From NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC) Facebook page, a silver lining to the heat wave/drought of 2012:
Check out these 2012 numbers from NOAA SPC, showing only 757 confirmed tornadoes as of September 21. That compares to an annual average of 1,300 tornadoes, and 1,692 that touched down last year as of late September.
SPC writes:
:After a busy start, tornado events in the U.S. in 2012 have dropped well below the expected normal. The preliminary total of 757 tornadoes is about 400 tornadoes below what might be expected in a typical year. This chart shows that in late 2011, the annual running total was over 400 tornadoes above normal. This depicts the dramatic variability that can occur in tornado numbers from one year to the next.”
I’d call this an “inconvenient truth” when compared to Al Gore’s latest pay for play bloviation:
Al Gore hopes to show links between climate change and the effects of extreme weather worldwide with an online and social media-fueled event built around the idea of “dirty weather.”
Gore’s advocacy group, the Climate Reality Project, announced Sunday that its second multimedia “24 Hours of Reality” event will occur Nov. 14-15 and bear the title “The Dirty Weather Report.”
Gore still hasn’t fessed up to the “24 hours of reality” lie he foisted on the public last year with his Climate101 video where he faked the results of a CO2 experiment in post production because it couldn’t possibly ever work on its own.
I located all the exact same props and replicated his experiment, and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the end result of that experiment presented to the viewer was faked.
1. Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without human causation. These recent U.S. “extremes” were exceeded in previous decades.
2. The average warming rate of 38 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations, suggesting models over-react to CO2. Policy based on observations will likely be far more effective than if based on speculative models, no matter what the future climate does. Regarding Arctic sea ice loss, the average model response to CO2 engenders little confidence because the models’ output fails when applied to Antarctic sea ice conditions.
3. New discoveries explain part of the warming found in popular surface temperature datasets which is unrelated to the accumulation of heat due to the extra greenhouse gases, but related to human development around the stations. This means popular surface datasets are limited as proxies for greenhouse warming.
4. Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our murky field of climate research. Funding resources are recommended for “Red Teams” of credentialed investigators, who study low climate sensitivity and the role of natural variability. Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for policies which, for example, lead to increased energy costs for citizens.
5. Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals. More CO2 generally means more food for all. Today, affordable carbon-based energy is a key component for lifting people out of crippling poverty. So, rising CO2 emissions are one indication of poverty-reduction which gives hope for those now living in a marginal existence without basic needs brought by electrification, transportation and industry. Additionally, modern, carbon-based energy reduces the need for deforestation and alleviates other environmental problems such as water and deadly indoor-air pollution. Until affordable and reliable energy is developed from non-carbon sources, the world will continue to use carbon as the main energy source.
The Senate has words on the Administration’s War on Coal here.
Inhofe Applauds House Passage of “Stop the War on Coal Act”
Washington, D.C. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, welcomed the passage today in the House of Representatives of the “Stop the War on Coal Act.” The bill was approved by a bipartisan vote of 233 - 175.
“I applaud the bipartisan House passage of the “Stop the War on Coal Act,"” Senator Inhofe said. “Over the past four years we have witnessed an unrelenting attack by the Obama administration on American energy production one that has resulted in lost jobs, higher energy prices, and lessened energy security.
“Today’s decisive achievement in the House stands in stark contrast to the stalling and inaction of the Senate. Many of my Senate colleagues have talked at length about unleashing American energy production and reining in the Obama-EPA, but when the opportunity arises to do so they hide behind cover votes. As these Senators head home to hit the campaign trail, their record is clear and excuses only go so far: thanks to many of them, the far-left polices of the Obama-EPA remain unchecked and will go forward harming American families with higher energy prices and lost jobs."”
NOAA and their useful idiots have been filling the airwaves with claims that 2012 is the hottest year in US history. They accomplish this by massive cheating. The raw maximum temperature data shows that 2012 (so far) has been the seventh warmest year - with 1934, 1921 and 1925 being the three hottest years
The Galileo Movement is disappointed that the fabricated smear originating from the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) that The Galileo Movement is anti-Semitic is still being reported as fact. To prevent this ridiculous, vile claim being spread further, we’d like to highlight a few facts and expose the techniques and the dishonest tactics used by people too lazy to do real research, who wish to silence us by calling us anti-Semitic.
Firstly, the claims are preposterous. Both Directors of the Galileo Movement have a strong Jewish heritage, including John’s wife who is a Holocaust survivor and Case’s mother, most of whose family were murdered for being Jewish.
Secondly, the Galileo Movement has never spoken or published anything that is anti-Semitic. The non-profit group of unpaid volunteers have a single, publicly stated purpose - to remove the unnecessary and damaging ‘Carbon Dioxide Tax’, its derivatives and the means by which such negative, economic and socially destructive legislation may be reintroduced.
The Galileo Movement promotes science and the scientific method. Yet in order to distract people from these inconvenient facts which they obviously have no answer to, some people attack the messenger, rather than discuss the science. The method of censor through denigration is further discussed here.
The process of trying to discredit us began with Sydney Morning Herald reporter Ben Cubby, who contacted us to ask our opinion of the Muller et al (alarmist) and Watts et al (sceptic) papers which were released the day before. The recording of the interview with our Project Leader Malcolm Roberts, presents a clear and precise scientific explanation of the problems with Muller’s paper. Additionally, he spoke at length outlining the motives of those supporting AGW including, academics feeding off taxpayer grants, politicians seeking political benefit and bankers harvesting carbon credits. Of the 48 minute interview, Cubby strangely chose to virtually ignore almost all of the science and facts (plus mention of the Watts et al paper) and instead chose to highlight the banking industries comment.
The smear was created when Mike Carlton, also from the SMH, with no proof or without contacting us, linked a discussion on banks making profits from Carbon Trading to “In Rightspeak, understand, that’s code for the Great Jewish Conspiracy”. Afterwards, others began repeating this fabricated connection as if it were a proven, undoubtedly hoping to stop others listening to our science based critique.
Malcolm Roberts, our Project Leader, used the term ‘banking families’ during the interview to describe the major banking institutions that plan to profit from the trading and financing of CO2 abatement.
Neither Malcolm, nor ourselves, were aware that using the term ‘family’, when referring to banks, could in any context be anti-Semitic. We submit that any reasonable person would take the meaning at face value. Finding non-existent meanings and hidden codes are the tricks our opponents use. They revert to these tired and transparent techniques to desperately avoid discussing the science.
How could Mike Carlton’s ill-informed opinion find its way into a mainstream Australian newspaper? Why did a reporter like Ben Cubby ignore basic science? Is it bias or groupthink?
We have a few ideas for the Sydney Morning Herald that they might to report on. It’s readers will find these both interesting and also puzzling as to why they have not heard such facts previously. Let’s start with:
- Why not request your reporters to ask scientists to provide empirical evidence that an increase in human CO2 production caused the slight increase in atmospheric temperature, a warming trend that ended in 1998 and explain why global temperatures have not risen since despite increasing human CO2 production?
- Why not also ask scientists to explain why computer models supposedly simulating Earth’s future temperature to warm with projected increased CO2 concentrations, can’t explain why the atmospheric temperature has not warmed since 1998?
- Could you ask your reporters to explain how spending $257 billion on renewable energy to produce only 3% of the world electricity is economically sustainable when only $302 billion was spent on fossil fuels and nuclear energy to produce the remaining 97%?
- Is the SMH aware that the August, 2010 report by the world’s peak scientific academic body, the Inter Academy Council revealed fundamentally that none of the UN IPCC’s 800 statements of certainty could be trusted? Is the SMH aware that CSIRO lacks empirical scientific evidence for the claim that human CO2 caused global warming and climate change and that CSIRO’s core climate claims contradict empirical scientific evidence. Why has the SMH failed to hold both these bodies accountable for their unfounded, unscientific and false claims about human CO2?
The Galileo Movement will continue to hold to account those in science, economics and politics who continue to promote unscientific, dishonest and unfounded claims of man-made global warming. We will continue to stand by fellow sceptics who find themselves being falsely smeared by their opponents.
There is no sugar coating the fact that the Arctic sea ice is well below normal.
The AGW agenda is jumping all over this metric as evidence that catastrophic global warming is upon us. After all, they really can no longer use earth’s actual air and ocean temperatures as proof since they have leveled off, and are now cooling. The disconnect with C02, still on the rise, cannot be denied.
As you can see, I admit Arctic sea ice is on the decline, but the question is, why?
The answer can be seen through natural causes. A look at the ocean temperatures globally over the past 15 years, or since the global temperatures reached a peak in the major el Nino of 1997-1998 supplies the answer. Notice on Sept 1, 1997, most of the northern hemisphere ocean was quite warm, the southern hemisphere cooler. This is an example of the warm phases of the Pacific Decadol Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadol Oscillation both occurring at once. A tremendous input of heat (oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of air) into the atmosphere has to be occurring, causing a rise in the global temperature which was well documented through the 1990s.
But one also notices a counter cooling in much of the southern hemisphere oceans.
Since dry air over land warms more than air over the ocean, the response of the warming ocean when that air came over the drier land was more of a rise in temperatures over the continents than fall over the southern hemisphere oceans . So it appears that the earth is warming. After all if you have many more samples of warm than cold, your answer has to come up warmer, right? However, is there a change in the total energy budget of the earth? If there is not then what goes up, must come down. The earths temperature rose in response to the warming Pacific, which started the northern ice cap melting. The Atlantic is in its warm stage now, so the ice cap is being attacked from the ocean also. Once the Atlantic comes out of its warm phase in 10 to 15 years, the ice cap will rebound.
Below are charts in 5 year increments that show a reversal has occurred in the Pacific:
The current water temperature anomaly shows very warm water in the north Atlantic, a product of the warm cycle of the Atlantic we are in like the 1950s, and this continues to attack the ice cap.
But is the lack of ice at times that unusual? Apparently not as photographic evidence shows. Here is a picture of a submarine surfacing at the North Pole in August of 1959—another period of known warmth similar to the cycle we are in now.
More startling to me was this picture that shows large amounts of open water at the North Pole in May of 1987 with three subs surfacing.
Wind and storminess can also have an effect on the Arctic ice, which is what recently happened. A fierce storm broke up a lot of the ice and shoved much of it southeast into the center of the ice cap. But when viewing this 30 day loop of the arctic, notice how fast the rebound from the low point has been in the past 30 days, with a shrinkage because of the storm, then the ice rapidly rebounding (make sure to put this into a loop).
The recent pronouncement that Greenland had the most rapid melt period on record is another example of neglecting the actual facts to come up with an objective idea. If you would like to read more on that matter, here is a nice link.
The reason we are seeing all this is because we have seen a distortion of the global temperature pattern the past 30 years brought about by the warm phase of the Pacific, which started the warming of the northern hemisphere, followed by the Atlantic warming. The response was greater over land where air is dry and can be easily warmed! How can we test this theory, besides waiting for it to simply recover once the Atlantic turns colder? Well we have a hint, and it’s in the southern hemisphere. After all, we have to think globally, right? That is what we hear: GLOBAL warming. So we should also have the southern hemisphere shrinking if they are correct and my hypothesis is wrong.
Let’s evaluate, shall we?
Over the past 30 years there has been a rise in the southern ice cap! One would never know it given all the hysteria about the northern ice cap, or some spots on Antarctica being warmer than normal ( it can’t be cold everywhere).
I spoke on this matter at the Heartland conference ICCC7. Because the southern hemisphere ice cap is surrounded by ocean, the implication of an expanding southern hemisphere ice cap, even though it appears smaller than the northern shrinkage, is that there is no net change in the overall heat capacity of the entire ocean/air system. This would imply the northern shrinkage is simply a cyclical event. In fact, the increase in the south is actually quite remarkable since it takes more energy loss to cool the water enough around the southern hemisphere ice cap than it does energy gain to warm the dry, colder air over land surrounding the northern hemisphere ice cap The warming of that air, combined with the warm cycle still present in the Atlantic means there should be a shrinking northern ice cap. This is yet another challenge I have laid at the feet of the AGW community: The idea that the global temperature as measured objectively by satellites will return to where it was in the late 1970s by 2030 and the northern ice cap will also. Truth be told, we will be in real trouble if there is no warming response to the oceans in the southern hemisphere and shrinking back of that ice cap! That is more of a concern to many of us than the idea the planet is about to burn up. It’s ice, not fire that should be the concern, especially when one looks at some of the ideas on the solar cycles and temperatures, as well as the economic and social repercussions of a colder planet. For your benefit, here’s a recent paper on the matter of sunspots and global temperatures.
As a nation, we must use what has made us successful to progress. The limiting of energy sources based on faulty ideas and partial truths has lead to a weakening of our country and increased misery among our people. For example: Gas is nearly 4 dollars a gallon now, and the shame is that there is no reason based on what we should be doing, for that to be happening. This is taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of our economy and redistributing it elsewhere. Regulations based on worry about things that are cyclical in nature and explainable based on the total picture and body of evidence, are also taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy.
The sad truth is this: A nation built on the freedoms to confront reality, will not survive if shackled by policies that chase utopian ghosts.
The tale of the ice cap is a prime example of this.
PLEASE JOIN Joe Bastardi, Ryan Maue and I on Weatherbell.com where we post for the weather and climate enthusiasts and provide services for industry. Ryan has created a masterful model page that grows everyday in value added products. Site is being redesigned shortly.
