![WeatherShop.com Gifts, gadgets, weather stations, software and more...click here!\](http://www.clixtrac.com/banner/31785.jpg "\\"WeatherShop.com")
By Joseph D’Aleo, Nils Axil Morner and Tom Wysmuller
NOAA Ocean Service 2022 report:
The Next 30 Years of Sea Level Rise “Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 - 12 inches (0.25 - 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 - 2050), which will be as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920 - 2020). Sea level rise will vary regionally along U.S. coasts because of changes in both land and ocean height.”
REBUTTAL This claim is demonstrably false. It really hinges on this statement: “Tide gauges and satellites agree with the model projections.” The models project a rapid acceleration of sea level rise over the next 30 to 70 years. So it must be true. However, while the models may project acceleration, the tide gauges clearly do not.
All data from tide gauges in areas where land is not rising or sinking show instead a steady linear and unchanging sea level rate of rise near 4 inches/century, with variations due to gravitational factors. It is true that where the land is sinking as it is in the Tidewater area of Virginia and the Mississippi Delta region, sea levels will appear to rise faster but no changes in CO2 emissions would change that. The implication that measured, validated, and verified Tide Gauge data support this conclusion remains simply false.
All such references rely on “semi-empirical” information, which merges, concatenates, combines, and joins, actual tide gauge data with various models of the reference author’s choosing. Nowhere on this planet can a tide gauge be found, that shows even half of the claimed 3.3 mm/yr sea level rise rate in “Tectonically Inert” coastal zones. These are areas that lie between regions of geological uplift and subsidence. They are essentially neutral with respect to vertical land motion, and tide gauges located therein show between 1 mm/yr (3.9 inches/century) and 1.5 mm/yr (6 inches/century rise).
At the northern end of the sinking land areas in Portland, Maine, a change of just 1.9mm/year (7.5 inches a century).
Enlarged
Holgate (2007) showed the slowing as the glacial melt slowed and the current trend slope pales in comparison to the long-term trend.
A Real Expert on Sea levels
The great Swedish Oceanographer, Nils-Axel Morner, has commented on this extensively, and his latest papers confirm this ‘inconvenient truth’. Furthermore, alarmist claims that “Satellites agree with the model projection” are false.
Because of local factors affecting gauges, technology was introduced to provide more objective measurement of sea level rise. In all cases the new satellite and radar altimeter data showed flat or even decreasing sea levels. Since these results conflicted with previous alarmist model forecasts and claims, adjustments to this data were made - including a Glacial Isostatic Adjustment GIA). GIA assumes that land is rebounding from long ago glaciations and oceanic basins are deepening and thus is masking the true sea level rise.
The assumption is that this rebounding is masking the true sea level rise. Alarmists continue to proclaim that their models project a rapid acceleration of sea level rise over the next 30 to 70 years, when those same models have failed to even come close to accurately predicting the past 25 years. So like with other inconvenient data, they push the agencies to “fix it” to fit the models instead of rethinking the models.
A new study affirms what satellite data have been telling us for years: ‘the global coastline is prograding.’ This isn’t the first time shoreline expansion in the era of global warming and allegedly rapid sea level rise has been documented. A 2019 global-scale analysis of 709 islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans revealed 89% were either stable or growing in size, and that no island larger than 10 ha (and only 1.2% of islands larger than 5 ha) had decreased in size since the 1980s. Likewise, the globe’s beaches have been growing by 0.33 m/year since 1984.
In a press release for a 2016 paper on coastal land area changes from 1985 to 2015, scientists acknowledged this: ‘We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world’ - BBC. Today there are high resolution satellite images available from Google Earth clearly demarcating global-scale decadal shoreline change since the 1980s. Claims of dangerously accelerating sea level rise posing an imminent global threat to coasts have once again been challenged by real-world observational evidence.” Indeed, global warming is not resulting in rising sea levels.
--------
The Biden OMB in the same releases on sea level threats talked about the increased dangers with wildfire and hurricanes. We have shown here that any increase in the impacts of annual dry season forest fires are a forest management and environmental and governmental policy induced issue, not a Global Warming induced one. They had declined the last century until environmentalists who have a distain for foresters, farmers and ranchers took over control.
Hurricane damages have increased as the property at risk in the attractive coastal areas skyrocketed. Losses for 2018 were estimated at $91 billion and for 2019 were $45 billion. This past decade was the quietest one for landfalling hurricanes (behind the 1970s) and major hurricanes (behind only the 1860s).
See more here
Below are quotes from the speech by Sherri Goodman, Secretary General followed by related hypotheses validated in a Petition for Reconsideration of the EPA GHG Endangerment Findings Supplement #7. (Link
1.) “Decarbonizing is also critical to reduce the long-term catastrophic security risks of climate change,”
Rebuttal: The only long-term catastrophic security risks that will result from Climate Change is policy action based on the continued belief in the invalidated climate science theory that rising Trace GHG Atmospheric concentrations have had a positive impact on GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature).
2.) “The idea is that though we are facing unprecedented risks (such as climate change), we also possess unprecedented foresight,"---"The tools and methods for anticipating these risks, and doing something about it, have dramatically improved over the past decades. And in that context, we have no excuses. We can see these unprecedented threats coming. And that creates a responsibility to act, and act preventively.”
Rebuttal: (See Pages 2 -3 in Suppl.#7)
Section A: The Social Cost of CO2 (SC-CO2) is Negative; CO2 is a Beneficial Gas.
1. Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data is a total fabrication.
2. Proof of GAST data fabrication invalidates each of the Three Lines of Evidence in the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding.
3. Climate models are fundamentally flawed and cannot be used for attribution of global warming to rising atmospheric CO2/GHG concentration levels.
4. Climate models are fundamentally flawed since the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of CO2 is actually zero; thus, the current SCC estimation/modeling systems, always involving such climate models linked to economic models, are also fundamentally flawed.
5. Finally, each of the Alarmist Claims when postulated as a separate falsifiable hypothesis should also be rejected.
6. That SC-CO2 is less than 0 cannot be rejected. Thus, CO2 is a Beneficial Gas
Section B: The Social Cost of Each Trace GHG Other than CO2 is also Negative; therefore, each Trace GHG is a Beneficial Gas
1. The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of each of the other GHGs currently subject to future emissions reduction regulation, e.g., Methane, N2O, CFCs and HFCs has been calculated incorrectly for years and is actually zero.
Therefore, the social cost of each trace GHG other than CO2 is also negative; therefore, each is also a beneficial gas.
3.“One of Putin’s most powerful weapons in this war is its production of fossil fuels,” ---"That’s why one of the West’s most powerful counterattacks is neutralizing this weapon by accelerating the global transition to clean energy.”
Rebuttal: By 2019, America had energy security, it was a net exporter of oil and natural gas. Under the current Green New Deal Plan, America has lost its energy security and going forward would to be reliant on China for its energy security. This would put America in a similar situation as that faced today by Germany with its reliance on Russian oil and gas.
4.“Because of global warming Putin “himself has acknowledged” that a thawing permafrost poses a threat to northern cities. Moreover, Arctic melting “eliminates a natural defense” for Russia’s northern border which could “spur increased military buildup."”
Rebuttal: Arctic warming and the melting of the arctic ice are not at all unprecedented (they happen predictably on multidecadal scales (Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO) with periods of around 60 years) and are in fact entirely natural. Warming results in part from the reduction of arctic ice extent because of flows of warm water into the arctic from the Pacific through the Bering Straits and from the Atlantic from the far North Atlantic Current. The warmer water thins the ice from beneath, slows the refreezing and limits to varying degrees the depth and extent of the ice. (see more on the ocean influence here and full details here)
Recent year data shows we have past the latest peak of arctic warming (most ice in a decade) and likely to descend again into a colder era with reduced summer melt.
A seminal work below dealing with this issue demonstrated that surface temperatures and the AMO and PDO behavior can be readily explained by natural factors, in particular, solar, volcanic and oceanic/ENSO activity. In addition, the work demonstrated that CO2 did not have a statistically significant impact on the AMO or the PDO or land surface temperatures.
James P. Wallace III, Anthony J. Finizza and Joseph DAleo, “A Simple KISS Model to Examine the Relationship Between Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, and Ocean & Land Surface Temperatures, Taking into Consideration Solar and Volcanic Activity, As Well As Fossil Fuel Use.” Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier, Oxford, Amsterdam, pp. 353-382. ISBN: 9780123859563, Copyright 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved, Elsevier.(link),
5.“The bottom line is that climate threat multipliers such as drought and desertification have compromised the resilience of the global food system. Taking Ukrainian and Russian food off the global market will soon lead to empty grocery shelves in fragile states” --- “The loss of Ukrainian wheat for emerging economies, especially those with fragile democracies, risks instability as rising prices for basic resources and could spark discontent of the type that led to the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011 that began with a food crisis.”
Rebuttal: Though we have warned that the impact of losing major producers will impact available global supplies, the implied claims of carbon dioxide increasing drought and desertification is blatantly false.
Actually CO2 has buffered localized drought impacts and has fostered an agricultural revolution that small-minded bureaucrats want to halt.
NASA has reported on a considerable greening of the earth the last 3 decades. The Sahara desert has actually shrunk 8%.
A significant portion of continuing crop yield increases in recent decades is due to the approximately 45% rise in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. As the primary raw material of plant photosynthesis, literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments have conclusively demonstrated that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 enhance crop growth and yields (see the CO2 Science Plant Growth Database).
With respect to unmanaged or natural ecosystems, they do not appear to be in danger of collapse either. Quite to the contrary, increasing temperatures and rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are benefitting the terrestrial biosphere. Prior to around 1940, Earth’s land surfaces were a net source of CO2-carbon to the atmosphere. From 1940 onward, however, the terrestrial biosphere has become, in the mean, an increasingly greater sink for CO2- carbon. And when including data from both the land and ocean, it has been determined that the global carbon uptake (a measure of productivity) has actually doubled over the past half-century, from 2.4 to 5.0 billion tonnes per year.
Similar results were reported in 2017 by a research team (Li et al., 2017). Working with over 2100 globally-distributed databases, they analyzed the spatiotemporal patterns of net primary production over the past half-century, which patterns are illustrated below. Their results indicated that, for the planet as a whole, net primary production increased significantly by 21.5 percent over the past five decades. Not surprisingly, the authors report that atmospheric CO2 concentration was the dominant factor controlling the inter-annual variability and increase of global net primary production over the period of study.
Starving plant life of the critical CO2 would have a negative effect on foodstuff and is a fool’s game.
-------
What is driving the alarmism?
The recent claims about the need to “trust the science” for COVID where the science changed as needed should alert you to how you have been fooled.
Their motivation is not to aid mankind but the elitist plans to control mankind. They have openly admitted this.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” - The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations.-The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations (1991 The First Global Revolution, New York: Pantheon Books, 1991)
“We’ve got to ride this global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."-Timothy Wirth, Former US Senator and then head of the United Nations Foundation. (Michael Fumento, Science Under Siege: Balancing Technology and the Environment (William Morrow & Company, 1993), p. 362)
“Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment and author of Trashing the Planet (1990) and Environmental Overkill (1993), speaking before editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald in 1998, said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
The UN IPCC kicked it into high gear in 1995. Ben Santer was appointed the convening Lead-author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.” In that position, Santer created the first clear example of the IPCC manipulation of science for a political agenda. He used his position to establish the headline that humans were a factor in global warming by altering the meaning of what was agreed by the committee as a whole at the draft meeting in Madrid.
The consensus of the large group of scientists assigned with assessing the proposed effects agreed in their summary of the main chapter of the report was: “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in Greenhouse gases.”
Santer as Lead Author replaced it with: “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol...from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change… These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”
It was just a start of central planning and control. This was openly admitted by politicians and lead UN IPCC
“The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance” - Former Washington State Democratic Governor Dixy Lee Ray
“Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” In simpler terms, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.” - UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres - UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres 2015
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. It is not. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” - IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer 2010
AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing” - nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. (2019)
The elitists have a low regard for the intelligence of those they want to control.
In three separate appearances (video of the three), MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, dubbed the “Obamacare Architect,” took that dim view of Americans’ intelligence. In the first, he discusses “the stupidity of the American voter.” In the second, that “Americans were too stupid to understand” one of the ACA’s tax increases. In the third, he describes the law’s “exploitation of the lack of understanding of the American voter.”
Above we have shown in their own words how the indoctrination of the world on the alleged perils of global warming evolved and in their own words how they have ulterior motives for their green agenda.
by Viv Forbes of the Saltbush Club, 10th May 2022
Libs and ALP are both on the nose. It looks unlikely that either of them will hold a majority of seats. But if voters are not disciplined in how they vote, a bunch of deep greens posing as independents will grab enough seats to hold the balance of power. This would be a disaster.
So voters must ensure that Liberals can form the next government, providing they have adult supervision. We explain why and how below.
See here for a pictorial advice on How to Vote:
(Feel free to use this cartoon with no alterations.)
Voters must ensure there are new sensible people holding the balance of power in Australian parliaments. We need people who understand that:
* The “Man-made Climate Crisis” is a fraud. Natural cycles control the climate.
* “Net Zero Emissions” is a destructive, impossible green dream.
* Hydrogen, Pumped Hydro and Big Batteries are all net-consumers of energy. They can store energy and recycle it, but that round-robin process is always a net consumer of energy.
* Carbon Capture and Storage and “Clean Coal” are con games designed to consume more hydro-carbon energy for no public or environmental benefit. They would enrich big businesses.
* Reliable affordable electricity for industry and homes is best supplied by coal, gas, hydro or nuclear power.
* While the world scrambles to get coal supplies, Australian bureaucrats have delayed coal exploration and development for decades. And we can mine and export uranium, but not use it. These follies must stop.
* All electricity generators should be treated equally - no special taxes or subsidies. They should be obliged to provide their own backup power and their own connections to the grid.
* Electric cars may suit rich city folk (who forget they are powered mainly by coal). But battery-electric engines are an impossible dream for dozers, tractors, harvesters, road trains, aeroplanes and bulk carriers. And the supply chains that deliver daily food, fuel and services to the cities rely totally on hydrocarbon energy (diesel, petrol and gas).
* Australia has about three weeks of diesel supplies in the country.
* To moderate the effects of droughts and floods we need MORE DAMS NOW.
* We need a regulatory firestorm to clear the legislative litter of green and red tape.
* We have far too many complicated tax laws. We need to slash and simplify taxes everywhere, starting with abolition of payroll tax (the tax on jobs) and capital gains tax (the tax on capital improvements).
* Most politicians since the Whitlam era have helped to create a huge national debt. Unless we reverse this, our currency will be destroyed, opening the door to digital money, electronic rationing and “The Great Green Reset”.
* We must abolish federal/state/local duplication, leaving more control with State and Local authorities and with families.
* The federal government should focus on defence, foreign affairs, quarantine and maintenance of free trade between states.
* We need a “back-to-basics” in public education, with less green indoctrination.
* Australia has a shortage of labour, and a surplus of people receiving welfare. Welfare for able-bodied recipients with no dependants should be reduced.
It is time to VOTE FOR REAL CHANGE. However, thoughtless rejection of the Lib/NP government will produce a government which is far worse - a Labor Government dependent on Greens and extreme Greens. We must use the power of preferential voting to break Liberal/Labor/Green Power.
Check out Topher Field on how to use Preferential Voting to get the best candidate elected here and here.
Libs and ALP are both on the nose. It looks unlikely that either of them will hold a majority of seats. But if voters are not disciplined in how they vote, a bunch of deep greens posing as independents will grab enough seats to hold the balance of power. They will naturally support a radical Green/ALP coalition, and Australia will leap out of the frying pan into the fire.
However, with thoughtful and disciplined behaviour at the ballot box (for BOTH Senate and House of Reps) we can stop this looming green calamity by electing some sensible new politicians.
Our first election job - identify the worst candidates and parties. Preference them last on both House of Reps and Senate ballot papers when you vote.
The most dangerous candidates in this election are The Sneaky Greens - they pose as “independents” but are being supported by climate crazy millionaires and, if elected, will re-appear in their deep green uniforms. Unless you know better, put all “independents”, Teal Greens, Climate 200 and Get-Up supported candidates last.
Have a look here to see how they operate and what they plan here and here.
Just above the Sneaky Greens and “Independents” put the declared Greens and their ALP allies. Then select all Liberals above all of the Green/ALP alliance and “Independents”.
Then focus on who should get your top votes. Choose your numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 etc candidates Freedom-Friendly-Minor-Parties (FFMP) giving preference to those listed below:
* Campbell Newman, Topher Field and the Liberal Democrats
* Pauline Hanson, George Christensen and the One Nation Candidates
* Clive Palmer, Craig Kelly and United Australia Candidates
* Bob Katter and Katter Australia Party
* Barnaby Joyce, Matt Canavan and National Party Candidates
* Bob Day and Australian Family Party Candidates
* And Saltbush Club member, David Archibald, who contests Curtin, in WA
Put low numbers against all FFMP candidates in your order of choice so your vote preferences flow on and accumulate. Number every square all the way down to Unknown independents and the climate-crazy Teal “independents”.
For the Senate (which has a large complicated white ballot paper) it is safer and easier to number every square above the line, using the same party ranking rules as above.
Australia is facing a crisis. We hold a large rich continent with a small population. It is lightly defended with inadequate weapons. Wars are fought for living space and resources. To our north (and sneaking down to the East) are the teeming millions of Asia.
Australia has huge resources of minerals, energy, timber and food but too much is sterilised in nationalised parks, world heritage areas, or buried beneath rainbow serpents. We have to import farm labour while we pay Australians not to work. Now our grasslands and farms are being suffocated beneath subsidised green energy paraphernalia while speculators tout capital-destroying dreams like hydrogen. Our education system devalues maths and science, despises educational excellence and offers an expanding array of soft options. Our immigration policy seems to encourage racial tension while our military leaders seem more concerned with diversity and zero emissions than with discipline and skills.
It requires thoughtful dedication to save Australia at this late stage. It will get worse before it gets better. We cannot allow those who created this crisis to control our next chapter. Australia’s revival must start with this election.
Viv Forbes
Washpool, Qld, Australia
Further Reading:
Check out Topher Field on how to use Preferential Voting to get the best candidate elected here and here
Australia cannot afford the Teal “Independents” here.
Labor frontbencher Chris Bowen has said there will be no new coal fired power stations built in Australia here.
“Despite having more coal and uranium per person than almost anywhere on Earth, Australia has still managed to make some of the most expensive electricity on the planet. Mostly thanks to a pagan quest to control the weather.”
Jo Nova
Put Majors Last here
https://majorslast.com/
--------
Responsibility for electoral comment here is taken by Viv Forbes, Ipswich-Boonah Road, Washpool, Qld, Australia.
He grew up in the Menzies era, completed National Service, was once a member of the Liberal Party, and has led Senate Teams for two different Freedom-Friendly-Minor-Parties. He is not currently a member of any political party, nor a candidate in the coming federal election. He has studied politics and economics at the University of Queensland and economics at the Foundation for Economic Education in New York.
Gordon Fulks and Chuck Wiese
I saw that article on the front page of today’s Oregonian. It made me chuckle, because the unprecedented April snow and cold here has rattled the climate crowd. They have to speak out to keep the faithful from deserting their climate religion. So, they publish comments from one of the high priests at Oregon State University, explaining that they expected such and linking it to the Summer Solstice event we experienced last year in late June, where temperatures in the Willamette Valley reached 116 F.
In some sense, they are correct as this plot of state record high and record low temperatures shows:
Although not quite up-to-date, this plot shows that most of the state record highs and lows occurred during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, when the concentration of atmospheric CO2 in our atmosphere was considerably lower. Hence, there is no correlation of CO2 with extreme weather events, but extremes do cluster for other reasons.
Even an update of that plot to 2022 will not show a change in the number of state record highs in 1898. Oregon’s record high of 119 F, set that year, still stands. The massive heat wave that we experienced last June amounted to relatively normal hot weather in Eastern Oregon and Washington spilling into the Willamette Valley at the time of year when the Sun is highest in the sky and days are longest.
It is a pity that the Oregonian is not honest enough to point out that the “expert” they quote has no degrees in the physical sciences. Even they should know that science requires training in the areas where people claim expertise. On the other hand, I expect that Professor Fleishman is smart enough to realize what the Oregonian refuses to mention. Oregon State University has long received massive funding for their support of climate hysteria. The last I looked, the Federal Government gravy train leaves them upwards of $250 million dollars every year.
Oregonian Editor Therese Bottomly was very correct when she wrote recently about “following the money” in politics. That is essential, because this subject has become so political.
My criticism of yesterday still stands. The Oregonian needs to quote real scientists with real degrees in the physical sciences, even if they are heavily alarmist.
Here is what I quoted from the premier climate alarmist Gavin Schmidt, PhD. He succeeded James Hansen, PhD, at NASA/GISS in New York City.
“General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media...It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even if anyone thinks about that for ten seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”
Yes, “nonsense” is the operative word.
Gordon
Gordon J. Fulks, BS, MS, PhD (All in Physics from the University of Chicago)
Corbett, Oregon USA
P.S. I am one of the directors of the CO2 Coalition, where real scientists with real expertise specialize in real science:
Note that our Chairman is the well-known Princeton University Professor of Physics WWill Happer.
Another director is the renowned PhD ecologist who helped found Greenpeace, Patrick Moore.
Our most famous meteorologist is MIT Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Richard Lindzen.
Harrison Jack Schmitt, with a PhD in Geology from Harvard University and the only scientist to have walked on the Moon, was one of our directors.
---------
Chuck Wiese’ via Global Warming Realists
This article is preposterous rubbish! “Professor” Erica Fleishman has no academic training in atmospheric science or any earth science discipline and knows nothing about what she speaks, in fact, the opposite of what she says is true. Extreme weather IS NOT caused by “climate change” IF carbon dioxide was changing the climate as with the false claim she is asserting.
Here is the sound refutation to the incorrect paper published by Jennifer Francis and Steve Vavrus about this that I wrote about in 2016:
A Warming Arctic Would Not Cause Increased Severe Weather or Temperature Extremes - edberry.com
Professor Fleishman, do you care to defend your claim? Where are you getting this nonsense that you are telling the Oregonian? Did Kale Williams quote you correctly?
These claims of yours are a complete trashing of the established principles of atmospheric science and they couldn’t be further from the truth.
Here are professor Fleishmans academic credentials:
Erica Fleishman | College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences | Oregon State University
She is an ecologist, not a meteorologist or atmospheric scientist. You would think (but I am not surprised) that Kale Williams and the Oregonian would seek out individuals that know something about which they speak. Professor Fleishman does not and can only quote the political body of the IPCC that has been shown to be wrong and politicized most of their claims about “climate change”.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Here we go again!
The response from Oregon’s climate fanatics has been complete silence. On Sunday, The Oregonian put out another of their front page headline stories on the need for “urgent climate action,” based on the latest UNIPCC report.
They added this hogwash on Tuesday. The commitment to the Climate Crusade and OSU deceit continues unabated.
Blistering June heat, unprecedented April snow: Climate change makes extreme weather more likely in Oregon
As heat-trapping gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere - coming from tailpipes, power plants and industrial facilities - these types of extreme weather events are likely to become more common, said Erica Fleishman, a professor at Oregon State University and director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute.
By Craig D. Idso—April 6, 2022
Dr. Craig Idso, Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and a new principal at MasterResource, invites readers to join him in a new series of articles discussing the many ways in which rising atmospheric carbon dioxide benefits humanity and nature.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide: you can’t see, hear, smell or taste it. But it’s there-all around us-and it’s crucial for life. Composed of one carbon and two oxygen atoms, this simple molecule serves as the primary raw material out of which plants construct their tissues, which in turn provide the materials out of which animals construct theirs. Knowledge of the key life-giving and life-sustaining role played by carbon dioxide, or CO2, is so well established, in fact, that humans- and all the rest of the biosphere-are described in the most basic of terms as carbon-based lifeforms. We simply could not and would not exist without it.
Ironically, far too many demonize and falsely label this important atmospheric trace gas a pollutant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of being shunned like the plague, the ongoing rise in CO2 should be welcomed with open arms.
How do I know this?
During the past three decades of my professional career I have performed countless hours of research, conducted multiple experiments, published a series of professional journal articles, written several books, created videos and feature-length documentaries, and authored thousands of commentary articles exploring the effects of CO2 on the biosphere (much of that work can be found at my CO2 Science website, http://www.co2science.org). In all those activities I have come to know that, far from being a pollutant, this colorless, odorless, tasteless and invisible gas benefits the biosphere in a multitude of ways. And I want to share that knowledge with you!
To accomplish this objective, over the next several months I will be publishing a series of articles describing several key benefits atmospheric CO2 enrichment provides to both humanity and nature. The articles will explore topics such as the effects of CO2 on plant growth and water use efficiency, a CO2-induced greening of the planet, the monetary benefits of rising CO2 on crop yields, and much, much more. Look for the postings at a rate of about two per month.
Sadly, most of the population remains woefully unaware of the many positive impacts of CO2 on the biosphere. This is no surprise, considering the constant and steady stream of misinformation our society endures from sources dedicated to demeaning and defaming CO2. What is more, world governments, non-governmental organizations, international agencies, societal think tanks, and even respectable scientific organizations attempting to assess the potential consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars writing and promoting large reports about it.
Yet, these endeavors have failed miserably because they have neglected to evaluate or even acknowledge the manifold real and measurable benefits of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content. As a result, many important and positive impacts of atmospheric CO2 enrichment remain underappreciated and largely ignored in the debate over what to do, or not do, about anthropogenic CO2 emissions. And that omission does not bode well for policy decisions.
I hope you will join me on this informative journey as we explore the many benefits of CO2 and I hope you will share what you read and learn with others. Societal change occurs as individuals become informed one by one. Together we can help make that happen!
-Dr. Craig Idso
---------
CRAIG D. IDSO is the founder, former president, and currently chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. The Center was founded in 1998 as a non-profit public charity dedicated to discovering and disseminating scientific information pertaining to the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment on climate and the biosphere. The Center produces the online newsletter, CO2 Science, and maintains a massive online collection of editorials on and reviews of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles relating to global climate change.
Dr. Idso’s research has appeared many times in peer-reviewed journals, including Geophysical Research Letters, Environmental and Experimental Botany, Forest Ecology and Management, Journal of Climate, Physical Geography, Atmospheric Environment, Technology, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Energy & Environment, and the Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science.
Dr. Idso is the author or coauthor of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2011), CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2009), CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2009); Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 2003); and The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth’s Biosphere? (George C. Marshall Institute, 2003). He contributed chapters to McKittrick, R. (Ed.), Critical Topics in Global Warming (Fraser Institute, 2009) and Encyclopedia of Soil Science (Marcel Dekker, 2002). Dr. Idso has also produced several short video works and three feature-length documentaries, Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Reality or Illusion? (2008), Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Avoiding Plant and Animal Extinctions (2008), and Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis: Doing the Right Thing (2008).
In 2009, Dr. Idso became the lead author and editor for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), overseeing a team of internationally renowned scientists in the production of several major reports on climate change. Those reports include Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, and Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. His most recent work with NIPCC is encapsulated in its 2019 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, where he contributed as a lead or contributing author on several chapters.
Dr. Idso received a B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, an M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and a Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he also studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars. Prior work positions have included Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, Missouri; faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University; and lecturer in Meteorology at Arizona State University.
Dr. Idso’s professional associations have included membership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, Geological Society of America, and The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi. Dr. Idso has also served as an adjunct scholar for the Cato Institute and he is presently a policy advisor for the CO2 Coalition, the Heartland Institute, and the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.
We have been lectured to ‘trust the science’ which was ever changing throughout the COVID threats. Increasingly, evidence grows that the ‘science’ details were largely made up as it goes and used as a cudgel for political ends including power and policy advancement.
The same has been seen in recent decades as environmentalists, woke universities, think tanks and governments and our corrupt media sought to build the case to demonize carbon dioxide and fossil fuels. The goal is New World Order or really One World Governance.
Many scientists have been showing the fraud involved. Kudos to Manhattan Contrarian’s Francis Menton here in 30 posts! He mentions Tony Heller’s fine work in many posts (see) and many other in many countries doing God’s work.
Here I focus on the warmists’ own words
In Their Own Words
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
-The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
The UN IPCC kicked it into high gear in 1995. Ben Santer was appointed the convening Lead-author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.” In that position, Santer created the first clear example of the IPCC manipulation of science for a political agenda. He used his position to establish the headline that humans were a factor in global warming by altering the meaning of what was agreed by the committee as a whole at the draft meeting in Madrid.
The consensus of the large group of scientists assigned with assessing the proposed effects agreed in their summary of the main chapter of the report was: “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in Greenhouse gases.”
Santer as Lead Author replaced it with: “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol… from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change… These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”
It was just a start of central planning and control. This was openly admitted by politicians and lead UN IPCC
“The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance.”
- Former Washington State Democratic Governor Dixy Lee Ray
“Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” In simpler terms, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.”
- UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. It is not. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
- IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer
AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing” - nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy.
Above we have shown in their own words how the indoctrination of the world on the alleged perils of global warming evolved.
Advocacy Keeps Coming
Virtually every month and year we see stories in the once reliable media and from formerly unbiased data centers that proclaim the period among the warmest such period in the entire record back to 1895 or earlier (often 1850). They also claim the warming due to greenhouse gases is causing more extremes of weather and more deaths. The base data they use has serious issues and is often more model than real data.
In the ADDENDUM to the Research Report entitled: 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, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. (Honorary) Joseph S. D’Aleo, Dr. Craig D. Idso, June 2017 (here) provided ample evidence that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data was invalidated for use in climate modeling and for any other climate change policy analysis purpose.
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three Global Average Surface Temperature 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.
See more here.
That is made even more true given that 71% of the earth’s surface is ocean and the only ocean data prior to the satellite era began in the 1970s was limited to ship routes mainly near land in the northern hemisphere. According to overseers of the instrumental temperature data, the Southern Hemisphere record is “mostly made up”. This is due to an extremely limited number of available measurements both historically and even presently from Antarctica to the equatorial regions.
In 1978, the New York Times reported there was too little temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere to draw any reliable conclusions. The report, prepared by German, Japanese and American specialists, appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of Nature, the British journal and stated that “Data from the Southern Hemisphere, particularly south of latitude 30 south, are so meager that reliable conclusions are not possible,” the report says. “Ships travel on well-established routes so that vast areas of ocean, are simply not traversed by ships at all, and even those that do, may not return weather data on route.”
In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen et al reported that “Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due to the uneven station distribution, with the Southern Hemisphere and ocean areas poorly represented,” --- (Science, 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511(link)
In 1989, the New York Times admitted the US data released from NOAA failed to show a warming trend since 1895. Even in 1999, the temperature still trailed 1934 - James Hansen noted “The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year 1934.”
This finding was amplified recently by MIT graduate Dr. Mototaka Nakamura in a 2020 book on “the sorry state of climate science” titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis.
He wrote: “The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.
The Inconvenient Pause
Confounding warmist claims, the satellite data not under climate center control and from above the surface layer affected by urban warming and the normal diurnal cycles, and increasingly some of the data center data provided contradictory results for almost two decades. Following the super El Nino of 1997/98, global temperatures flat-lined to over 18 years, even as the monthly claims of unprecedented warmth.
Nature and IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth acknowledged the ‘pause’ and cyclic influences of natural factors like El Nino, ocean cycles on global climate.
Buoys to the Rescue
Satellites starting in the late 1970s began to provide full ocean coverage though they could only measure the ‘skin’ temperature, subject to diurnal variations. Around 2004, a network of floating and capable of diving ARGO buoys (3833 as of October 2020) globally that provided coverage of ocean temperature and heat content largely missing for the previous century. They inconveniently initially agreed with the lack of warming.
Make the Pause Go Away
In 2015 pressure from the politicians funding the sciences told the scientists to fix the inconvenient facts. John Bates, data quality officer with NOAA detailed how Tom Karl in a paper in Science in June 2015, just a few months before world leaders were to meet in Paris to agree on a costly Paris Climate Accord, removed the inconvenient pause by altering ocean temperatures
“They had good data from buoys...and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did - so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer. Remember with the oceans covering 71% of the globe, even small adjustments could have a major impact. Bates here noted “the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’ in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets -in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
Enlarged
-----------
My philosophy when I taught meteorology and climatology in college was to show my students how to think - not what to think. As Socrates said, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” I told my students that data is king, and models are only useful tools. Any model"s output or any theory needed to be examined and validated using data and must always used with caution.
Responding to the claims about drastic runaway warming and increasing extremes in the media have been fact checked and debunked here.
Carbon Dioxide, the Gas of Life
NASA imagery has shown CO2 is a plant fertilizer that has sparked mass greening of the earth and huge increases in crop yields.
It has a major positive impact. Crop yields have consistently reached record levels. The Sahara desert has shrunk 8% since the 1980s.
Dr. Will Happer, Princeton Physicist talks about the great benefits of CO2 to the biosphere and to all of humanity, says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.
Dr Patrick Moore, ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.
The claims about the climate impacts of increased CO2 are greatly exaggerated. Claims about drastic runaway warming and increasing extremes have been fact checked and debunked in detail here.
The Big Lie of the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’
The Social Cost of Carbon is said to be high… instead it is strongly negative - carbon dioxide is a benefit. We pump it into greenhouses to make the plants grow. We need more not less.
The real existential threat comes would come from radical environmentalism and their prescribed remedies. The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path the past 2 decades have seen skyrocketing energy costs - some 3 times our 2020 levels. Now our country chose to follow them down the rabbit hole.
The world is not ready for the so-called renewables and we are seeing clear global evidence that the push away from clean natural gas and oil and nuclear has already started a super inflation era that is already hurting all the world’s businesses and people.
This is because renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow nor the sunshine. We saw that in Europe the last 2 decades and Texas in February 2021. And don’t believe the claims that millions of green jobs would result. In Spain, every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies and resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs were permanent. Industry left and in Spain unemployment rose to 27.5%. Many households in the countries that have gone green were said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating”. Extreme cold already killed 20 times more than heat according to a study of 74 million deaths in 13 countries.
The Chamber of Commerce agreed:
U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute’s Energy Accountability Series 2020
“Candidates for elected office have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled the boom (and the never thought possible energy independence) - fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if fracturing was banned? In this report, the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question.
Simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy.
Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.
Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump ($5/gallon).” (note gas prices are already there in many areas).
A Call to Action
We need to IMMEDIATELY reinstate the pipeline, restart drilling and oil and gas production to meet our needs and that of the world instead of funding predator nation production that will revive their terrorist programs.
If the generals need something to do, tell them to take up knitting. We are all going to need more sweaters as there are signs the next cold cycle phase may have begun.
In the U.S., wildfires are in the news almost every late summer and fall. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) has recorded the number of fires and acreage affected since 1985. The data shows that the trend in the number of fires was actually down while the trend in the acreage burned has increased. Longer term both number and acreage burned are down.
Professor Bjorn Lomborg used NIFC data with documented “Historical Statistical” fire data to show the long-term trend. He notes recent forest fire activity is one-fifth the record since 1926 even with the recent increases in acreage burnt.
In agreement with Lomborg, Sweetnam looked at long-term incidence of wildfires in North America and found they have declined the last century though with a small rebound in recent years.
Enlarged
Natural seasonal weather variations create conditions that are conducive to seasonal fires and the rapid spread of these fires west to increasingly populated areas. Today most are the result of power lines igniting trees. The power lines have increased proportionately with the population, so it can be reasoned that most of the damage from large wildfires in California is partially a result of increased population.
The increased danger is also greatly aggravated by poor government forest management choices. ”In the United States, wildfires are also due in part to a failure to thin forests or remove dead and diseased trees”. In 2014, forestry professor David B. South of Auburn University testified to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that “data suggest that extremely large megafires were four-times more common before 1940,” adding that “we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.” As he explained, “To attribute this human-caused increase in fire risk to carbon dioxide emissions is simply unscientific.”
ROLE OF DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES
California’s catastrophic wildfires illuminated the years’ long stalemate between those who want to cut back the overgrown, beetle-infested national forests and environmentalists who have axed efforts to fell more trees, blaming the destructive fires on climate change. See more in the Washington Times.
In December, 2017, the U.S. Forest Service announced that California had set a record with 129 million dead trees on 8.9 million acres, the result of a five-year drought and beetle-kill, but that its tree mortality task force had removed only about 1 million.
Meanwhile, the logging industry has continued its free fall, with timber harvesting dropping by 80 percent in the past 40 years, as projects in the national forests are killed or delayed by ”frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists who would rather see forests and communities burn than see a logger in the woods,” according to our prior Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. When a bi-partisan bill was passed in 2017 in California to help fund PGE tree cutting near power lines to lessen fire danger, it was vetoed by Governor Brown.
The LA Times in October, 2017 reported The explosive failure of power lines and other electrical equipment has regularly ranked among the top three singular sources of California wildfires for the last several years. In 2015, the last year of reported data, electrical power problems sparked the burning of 149,241 acres - more than twice the amount from any other cause.
Tree cuttings near power lines, burying the power lines where possible would help though it would not prevent fires from careless campers or arsonists. Smokey Bear PSAs need to be revived.
These same radical environmentalists hold growers, farmers and ranchers in the same level of contempt they have for foresters. Their actions have led to the diversion of water to rivers and the Pacific Ocean, threatening agriculture in the #1 agricultural state for produce.
University of Washington Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Cliff Mass pointed out in a recent interview with the Daily Caller: “Wildfire area could well be increasing because of previous fire suppression, mismanagement of our forests, and a huge influx of people into the west, lightning fires and providing lots of fuel for them.”
University of Alabama-Huntsville’s Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science John Christy says human mismanagement is the more important cause of the huge fires: “If you don’t let the low-intensity fires burn, that fuel builds up year after year. Now once a fire gets going and it gets going enough, it has so much fuel that we can’t put it out. In that sense, you could say that fires today are more intense, but it’s because of human management practices, not because mother-nature has done something.”
In this Wall Street Journal opinion piece Only Good Management Can Prevent Forest Fires , Tom McClintock writes:
“There’s nothing new about catastrophic blazes. It’s how nature has always dealt with overgrowth.”
“Excess timber comes out of a forest in two ways - it gets carried out or burned out. For much of the 20th century, harvesting excess timber produced thriving forests by matching tree density to the ability of the land to support it. Foresters designated surplus trees, and loggers bid for the right to remove them at auction, with the proceeds going to the U.S. Treasury. These revenues were then put back into forest management and shared with local communities.
What went wrong? In the 1970s, Congress passed a series of laws subjecting federal land management to time-consuming and cost-prohibitive environmental regulations. Instead of generating revenues, forest management now costs the government money. As a result, timber harvested from federal lands has declined 80%, while acreage destroyed by fire has increased proportionally.”
Sen. Feinstein blames Sierra Club for blocking wildfire bill” reads the provocative headline on a 2002 story in California’s Napa Valley Register. Feinstein had brokered a congressional consensus on legislation to thin ‘overstocked’ forests close to homes and communities, but could not overcome the environmental lobby’s disagreement over expediting the permit process to thin forests everywhere else.
Fire suppression along with too many environmentalist-inspired bureaucratic barriers to controlled burns and undergrowth removal turned the hillsides and canyons of Southern California into tinderboxes.
Climate change spares private forests:
Katy Grimes, editor of the California Globe suggests the large wildfires relate to a lack of proper forest management in government-run forests:
“For decades, traditional forest management was scientific and successful, until ideological, preservationist zealots wormed their way into government and began the 40-year overhaul of sound federal forest management through abuse of the Endangered Species Act and the no-use movement...”
The same climate change impacts private lands as public lands, but private forests are not burning down because they are properly managed. Or if a fire does break out on privately managed forest land, it is often extinguished more quickly and easily because the trees aren’t so close together and the underbrush has been cleared away.
2021
NIFC Report 09/26/21 “After a very dry winter Nationally, 64 large fires have burned over 3,140,000 acres...The biggest fire in California, the so-called Dixie fire became the largest fire in the state’s history.”
The droughty winter and spring prevented the explosive growth of vegetation we see after wet winters and springs which dries in the summer heat to become additional fuel for fires. This helped to hold down the number of fires and total acreage burned.
See since 2009 that there is a downward trend for number of fires and no clear trend for acres burned.
Enlarged
2022 FIRE SEASON OUTLOOK
A two-year La Nina continues. We managed a wet October and December, but as the La Nina pulsed stronger, the rains shutoff. Still we are running above last year’s Water Year (October to September), which ranked in the top 3 driest.
1923/34 and 1976/77 were drier than 2021/22. The trend since 1895 for California is flat, in contrast with the tinker-toy million dollar climate models.
With chances for rains diminishing this spring and during the normal hot, dry western summer, fires will be in the news. Natural factors, population growth and continued governmental and environmental mismanagement ensure that.
By the way, they are also hyping flash flooding and mudslides increasing. we agree, on slopes where major fires have removed vegetation, heavy rains from thunderstorms will cause mudslides.
Bottom Line
In summary, alternating wet and dry years and impacts of annual end of dry season forest fires are a population growth, forest management and environmental and governmental policy induced issue, not a “Global Warming” one.
Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Government agencies, energy companies, auto and major corporations, big tech, universities, national labs, once honest professional societies and the ideologically corrupted media in recent years have been single minded in their support of decarbonization programs and policies (including taxes, mandated reduction or elimination of our use of fossil fuels, pushing not ready for prime time alternatives).
The democrat BUILD BACK BROKE plan - the multi decade idea of the globalists’ New World Order. This has already proved to be a disaster.
Those most affected by these policies are low and middle income families and individuals. In parts of Europe that have been down this past the last two decades, 15-25% of households were in energy poverty in the long, cold dark winter. The pensioners often have to choose between heating and eating. They track Excess Winter Mortality in Europe, Canada and the United States. 20 time more people die from cold than heat worldwide (Lancet).
Hypocrite of the week:
AND BASED ON WHAT?
See the insanity has reached the IEA
Many of the so-called experts never were interested and involved in ever studying the atmosphere and the science. Many were drawn into the field by the if money being made to advance the big lie. When real scientists publish or present conflicting data, they are accused of being in the denial corner with funding from fossil fuel. In academia, many are cancelled or attacked by their partners in the leftist think tanks and media. Think of the last 2 years of COVID as the so-called science of masking, vaccine use and the use of therapeutics and changed from week to week to fit political purposes demonstrating/increasing the power of political leaders. The same has been happening with carbon dioxide and fossil fuels and climate. Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? (Prager U short video by Richard Lindzen).
See CO2 - NOT A POLLUTANT BUT THE GAS OF LIFE
CO2 is a beneficial trace gas (0.04% of our atmosphere). With every breath we emit out 100 times more CO2 than we breathe in so it is not harmful. The increase in CO2 has caused a significant greening of the earth, with increased crop yields feeding more people at lower cost. (PragerU short explanation by Dr. Patrick Moore).
Dr. Craig Idso of CO2 Science noted “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is most certainly not causing dangerous global warming. Rather, its increase in the atmosphere is invigorating the biosphere, producing a multitude of benefits for humanity and the natural world, notwithstanding the prognostications of the uninformed.”
Dr. Will Happer, Princeton Physicist talks about the great benefits of CO2 to the biosphere and to all of humanity, says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.
Dr Patrick Moore, ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.
And this great review from Climate Discussion Nexus
It’s not the first time we were told we faced an existential threat due to ‘climate change’. In 1970, Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich warned that because of population growth, climate stress (then cold) and dwindling energy that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off” which was too late to stop. Even as each subsequent dire forecast failed (see how the alarmist/media record is perfect (100% wrong) in the 50 major claims made since 1950 here), the alarms continued, each pushing the date forward - 2000, 2020, and now 2030. Last summer, at Glacier National Park signs “Warning: glaciers will be gone by 2020” were quietly removed as ice and snow have increased not disappeared.
The greenhouse climate models used to predict the future have all failed miserably.
Enlarged
That is because they have used failed assumptions and models tuned to manipulated (fraudulent) data. Dr. Mototaka here exposes that:"The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.”
See detailed definitive peer reviewed studies on this here.
I have spent 50 years focusing on attribution science - starting with my Master’s thesis on what caused bomb east coast snowstorms in winter. I have spent the decades doing correlations of weather patterns and extremes with natural factors. The last few years, I worked with a team of scientific experts evaluated today today’s 12 most commonly reported claims and found them all either unfounded and explainable by natural factors - see here.
Tony Heller has a eye-opening video (one of many on his web site Real Climate Science that exposed the fraud using a unique data tool that exposed their tricks and the real story.
Heat records have declined since the 1930s, which holds 22 of the 50 state hottest ever temperature records.
The 2010’s was the second quietest decade for landfalling hurricanes and major hurricanes since 1850.The most occurred in the 1860s and 1880s. The deadliest hurricane was the Galveston hurricane in 1900 with 8000 to 12000 deaths. It was the quietest decade for tornadoes since tracking began in the 1950s. Sea level rises have slowed to 4 inches/century globally. Arctic ice has tracked with the 60-year ocean cycles and is similar to where it was in the 1920s to 1950s. NOAA could find no evidence of increased frequency of floods and droughts (last spring had the smallest % of US in drought on record).
Snow which the university scientists here predicted would disappear, actually has set new records (fall and winter) for the hemisphere and North America, and both Boston and NYC have had more snow in the 10 years ending 2018 than any other 10 year period back to the late 1800s.
Wildfires cause havoc but were far more prevalent before the forest management, fire suppression and grazing of the 1900s. They are problems now because more have left the failing cities to move out of state or to the beauty of the foothills. The power lines to service them can spark new fires when the cold air rushes through the mountain passes this time of years downing trees onto the power lines.
In the U.S., with low cost energy, low taxes and elimination of stifling regulations, we had the lowest unemployment for the nation in decades or history and for the first time in a long time significant wage increases! Here in NH, we had the lowest unemployment in the nation. The U.S. is energy independent, a long time thought unachievable goal. Our air and water is cleanest in our lifetimes well below the tough standards we put in place decades ago.
The real existential threat comes would come from radical environmentalism and their prescribed remedies. The climate scare is politically driven, all about big government and control over every aspect of our lives. AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti in May admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing” - nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy. He was echoing what the climate change head of the UN climate chief and the UN IPCC Lead Author said - that is was our best chance to change the economic system (to centralized control) and redistribute wealth (socialism).
The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path the past 2 decades have seen skyrocketing energy costs - some 3 times our levels. Now our country chose to follow them down the rabbit hole.
Renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow nor the sun shine. And don’t believe the claims millions of green jobs would result. In Spain, every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies and resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs were permanent. Industry left and in Spain unemployment rose to 27.5%.
Many households in the countries that have gone green were said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating”. Extreme cold already killed 20 times more than heat according to a study of 74 million deaths in 13 countries.
Politicians in the northeast states were bragging a few years back that they stopped the natural gas pipeline, shut down nuclear and coal plants and blocked the northern Pass which would have delivered low cost hydropower from Canada. Now this mistake was compounded by leftist push to phase out fuels and horrendous policy decisions made to reduce our carbon emissions. Ironically, we here in the US in the last administration had achieved energy independence and low cost CLEAN energy. The cleanest energy sources are natural gas, hydro and nuclear. The green fanatics regard all of these as targets. Today one dimwitted northeast politician claims we can replace our energy with wind form offshore wind in Long Island Sound. Explain to us how that helps lower gas prices.
This move towards a green energy and away from fossil fuel will lead to soaring energy prices and life-threatening blackouts. For a family of 4 in a modest house with 3 cars, the energy costs could increase over $10,000/year (based on a sample of households and their energy costs multiplied by 3 as has occurred in countries with a onerous green agenda). Higher energy prices drives up the cost of all goods and services as we are already seeing - multidecadal energy changes. And by the way like in Europe where this plan was enacted or planned, many will lose their jobs. They are being told what (if) they can drive and what they can eat. Prosperity always delivers a better life AND environment than poverty.
REALITY CHECKS LARGELY GETTING NO MEDIA ATTENTION
There are a few recent important reports that show what the impact of these plans are likely to be. The radical environmentalists and globalists believe that people are stupid and can be counted on to believe what government leaders, progressive think tanks and the well paid scientific cabal say. There are a few recent reports that show what the real impact of some of these plans now on the drawing board are likely to be and they are very scary. Remember the November 2014 Forbes story
“Today, new video surfaced in which Gruber said that ”the stupidity of the American voter” made it important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare’s true costs from the public. “That was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” said Gruber. “But I’d rather have this law than not.” In other words, the ends - imposing Obamacare upon the public - justified the means.” Reasons to go green (enriching the powerful) were built on a mountain of lies and exaggerations from the IPCC, politicians, universities, NGOs and the media. We are told the science is settled, that there is a consensus.
Michael Crichton, MD and Scientist wrote:
“Historically, the claim of consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels; it os a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled.”
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc). There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE’S GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE’S ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY SERIES 2020
Candidates for elected office have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled the boom (and the never thought possible energy independence) - fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if fracturing was banned? In this report, the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question.
Simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy.
Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.
Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump ($5/gallon).”
By the way we are already there. We need to IMMEDIATELY reinstate the pipeline, restart drilling and oil and gas production to meet our needs and that of the world instead or relying on predator nation production feeding their terrorist programs.
Based on projections discussed here, major pain will be coming, hurting the low to middle class.
Help us spread the truth. Let your local, state and federal representatives know the truth and push them to do the right thing. Until now, many play along with the claims to ‘trust the science” we hope the last few years have opened your mind to that being a political call to action and not science. Remember during the Obama administration In three separate appearances, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, dubbed the “Obamacare Architect,” took a dim view of Americans’ intelligence. In the first, he discusses “the stupidity of the American voter.” In the second, that “Americans were too stupid to understand” one of the ACA’s tax increases. In the third, he describes the law’s “exploitation of the lack of understanding of the American voter.” DC greens still believe that and use that.
See the essay on Do we trust the Science here.
---------
“Green Energy” is a radical dream that is not ready for prime time. Even the world leaders in adoption of wind and solar, have realized that the wind doesn’t aways blow or sun shine and had to rush the building of coal plants and input clean natural gas or liquified natural gas (the pipelines from RUSSIA that Europe depends on to maintain base loads). If the Biden administration has not attacked our pipelines (day 1) and energy sources, we could supply that need for Europe and war would probably never started.
Our Energy Secretary is organizing a team of radical leftists politicians, scientists, and psuedo-scientists to meet with the administration to try and ensure the administration does not reinstate the fossil fuel energy that made us energy independent for the first time and continue the big lie about the dangers of extremes of weather they claim is our fault. It is ALL about power and big personal profit. Though the elite rich is not affected by expensive energy, the rest of us are and high energy costs forced massive inflation of all goods and services. Many will die but for many in the movement that is an acceptable outcome because they think the earth is overpopulated. If you have have lost respect for “just trust the science” claims with COVID/vaccine mandates recognize that the climate crisis in an invention of the left to get control over your lives. I do not deny that climate changes - I have studied weather and climate attribution for my whole career and experienced the warmth and hurricanes of the 1950s, the cold and snow and threats of an imminent ice age in the 1960s and 1970s before the modest late century warming.
Many warned for many decades this politically driven nonsense would happen.
“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.” H. L. Mencken
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H. L. Mencken
Well before the climate change scare started, we were warned in 1961:
“… [In] the technological revolution during recent decades… research has become central ... complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government ... the solitary inventor ... has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields ... the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”
- President Eisenhower in his Farewell address
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
His words have been proven remarkably prophetic. What follows are quotes from some of the leaders in that movement. It exposes their true motivations and intentions. It proves this is political not scientific.
ONE WORLD GOVERNANCE IDEAS BASED ON POPULATION AND RESOURCE WORRIES
”The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
- The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE USE OF MODELS TO HYPE THREATS
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
”The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
- Al Gore, Climate Change activist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
- Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis...”
- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
- David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
- Judi Bari, Principal organizer of Earth First!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environment Programme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund, Princeton Professor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
- Professor Maurice King
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
- David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
”The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance.”
- Former Washington State Democratic governor Dixy Lee Ray
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes challenge scientists to define a new social contract...a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding.”
NOAA’s Administrator Jane Lubchenko, when she was president of AAAS in 1999
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” In simpler terms, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.
- UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. “It is not. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
- IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE FACT THE MODELS AND ALARMIST CLAIMS ARE FAILING MISERABLY IS IGNORED VIOLATING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The great Nobel Laureate Physicist Richard Feynman taught students: “If a theory disagrees with experiment (or data), it’s wrong… 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, or what your name is… If [your hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Einstein schooled his fellow scientists: “A model or a hypothesis cannot ‘prove’ anything. But data can invalidate a hypothesis or model. It takes only one experiment to prove me wrong.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc). There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
See Dr. Patrick Moore, ecologist, radical environmental activist and co-founder of Greenpeace talk about his journey to the truth and skepticism. He speaks about the benefits of the demonized gas CO2.
Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change. This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.”
- Stephen Moore, author of Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic...on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections...proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
- MIT professor of atmospheric science Richard Lindzen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Nobel Laureate physicist Ivar Giaever changes his mind on global warming, recognizes it as a psuedoscience.
-------------------
Above we have shown in their own words how the indoctrination of the world on the alleged perils of global warming evolved.
My philosophy when I taught college was to show my students how to think - not what to think. As Socrates said, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” I told my students that data is king, and models are only useful tools. Any model’s output or any theory needed to be examined and validated using data, and must always used with caution. We have found no evidence here and here and even more here and here) that any of the claims are right.
See Stephen Moore’ right-on assessment here.
------------
Kelly (2008) argues that “a belief held at earlier times can skew the total evidence that is available at later times, via characteristic biasing mechanisms, in a direction that is favorable to itself.” Kelly (2008) also finds that “All else being equal, individuals tend to be significantly better at detecting fallacies when the fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they disbelieve, than when the same fallacy occurs in an argument for a conclusion which they believe.” Kelly (2005) provides insights into the consensus building process: “As more and more peers weigh in on a given issue, the proportion of the total evidence which consists of higher order psychological evidence [of what other people believe] increases, and the proportion of the total evidence which consists of first order evidence decreases… At some point, when the number of peers grows large enough, the higher order psychological evidence will swamp the first order evidence into virtual insignificance.” Kelly (2005) concludes: “Over time, this invisible hand process tends to bestow a certain competitive advantage to our prior beliefs with respect to confirmation and disconfirmation… In deciding what level of confidence is appropriate, we should taken into account the tendency of beliefs to serve as agents in their own confirmation. Kelly refers to this phenomenon as ‘upward epistemic push.’
I wrote about that same time on Icecap Why Bringing Sanity Back on Climate Change Won’t Be Easy.
And see the real story about the Paris Accord and Poland UN Climate Summit: Poland_real_story.pdf
Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science
Last week, I got an email from a polar bear scientist I have interacted with a few times. Not one of the big names but aside from that, I’ll leave their identity private. The email was polite and I tried to respond in kind. I have copied it here because others may have had similar concerns.
This was the email:
Looking at your website, and taking a step back, it seems you are more interested in attacking polar bear researchers than the well-being of polar bears as a species. It seems there’s something personal going on. I’m genuinely curious. No hidden agenda on my part. Also, I’d like to know how much time you’ve spent in the field with these marvelous animals. Again, just curious. No intention to inflame matters.
My response is below.
Dear X,
Thanks for getting in touch with your feedback. I appreciate you trying to understand my position.
There is nothing personal about my criticisms: my concern is, and always has been, the lack of scientific integrity I’ve been seeing from some of your colleagues. Bear with me (no pun intended).
What I take from your enquiry is that I should be more concerned about “the well-being of polar bears as a species” and that I should have more appreciation for how “marvelous” these animals are.
Those two things suggest to me that you may be too emotionally invested, that you may lack the necessary detachment to be the best scientist you can be. I suspect this is true for all your colleagues, to various degrees. I say that not to slander but as a caution you may never have heard.
There is a potential bias that comes from caring more about the well-being of polar bears than the integrity of the science being presented (whether in print, relayed to journalists or posted on social media). Perhaps you don’t see this, which I understand.
But I am convinced that part of what makes me an essential part of the polar bear science community is that I haven’t worked in the field with bears and haven’t had my picture taken cuddling newborn cubs. It keeps me focused on the science being presented.
Biologically speaking, I consider polar bears one of the most fascinating animals on the planet. I want to see as much good, solid research on them being done now and in the future as happened before ‘climate change’ became such an all-consuming focus.
As a scientist, there have been a few issues in your field that I’ve found deeply disturbing and in most cases, my criticisms relate back to these (perhaps what you perceive as being ‘personal attacks’.
1) the almost total failure by Amstrup and others in recent years to acknowledge the huge die-off of Southern Beaufort bears during the 1974-1976 thick spring ice events (described in detail in the scientific literature), especially in relation to the similar events that took place in 2004-2006 which are now disingenuously implied to have been caused by lack of sea ice. As far as I can see, there has been no real attempt to work with sea ice specialists to understand why such phenomena would have occurred repeatedly there (and nowhere else, as far as I can determine), or how this has shaped the physiology, behaviour and demography of the population: just a total focus on presenting ‘evidence’ to blame on global warming.
2) the repeated statements to journalists (particularly by Amstrup, Stirling and Derocher) that Western Hudson Bay females over the last few years continue to lose weight and cubs suffer declining survival when there are no data confirming this in the published literature. There have been no data on these metrics published since 2004, although it is clear the data exist. Why hasn’t it been published? I have made this criticism many times and still nothing changes, so I am left to conclude the data do not support their statements. If there are valid reasons for not publishing the data, I’d love to hear them: the world should hear them.
3) related to point 2, the insistence that the decline in body condition in WH bears is a new phenomenon related to changes in sea ice (1980s to 2000s) when a previous decline in condition not related to sea ice (from the 1960s to the 1980s) is documented in the literature but now never mentioned. In fact, body condition and cub survival dropped twice but only the second drop is discussed (and blamed on sea ice changes). I suspect it’s because Stirling and Derocher have no explanation for why the first decline occurred so would rather just forget it. However, there will be no advancement of a true big-picture understanding of WH polar bear survival over time in relation to different ice and snow conditions unless all of these data are considered.
4) the insistence that breakup and freeze-up dates are critical to understanding WH and SH polar bear survival, yet in 2022 the most recent ‘official’ data (i.e. used by your colleagues in their assessments) are from 2015. Is there any reason why can this data cannot be calculated after fall freeze-up and reported every year for everyone to see? The Norwegians do this and they have my utmost respect and admiration for doing so (which I have stated publicly).
To keep this from being an even longer essay, I have attached a copy of the final chapter of my 2019 polar bear book in which I explain “why I do what I do”. Perhaps that will help as well.
Respectfully and sincerely,
Susan
By who else but Seth Borenstein AP. ---
“The American West’s megadrought deepened so much last year that it is now the driest in at least 1,200 years and is a worst-case climate change scenario playing out live, a new study finds.
A dramatic drying in 2021 - about as dry as 2002 and one of the driest years ever recorded for the region - pushed the 22-year drought past the previous record-holder for megadroughts in the late 1500s and shows no signs of easing in the near future, according to a study Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The study calculated that 42% of this megadrought can be attributed to human-caused climate change.”
-------------------
As the graph below from NOAA’s NCEI for the western U.S. shows there are dry and wet years often explained by El Ninos and La Ninas, the trend is “flat” since 1895.
When droughts are severe or persist for more than a season, talk of a permanent change to a megadrought or permadrought often begin. There is no sense of history in these claims. A 2015 study (Cook etal) found that Megadroughts in the past 2000 years were worse and lasted longer than current droughts. When drought began in Texas in 2010 and worsened in 2011, alarmists claimed this event marked the start of a ‘permadrought’. Some worried that as a farming and cattle ranching region, Texas was essentially finished. Three wet years followed culminating with the major flooding from Hurricane Harvey. The Texas drought was over.
So then alarmists changed their warnings and claimed that the flooding from Harvey was the result of climate change and an era of severe flooding storms had begun. However, the record below for precipitation in Texas shows a flat trend seen with the wet and dry periods. It does show the worst drought stretch 6 years long occurred in the 1950s. But, large swings are common.
In California there were four dry to very dry years ending in 2014 and the alarmists were again proclaiming a Permadrought there. However a record wet/snowy year occurred in the west with the heaviest snows in the Northern Sierra Nevada Mountains in 2016/17. It resulted in an accumulation of over 750 inches (63 feet) of snow at one location. Within months the California drought ended. Drought returned the following year followed by another wet year before the wet 2019/20. Then the 2020/21 water year western drought followed. It ranked with 1923/24 and 1976/77 as the driest in the Sierras. Despite these ups and downs, the long-term trend is flat.
See the monthly precipitation this season in the Sierra - a wet October and December and dry between. See the driest and wettest years. 1923/24 an 1976/77 were the driest with 2020/21 just behind.
The EPA shows declining drought in the U.S.
Enlarged
Hao etal (2014) showed global drought has declined. Note drought and flood locations relate to the ocean cycles like El Nino or La Nina. Note the Sahara desert has shrunk 8% since the 1970s.
Enlarged
And again droughts in California are not new. The drought of 1862-1863 ended the cattle industry in Southern California here.
Complexity of thousands of weather variables bedevils policy
See Tony Heller’s killer video here.
BOULDER, Colo. - For almost five years, an international consortium of scientists was chasing clouds, determined to solve a problem that bedeviled climate-change forecasts for a generation: How do these wisps of water vapor affect global warming?
They reworked 2.1 million lines of supercomputer code used to explore the future of climate change, adding more-intricate equations for clouds and hundreds of other improvements. They tested the equations, de- bugged them and tested again.
The scientists would find that even the best tools at hand can’t model climates with the sureness the world needs as rising temperatures impact almost every region.
When they ran the updated simulation in 2018, the conclusion jolted them: Earth’s atmosphere was much more sensitive to greenhouse gases than decades of previous models had predicted, and future temperatures could be much higher than feared- perhaps even beyond hope of practical remedy.
“We thought this was really strange,” said Gokhan Danabasoglu, chief scientist for the climate-model project at the Mesa Laboratory in Boulder at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR. “If that number was correct, that was really bad news.”
At least 20 older climate models disagreed with the new one at NCAR, an open-source model called the Community Earth System Model 2, or CESM2, funded mainly by the U.S. National Science Foundation and arguably the world’s most influential. Then, one by one, a dozen climate-modeling groups around the world produced similar forecasts.
The scientists soon concluded their new calculations had been thrown off kilter by the physics of clouds in a warming world, which may amplify or damp climate change. “The old way is just wrong, we know that,” said Andrew Gettelman, a physicist at NCAR who specializes in clouds and helped develop the CESM2 model. “I think our higher sensitivity is wrong too. It’s probably a consequence of other things we did by making clouds better and more realistic. You solve one problem and create another.”
Since then the CESM2 scientists have been reworking their algorithms using a deluge of new information about the effects of rising temperatures to better understand the physics at work. They have abandoned their most extreme calculations of climate sensitivity, but their more recent projections of future global warming are still dire- and still in flux.
As world leaders consider how to limit greenhouse gases, they depend on what computer climate models predict. But as algorithms and the computer they run on become more powerful - able to crunch far more data and do better simulations - that very complexity has left climate scientists grappling with mismatches among competing computer models.
While vital to calculating ways to survive a warming world, climate models are hitting a wall. They are running up against the complexity of the physics involved; the limits of scientific computing; uncertainties around the nuances of climate behavior; and the challenge of keeping pace with rising levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. Despite significant improvements, the new models are still too imprecise to be taken at face value, which means climate- change projections still require judgment calls.
‘We have a situation where the models are behaving strangely,’ said Gavin Schmidt, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, a leading center for climate modeling. “We have a conundrum.’
Policy tools
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change collates the latest climate data drawn from thousands of scientific papers and dozens of climate models, including the CESM2 model, to set an international standard for evaluating the impacts of climate change. That provides policy makers in 195 countries with the most up-to-date scientific consensus related to global warming. Its next major advisory report, which will serve as a basis for international negotiations, is expected this year.
For climate modelers, the difference in projections amounts to a few degrees of average temperature change in response to levels of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in years ahead. A few degrees will be more than enough, most scientists say, to worsen storms, intensify rainfall, boost sea-level rise -and cause more-extreme heat waves, droughts and other temperature-related consequences such as crop failures and the spread of infectious diseases.
When world leaders in 1992 met in Rio de Janeiro to negotiate the first comprehensive global climate treaty, there were only four rudimentary models that could generate global-warming projections for treaty negotiators.
In November 2021, as leaders met in Glasgow to negotiate limits on greenhouse gases under the auspices of the 2015 Paris Accords, there were more than 100 major global climate-change models produced by 49 different research groups, reflecting an influx of people into the field. During the treaty meeting, U.N. experts presented climate-model projections of future global-warming scenarios, including data from the CESM2 model. “We’ve made these models into a tool to indicate what could happen to the world,” said Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the NCAR Mesa Laboratory. “This is information that policy makers can’t get any other way.”
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in October awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics to scientists whose work laid the foundation for computer simulations of global climate change.
Skeptics have scoffed at climate models for decades, saying they overstate hazards. But a growing body of research shows many climate models have been uncannily accurate. For one recent study, scientists at NASA, the Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley, Calif., and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology evaluated 17 models used be-much tween 1970 and 2007 and found most predicted climate shifts were “indistinguishable from what actually occurred.”
Still, models remain prone to technical glitches and are hampered by an incomplete understanding of the variables that control how our planet responds to heat-trapping gases.
In its guidance to governments last year, the U.N. climate- change panel for the first time played down the most extreme forecasts. Before making new climate predictions for policy makers, an independent group of scientists used a technique called “hind-casting,” testing how well the models reproduced changes that occurred during the 20th century and earlier. Only models that re-created past climate behavior accurately were deemed acceptable.
In the process, the NCARconsortium scientists checked whether the advanced models could reproduce the climate during the last Ice Age, 21,000 years ago, when carbon-dioxide levels and temperatures were lower than today. CESM2 and other new models projected temperatures much colder than the geologic evidence indicated. University of Michigan scientists then tested the new models against the climate 50 million years ago when greenhouse-gas levels and temperatures were much higher than today. The new models projected higher temperatures than evidence suggested.
While accurate across almost all other climate factors, the new models seemed overly sensitive to changing carbon-dioxide levels and, for the past several years, scientists have been meticulously fine-tuning them to narrow the uncertainties.
Then there is the cloud conundrum. Because clouds can both reflect solar radiation into space and trap heat from Earth’s surface, they are among the biggest challenges for scientists honing climate models.
At any given time, clouds cover more than two-thirds of the planet. Their impact on climate depends on how reflective they are, how high they rise and whether it is day or night. They can accelerate warming or cool it down. They operate at a scale as broad as the ocean, as small as a hair’s width. Their behavior can be affected, studies show, by factors ranging from cosmic rays to ocean microbes, which emit sulfur particles that become the nuclei of water droplets or ice crystals.
“If you don’t get clouds right, everything is out of whack.” said Tapio Schneider, an atmospheric scientist at the California Institute of Technology and the Climate Modeling Alliance, which is developing an experimental model. ‘Clouds are crucially important for regulating Earth’s energy balance.”
Comparing models
Older models, which rely on simpler methods to model clouds’ effects, for decades asserted that doubling the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide over preindustrial levels would warm the world between 2.7 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius).
New models account for clouds’ physics in greater detail. CESM2 predicted that a doubling of carbon dioxide would cause warming of 9.5 degrees Fahrenheit (5.3 degrees Celsius) - almost a third higher than the previous version of their model, the consortium scientists said. In an independent assessment of 39 global-climate models last year, scientists found that 13 of the new models produced significantly higher estimates of the global temperatures caused by rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide than the older computer models - scientists called them the “wolf pack.” Weighed against historical evidence of temperature changes, those estimates were deemed unrealistic.
By adding far-more-detailed equations to simulate clouds, the scientists might have introduced small errors that could make their models less accurate than the cloud assumptions of older models, according to a study by NCAR scientists published in January 2021. Taking the uncertainties into account, the U.N.’s climate-change panel narrowed its estimate of climate sensitivity to a range between 4.5 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 to 4 degrees Celsius) in its most recent report for policy makers last August.
Dr. Gettelman, who helped develop CESM2, and his colleagues in their initial upgrade added better ways to model polar ice caps and how carbon and nitrogen cycle through the environment. To make the ocean more realistic, they added wind-driven waves. Since releasing the open-source software in 2018, the NCAR scientists have updated the CESM2 model five times, with more improvements in development. “We are still digging,” said Jean-Francois Lamarque, director of NCAR’s climate and global dynamics laboratory, who was the project’s former chief scientist. “It is going to take quite a few years.”
The NCAR scientists in Boulder would like to delve more deeply into the behavior of clouds, ice sheets and aerosols, but they already are straining their five-year-old Cheyenne supercomputer, according to NCAR officials. A climate model able to capture the subtle effects of individual cloud systems, storms, regional wildfires and ocean currents at a more detailed scale would require a thousand times more computer power, they said.
“There is this balance between building in all the complexity we know and being able to run the model for hundreds of years multiple times,” said Andrew Wood, an NCAR scientist who works on the CESM2 model. “The more complex a model is, the slower it runs.”
Researchers now are under pressure to make reliable local forecasts of future climate changes so that municipal managers and regional planners can protect heavily populated locales from more extreme flooding, drought or wildfires. That means the next generation of climate models need to link rising temperatures on a global scale to changing conditions in a local forest, watershed, grassland or agricultural zone, said Jacquelyn Shuman, a forest ecologist at NCAR who is researching how to model the impact of climate change on regional wildfires. “Computer models that contain both large-scale and small-scale models allow you to really do experiments that you can’t do in the real world,” she said. “You can really ramp up the temperature, dial down the precipitation or completely change the amount of fire or lightning strikes that an area is seeing, so you can really diagnose how it all works together. That’s the next step. It would be very computationally expensive.”
The NCAR scientists are installing a new $40 million supercomputer named Derecho, built by Hewlett Packard Enter-prise designed to run climate-change calculations at three times the speed of their current machine. Once it becomes operational this year, it is expected to rank among the world’s top 25 or so fastest supercomputers, NCAR officials said.
Even the best tools can’t model climates with the sureness the world needs.
----------
With this in mind may I suggest “Looking out the Window: Are Humans Really Responsible for Changing Climate, The Trial of Carbon Dioxide in the Court of Public Opinion” by Bob Webster available on Amazon as a book and e-book.
It is well researched and written and presents data and details that should cause believers with an open mind to question the official version of the “science”.
From the Back Cover
“The hot dry seasons of the past few years have caused rapid disintegration of glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana...Sperry Glacier...has lost one-quarter or perhaps one-third of its ice in the past 18 years...If this rapid rate should continue...the glacier would almost disappear in another 25 years...”
“Born about 4,000 years ago, the glaciers that are the chief attraction in Glacier National Park are shrinking so rapidly that a person who visited them ten or fifteen years ago would hardly recognize them today as the same ice masses.”
Do these reports sound familiar? Typical of frequent warnings of the dire consequences to be expected from global warming, such reports often claim modern civilization’s use of fossil fuels as being the dominant cause of recent climate warming.
You might be surprised to learn the reports above were made nearly thirty years apart! The first in 1923 prior to the record heat of the Dust Bowl years during the 1930s. The second in 1952 during the second decade of a four-decade cooling trend that had some scientists concerned that a new ice age might be on the horizon!
Did the remnants of Sperry Glacier disappear during global warming of the late 20th century?
According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), today Sperry Glacier “ranks as a moderately sized glacier” in Glacier National Park.
What caused the warmer global climate prior to “4,000 years ago” before Glacier National Park’s glaciers first appeared?
Are you aware that during 2019 the National Park Service quietly began removing its “Gone by 2020” signs from Glacier National Park as its most famous glaciers continued their renewed growth that began in 2010?
Was late 20th-century global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions? Was it really more pronounced than early 20th-century warming? Or was late 20th-century warming perfectly natural, in part a response to the concurrent peak strength of one of the strongest solar grand maxima in contemporary history?
These and other questions are addressed by “Looking Out the Window.”
Be a juror in the trial of carbon dioxide in the court of public opinion and let the evidence inform your verdict.”
That little yellow thing is a bulldozer. It is burying windmill blades used for green energy. Why? Because these blades need to be disposed of and there is presently no way to recycle them. That’s how green energy works!
Who knew? Maybe the people that make them knew. Why would they let that cat out of the bag, after all they are government subsidized with tax payer money. After all It’s all about the money every time! Just like the oil industry powers every electric car.
Also politicians do not want those huge eye sores in their backyard.
Right now the average wind farm is about 150 turbines. Each wind turbine needs 80 gallons of oil as lubricant and we’re not talking about vegetable oil, this is a PAO synthetic oil based on crude… 12,000 gallons of it. That oil needs to be replaced once a year.
It is estimated that a little over 3,800 turbines would be needed to power a city the size of New York… That’s 304,000 gallons of refined oil for just one city.
Now you have to calculate every city across the nation, large and small, to find the grand total of yearly oil consumption from “clean” energy.
Where do you think all that oil is going to come from, the oil fairies? Well thanks to Biden it now comes from our enemies in the Mideast.
Not to mention the fact that the large equipment needed to build these wind farms run on petroleum. As well as the equipment required for installation, service, maintenance, and eventual removal.
And just exactly how eco-friendly is wind energy anyway?
Each turbine requires a footprint of 1.5 acres, so a wind farm of 150 turbines needs 225 acres; In order to power a city the size of NYC you’d need 57,000 acres; and who knows the astronomical amount of land you would need to power the entire US. All of which would have to be clear-cut land because trees create a barrier & turbulence that interferes with the 20mph sustained wind velocity necessary for the turbine to work properly (also keep in mind that not all states are suitable for such sustained winds). Boy, cutting down all those trees is gonna anger a lot of green-loving tree-huggers.
Let’s talk about disposal now.
The lifespan of a modern, top quality, highly efficient wind turbine is 20 years. After that, then what? What happens to those gigantic fiber composite blades?
They cannot economically be reused, refurbished, reduced, repurposed, or recycled so guess what...? It’s off to special landfills they go.
And guess what else..? They’re already running out of these special landfill spaces for the blades that have already exceeded their usefulness. Seriously! Those blades are anywhere from 120 ft. to over 200 ft. long and there are 3 per turbine. And that’s with only 7% of the nation currently being supplied with wind energy. Just imagine if we had the other 93% of the nation on the wind grid...20 years from now you’d have all those unusable blades with no place to put them… Then 20 years after that, and 20 years after that, and so on.
Hello there, how green is that?
Oops, I almost forgot about the 500,000 birds that are killed each year from wind turbine blade collisions; most of which are endangered hawks, falcons, owls, geese, ducks, and eagles.
Apparently smaller birds are more agile and able to dart and dodge out of the way of the spinning blades, whereas the larger soaring birds aren’t so lucky.
I’m sure the wildlife conservationist folks are just ecstatic about that.
I’m so glad the wind energy people are looking out for the world.
Here’s another little problem with windmills-
The generator and switching equipment operate at high power and voltage. Everything in the windmill nacelle is compact due to limited space, so there’s danger of arcs and electrical fires. This is prevented by putting all the electrical equipment in a pressure vessel filled with sulfur hexafluoride, a synthetic gas that has dielectric properties that suppress arcs and fires.
Problem is, windmills leak this gas, something around a pound each per year. SF6 has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and is 22,800 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
WANT MORE
The wind doesn’t always blow, often on the coldest nights or hottest days. And when ice storms occur as we saw last February in Texas, they freeze and the users are in the dark. Over 100 died last year when temperatures after the snows dropped as cold as 16 below zero in the southern plains.
_thumb.png)
By Anthony Watts
A recent paper published by Cambridge University Press titled “Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change” is raising serious and worrisome questions about the role of academia in our national political debate on climate change.
The paper was written by Ross Mittiga, who self-describes as an “assistant professor of political theory at Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, specializing in climate ethics.” He also labels himself an “environmentalist, vegan, and occasional gadfly.”
Mittiga’s paper explicitly argues society must prioritize climate action over democratic principles and adopt an authoritarian government if society fails to politically act on climate change. Or, in the words of the political left: “my way or the highway.”
This is disturbing because it completely ignores the will of the people to self-govern, favoring a totalitarian approach in order to tackle what Mittiag deems a “climate crisis.”
Key points of the paper in the abstract:
Two brilliant doctors explain what’s really going on with COVID
Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? The contemporary political theory literature—which largely conceptualizes legitimacy in terms of democracy or basic rights—would seem to suggest not. I argue, however, that there exists another, overlooked aspect of legitimacy concerning a government’s ability to ensure safety and security. While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach. While unsettling, this suggests the political importance of climate action. For if we wish to avoid legitimating authoritarian power, we must act to prevent crises from arising that can only be resolved by such means.
The problem with Mittiga’s paper is that he doesn’t offer up a single reference or shred of evidence that a “climate crisis” actually exists. It appears he simply assumes it to be fact-based on the frequency of political discussions that have embraced the term for several years.
If a “climate crisis” actually existed, there would be human impact data to support the claim. Yet, Mittiga cites no such evidence.
However, this lack of evidence did not stop him from making this bold claim: “A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety.” We should be able to test the “graver threat to public safety” that the “climate crisis” supposedly creates.
If the global “climate crisis” was causing public safety to suffer, we’d surely see an increase in global deaths related to supposed climate-driven events. To determine if this is true, we turn to data collected by the most trusted global database on events that create mortality, the International Disaster Database.
This database covers all types of natural disasters, including meteorological, hydrological, geologic, and volcanic.
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg has been tracking climate-related disasters from the database since 1920. This includes floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperatures. His conclusion from the data is clear and simple: fewer and fewer people are dying today from supposedly climate-related natural disasters. As seen in the figure in this peer-reviewed article, the trend is clear.
Lomborg writes:
Over the past hundred years, annual climate-related deaths have declined by more than 96%. In the 1920s, the death count from climate-related disasters was 485,000 on average every year. In the last full decade, 2010-2019, the average was 18,362 dead per year, or 96.2% lower.
This is even true of 2021—despite breathless climate reporting, almost 99% fewer people died that year than a hundred years ago.
Why is this consistently not reported?
In the first year of the new decade, 2020, the number of dead was even lower at 14,885—97% lower than the 1920s average.
For 2021, which is now complete, we see an even lower total of 6,134 dead or a reduction since the 1920s of 98.7%.
The media reported on many deadly weather- and climate-related catastrophes in 2021—the deadly U.S./Canadian heat dome and heatwave, huge wildfires in the Western United States, the December 2021 tornado outbreak in the United States, large-scale flooding in Europe, and the Valentine’s Day winter storm. All of these events and related deaths are included in the disaster database and the graph.
And there are other disasters. Many people in the West never saw media reports of the disastrous floods in India during the monsoon, which killed more than a thousand people, or the flash floods in Afghanistan, which killed dozens, or the typhoons that hit China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and India, killing a total of 776 people. The database also has more than 200 other catastrophes in 2021.
There is a known bias in the database where there is much more reporting on heat deaths, but recent science from the prestigious medical journal The Lancet reports that globally, cold deaths outweigh heat deaths 9:1, suggesting that “global warming” isn’t as big a problem for human mortality as we’ve been told.
The number of reported weather disaster events is increasing, but that is mainly due to better reporting, and better accessibility, i.e., the 24/7/365 CNN effect. Just because such events are reported more today doesn’t translate directly to more events resulting in more deaths. In fact, the opposite is observed in the data.
Illustrated by the mortality data portrayed in the figure, it is simply incontrovertible that disaster-related deaths have declined, and have done so dramatically. This is because our wealthier, technologically advanced, and more resilient societies are much better able to warn for such events, protect their citizens, and mitigate damage and deaths. In fact, recent peer-reviewed science demonstrates a “decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability is evident.”
So, I ask, where is the so-called “climate crisis” that is portrayed as a certainty by Mittiga in the Cambridge University Press?
According to the disaster database, there isn’t any “climate crisis” at all. In fact, during the 40-plus years of modest warming during which we have been told that global warming aka “climate change” will worsen the human condition, mortality has improved dramatically.
Sadly, and frighteningly, as illustrated by Mittiga in the Cambridge University Press, the green socialist left is increasingly embracing tyranny in the form of authoritarian power to act on their viewpoint on climate change. But clearly, real-world data don’t support their viewpoint let alone their call to action.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute.
See this post by Larry Hamlin on how temperatures are declining post the 2015/16 El Nino in all data sets and some of the usual characters are claiming they are comparing the late 1800s to the current time to prove warming - although the late 1800s was a cold period ahead of the 1920s to 1950s warm period.
While many in government, the universities and media want to focus on the small (mostly very local) influence we have on climates (one of my favorite course when a college professor was Microclimatology where we studied in the field and literature the local factors, natural and man-made). That spurred focus on urbanization in climate data as most stations became increasingly urbanized and warmer at night. However I spent much of my career in 5 major enterprises studying the larger scale natural factors that influence global climate regimes and have been able to explain not only the observed cycles in properly measured temperatures but changes in extremes of weather. I found the most significant drivers included ocean cycles, solar cycles and volcanism. Man’s contributions were primarily local and related to land use changes including as I noted most importantly urbanization.
I had the good fortune to meet at an AMS Annual Meeting Jerome Namias, NWS first Director for Weather Bureau’s (now NWS) Long Range Forecasting (started being 5 days) Branch (now CPC or the Climate Prediction Center) who showed ocean warm and cold pools explained the flip to the cold winter of the late 1970s. After the super El Nino of 1982/83 just after the birth of The Weather Channel, as the first Director of Meteorology, we did the first features on the phenomenon. We began seasonal outlooks often consulting with Namias who had moved to Scripps). When CPC found in the late 1980s, that El Nino and La Nina had global implications, first observed by Sir Gilbert Walker more than 60 years before (an idea rejected by scientists at the time), we knew we had another tool to forecast seasonal weather. In the 1990s, ocean fisheries scientists at University of Washington discovered the PDO - a longer term Pacific cycle that helped explains shifts in salmon fish populations on the west coast. It also explained tendencies for strength and frequency of El Nino and La Nina. The warm mode favored longer and stronger El Ninos and the cold more frequent and stronger La Ninas. You can see the cold PDO mode has dominated since the Super Nino of 1997/98,
The behavior mimics the cold PDO from the 1940s to the middle 1970s. Both had a significant El Nino a few decades in (1957/58 and 2015/16).
See the behavior described below.
The Atlantic too has a multidecadal cycle called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (also first published in the 1990s) which affects high latitude blocking events. It has been in the warm mode and stays there for now.
_thumb.png)
The two oscillations in their positive mode favors global scale warmth, the negative mode cold. See much more here
The cycles are now out of phase but when the both are positive, the world is at the warmest level, both negative, cold. See the strong correlation.
Individual El Ninos always brings a spike in temperatures globally, La Ninas a cooling.
The effect is modulated by major volcanism. See how El Ninos in the 1980s and 1990s were suppressed by the sulfate aerosols thrown into the high atmosphere from the eruptions of Mt. St. Helens, El Chichon and Pinatubo.
The sun is important - much more than they want you to believe (see). The number of sunspots correlates with other solar factors to drive global temperatures. It is in a century-scale decline period that should, with some delay, enhance a cooling trend. We are coming off the short cycle minima but still are having spotless days.
Solar activity is most similar now to the cold early 1900s or even the early 1800s, the Dalton Minimum, a very cold period aided by the cooling after Mt. Tambora 1815 eruption
Though at the moment the Pacific and solar favor cold developing, volcanism is at the moment not significant and thus not an enhancing factor and the Atlantic Basin is in the warm phase though declining.
That does not mean we won’t get extreme cold at times in places this year as they found in both polar regions (a record cold winter at the South Pole (since record began in 1957), a brutal November in Alaska and the very early freeze off the Russia Arctic coast trapping ships and in much of the southern hemisphere in their entire winter and spring. There is in most years where the ENSO state is modest to weak have variability in season as waves propagate through the topics and affect the locations of the troughs and ridges in the jet stream that influence where the cold and warm, and storms travel. Such a wave turned off the cold here in the US in December for a time but it will soon move to locations that open up the floodgates from the arctic.
We are especially vigilant and concerned at Weatherbell as the energy grid operators and suppliers are warning that an extended period of strong cold would mean rolling blackouts and energy supply issues as we saw last winter in Texas when over 100 died as temperatures dropped to well below zero with the power out. That is something the factors at play have been suggesting would happen this winter. After that upcoming global weather pattern reorganization, we see the arctic cold beginning later this upcoming week.
Below is a Christmas present you may consider for family and friends that have wood stoves or fireplaces, they are not expecting to use. 5 packages could keep the family warm for several days. Local firewood companies still have dry firewood. It is always best to have the chimney checked out - a small investment that could save problems.
Stay warm and safe… and open minded.