillion ($450 billion per year) - will be in more efficient energy saving equipment and buildings.”

A recent Bloomberg New Energy Finance report estimated $12.7 trillion was needed to keep projected global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

The report estimated $7.4 trillion will be invested in new green energy capacity by 2040, adding a “further $5.3 trillion investment in 3.9 [terawatts] of zero-carbon capacity would be consistent with keeping the planet on a 2-degrees-C trajectory.”

Figueres calls for about $1.3 trillion a year to fight global warming by 2020. So the actual cost of her plan is likely on par or higher than those suggested outlined by the Gore group and Bloomberg.

“[P]lans to fully decarbonize buildings and infrastructures by 2050, with funding of $300 billion annually,” she wrote, adding the “financial sector has rethought how it deploys capital and is mobilizing at least $1 trillion a year for climate action.”

That includes issuing “green bonds” to finance climate programs.

The world would need to get 30 percent of its electricity from green sources, electric vehicles would need to be 15 percent of the global vehicle fleet and reduce deforestation, wrote Figueres and company.


The result of the UN green agenda:





Dr. Patrick Moore, co founder of Greenpeace tells the real story that the MSM and warmists don’t want you to hear.

Jun 29, 2017
Getting the message out

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

I have been a part of a team of scientists, econometricians and lawyers who have been working pro-bono in the last decade to fight against harmful, unnecessary regulations based on bad science. A second in the latest research report (first full abridged version (here) was described here) is coming out next week.


The pause in global warming has reached 20 years. The responses the last decade have been to try and adjust the data the better fit the models. This goes against the scientific method.


But with persistence from the skeptics and a whistleblower at NCDC calling Tom Karl on the data manipulation, alarmists appear now to be taking a different tack. In the last few weeks, papers from some of the warmists are agreeing their models are failing due to natural variability - many of the same findings we have reported on Icecap in recent years and in the chapters I did for Elsevier’s Evidence Based Climate Change and lately in the research report. One by some of the top alarmists (here) says:

Here we show that state-of-the-art global models used to predict climate fail to adequately reproduce such multidecadal climate variations. In particular, the models underestimate the magnitude of variability in the twentieth century.

I have also worked with Peter Lanzillo and the team at Hudson Cable to with other participants do a series on the climate issues. Part 1 was on CO2, the Demon Gas (showing CO2 is a trace, highly beneficial gas). Part 2 was on Taking the Earth’s Temperature (looking at all the serious issues attempting to estimate global temperatures and showing how the data has been adjusted always in a way to cause more apparent warming and better agreement with the climate models). In part 3, we were joined by another analyst to look at Extreme Weather (showing how all the predicted increases in the severity and frequency of severe weather has failed to materialize). In part 4, we looked at the natural and other man-made factors that do explain what the greenhouse gas theory can’t. Part 5, I was again joined by another analyst and we looked at the folly of a race to renewables (with a lot of attention to wind), strong regulations and taxes that have hurt our economy, small business and caused electricity prices to skyrocket.

Enlarged. Highest electricity cost states (March 2017 shown). The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) states and California top the list of the lower 48 states.

RGGI states in Green.

We just finished part 6 on CO2 and sea level with Tom Wysmuller and part 7 on the Scientific Method abuses and the role of the media and our education system in indoctrinating young people and helping influence public opinion with Dr. Larry Gould.

Here was Show 4:

All of the research reports and the 7 hours of video have been done pro bono. If you DONATE to ICECAP we will send you links to all our shows. If you would like to discuss getting the series on you local cable access channels contact Peter Lanzillo here.

Why do we go to all this trouble. The answer is that the regulations, green agenda and the Paris Accord will cause great pain with no benefit - especially for those that can afford it the least.


Jul 06, 2017
Press Release: New Research Report Confirms Invalidation of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

Note that our press release and research papers hit a raw nerve with alarmists who did not really meaningfully argue the data or science but challenged the claim it was ‘peer reviewed’ (in the sense they have defined and controlled the peer review process through what have become advocacy journals).

The traditional peer review often can be compared to the TSA boarding card approval process. If you are not on any no fly list, after a review of a photo ID and/or passport, you get a stamp and move on. With journal submissions, if you have the politically correct credentials, you get the stamp and are published. The journal ‘no-fly’ list it appears includes those deemed to be skeptics. For the review, there is often at least one reviewer ‘gatekeeper’ responsible for ensuring you don’t board the plane or in this case get your paper in the journal no matter how impressive your CV and content-rich your paper.

Our research reports are not traditional journal articles. The reports follow the approach used frequently in industry often for their own internal use. They were prepared by highly qualified authors using the best available data and understanding of the scientific factors, analyzed properly by the very best statisticians/econometricians. The reviewers who endorsed them are chosen to be highly qualified to evaluate the work. The individuals quoted in fact checker reviews like on Snopes are simply enforcers of orthodoxy, unable or unwilling to understand the processes applied and the science.

You must know that the traditional journal peer review process is broken. It is failing in a lack of robustness in the statistical analysis and widespread inability to replicate results. This is true in both the Medical and Scientific areas.  See examples here and here.

This story in Forbes by Henry Miller says “A number of empirical studies show that 80-90% of the claims coming from supposedly scientific studies in major journals fail to replicate”.

Another recent paper in Nature showed 70% of the papers in medical journals had studies that could not be replicated, many not even by the original authors. See an example of one such falsified report that the author worries is a part of an epidemic of agenda-driven science by press release and falsification that has reached crisis proportions here.

Other reports show an alarming number of papers having to be retracted. For example here Springer is retracting 107 papers from one journal after discovering they had been accepted with fake peer reviews.

Result-oriented corruption of peer review in climate science was proven by the Climategate emails.

In the journals, there are a small set of gatekeepers that block anything that goes against the editorial biases of the journals. Conversely, these journals and their reviewers do not provide a thorough due diligence review of those that they tend to agree with ideologically.  They are engaged in orthodoxy enforcement.

Indeed, Henry Miller wrote: “Another worrisome trend is the increasing publication of the results of flawed ‘advocacy research’ that is actually designed to give a false result that provides propaganda value for activists and can be cited long after the findings have been discredited.” A prime example of this is the hideously flawed but endlessly repeated “97% of climate scientists” paper by Cook and Lewandowski. EPA’s own Inspector General found that EPA’s Endangerment Finding was never properly reviewed, yet it is the basis of all EPA GHG regulations that imposed hundreds of billions in costs on the U.S. economy.

The scientific method requires the data used be made available and the work must be capable of being replicated. This should be required of all journals (in virtually all cases, as shown above, it is not).  Peer review has become pal review with gatekeepers that prevent alternate unbiased data analyses and presentation but rush new papers that support their ideology or view on the science.

In our research reports, we identify the reviewers, who have lent their names to the conclusion, and provide full access to the data for others to work with and either refute replicate, with and instructions on the analytical methods used.

Our team chose to apply the same research report procedures used in industry, which is to assemble the most qualified authors with the skills required to compile the data and rigorously perform the correct analysis. They draft a report and share the draft with a team of experts chosen for their expertise in this field to provide feedback. Almost no journals require that and their failure and rejection numbers speak for themselves.

Wegman et. al suggested one of the common failures in climate papers is the lack of necessary statistical expertise. For our research reports we assembled the highest qualified data experts, econometricians/statisticians and meteorologists/climatologists to draft the research project, do the rigorous statistical/econometric analyses, and then submitted their work to the best qualified scientists/econometricians for review. Attempts to discredit this report are now of course being made because it raises critically important questions about the quality and trustworthiness of the global surface temperature data sets.

The facts and statistical reasoning of this paper cannot be refuted merely by carping peer review. Instead, demonstration of a factual or logical error is required.


Original Post:

This release and research study was covered by Michael Bastasch in the Daily Caller and picked up by Drudge.

Stated simply, our new research findings building on the previous work, totally debunks EPA’s claim that CO2 is a pollutant that must therefore be regulated. It does so by very clearly demonstrating the “Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) “ data, quoted all the time as setting new surface temperature records, have been purposefully adjusted in a manner such that they are now basically meaningless numbers. Continued reliance on this manipulated GAST data is supporting CO2 regulatory actions that very negatively impact the poor not only in the U.S., but worldwide. There is no scientific basis for this widespread regulation.


On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding Abridged Research Report June 2017

New Research Report

Just released: A peer reviewed Climate Science Research Report has proven that it is all but certain that EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false. All research was done pro bono.

The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this research is that the validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding requires GAST data to be a valid representation of reality.

In this research report past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by each entity systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. The conclusive findings were that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments which removed their cyclical temperature patterns are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S.and other temperature data.

Thus, despite current claims of record setting warming, it is impossible to conclude from the NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. This means that EPA’s 2009 claim that CO2 is a pollutant has been decisively invalidated by this research.


The press release and research report was covered in the Daily Caller today here.  In the story Michael Bastasch writes:

Sam Kazman, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said the study added an “important new piece of evidence to this debate” over whether to reopen the endangerment finding. CEI petitioned EPA to reopen the endangerment finding in February.

“I think this adds a very strong new element to it,” Kazman told TheDCNF. “It’s enough reason to open things formally and open public comment on the charges we make.”

Since President Donald Trump ordered EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Power Plan, there’s been speculation the administration would reopen the endangerment finding to new scrutiny.


Icecap Note: One of the reasons the temperature measures are flawed in the great uncertainties involved. See details here. See more detail here and an earlier very detailed working document here.

NCDC Climate Director Tom Karl whose paper in 1988 defined the UHI adjustment for the first version of USHCN wrote with Kukla and Gavin in a 1986 paper on Urban Warming:
“… the urban growth inhomogeneity is serious and must be taken into account when assessing the reliability of temperature records.” Inexplicably, the UHI adjustment Karl argued for was removed in USHCNv2. Many of us believe the global warming depicted is largely urban warming as urban heat is blended into the more representative rural station data through “homogenization”. 

Recall this was the third Research Report in the Series - the first two research efforts (see link here) set out to test for the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot” and the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding. Both dealt carefully and properly with econometric simultaneous equation parameter estimation issues in the two separate structural analyses that were carried out. And, both efforts involved the same three authors. Each analyzed the same Tropical, Contiguous U.S. and Global Temperature data sets.

“The objective of this research was to determine whether or not a straightforward application of the “proper mathematical methods” would support EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant. Stated simply, their claim is that GAST is primarily a function of four explanatory variables: Atmospheric CO2 Levels (CO2), Solar Activity (SA), Volcanic Activity (VA), and a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon called the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO.)” This research failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed. The tropospheric and surface temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the analysis results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.

The bottom line is the failure of the real world data to support the EPA’s 3 lines of evidence in the Endangerment Finding invalidates it and all regulations which are imposed based on it.


Here is the actual global data that gets incorporated into the models that are run 4 times daily. There are no adjustments. The data is based on 6 hourly forecasts adjusted for new observations. We are coming off the El Nino warm period.


See how since 2005, warm spikes have occurred with El Nions and dips with La Ninas.


See video post from WeatherBELL this Sunday showing summer heat has been declining for decades!!

Jul 02, 2017
The Santer Clause

Guest Post by John McLean

When the IPCC’s in a hole and doesn’t have a paper to cite, who’s it gonna call?

(All together) BEN SANTER!


Santer, Wrigley and others, including several IPCC authors, fixed it for the 1995 report with a “miracle” last-minute paper that claimed to have solid evidence of the human influence on climate. The paper had been submitted and not even reached the stage of review when it was included in the IPCC report. At the instigation of the IPCC Working Group I head, John Houghton, the whole pivotal chapter was revised to accommodate it. And all this happened after the second expert review but before government representatives got together to decide what should be said.

About 18 months later the paper was finally published, citing the IPCC report that cited it, and was laughed off the stage. Never mind. It had served its purpose of manipulating opinion about manmade warming and convincing the new-formed UNFCCC that it didn’t need its own subsidiary organization to fiddle science to support the UNFCCC’s claims; the IPCC was perfectly capable of doing that.

Roll forward about 20 years. The IPCC’s 2013 report showed (text box 9.2) that climate models were rubbish at predicting average global temperatures with 111 of 114 climate model runs predicting, for 1998 to 2012, greater warming than the HadCRUT4 temperature data indicated, which was in fact statistically indistinguishable from zero.

What 5AR didn’t make clear was that climate models are run with and with greenhouses gases and the IPCC blames the difference in the two sets of output on manmade warming. (It’s a completely specious argument unless it can be proven that climate models are 100% accurate when it comes to algorithmically including every climate forcing, which of course they are not. The comparison study in fact shows nothing more than the sensitivity of the models to the inclusion of greenhouse gases.)

With climate models poor at making prediction it also follows that they are poor at estimating the influence of greenhouse gases on climate. If the public becomes aware of this then the ground is cut from beneath the UNFCCC’s claims, which means the Paris Climate Agreement will be seen as the farce it really is and all that rearrangement of the global economy to suit UN socialists won’t take place.

There is simply no way that IPCC 6AR can be allowed to continue to cast doubt on climate models because it might mean that end of both the IPCC and UNFCCC, not to mention the incomes and reputations of so-called climate science experts taking a sharp nose-dive.

So who’s the IPCC gonna call? Ben Santer!

This time around the paper has been published so that it complies with rules set down after the 1995 fiasco and can be cited. Being published of course doesn’t mean that it’s any good.

One of its key sentence is “None of our findings call into question the reality of long-term warming of Earth’s troposphere and surface, or cast doubt on prevailing estimates of the amount of warming we can expect from future increases in (greenhouse gas) concentrations.”

I’m going to call this the Santer Clause because the last half of it is about as real.

Even the first half is interesting because anyone can shift the goal posts and start the trend in whatever year supports their argument. Select the year carefully and you’ll find that temperatures have risen since then, select another year and they]re flat, select another and temperatures have fallen.

The other important sentence in the Santer et al paper is “We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies
in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.” So it’s not climate models that are wrong; it’s the data put into them, in other words it’s the weather.

Talk about climate denial.

There’s no concession that a more plausible explanation is that climate models are nonsense, as IPCC 5AR showed, and that for the 1980s and 1990s the output of the models looked approximately correct because greenhouses gases were exaggerated while the real drivers of climate, the natural forces and internal variability, were underplayed.

The frequency of El Nino events has slowed since the late 1990s and the dominance of such events over La Nina events has weakened, meaning that warming and cooling episodes are tending to balance and that temperature trends remain flat.

The gap between what the models predict and what the data shows would be smaller if the algorithms in the models were corrected. Of course that’s unlikely to happen because the whole notion of significant manmade warming would implode and the IPCC and UNFCCC disappear. The IPCC will now cite this Santer fantasy to try to ensure that doesn’t happen.

It’s a sobering thought that if the implosion doesn’t happen now and the disconnect between the belief and the reality continues to increase then it’s probably only a matter of time before countries start fudging temperature data, to make it show warming that isn’t happening. They have millions or even billions of dollars at stake if the myth collapsed and surely it’s too big a carrot to give up without a fight.

When the reputation of climate science ends up in the gutter as a result of all the nonsense let’s just hope it’s not Ben Santer who’s called to fix it.

See also John’s IPCC Review “Prejudiced authors, Prejudiced findings” here.

Jun 23, 2017
Heat in the southwest presages the southwest monsoon rains

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, WeatherBELL

Each year in May and June you can count on the media to try and alarm you about high heat in places like India and the southwest. High temperatures in these areas can approach 120F. That is very hot but is typical as approach peak sun and in fact an aid in drawing in moisture to feed the seasonal monsoon rains.

It has been hot the last week in the southwest from the Central Valley in California to Nevada and Arizona.


106F is the normal high this day in Phoenix. It is most likely going to be near 111-113F today with temperatures several degrees higher the next few days. 


See the actual daily highs this June so far.


Though above the normal, high heat in June near the solstice is normal and like we find in other areas where monsoonal rains occur, the heat helps draw in moisture and bring seasonal showers. See the big jump from June to July in the climatology. Notice the winter rains that occur mostly in El Nino winters.


A similar monsoon burst occurs in India but with winds blowing offshore in winter, rains are sparse.



Like the monsoon in India, the moisture that is drawn in is aided by the heat induced pressure changes (similar to the sea breeze circulation). Moisture comes from the Pacific and often the long way from the Gulf of Mexico.


See the rains coming the next two weeks and the heat eases as moisture levels rise.



Jul 15, 2017
The annual corn crop scare

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Co-Chief Meteorologist, WeatherBELL Analytics

You can count on it most years about this time. Summers are rarely ‘steady as she goes’. The meanderings of the MJO will cause some dry periods and transient heat in every summer. There is nervousness among farmers at critical times like when the corn is pollinating in July. There are always forecast groups that make the headline by putting a drought gloom and doom scare into the market.

Last year this very time there was a rally based on forecasts of a withering crop due to high heat and futures corn price forecasts of $6+. Two warm days and a spike to $4.40 were followed by showers and cooling and a record crop and low corn prices (below $3.20.). See the current levels far right.


Yes we have been covering almost daily the dryness in the north central that has seriously hurt spring wheat and to a lesser degree corn and beans and made note of the borderline excessive rains in parts of the central Ohio Valley and southern Missouri.

Enlarged (ISU)


Last year on this date, see the dryness from Iowa through the Ohio Valley.

Enlarged (ISU)

See how the same level of abnormal to moderate drought was reported in southeast Iowa this time of July as is currently the case. Last year, you can see the reason for the concern with the dryness in southeast Iowa into Illinois (the top 2 corn states). Actually a little dryness with an adequate deep soil moisture profile encourages deeper root systems that help plants get by transient heat stress. That was the case last year and is this year in the southern Iowa deficit area.


Enlarged (ISU)

But the heat that worried the market was transient as WeatherBELL forecast and the rains came to all the prime areas. In the eastern Ohio Valley, the late rains made for a better bean crop which is more drought hardy and which has its critical phases in August.

Enlarged (ISU)

James McCune, an Illinois farmer and his team did crop tours for us and he and we and very soon after the USDA NASS predicted a record crop. HIs reports can be found here and here. See how all but the eastern Corn Belt ended up normal to above for rain.The reason they recovered last year and will this year is the seasonal thunderstorm complex season last year did and this year should deliver even into the more serous drought areas of the north central.

Some forecast groups and analysts are warning the heat and ‘drought’ could cause yields to drop to 4 to 5% below long term trend lines and corn prices to spike to $6. We have expressed opinions when asked that the yields will fall short of last year (too dry in the Dakotas and too wet in spots in central Indiana and western Ohio) but with a good crop elsewhere including prime areas of Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota should be above the trend line.

Here is the 16 day forecast of rainfall anomalies. As you can see not all models show the dryness as the forecasters warned. Note on WeatherBell we show the high res, more skillful EC forecast out to 46 days but I can’t show it on general non commercial sites. It is wetter still (and cooler).


See how southeast Iowa has had normal GDDs and SDD (stress degree days) and slightly below normal rainfall. It is better in thee regards than 2016 at this time there.


See how yields for corn have increased as the extent of heat has declined, rains have slightly increased and CO2 fertilization (CO2 also reduces water needs).

Enlarged (USDA)

Jul 10, 2017
Looks Like Global Action On “Climate Change” Is Dead

By Francis Menton

Last year, you can see the reason for the concern with the dryness in southeast Iowa into Illinois (the top 2 corn states). As a basic starting point, I suggest that on any story of political importance in the New York Times, the truth is probably exactly the opposite of what they report.  Consider that lead story on the front page of yesterday’s Sunday print edition: “World Leaders Move Forward on Climate Change, Without U.S.” Scary!  The U.S. is getting completely isolated from the world community!

In a final communique at the conclusion of the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, Germany, the nations took “note” of Mr. Trump’s decision to abandon the pact and “immediately cease” efforts to enact former President Barack Obama’s pledge of curbing greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.  But the other 19 members of the group broke explicitly with Mr. Trump in their embrace of the international deal, signing off on a detailed policy blueprint outlining how their countries could meet their goals in the pact. 

You can definitely count on Pravda not to look into what these other 19 countries have promised to do and let you know if there is any substance to it.  So the hard work falls once again to the Manhattan Contrarian.  If you just Google the letters “INDC” ("Intended Nationally Determined Contribution") along with the name of a country, you can find out exactly what that country has promised to do as part of the Paris Agreement.  So let’s take a look at what a few of the big countries are up to.

China.  We already know that answer from my post just last week.  China, through its companies, is planning to build over the course of the next decade or so well more than double the number of coal power plants that the U.S. has today.  It’s INDC calls for its proceeding to increase carbon emissions as much as it wants through 2030, and only then (when everyone in China presumably has electricity and a couple of cars) to level things off.  By that time its emissions will probably be at least triple those of the U.S.

India.  India’s INDC openly admits that it intends to increase its electricity supply by more than triple between now and 2030, with no commitment whatsoever as to how much of that will come from fossil fuels.  Oh, they say that they plan to lower the “emissions intensity” of their energy generation, and greatly expand (useless) wind and solar capacity, as well as nuclear.  Whoopee!

Indonesia.  These things get more comical the more of them you read.  The first thing you learn in reading Indonesia’s INDC is that the large majority of its emissions come from burning down the rain forest ("most emissions (63%) are the result of land use change and peat and forest fires") and very little from using fossil fuels for energy ("fossil fuels contribute[e] approximately 19% of total emissions").  So they’ll promise to burn down less of the rain forest, and nothing whatsoever as to reducing use of fossil fuels for energy.  Their (completely illusory) “reduction target” of 29% by 2030 is not against a fixed amount of past usage (like the United States’ benchmark of 2005 emissions), but rather is against what they call a “business as usual” scenario of projected future emissions that are a multiple of today’s.

Russia.  What, you didn’t know that Russia was a member of the G20?  What is the chance that Russia would make an honest promise about emissions reductions?  Their INDC calls for reducing emissions by 25-30% below 1990 by 2030.  Impressive!  Wait a minute!  The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.  Then they closed down all that inefficient Soviet industry.  According to a graph at Climate Action Tracker here, by 2000 their emissions were down by almost 40% from the 1990 level, and they have only crept up a little from there since.  In other words, Russia’s supposed “commitments” again represent increases from today’s level of emissions.  Yet another total scam.

Germany.  Germany is part of the supposed EU commitment to reduce emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.  Oh, but now that Germany has gotten its electricity production from renewables up to about 30%, it seems that it has hit a wall, and its carbon emissions have actually gone up for both of the last two years (2015 and 2016), according to Clean Energy Wire.  Exactly how do they plan to meet their goal?  Excellent question.

In other words, this whole thing is a total farce.  The G20 “climate” thing—let alone New York Times reporting on same—is nothing more than an international effort to bully the United States into crippling its economy while everyone else goes right ahead and uses fossil fuels exactly as they please.  Whatever else you might say about President Trump, he seems to be unusually immune to this kind of bullying. 

Without the U.S. in the game, all the biggest players are going to be increasing emissions, not decreasing them.  In reality, the whole “global action on climate change” thing is completely dead. 

I can’t leave this subject without mentioning this great quote from former Obama State Department official Andrew Light:

“[T]he U.S. has isolated itself on climate change once again, and is falling back while all other major economies step up and compete in the clean energy marketplace created by the Paris Agreement estimated to be worth over 20 trillion dollars,” said Andrew Light, a senior climate change adviser at the State Department under Mr. Obama.

As you can see, knowledge of basic economics was not a requirement to work at the Obama State Department.  Andrew apparently has no understanding that the forced use of less efficient energy sources destroys wealth. 

Jul 03, 2017
Closely Coupled: Solar Activity and Sea Level

Guest essay by David Archibald

From a post a couple of days ago: “an F10.7 flux above 100 causes warming and below that level causes cooling.” Greg asked “Can you prove that?” I already had in this WUWT post from 2012. But it is worth revisiting the subject because it answers the big question - If all the energy that stops the Earth from looking like Pluto comes from the Sun, what is the solar activity level that corresponds to our average climate? Because solar activity is falling and climate will follow.

As Nir Shaviv observed, the oceans are a big calorimeter. First, proof of concept comes from a much smaller body of water: Lake Victoria in East Africa. Back in the 1920s it was realized that the level of Lake Victoria went up and down with the solar cycle. Then the relationship broke down in the 1930s, corresponding to the beginning of the Modern Warm Period, before resuming again in the 1970s.

Figure 1: Lake Victoria lake level 1896 to 2005 (data courtesy of Dr Peter Mason)

If we take out the period of non-correlation and detrend afterwards for the 2 metre rise from 1962 to 1964, this is what the relationship between lake levels and solar cycles looks like:

Figure 2: Solar Cycles and Lake Victoria lake level 1896 to 2005

The relationship is very clear, in fact beyond indisputable. It also holds true for the body of water that covers 70 percent of the Earth’s surface as shown by Figure 3:

Figure 3: Solar Cycles and Sea Level 1909 to 2000

From that data, a 33-year subset from 1948 to 1987 has a high correlation:

image Figure 4: Sea Level Change and Solar Activity 1948 to 1987

Bingo. If we take the change in sea level from one year to the next plotted against average sunspot number for that year, we get a near-straight line relationship. The breakover between sea level rise and sea level fall, and thus warming or cooling climate, is a sunspot number of 40, which in turn corresponds to an F10.7 flux of 100. The average sunspot number over the Holocene was 40 which in turn makes sense of the last half-century of climate. The Earth's climate was in equilibrium with an average sunspot number of 40, and the higher solar activity of recent years disturbed that. Now we are returning to normal.

At the end of this decade, at the solar cycle 24/25 minimum, we might get a few years of as much as 2.0 mm per annum sea level fall. If you don't believe that, perhaps you would rather believe this:

Figure 5: Global Mean Sea Level Time Series 1993 to 2016

That is from the clown show that is the Colorado University Sea Level Research Group.

That graphic is based on satellite data and shows a scary, nearly monotonic sea level rise of 3.4 mm per annum. How they get that is explained in this graph:

Figure 6: Creating a graph that keeps the grant money flowing

Figure 6, from this paper, shows that sea level, as measured by satellites - the lower line, has been flat. How they generate the graph they need, the upper line, is by adding an isostatic adjustment, which is a number plucked from thin air. No more needs to be said.

Jul 19, 2017
New report on global warming debunks government temp data

By Rick Moran

By Rick Moran

A new paper analyzing government temperature data says the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data published by NASA and NOAA are “not a valid representation of reality.” In fact, the three respected scientists who published the paper hint strongly that the data may have been fudged.

Here are the the money grafs from the paper:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever - despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

Using the government’s own data. the researchers showed that government agencies were able to “prove” that the Earth is warming simply by leaving out vital information.

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

The scientists are not arguing that adjustments to temperature data are not necessary.  Over the 160 years or so of recorded temps, the weather stations where the data is gathered sometimes move, or a city grows up around them, or there is a change in sea levels where the temps are recorded.  All of these factors and more would make the data useless without “adjustments.”

The professors argue - and skeptics have been saying this for years - that it is just too convenient for these “adjustments” to almost always show an increase in temperature over the unadjusted data.  This is statistically impossible and leads to the inescapable conclusion that the books are being cooked.

What makes this paper a little different from other skeptical scientific literature on global warming is the lineup of respected scientists and experts who agree with its conclusions.  Here are a few of them with their credentials:

Dr. Alan Carlin, Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.; Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015; Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Dr. Harold H. Doiron, Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.; Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant; B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette; M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston.

Dr. Theodore R. Eck, Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University; M.A, Economics, University of Michigan; Fulbright Professor of International Economics; Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela; Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group.

Dr. Richard A. Keen, Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado; Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado; M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado; B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University.

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, IPCC Expert Reviewer; Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri; Ph.D.,; Atmospheric Science, Purdue University; M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

This paper won’t dissuade the global warming hysterics.  But in those places where the truth actually matters, it will stimulate debate and discussion.  That’s what science should be all about.

Jul 08, 2017
New Research Report on the Validity of Global Average Surface Temperature Data and EPA’s GHG EF

Alan Carlin | July 5, 2017

A new report finds that the three Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) data sets used by climate alarmists are not a valid representation of reality, including their repeated claims of highest recorded average temperatures. Authored by Drs. James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo, and Craig D. Idso, the new extensively peer reviewed research report examines whether the GAST used by the UN IPCC and the USEPA are sufficiently credible to be used for policy purposes.

In fact, the report says, “the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever despite current claims of record setting warming.”

The report concludes that “since the GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.” The Endangerment Finding is the basis for all EPA regulations intended to reduce emissions of CO2, so the report’s conclusions imply that all these regulations (such as the Clean Power Plan) should also be invalidated.

The new report shows that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And it has nearly always been accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three organizations providing GAST data measurements, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

Need for the Study

The need for this study arose because most of the adjustments made by NOAA, GISS, and Hadley CRU in recent decades have resulted in GAST that make the alleged effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on GAST more credible. These “one-sided” adjustments have been identified by many climate skeptics as likely to be unjustified since routine adjustments are normally “two-sided” as corrections are made to solve various problems. And the keepers of the data bases are all strong supporters of climate alarmism, which might have supplied a motive for such “one-sided” adjustments that favor their policy views.

Previous skeptic analyses of GAST have primarily discussed the justification for individual adjustments to GAST made by government agencies in the course of their record maintenance responsibilities. This study instead asks whether the sum effect of all the adjustments represent credible temperature series that are useful for policy purposes or not.

Earlier Report Also Invalidates EPA Endangerment Finding

Two of the same authors have recently issued another report which finds that the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding (EF) is also invalidated by the finding that each of the three lines of evidence used by EPA to justify the EF are also invalid based on new-to-climate research statistical relationships found using satellite and balloon temperature data. The earlier report is able to explain global temperatures using only natural factors and without any effects of human-caused emissions.

So there are now two unrelated extensively peer reviewed reports that reach the same conclusion through new and entirely different approaches: The USEPA’s three lines of evidence as well as the UNIPCC reports supporting climate alarmism are invalid. The authors believe it is time for the EPA to reevaluate the EF and withdraw it. This would invalidate all EPA regulations based on the EF.

The formal press release prepared by the authors is as follows:


On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding

Abridged Research Report June 2017

Just released: A peer reviewed Climate Science Research Report has proven that it is all but certain that EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false. All research was done pro bono.

The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this research is that the validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding requires GAST data to be a valid representation of reality.

In this research report past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by each entity systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. The conclusive findings were that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments which removed their cyclical temperature patterns are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.

Thus, despite current claims of record setting warming, it is impossible to conclude from the NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s CO2Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. This means that EPA’s 2009 claim that CO2 is a pollutant has been decisively invalidated by this research.

See video post from WeatherBELL this Sunday showing summer heat has been declining for decades!!

Jul 02, 2017
Monumental, unsustainable environmental impacts

Paul Dreissen

Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage

Demands that the world replace fossil fuels with wind, solar and biofuel energy - to prevent supposed catastrophes caused by manmade global warming and climate change - ignore three fundamental flaws.

1) In the Real World outside the realm of computer models, the unprecedented warming and disasters are simply not happening: not with temperatures, rising seas, extreme weather or other alleged problems.

2) The process of convicting oil, gas, coal and carbon dioxide emissions of climate cataclysms has been unscientific and disingenuous. It ignores fluctuations in solar energy, cosmic rays, oceanic currents and multiple other powerful natural forces that have controlled Earth’s climate since the dawn of time, dwarfing any role played by CO2. It ignores the enormous benefits of carbon-based energy that created and still powers the modern world, and continues to lift billions out of poverty, disease and early death.

It assigns only costs to carbon dioxide emissions, and ignores how rising atmospheric levels of this plant-fertilizing molecule are reducing deserts and improving forests, grasslands, drought resistance, crop yields and human nutrition. It also ignores the huge costs inflicted by anti-carbon restrictions that drive up energy prices, kill jobs, and fall hardest on poor, minority and blue-collar families in industrialized nations - and perpetuate poverty, misery, disease, malnutrition and early death in developing countries.

3) Renewable energy proponents pay little or no attention to the land and raw material requirements, and associated environmental impacts, of wind, solar and biofuel programs on scales required to meet mankind’s current and growing energy needs, especially as poor countries improve their living standards.

We properly insist on multiple detailed studies of every oil, gas, coal, pipeline, refinery, power plant and other fossil fuel project. Until recently, however, even the most absurd catastrophic climate change claims behind renewable energy programs, mandates and subsidies could not be questioned.

Just as bad, climate campaigners, government agencies and courts have never examined the land use, raw material, energy, water, wildlife, human health and other impacts of supposed wind, solar, biofuel and battery alternatives to fossil fuels - or of the transmission lines and other systems needed to carry electricity and liquid and gaseous renewable fuels thousands of miles to cities, towns and farms.

It is essential that we conduct rigorous studies now, before pushing further ahead. The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and Interior Department should do so immediately. States, other nations, private sector companies, think tanks and NGOs can and should do their own analyses. The studies can blithely assume these expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent alternatives can actually replace fossil fuels. But they need to assess the environmental impacts of doing so.

Renewable energy companies, industries and advocates are notorious for hiding, minimizing, obfuscating or misrepresenting their environmental and human health impacts. They demand and receive exemptions from health and endangered species laws that apply to other industries. They make promises they cannot keep about being able to safely replace fossil fuels that now provide over 80% of US and global energy.

A few articles have noted some of the serious environmental, toxic/radioactive waste, human health and child labor issues inherent in mining rare earth and cobalt/lithium deposits. However, we now need quantitative studies - detailed, rigorous, honest, transparent, cradle-to-grave, peer-reviewed analyses.

The back-of-the-envelope calculations that follow provide a template. I cannot vouch for any of them. But our governments need to conduct full-blown studies forthwith - before they commit us to spending tens of trillions of dollars on renewable energy schemes, mandates and subsidies that could blanket continents with wind turbines, solar panels, biofuel crops and battery arrays; destroy habitats and wildlife; kill jobs, impoverish families and bankrupt economies; impair our livelihoods, living standards and liberties; and put our lives under the control of unelected, unaccountable state, federal and international rulers - without having a clue whether these supposed alternatives are remotely economical or sustainable.

Ethanol derived from corn grown on 40,000,000 acres now provides the equivalent of 10% of US gasoline - and requires billions of gallons of water, and enormous quantities of fertilizer and energy. What would it take to replace 100% of US gasoline? To replace the entire world’s motor fuels?

Solar panels on Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base generate 15 megawatts of electricity perhaps 30% of the year from 140 acres. Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear power plant generates 900 times more electricity, from less land, some 95% of the year. Generating Palo Verde’s output via Nellis technology would require land area ten times larger than Washington, DC - and would still provide electricity unpredictably only 30% of the time. Now run those solar numbers for the 3.5 billion megawatt-hours generated nationwide in 2016.

Modern coal or gas-fired power plants use less than 300 acres to generate 600 megawatts 95% of the time. Indiana’s 600 MW Fowler Ridge wind farm covers 50,000 acres and generates electricity about 30% of the year. Calculate the turbine and acreage requirements for 3.5 billion MWH of wind electricity.

Delving more deeply, generating 20% of US electricity with wind power would require up to 185,000 1.5 MW turbines, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines, 18 million acres, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earths - plus fossil-fuel back-up generators for the 75-80% of the year that winds nationwide are barely blowing and the turbines are not producing electricity.

Energy analyst David Wells has calculated that replacing 160,000 teraWatt-hours of total global energy consumption with wind would require 183,400,000 turbines needing roughly: 461,000,000,000 tons of steel for the towers; 460,00,000,000 tons of steel and concrete for the foundations; 59,000,000,000 tons of copper, steel and alloys for the turbines; 738,000,000 tons of neodymium for turbine magnets; 14,700,000,000 tons of steel and complex composite materials for the nacelles; 11,000,000,000 tons of complex petroleum-based composites for the rotors; and massive quantities of other raw materials - all of which must be mined, processed, manufactured into finished products and shipped around the world.

Assuming 25 acres per turbine, the turbines would require 4,585,000,000 acres (1,855,500,000 hectares) - 1.3 times the land area of North America! Wells adds: Shipping just the iron ore to build the turbines would require nearly 3 million voyages in huge ships that would consume 13 billion tons of bunker fuel (heavy oil) in the process. And converting that ore to iron and steel would require 473 billion tons of coking coal, demanding another 1.2 million sea voyages, consuming another 6 billion tons of bunker fuel.

For sustainability disciples: Does Earth have enough of these raw materials for this transformation?

It gets worse. These numbers do not include the ultra-long transmission lines required to carry electricity from windy locations to distant cities. Moreover, Irina Slav notes, wind turbines, solar panels and solar thermal installations cannot produce high enough heat to melt silica, iron or other metals, and certainly cannot generate the required power on a reliable enough basis to operate smelters and factories.

Wind turbines (and solar panels) last just 20 years or so (less in salt water environments) while coal, gas and nuclear power plants last 35-50 years and require far less land and raw materials. That means we would have tear down, haul away and replace far more “renewable” generators twice as often; dispose of or recycle their component parts (and toxic or radioactive wastes); and mine, process and ship more ores.

Finally, their intermittent electricity output means they couldn’t guarantee you could boil an egg, run an assembly line, surf the internet or complete a heart transplant when you need to. So we store their output in massive battery arrays, you say. OK. Let’s calculate the land, energy and raw materials for that. While we’re at it, let’s add in the requirements for building and recharging 100% electric vehicle fleets.

Then there are the bird and bat deaths, wildlife losses from destroying habitats, and human health impacts from wind turbine noise and flicker. These also need to be examined - fully and honestly - along with the effects of skyrocketing renewable energy prices on every aspect of this transition and our lives.

But for honest, evenhanded EPA and other scientists, modelers and regulators previously engaged in alarmist, biased climate chaos studies, these analyses will provide some job security. Let’s get started.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Jul 16, 2017
Swiss Daily: “Record Cold July In Greenland”

By Pierre Gosselin

We have all heard about the record-breaking ice mass balance and cold temperature reading of -33C recently set in Greenland - the Arctic island that is supposedly the canary in the climate coal mine.

It turns out that things up there are colder than we may be led to believe and that the alleged warming there is fiction.

Hat-tip: Gerti

Struggling to explain

The Swiss online Baseler Zeitung (BAZ) here reports: “In Greenland July this year has been the coldest ever. That has left climate catastrophists struggling to explain it.”

Citing the Danish Meteorological Institute, the BAZ comments that the -33C reading earlier this month was “the coldest July temperature ever recorded in the northern hemisphere”, smashing the previous record of 30.7C.

Expanding ice mass, media ignores

The BAZ adds that also the “ice cover has grown strongly over almost all of Greenland”.

But this has been ignored, as the Switzerland-based daily also bravely writes that “most journalists and media leaders are active or passive members of the green-socialist Climate Church and the new religion of the post-Christian western world” and acknowledge only things that fit their world narrative. This likely explains why there’s been no word about the record cold in Greenland. Why? The BAZ comments:

It casts the central prophesy of a continuous and ultimately lethal global warming, for which we are ourselves to blame, into question.”

Greenland has been cooling

Recently NTZ reported here that Greenland in fact has been cooling over the past decade, as three recent studies alarmingly show us. According to one published in May of this year by a team of researchers led by Takuro Kobashi of the University of Bern, mean annual temperatures at the summit of Greenland have been showing “a slightly decreasing trend in accordance with northern North Atlantic-wide cooling”. See chart below.

Greenland’s temperatures headed in the wrong direction, defying climate model projections. Underlying chart source: Kobashi et al., 2017.

Warm optimum near an end?

The team by Kobashi also show that the Greenland Summit temperature have not risen in 90 years, and that Greenland was far warmer earlier in the Holocene:


Greenland temperatures were much warmer over past 10,000 years than they are today.

One has to wonder if the current optimum may be nearing an end. History shows that the earth’s surface temperature is in fact highly unstable and that most optimums don’t last much beyond 10,000 years. We need to ask ourselves what could be done to avert the catastrophe that a new ice age would bring with it. The overall trend does not bode well.


See this post on Greenland Ice by Tony Heller on the “Year Wittout an Arctic Summer”.

Jul 10, 2017
California Rainfall Variability and Climate Models

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

California precipitation is tied to the state of the Pacific Ocean (both ENSO where the El Ninos which are usually wet and La Ninas which are usually dry and the longer term Pacific Decadal Oscillation which influences the strength and frequency of El Nino and La Nina). It is highly variable but the long-term trend is a meaningless +0.01"/decade or +0.1” per century. That however does not stop climate scientists trolling for dollars or media environmental reporters from making it into a scare story.


Back just over a year ago in 2015 at the end of the two year drought, in the Washington Post, Darryl Fears had these headlines with many universities predicting future heat and drought and raising the possibility that is had already started!


The reporter actually did a lot of research into university research. Little did he know it all is nonsense.


But then came the 2016/17 wet season which in places had the all-time record precipitation and snowfall (over 200% of normal).


And the result:

Climate scientists predict wet future for California

“What I am arguing is El Nino-like years are going to become more the norm in California,” said researcher Robert Allen.

UPI By Brooks Hays | July 6, 2017 at 3:50 PM

Heavy rain coupled with severe erosion caused the winter 2017 damaging of the Oroville Dam in northern California. New climate models run by scientists at the University of California, Riverside project that the northern part of California could experience increased rainfall through 2100.

Heavy rain coupled with severe erosion caused the winter 2017 damaging of the Oroville Dam in northern California. New climate models run by scientists at the University of California, Riverside project that the northern part of California could experience increased rainfall through 2100. File Photo by EPA/California Department of Water Resources

July 6 (UPI)—Climate scientists now expect California to experience more rain in the coming decades, contrary to the predictions of previous climate models.
Most scientists agree that California, like most places, will get warmer through the end of the century. And until now, most agreed California would get drier. New research out of the University of California, Riverside, however, suggests otherwise.

The new models predict the state will enjoy a 12 percent increase in precipitation totals through 2100.

Both central and northern California will get wetter, according to the models, while Southern California will experience slightly less precipitation through the end of the century. Most of the increase in precipitation will be during the winter months.

“Most previous research emphasized uncertainty with regards to future precipitation levels in California, but the overall thought was California would become drier with continued climate change,” Robert Allen, an associate professor at UC Riverside, said in a news release. “We found the opposite, which is quite surprising.”

Weather variability makes it difficult to project how climate change will affect rain and snow totals. Predicting future precipitation totals in California is further complicated by the fact that the northern half of the state is expected to get wetter while the southern half is predicted to get drier.

But predictive climate and weather models are growing more sophisticated, allowing scientists to quiet the noise of yearly variability and focus on longterm patterns.

The new research—detailed in the journal Nature Communications—suggest increasing surface temperatures in the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean, lying to the 2,500 miles east, will encourage a local trade wind delivering a larger number of storm systems to the California coast.

“Essentially, this mechanism is similar to what we in California expect during an El Nino year,” Allen said. “Ultimately, what I am arguing is El Nino-like years are going to become more the norm in California.”

In other words, California’s future is likely to look more like the past two years, during which the state enjoyed record rainfall totals.


This is a little like Texas where the drought of 2011-2013 was supposed to be the start of a permadrought...but then came the flooding. Note the multi-year (7) more serious drought in the 1950s - both a reflection of the 60 year multidecadal ocean cycle?


The long term trend was flat at the time of the drought early this decade, now it slightly up since 1895. 

Jul 02, 2017
Obama: Leaving the Paris Agreement is Anti-Democratic?

Eric Worrall

Ex-President Obama seems to have suggested in a speech that tearing up the Paris Agreement is a symptom of “an aggressive kind of nationalism” which threatens Democracy. My question - why doesn’t Obama mention all the greens who seem to think Democracy is an impediment to environmental progress?

Obama warns against aggressive’ nationalism, leaving Paris climate agreement

BY ALICIA COHN 07/01/17 07:41 AM EDT

Former President Obama on Saturday issued a strong warning against the new trend toward “an aggressive kind of nationalism” and emphasized the importance of the Paris climate agreement, which the U.S. plans to break.

Obama called out at least one of his successor’s policy changes without mentioning President Trump by name.


Otherwise, he warned, “We start seeing a rise in sectarian politics, we start seeing a rise in an aggressive kind of nationalism, we start seeing both in developed and developing countries an increased resentment about minority groups and the bad treatment of people who don’t look like us or practice the same faith as us.”


He went on to note “the temporary absence of American leadership” on fighting climate change.

“In Paris, we came together around the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change,”


“If we don’t stand up for tolerance and moderation and respect for others, if we begin to doubt ourselves and all that we have accomplished, then much of the progress that we have made will not continue,” he said.

“What we will see is more and more people arguing against democracy, we will see more and more people who are looking to restrict freedom of the press, and we’ll see more intolerance, more tribal divisions, more ethnic divisions, and religious divisions and more violence,” he continued.

Read more here.

Can anyone think of a single mainstream climate skeptic who opposes Democracy?

Unfortunately I have not located a copy of ex-President Obama’s full speech. But even if my impression of what Obama said is wrong, it seems pretty cheeky for Obama to mix opposition to climate advocacy and accusations of threats to Democracy in the same speech, given the number of prominent greens who seem to think Democracy is not up to the job of saving us from Climate Change.

June 2017: Maryland Professor of Philosophy Firmin DeBrabander claims “climate change is not liable to be solved by democracies. Autocracies might do better”

April 2017: Neil DeGrasse Tyson claims elected “science deniers” are a threat to Democracy

March 2017: Disgraced Identity Thief Peter Gleick claims Democracy is under assault from [climate] liars

May 2016: Mark Diesendorf, Associated Professor University New South Wales, claims “Governments may need extraordinary emergency powers to implement rapid mitigation”

November 2015: Bill Gates, Founder of Microsoft Corporation, claims “If you’re not bringing math skills to the problem, then representative democracy is a problem.”

April 2015: Two University of Melbourne (Australia) Professors claim “the failure to tackle climate change speaks to an overall failure of our liberal democratic system”

January 2011: Former NASA GISS Chairman James Hansen praises the Chinese dictatorship’s ability to take “the long view” on climate change.



It is all a monumental hoax based on a lie and and an agenda as my former compadre, John Coleman said. Al Gore’s new movie is coming out in August. Roger Revelle was Al’s hero and mentor. John did some research on Al and Revelle in this video and found Roger had a change of heart in his later year that Al conveniently ignored.

Apr 06, 2016
“…climate change is UN hoax to create new world order”

Trump gives hope to derailment of the establishment’s plans (both parties) for a New World Order - which would cede our rights and control over our lives including a redistribution of any wealth to the UN.

Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

We start with Mencken’s quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal, selfish goals.

The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an ‘Agenda’ based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

See the quotes here.


Australia PM’s adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order

Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.

The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.

Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.

Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.

Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN....

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.

“Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said.

Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.

Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.

At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.

At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.

Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”

Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Sep 23, 2015
In regards to the false 97% “consensus”

Derek Alker

Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.

From: Malcolm Roberts []
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Dear Professor Hoj:

As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material?  Course

Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.

It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.

Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.

Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.

A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link

My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.

John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.

Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serious offense.

As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.

I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.

This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.

Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.

Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfil your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)


The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,


“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science

In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.

See faulty methodology of Cook study.

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.


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


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.

The left loves to reference when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm 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.

Go to and become a member of 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.

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)