by Jim Hoft, November 17, 2018 in GatewayPundit
by Jim Hoft, November 17, 2018 in GatewayPundit
by Paul Driessen, November 18, 2018 in WUWT
Over 8,000 homes and businesses have been reduced to ashes and rubble by the latest California conflagrations. Well over 60 people have perished, over 50,000 are homeless, hundreds remain missing. “This is the new abnormal,” Governor Jerry Brown insists. “Dryness, warmth, drought, all those things are going to intensify,” because of climate change. Even if we do more on forest management, that won’t stop climate change. “And those who deny that are definitely contributing to the tragedies.”
Those assertions have no basis in fact. The hard, incontrovertible reality is that California has always been a largely arid state, afflicted by prolonged droughts, interspersed with periods of intense rainfall, and buffeted almost every autumn by strong winds that can whip forest fires into infernos. The problem isn’t climate change. It’s ideological, even criminally incompetent forest management practices demanded by politicians, regulators, judges and environmentalists in recent decades. My article presents the real story.
by Willis Eschenbach, November 17, 2018 in WUWT
Let me start explaining the link from Picasso to climate science by looking at what Dr. Nir Shaviv called “the most boring graph I have ever plotted in my life”.
This is the graph of the changes in the best estimate of the range of what is called “climate sensitivity” over the last forty years or so.
What is climate sensitivity when it’s at home? To explain that, I’ll have to take a slight detour. First, downwelling radiation.
“Downwelling” in climate science means headed down towards the planetary surface. Downwelling radiation is the total radiation going downwards towards the surface. It is composed of sunshine (shortwave) plus thermal radiation from the atmosphere (longwave). In climate science, this quantity, total downwelling radiation, is called “forcing”, abbreviated “F”
The central paradigm of modern climate science is that if you change the amount of downwelling radiation (forcing), that the surface temperature perforce will change. The claim is that everything else averages out, and if the forcing increases, then surface temperature needs to change to maintain the global energy balance. It has to change. It must.
In short, the central paradigm of modern climate science is the following:
In the long run, global temperature change is proportional to global forcing change.
The putatively constant proportion between the two, which is the temperature change divided by forcing change, is called the “climate sensitivity”.
See also here
by University of Texas at Austin, November 15, 2018 in ScienceDaily
A new study by The University of Texas at Austin has demonstrated a possible link between life on Earth and the movement of continents. The findings show that sediment, which is often composed of pieces of dead organisms, could play a key role in determining the speed of continental drift. In addition to challenging existing ideas about how plates interact, the findings are important because they describe potential feedback mechanisms between tectonic movement, climate and life on Earth.
The study, published Nov. 15 in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, describes how sediment moving under or subducting beneath tectonic plates could regulate the movement of the plates and may even play a role in the rapid rise of mountain ranges and growth of continental crust
by David Middleton, November 17, 2018 in WUWT
Why 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’
By Ann Gibbons Nov. 15, 2018
Ask medieval historian Michael McCormick what year was the worst to be alive, and he’s got an answer: “536.” Not 1349, when the Black Death wiped out half of Europe. Not 1918, when the flu killed 50 million to 100 million people, mostly young adults. But 536. In Europe, “It was the beginning of one of the worst periods to be alive, if not the worst year,” says McCormick, a historian and archaeologist who chairs the Harvard University Initiative for the Science of the Human Past.
A mysterious fog plunged Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia into darkness, day and night—for 18 months. “For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during the whole year,” wrote Byzantine historian Procopius. Temperatures in the summer of 536 fell 1.5°C to 2.5°C, initiating the coldest decade in the past 2300 years. Snow fell that summer in China; crops failed; people starved. The Irish chronicles record “a failure of bread from the years 536–539.” Then, in 541, bubonic plague struck the Roman port of Pelusium, in Egypt. What came to be called the Plague of Justinian spread rapidly, wiping out one-third to one-half of the population of the eastern Roman Empire and hastening its collapse, McCormick says.
by P. Homewood, November 17, 2018 in NotalotofPeopleKnowThat
It’s worth taking a closer look at the claim made last week that India is leading the world in tackling climate change.
The claim was based on India’s latest National Electricity Plan (NEP), which was published in April 2018. Below is the current situation for installed capacity, according to the NEP:
by Les Blogs, 17 novembre 2018
D’abord cette info surprenante. Une étude récente sur le réchauffement des océans a dû être modifiée après publication dans Nature. L’étude, très alarmiste, avait pourtant été révisée puis validée par un comité de lecture et publiée dans la plus prestigieuse revue scientifique au monde. Or la méthodologie et les conclusions de cette recherche étaient erronées.
La faille a été découverte par Nic Lewis, un chercheur climato-critique très populaire en Grande-Bretagne. Il affirme, et les faits lui donnent raison: « Je suis légèrement surpris que ni les pairs examinateurs ni le rédacteur en chef n’aient repéré ce qui me semblait être une alarme rouge à la page 1. »
by Bob Tisdale, November 15, 2018 in WUWT
As you’ll soon see, there was an eye-catching uptick (+0.25 deg C) in the GISS global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data from September to October 2018. We’ll have to wait for next month’s update to see if it also appears in the NOAA and Met Office datasets.
There are numerous things to note in the trend comparison. First, there is a growing divergence between models and data starting in the early 2000s. The continued rise in the model trends indicates global surface warming is supposed to be accelerating, but the data indicate little to no acceleration since then. Second, the plateau in the data warming rates begins in the early 1990s, indicating that there has been very little acceleration of global warming for more than 2 decades. This suggests that there MAY BE a maximum rate at which surface temperatures can warm. Third, note that the observed 30-year trend ending in the mid-1940s is comparable to the recent 30-year trends. (That, of course, is a function of the new NOAA ERSST.v5 data used by GISS.) Fourth, yet that high 30-year warming ending about 1945 occurred without being caused by the forcings that drive the climate models. That is, the climate models indicate that global surface temperatures should have warmed at about a third that fast if global surface temperatures were dictated by the forcings used to drive the models. In other words, if the models can’t explain the observed 30-year warming ending around 1945, then the warming must have occurred naturally. And that, in turns, generates the question: how much of the current warming occurred naturally? Fifth, the agreement between model and data trends for the 30-year periods ending in the 1960s to about 2000 suggests the models were tuned to that period or at least part of it. Sixth, going back further in time, the models can’t explain the cooling seen during the 30-year periods before the 1920s, which is why they fail to properly simulate the warming in the early 20thCentury.
One last note, the monumental difference in modeled and observed warming rates at about 1945 confirms my earlier statement that the models can’t simulate the warming that occurred during the early warming period of the 20th Century.
by Kenneth Richard, November 15, 2018 in NoTricksZone
The year 2018 could mark the beginning of the end of climate change alarmist reporting. Projections of catastrophic melting of the ice sheets and sea level rise swallowing up the Earth’s coasts are increasingly undermined by observation.
Despite the hackneyed practice of reporting “staggering” ice sheet melt for both Greenland and Antarctica in recent decades, the two polar ice sheets combined to add just 1.5 centimeters to sea level rise between 1958 and 2014 (graphfrom Frederikse et al., 2018) as global sea levels only rose by “1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ)” or “1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 for the sum of contributors”.
That’s about 7.8 centimeters (3.1 inches) of global sea level change in 56 years.
by M. Bastasch, November 14, 2018 in WUWT/DailyCaller
Scientists behind a headline-grabbing climate study admitted they “really muffed” their paper.
Their study claimed to find 60 percent more warming in the oceans, but that was based on math errors.
The errors were initially spotted by scientist Nic Lewis, who called them “serious (but surely inadvertent) errors.”
The scientists behind a headline-grabbing global warming study did something that seems all too rare these days — they admitted to making mistakes and thanked the researcher, a global warming skeptic, who pointed them out.
“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” study co-author Ralph Keeling told The San Diego Union-Tribune on Tuesday.
Their study, published in October, used a new method of measuring ocean heat uptake and found the oceans had absorbed 60 more heat than previously thought. Many news outlets relayed the findings, but independent scientist Nic Lewis quickly found problems with the study.
Keeling, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, owned up to the mistake and thanked Lewis for finding it. Keeling and his co-authors submitted a correction to the journal Nature. (RELATED: Headline-Grabbing Global Warming Study Suffers From A Major Math Error)…
by Nick Stokes, November 14, 2018 in WUWT
There is much criticism here of the estimates of global surface temperature anomaly provided by the majors – GISS, NOAA and HADCRUT. I try to answer these specifically, but also point out that the source data is readily available, and it is not too difficult to do your own calculation. I point out that I do this monthly, and have done for about eight years. My latest, for October, is here (it got warmer).
Last time CharlesTM was kind enough to suggest that I submit a post, I described how Australian data made its way, visible at all stages, from the 30-minute readings (reported with about 5 min delay) to the collection point as a CLIMAT form, from where it goes unchanged into GHCN unadjusted (qcu). You can see the world’s CLIMAT forms here; countries vary as to how they report the intermediate steps, but almost all the data comes from AWS, and is reported at the time soon after recording. So GHCN unadjusted, which is one of the data sources I use, can be verified. The other, ERSST v5, is not so easy, but there is a lot of its provenance available.
My calculation is based on GHCN unadjusted. That isn’t because I think the adjustments are unjustified, but rather because I find adjustment makes little difference, and I think it is useful to show that.
I’ll describe the methods and results, but firstly I should address that much-argued question of why use anomalies.
by David Middleton, November 13, 2018 in WUWT
This story was previously discussed here at WUWT… But, why wasn’t this headline news in the Washington Post, New York Times, etc.? Yes… That was a rhetorical question.
Comparisons with nearby automated weather stations suggest that air temperatures during these events are near −94 ± 4 °C or about −138 F. Ultracold conditions (below −90 °C) occur more frequently when the Antarctic polar vortex is strong. This temperature appears to be about as low as it is possible to reach, even under clear skies and very dry conditions, because heat radiating from the cold clear air is nearly equal to the heat radiating from the bitterly cold snow surface.
by U. of California – Santa Barbara, Nov 13, 2018 in ScienceDaily
As an indicator of the impacts of climate change, Arctic sea ice is hard to beat. Scientists have observed the frozen polar ocean advance and retreat at this most sensitive region of the Earth over decades for insight on the potential ripple effects on assorted natural systems: global ocean circulation, surrounding habitats and ecosystems, food sources, sea levels and more.
“We’re mostly interested in the period from the early 2000s to the present day, where we see such strong melting,” said graduate student Ian Baxter, who also works with Ding. It’s known, he added, that the effects of changes in the Arctic are no longer confined to the region and in fact spread to the mid-latitudes — often in the form of cold weather outbreaks. The group is interested in how effects in the tropics could spread beyond that region and affect the Arctic.
by Willis Eschenbach, November 12, 2018 in WUWT
Our charmingly incompetent California Governor, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, has announced that all climate-change deniers are “definitely contributing” to the wildfires in the northern and southern parts of the state over the past few days, as well as blazes “in the coming years.” So look out, you dang “deniers”, it’s all your fault!
So … did scientists actually “predict” that past temperatures have gone up by one degree? Can scientists actually predict the past? And can we really expect half a degree of warming in the next decade? To get some perspective on these questions, I thought I’d take a look at the records. I found an interesting site, the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), which has a variety of weather-related data state by state. So with no further ado, here is the average temperature in California from January of 1895 to the present, October 2018.
by J.C. Maurin, 12 novembre 2018 in ScienceClimatEnergie
L’IPCC (GIEC en français) fut créé en 1988 par l’UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) et le WMO (World Meteorological Organization). Dans les principes régissant les travaux du GIEC (1) on lit : Le GIEC a pour mission d’évaluer … les risques liés au changement climatique d’origine humaine. Le GIEC respecte son propre principe fondateur : il attribue l’intégralité de la hausse du taux de CO2 depuis 1958 à une cause anthropique. Nous examinerons ici le modèle anthropique du GIEC et nous le confronterons aux mesures contemporaines, puis à un modèle mixte. Cet article fait suite aux deux précédents publiés sur le site SCE au cours des mois de septembre (1/4) et octobre 2018 (2/4).
C. Modèle anthropique GIEC
C.1 Les contraintes des modèles (Fig. 1)
Le paragraphe A (article 1/4) a montré qu’en 1980 le taux de CO2 atmosphérique était de 338 ppm et le δ13C de -7.6 ‰. En 2010 le taux de CO2 atmosphérique était de 388 ppm et le δ13C de -8.3 ‰. Il existe une modulation annuelle de ce taux, très marquée dans l’hémisphère Nord.