Monckton
Dr. Easterbrook, to whose excellent book of scientific papers on global warming I had the honour to contribute a couple of years ago, has been libeled. It is the rent-seeking global-warming profiteers of the WWU faculty, not Dr. Easterbrook, who are guilty of misrepresentation.
To take one of many examples of misrepresentation on their part, they attempt to challenge his statement to the effect that the GISP2 ice-core temperature record from Greenland shows that the temperature of air trapped in ice that formed on the summit plateau 8000 years ago was 2.5 Celsius degrees warmer than in the mid-19th century and, therefore, 1.8 Celsius degrees warmer than the present.
They attempt to tamper with the truth by suggesting that the air temperature in Greenland is not global; that the record stops in 1850, not the somewhat warmer present; and that, therefore, we cannot say the Holocene climate optimum from 10,000-6000 years ago was globally warmer than the present.
The racketeers of the WWU faculty either know they are wrong or are ignorant and pretending to know they are right. Either way, they are guilty of deliberate misrepresentation of the objective scientific truth. For it is well understood that temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica change by approximately twice the global average, by what is called “polar amplification”.
This phenomenon occurs because the tropics cannot warm significantly. Advection takes any additional heat poleward. Therefore, if Greenland was 1.8 degrees warmer than the present 8000 years ago, the world was almost a degree warmer than the present at that time.
In fact, there has been no global warming for 17 years. This is one of many facts the WWU faculty chose not to mention. For the past eight years, according to the ENVISAT sea-level monitoring satellite, sea level has been rising at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches per century.
As an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, I can also report that the IPCC itself plans to publish a graph showing that the predictions of global warming in all four of its previous multi-thousand-page quinquennial Assessment Reports have proven to be enormous exaggerations. The computer models it uses have failed.
Dr. Easterbrook, therefore, is a great deal closer to the current state of climate science than the money grubbing gangsters of WWU, who ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves but are too politicized on the far Left to have the grace to blush.
And the Bellingham Herald should have known better than to publish their poisonously pietistic libel of Dr. Easterbrook, who deserves a handsome apology both from these grasping leeches and from the Herald. Shame on the lot of you.
randydutton
Give them a break. They have to protect their funding. The reality is, whether or not climate is changing significantly, governmental policies are making it worse. Forcing us to grow food for fuel adds significant quantities of N2O (296X worse than CO2) to the air from the fertilizer used to grow the biofuel feedstock, and massive quantities of water vapor from aquifers which are being drawn down. Carbon soot causes half the ice and snow melt according to NASA. And much of that’s from China and India. Our soil is being depleted as all biomass is converted to biofuel. Used to be we’d plow back most of the plant.
Bad policies are subsidizing expensive wind turbines and PV facilities that often require more energy and resources than they produce in actually used energy, while also forcing the clearing of land and destruction of birds/bats for siting and for power lines.
We need to adapt to extreme weather events that will always occur no matter how much CO2 is released. But we can’t afford anything if America is being punished by the 3rd world and our own government, and our jobs are forced overseas as a result.
Want clean, reliable energy? Get behind such projects as the Lockheed Martin fusion reactor, or new thorium fission reactors.
AtlasShrugsAgain
The letter from the WWU leftist professors is straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook: Marginalize your opponents by demeaning them (dentists practicing cardiology’
; state your position without definitive support ("observations show unequivocally” and computer models show); explain away statements that compromise your position by claiming they were taken out of context; restate your position in such a manner that it looks as if the issue is settled, even when it isn’t ("the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible) and then restate it again because if you say it often enough, people just might believe it ("climate change is real and human caused"); and, finally; call for federal funding to remedy the apparent impending crisis ("investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy . . . [is] just what the doctor ordered"). No thanks. I’m glad we got a second opinion, even if it was from a dentist.
gordonfulks
The WWU Geology Department is surely correct that science is based on “rigorous, painstaking evidence and reasoning.” It is therefore amusing that they spend most of their Op-Ed attacking one of their colleagues when they should have been presenting the evidence and reasoning that supports their position.
Why do you suppose they did not tell us why they are sooo sure that man-made carbon dioxide is seriously warming the earth? The answer is very simple: there is no definitive evidence. All they have for the hundred billion dollars that we have spent on their hypothesis is the hypothesis and their assurances that they have found the holy grail. FINE. PRESENT IT!
Science is more than a tall tale, more than a good story. The WWU geology faculty should recognize that. It is not enough to merely say that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and more is warming the earth. They might be able to use that as a starting point, if the planet were continuing to warm. Even my fellow astrophysicist and Global Warming Guru James Hansen now acknowledges the lack of warming for a decade. They might be able to use that as a starting point if the characteristic signature of increasing greenhouse gases (a Hot Spot in the tropical troposphere) were observed. It is not. They might be able to use that if their climate models based on carbon dioxide were capable of predicting the future. But even the National Academy of science now recognizes that they are failing badly. And they might be able to use that if there were not clear indications in the ice core temperature proxies and historical information that previous warm periods were similar to the present one. Who was turning up the mythical CO2 thermostat during the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan Warm Periods?
Why do you suppose that the US National Research Council is now showing greatly increased interest in solar effects, and many alarmists are talking about lower ‘climate sensitivity’ to carbon dioxide? Because the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is failing badly as solar activity has substantially weakened. The Geology Department at WWU should be paying more attention to the scientific trends. One of their faculty members is clearly far out ahead of the rest.
Professor Easterbrook is a great credit to WWU with his careful scholarship that speaks to the scientific issues and avoids personal attacks on colleagues. Junior faculty could learn much from Don Easterbrook.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
La Center, WA USA
Read the poor excuse for an oped here.more here:
M4GW
For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong” H.L. Mencken
In this amazing video Michael Mann admits to what hiding the decline is but then says that we “the well funded skeptics” are wrong for having a problem with it.
It actually had nothing to do with my work at all. “Hide the decline” was referring to a specific tree ring study of scientists in the U.K., in fact they had originally published that study in 1998 in Nature and what their study was about is something that’s known as the “Divergence Problem” those particular tree ring data they were working with tracked temperatures very well up through about 1960 and for reasons scientists are still investigating and it may have to do with pollution and other factors those trees stopped tracking temperatures after 1960 and so in their original paper the main emphasis of that paper was on this problem with those type of tree ring data the so called divergence problem and they were very specific in that paper about how those tree ring data should not be used after 1960 because of that decline in the response to temperature. So in that particular email Phil Jones was talking about how he didn’t want to show the bad part of that curve the after 1960 part of that particular tree ring data set because its misleading because its well known that it doesn’t represent temperature after 1960.
You know these are just two very good examples of a much more general phenomenon its very easy to pick through emails and take swords and phrases out of context and completely misrepresent what people are talking about.
Basically he’s saying it’s fine to only use the data that supports your theory and hide the data that doesn’t.
I am still waiting for my check from the Koch Brothers by the way.
--------------
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce
Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic
zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the
report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are
being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 90+ years ago.
--------
---------------
Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax: “...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth” H/T Tom Nelson.
-----------
See also Dr Craig Loehle’s analysis on WUWT Climate Change Impacts In The USA is Already [NOT] Happening.
----------------------
See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”
---------------
See John Coleman’s excellent video summary ”There is NO Significant Global Warming” on KUSI Coleman’s corner. No one communicates better to the public.
----------
See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.
-----------
From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge
--------
Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.
---------------
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.
“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.
See still more annotated here.
--------------
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
---------------
See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.
Also available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap):
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
WeatherBell Analytics here.
Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here.
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)
C3 Headlines
Green-sharia scientists, politicians and celebrities pushing an anti-growth political agenda continue to fail miserably at convincing the public that human CO2 causes severe weather events and extreme climate change - a classic example is the 2012 U.S. drought, which NOAA data confirm, is unrelated to CO2 levels despite the hysterical claims of the greens.
(click to enlarge)
The adjacent chart represents a plot of the percent U.S. area that exhibits drought conditions per the Palmer Drought Index. These empirical measurements, from 1895 to the present, are reported by NOAA. In addition, the chart displays a plot of monthly CO2 levels during the same time range.
A few very rational and objective conclusions one can draw from the chart:
Severe droughts have occurred well before 1960 and the large influx of human CO2 emissions. The droughts of the 1930’s and 1950’s were worse than the 2011/12 drought. The 30-year drought average (red curve) indicates little in the way of extreme climate change - in fact, current drought conditions are well within the bounds of natural climatic variation over the last 100+ years. U.S. severe droughts appear to follow some natural rhythm or cycle. CO2 levels are not the cause of severe droughts.
Additional severe-weather postings. Additional temperature and climate charts. A listing of severe weather events.
---------------
Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax: “...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth” H/T Tom Nelson.
-----------
See also Dr Craig Loehle’s analysis on WUWT Climate Change Impacts In The USA is Already [NOT] Happening.
----------------------
See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”
---------------
See John Coleman’s excellent video summary ”There is NO Significant Global Warming” on KUSI Coleman’s corner. No one communicates better to the public.
----------
See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.
-----------
From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge
--------
Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.
---------------
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.
“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.
See still more annotated here.
--------------
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
---------------
See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.
Also available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap):
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
WeatherBell Analytics here.
Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here.
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)
Steve Goddard, Real Science
Climate Central cherry picked the coldest start date of 1970, in order to make a fraudulent claim that US winters are warming.
Warming Winters: U.S. Temperature Trends | Climate Central
US winter temperatures have been on the decline since 1920.
The winters have ben cooling the last 15 years in ALL climate regions (source NOAA NCDC)
--------------
Piers Corbyn at the Johannesburg Greenest Event explains why the CO2 theory has failed and what is really behind climate change:
By Steve Goddard
The final data is in, and an apples to apples comparison (using only the same set of all 821 GHCN HCN stations continuously active since at least 1920) shows that 2012 was slightly cooler than 1934, and that the trend since 1920 is downwards. The US has been cooling for 90 years.
2012 was an anomaly, not the new normal.
Prior to tampering by NOAA and GISS, 1934 was always the hottest year.
Science Briefs
Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato - August 1999
What’s happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?
Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?
Willie Soon and Nils-Axel Morner
There is much concern over rising sea levels and disappearing coastline. Yet how are such changes really measured?
Satellites can measure tiny changes in sea levels referenced to a known baseline, but those measurements have only been available since 1993. Two other methods used for changes occurring over more than 100 years are tide gauges and efforts by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in computer modeling.
A tide gauge monitors water level changes in relation to a local reference height. They are simple devices, not too different from a pingpong ball floating in a tube. Tide gauge data are available for more than 1,750 stations around the world and are the longest time series available. In the case of Delaware, records go back to the early 20th century, while in places such as Amsterdam they go back to the late 17th century.
How reliable are such data?
In Atlantic City, for example, coastal engineer Cyril Galvin says the tide gauge data may be too sensitive to local and regional activities that aren’t ultimately related to “natural” changes in sea level - including any that might be related to greenhouse gas-induced global warming.
In examining sea-level changes for 100 years or more from stations on the Eastern Seaboard, Mr. Galvin could not find any acceleration in sea-level rise. University of Florida professor Robert Dean and Army Corps of Engineers analyst James Houston have independently reached this same conclusion.
While examining tide gauge records from Atlantic City’s Steel Pier, Mr. Galvin discovered a remarkable effect apparently caused by spectators who came to watch horse-diving between 1929 and 1978. From old photographs, it was estimated that there must have been about 4,000 spectators who would come to watch. Given that this crowd probably weighed about 150 tons, the pier was subject to significant loading and unloading cycles. The initial 1912-1928 data showed the sea level rising at a rate of 0.12 inches per year. The rate tripled around 1929 when the horses began diving. When the shows were suspended from 1945 to 1953, sea level fell at a rate of 0.06 inches per year. When the diving resumed, the sea level rose again at a rate of 0.16 inches per year.
Such clear documentation of the direct influence of local weight loading and unloading activities on tide gauge reading should add a cautionary note to connecting tide gauge data series to man-made greenhouse gas global warming phenomena.
Model projections of rapid sea-level rise and acceleration caused by global warming as proposed by the IPCC’s coming Fifth Assessment Report should also be subject to scrutiny.
The first bit of bad news for the IPCC is that scientists have always been uncomfortable in predicting climate 20, 50 or 100 years in the future because they know that climate models are simply not up to the task. Such long-term climate forecasting is more the result of political pressure.
The major problems with simulating variations and changes in ice sheets have been known for a long time now. The key issue is the accurate representation of topography. In the Fifth Assessment Report’s climate models, the representation of the Greenland Ice Sheet, for example, is clearly deficient. Without the correct accounting for the valleys and hills beneath the ice sheet, melted ice quickly drains off the ice sheet and is counted as a net loss of ice mass.
In the real world of bumps and valleys in ice surfaces, refreezing can quickly occur when cold temperatures return. This is why Swiss Federal Institute of Technology scientists long ago concluded that it may even be possible for both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to gain ice mass under the doubled atmospheric carbon-dioxide scenario if improved climate models are used.
In an eagerly anticipated paper in the Journal of Climate, a group of scientists from the British Antarctic Survey documented how all of the 18 climate computer models that are used in the Fifth Assessment Report failed in the simple task of simulating the annual cycle and trends in the Antarctic sea ice extent. The authors found the majority of the climate models have too small a sea ice extent at minimum in February, while several of the models have less than two-thirds of the observed values at September maximum.
Even more devastating news is that the observed Antarctic sea ice extent over the past 30 years is showing an increasing trend, while most climate models produce decreasing sea ice extent. Such an obvious discrepancy from observed phenomena should once again cast strong suspicion upon rapid sea level change scenarios in the Fifth Assessment Report and render them void for use in public policy.
Not surprisingly, objective sea level research should be based on observational facts in nature itself and not on computer models.
The message is clear. When it comes to sea level, any reliance on the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report is misplaced. Study of current and ancient climate tells us that climate model predictions of rapid acceleration in global and regional sea levels are simple scaremongering. Prudent policymaking should be based on objective science rather than fear.
Willie Soon is an independent scientist. Nils-Axel Morner is a sea level expert at Stockholm University.
Tom Nelson
Shock: Guardian warmist Damian Carrington publishes an article detailing the warming/cooling/warming of the North Atlantic since the 1930s
Warm North Atlantic ocean causing UK’s wet summers - study | Environment | guardian.co.uk
The UK’s dismal recent summers can be blamed on a substantial warming of the North Atlantic ocean in the late 1990s, according to new scientific research.
...The pattern is likely to revert to drier summers and may do so suddenly, according to Professor Rowan Sutton, at the University of Reading, who led the work. “I can’t guarantee it but it is likely,” he said. “However we are not sure of the timing, which is what every one wants to know - but we are working on this now.” Sutton added that when the switch occurs, it could happen as rapidly as over two to three years.
...
Sutton said these shifts have been occurring for many hundreds of years, but that global warming was also having an impact. “It is not now purely natural or purely a manifestation of human-induced climate change,” he said. “There is lot of evidence to show that climate change is changing the timing and amplitude of the temperature changes.” For example, he said, the cooler period from the 1960s to the 1980s occurred when soot and other pollution from dirty power stations cooled the planet.
The previous North Atlantic warm phase, which ran from the 1930s to the 1950s, also saw a run of wet summers in the UK, including severe flooding in August 1948, which closed the east coast mainline railway for three months, and the Lynmouth floods in August 1952 in which 34 people died.
...
The warm and cold swings in the North Atlantic affect temperatures, rain and winds across Europe, Africa and North and South America, and previous research indicates they are related to changes in ocean circulation. Other research at Reading University has suggested that it may in future be possible to predict the warming and cooling cycles some years ahead.
---------------------
California launches website to straighten out climate-change “deniers”
by Erika Johnsen
Oh, California. The Golden State consistently receives some of the nation’s lowest marks on their business climate, unemployment rate, tax burden, utility
costs, regulatory environment, and etcetera, not to mention some of the highest rates of state and local spending per capita and the biggest total state debt by a long shot. On top of that, the state government has pretty drastically overestimated their tax revenues of late (maybe all those businesspeople fleeing the state could have something to do with that, hmm?), contributing even more to their debt problems.
With all of these very serious fiscal problems plaguing the world’s ninth-largest economy, what ranks highly on the state government’s to-do list? Climate change go bwahh!
Gov. Jerry Brown said today that “humanity is getting dangerously close to the point of no return” on climate change, and he launched a website criticizing conservatives who dispute its significance.
The website “Climate Change: Just the Facts,” is hosted by Brown’s Office of Planning and Research. It devotes one page to “the denialists” and another to rebutting “common denialist arguments.”
“Global warming’s impact on Lake Tahoe is well documented. It is just one example of how, after decades of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humanity is getting dangerously close to the point of no return,” Brown said in a prepared statement. “Those who still deny global warming’s existence should wake up and honestly face the facts.”
By all means, please just go right ahead and keep devoting your state’s resources to denigrating climate “deniers,” it’s not like you haven’t got a nickel to spare or anything.
For pity’s sake, there is no such thing as a serious person who is also a climate-change “denier” (the species is about as fictional as Man-Bear-Pig, if you will). Pretty much everybody acknowledges that climate change is a real thing, and that the planet has been going through cyclical changes of heating and cooling since time immemorial. But yes, a very large body of scientific evidence provides plentiful reason to believe that humanity is not contributing to the process at quite the catastrophic and unsustainable pace at which the highly politicized liberal scientific sects would have us believe.
But no, California is going to keep requiring more green energy standards in their economy, forcibly raising their utility costs and public debt, and then turn around and lecture the rest of us on how we should be doing the same. The mind reels.
----------------
Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax: “...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth” H/T Tom Nelson.
-----------
See also Dr Craig Loehle’s analysis on WUWT Climate Change Impacts In The USA is Already [NOT] Happening.
----------------------
See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”
---------------
See John Coleman’s excellent video summary ”There is NO Significant Global Warming” on KUSI Coleman’s corner. No one communicates better to the public.
----------
See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.
-----------
From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge
--------
Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.
---------------
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.
“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.
See still more annotated here.
--------------
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
---------------
See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.
Also available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap):
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
WeatherBell Analytics here.
Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here.
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)
No TricksZone
Ulli Kulke, veteran journalist at the German flagship daily DIE WELT, posts a comment at his blog on uber-alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf’s claim that “sea levels are rising 60% faster” than he thought in 2007.
Sea levels have decelerated over the last years. Chart source: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/.
Being a devout alarmist, Rahmstorf is obsessed with finding ways to produce alarming headlines. In Germany alarming headlines have become a tradition every November, just before every major climate conference. Doha this year is no different.
In his latest claim, Rahmstorf claims that just a few years ago, sea levels were thought to be rising 2 mm/year. Suddenly the sea level, the satellites say, is actually now rising at 3.2 mm/ year, that’s 60% faster then they thought!
But as Kulke points out in his piece titled False climate alarm surrounds an old hat, Rahmstorf is suffering from (selective) amnesia, and forgot what he said in the UN-IPCC report of (2007): Rahmstorf back then:
“Satellite measurements show a rise of 3.1 mm/year for the period 1993-2003 and if you consider the measurements through 2006, it’s even 3.3 mm/year.”
Kulke writes, with a few grains of sarcasm:
It was, after all, quite some time ago, and there was so much data in that thick report. Also with sea levels, some numbers were lower and some were higher. But Rahmstorf, the ocean scientist, had been lead author in every climate report. For this reason the data shouldn’t be anything new for him. Back then the report projected an increase of 18 to 59 cm for the coming century.
Alarm, Alarm. Let’s increase the growth of data. Or, to speak like Honecker (leader of former communist regime East Germany): Always higher, never lower! And if it’s not possible to increase the current data, then let’s just reduce the data of the past. Just like some climate scientists also want to reduce the temperature of the hottest year since instrumental measurements began, namely 1998, just so that this decade can once again appear to be on the rise. Or just like Michael Mann tried with his infamous hockey stick...but failed.”
If we take Rahmstorf’s 1993 to 2006 period figure of 3.3 mm/year, then we see that sea level rise has actually slowed down by 3%, and not risen 60%. The tricks being used by alarmist climate scientists are becoming ever more, obvious and desperate.
You don’t need to be an investigative journalist to uncover that.
----------
NOAA this year completely disagrees with Rahmstorf. According to NOAA, sea level rise from 1/2005 thru 12/2011 is:
1.2 mm/year, +/- 0.9 mm/year, or 1.6 mm/year, +/- 0.8 mm/year.
Remember the crane that big blob Gore used in his science fiction movie to show how high 20 feet was (what he predicted sea levels would rise by 2100). Well 1.6mm/year corresponds to 6 inches. He could have instead picked the NYC Yellow Pages and stood on it and come closer to the truth. Gore, Rahmstorf, Grant Foster (Tamino), Mann, Hansen...what a sorry group.
