Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion

IPCC Now Claims All Warming Since End Of Little Ice Age Is Man-Made

by B. Peiser, October 10, 2018 in ClimateChangeDispatch


So the very first sentence of the SR15 Summary for Policy Makers, after the Introduction, consists of a statement which is not well supported by the totality of the available scientific literature and which is at odds with the IPCC’s own findings in the AR5 Working Group 1 Report of just 5 years ago! Not a good start. —Climate Scepticism, 9 October 2018

 

#DataGate! First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling towns, boats on land

by Mc Lean in JoNova, October 8, 2018 in JoNOva


What were they thinking?

The fate of the planet is at stake, but the key temperature data set used by climate models contains more than 70 different sorts of problems.  Trillions of dollars have been spent because of predictions based on this data – yet even the most baby-basic quality control checks have not been done.

Thanks to Dr John McLean, we see how The IPCC demands for cash rest on freak data, empty fields, Fahrenheit temps recorded as Celsius, mistakes in longitude and latitude, brutal adjustments and even spelling errors.

Why. Why. Why wasn’t this done years ago?

So much for that facade. How can people who care about the climate be so sloppy and amateur with the data?

The Evidence For AGW

by P. Homewood, October 9, 2018 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


Some of my initial thoughts:

  1. The topic of climate change is not a simple black and white one, and there are many areas where there is substantial disagrement among scientists. However the official party line pretends this is not the case.

  2. It is generally accepted that there has been some warming since the end of the little ice age in the 19thC. But how much is natural, and how much man made?

  3. The LIA is reckoned to be the coldest era since the ice age, so it is reasonable to assume that at least part of the warming since is natural.

Climate Change Reconsidered II

by NIPPC, October 2018


The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.

 

NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singer’s retirement from the University of Virginia. NIPCC is currently a joint project of SEPP, The Heartland Institute, and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

 

IPCC Pretends the Scientific Publishing Crisis Doesn’t Exist

by Donna Laframboise, October 7, 2018 in BigPictureNews


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a press release today. It tells us the IPCC assesses “thousands of scientific papers published each year,” and that its latest report relies on “more than 6,000 references.”

We therefore have no earthly reason to imagine that climate science is exempt from these kinds of problems.

If half of the scientific literature is untrue, it therefore follows that half of climate research is also untrue.

This means that 3,000 of the IPCC’s 6,000 references aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Climate Bombshell: Global Warming Scare Is Based on ‘Careless and Amateur’ Data, Finds Audit

by James Delingpole, October 6, 2018 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


HadCRUT4 is the primary dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”, to justify its demands for trillions of dollars to be spent on “combating climate change” and as the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.

But according to a groundbreaking analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.

“It’s very careless and amateur,” he says. “About the standard of a first-year university student.”

Among the many errors found by McLean were:

  • Large gaps where there is no data and where instead averages were calculated from next to no information. For two years, the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia.

  • Almost no quality control, with misspelled country names (‘Venezuala” “Hawaai” “Republic of K” (aka South Korea) and sloppy, obviously inaccurate entries.

  • Adjustments – “I wouldn’t be surprised to find that more than 50 percent of adjustments were incorrect,” says McLean – which artificially cool earlier temperatures and warm later ones,  giving an exaggerated impression of the rate of global warming.

  • Methodology so inconsistent that measurements didn’t even have a reliable policy on variables like Daylight Saving Time.

  • Sea measurements, supposedly from ships, but mistakenly logged up to 50 miles inland.

  • A Caribbean island – St Kitts – where the temperature was recorded at 0 degrees C for a whole month, on two occasions (somewhat implausibly for the tropics)

  • A town in Romania which in September 1953, allegedly experienced a month where the average temperature dropped to minus 46 degrees C (when the typical average for that month is 10 degrees C).

Wide-scale US wind power could cause significant warming

by James Temple, October 4, 2018 in MITTechnologyReview


Wind power is booming in the United States.

It’s expanded 35-fold since 2000 and now provides 8% of the nation’s electricity. The US Department of Energy expects wind turbine capacity to more than quadruple again by 2050.

But a new study by a pair of Harvard researchers finds that a high amount of wind power could mean more climate warming, at least regionally and in the immediate decades ahead. The paper raises serious questions about just how much the United States or other nations should look to wind power to clean up electricity systems.

Highlights

  • Wind power reduces emissions while causing climatic impacts such as warmer temperatures
  • Warming effect strongest at night when temperatures increase with height
  • Nighttime warming effect observed at 28 operational US wind farms
  • Wind’s warming can exceed avoided warming from reduced emissions for a century

International Panel Calls for End to Global War on Fossil Fuels

by Anthony Watts, October5, 2018 in WUWT


More than 100 leading scholars from 12 countries have issued a report contending “the global war on fossil fuels … was never founded on sound science or economics” and urging the world’s policymakers to “acknowledge this truth and end that war.”

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an independent organization founded in 2003 to fact-check the work of the United Nations on the issue of climate change, today released the Summary for Policymakers of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels. The 27-page Summary provides an early look at a 1,000-page report expected to be released on December 4 at a climate science symposium during the United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP-24) in Katowice, Poland. 

Among the findings reported in the Summary for Policymakers:

  • Reducing fossil fuel use to achieve dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions would inflict tremendous economic hardship. Reducing greenhouse gases to 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 would require a 96% reduction in world GDP, reducing per-capita GDP to $1,200 from $30,600 now forecast. Per-capita income would be at about the level it was in the United States and Western Europe in about 1820 or 1830, before the Industrial Revolution.

La baisse de l’activité solaire conduit la NASA à annoncer un refroidissement climatique

by Anne Dolhein, 2 october 2018 in Reinformation.TV


La NASA – peu suspecte de climato-scepticisme – s’appuie sur de nouveaux résultats d’observations de température aux confins de l’atmosphère terrestre pour annoncer un refroidissement notable dans ces zones, lié à l’un des minima solaires les plus importants de l’ère spatiale. Il s’agit très clairement d’un refroidissement climatique entraîné par la baisse de l’activité solaire, confirmant le rôle important sinon prépondérant du soleil sur les variations de température de la planète.

« Nous constatons une tendance au refroidissement », vient ainsi de déclarer Martin Mlynczak, chercheur principal associé du centre de recherches Langley de la NASA. « Très loin de la surface de la terre, près du bord de l’espace, notre atmosphère perd de l’énergie calorifique. Si les tendances actuelles se poursuivent, on pourrait bientôt atteindre un record de froid pour notre ère spatiale », a-t-il affirmé.

LES EPOUVANTABLES CONSEQUENCES DU RECHAUFFEMENT CLIMATIQUE (2)

by Jo Moreau, October 2, 2018 in Belgotopia


Ceux qui me font l’honneur (et le plaisir) de suivre ma page Facebook « belgotopia » profitent de ma rubrique : « Dans l’hilarante série : les délires climatiques », qui distille à doses homéopathiques la litanie des épouvantables conséquences du réchauffement (changement) climatique qui nous menace.

Celles-ci sont extraites soit de médias, soit de revues scientifiques dont on ne peut décemment mettre le sérieux en doute, et contribuent à entretenir la peur parmi nos populations. Et ces études, ne l’oublions pas, sont financées par l’argent public, soit le vôtre et le mien.

Les cent premières furent rassemblées dans un billet, que je vous engage vivement à (re)consulter :

https://belgotopia.com/2017/06/02/les-epouvantables-consequences-du-changement-climatique/

Voici donc les cinquante suivantes, et j’en ai encore un nombre considérable en réserve, car nous sommes soumis à une véritable avalanche de constatations ou de prédictions terrifiantes !

Alors, vous aussi, affolez-vous sans réserve !

Quakes, Pollution and Flaming Fauces : The UK media on shale gas.

by Andrew Montford, September 27, 2018 in GWPFbriefing34


The briefing, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, focuses on the output of the BBC and the Guardian, and outlines many examples of biased coverage.

However, it wasn’t always this way, as author Andrew Montford explains:

“When shale gas first came on the scene, coverage was very positive: gas was seen as a low-carbon alternative to coal. It was only when it looked as though it would price renewables out of the market that the scare stories and bias began”.

Sea Level Speculation Irresponsibly Threatens Property Owners

by Jim Steele, September 26, 2018 in WUWT


The suggested steady 3.3 mm/year rise since 1992 conflicted with CO2-driven model predictions of acceleration. So, based on the difficulties of calibrating altimetry with tide gauge data, various researchers claimed satellite drift and biases had over-estimated early estimates of sea level rise from 1994-2002. Various adjustments were then evoked, and varying rates of sea level rise published. New global sea level estimates rose at an accelerating rate from 1.8 in 1993 to 3.9 mm/yr today, others at 2.2 mm/yr in 1993 to 3.3 mm/yr in 2014, yet others found satellite adjustments lowered the average rate of sea level rise to 2.6 mm/yr over that same period. Elsewhere Harvard geophysicists were analyzing the effects of mass change on the earth’s rotation and wobble and were disturbed by the misfit between geophysical observations and sea level estimates. They argued that only if 20thcentury sea level rise was limited to 1.2 mm/yr could there be a good fit with geophysical expectations.

Another Dis-alarming Analysis of Arctic Sea Ice David Middleton / 17 hours ago September 26, 2018

by David Middleton, September 26, 2018 in WUWT


Anthony recently posted an excellent Arctic sea ice analysis by Ron Clutz.  In a similar vein, I decided to look at Arctic sea ice from a couple of other dis-alarming perspectives.

We keep hearing about the Arctic being ice-free anytime from next month up until a continuously rolling forward decade or so.  One question that has to be answered is:

What does ice-free mean?

When does ice-free mean ice-free?

First, we need to clarify what exactly an “ice-free” Arctic summer is.

By “ice-free”, scientists usually mean a sea ice extent of less than one million square kilometres, rather than zero sea ice cover.

–Dr Alexandra Jahn, Assistant Professor in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and Fellow at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado. Carbon Brief, August 25, 2016.

The Great Global Warming Hoax?

by The Middlelbury Community Network, September 2018

Editor’s Introductory Note: Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the “Little Ice Age” of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum.  Before that came the “Medieval Warm Period“, in which temperatures were about the same as they are today.  Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent.  Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily “global”.

However, “Global Warming” in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.

….

Summary – Exactly what have we learned here?

1.  The “Greenhouse Effect” is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.2.  Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.

3.  CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

4.  Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant.  We didn’t cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.

5.  Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

6.  CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

7.  CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets.  The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.

8.  Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

9.  The UN IPCC has corrupted the “reporting process” so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid’s lunch money.  They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions.  In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit “opinion” on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.

10.  Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs.  The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat… particularly the North Slope oil fields.

11.  There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming.  This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.

12.  Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.

13.  Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century.  There is active geothermal activity in the currently “melting” sections of Greenland.

14.  The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.

15.  The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved.  The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

16.  Scientists who “deny” the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.

17.  The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of  pending global cooling.

18.  Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.

19.  Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.

20. In short, there is no “climate crisis” of any kind at work on our planet.

The ‘Trick’ of Anomalous Temperature Anomalies

by Kip Hansen, September 25, 2018 in WUWT


It seems that every time  we turn around, we are presented with a new Science Fact that such-and-so metric — Sea Level Rise, Global Average Surface Temperature, Ocean Heat Content, Polar Bear populations, Puffin populations — has changed dramatically — “It’s unprecedented!” — and these statements are often backed by a graph illustrating the sharp rise (or, in other cases, sharp fall) as the anomaly of the metric from some baseline.  In most cases, the anomaly is actually very small and the change is magnified by cranking up the y-axis to make this very small change appear to be a steep rise (or fall).

The BBC’s Naive View of the UN’s Climate Machine

by Donna Laframboise, September25, 2018 in BigPictureNews


SPOTLIGHT: Bureaucracies put their trust in other bureaucracies.

BIG PICTURE: A few weeks back, Joanne Nova perfectly captured the position of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) regarding the scandalous UN entity known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A recent internal document gives BBC journalists advice about how to report on climate matters. In Nova’s words, it declares that the “IPCC is God, can not be wrong.”

The document’s exact words:

Arctic Ice Made Simple

by Ron Clutz, September 22, 2018 in ScienceMatters


People are overthinking and over-analyzing Arctic Ice extents, and getting wrapped around the axle (or should I say axis).  So let’s keep it simple and we can all readily understand what is happening up North.

I will use the ever popular NOAA dataset derived from satellite passive microwave sensors.  It sometimes understates the ice extents, but everyone refers to it and it is complete from 1979 to 2017.  Here’s what NOAA reports (in M km2):

“There Has Never Been An Energy Transition”

by David Middleton, September 20, 2018T in WUWT


One of my favorite sayings is, “We didn’t leave the Stone Age because we ran out of stones.”  Technically we never left the Stone Age because we use more rocks now than we did in the Stone Age.

And we never left the “Wood Age.”  There was no energy transition from biomass (wood) to fossil fuels. Coal piled on top of biomass, oil piled on top of coal and natural gas piled on top of oil

Climategate continues: Release of University of Arizona Climate Emails Imminent

by Anthony Watts, September 19, 2018 in WUWT


Nearly seven years ago, on December 7th, 2011, the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic’s (FME Law) sought public records from the University of Arizona related to the Mann-Bradley-Hughes temperature reconstruction that looks like a hockey stick, and development of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.  They refused much of the request and FME Law sued.  Now (on September 18th, 2018) legal counsel for the University informed FME Law that they were done, that they would be withdrawing their appeal of the trial court’s decision, end the case and disclose the records.

Included in the release will be emails that, for example, provide the full context of the discussions between Michael Mann and colleagues and Chick Keller on whether there was a medieval warm period and a little ice age.  Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) were the authors of the “hockey stick” graph that became the icon of climate alarmism.  Dr. Keller was, at the time, Director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the Los Alamos National Lab and affiliated with the University of California at San Diego, and wanted to reconcile data which appeared to refute the MBH papers.  Also within this collection will be the full discussion on events surrounding an effort to remove editors of journals willing to publish peer-reviewed papers that contradicted the MBH and related papers on which climate alarmism was built.  This collection of emails is particularly important in that they will provide the full context of Climategate emails that have been described as “cherry picking.”

Statistical study of past temperature records suggest possible undetected natural climate forcing cycles

by Anthony Watts, September 18, 2018 in WUWT


Godfrey Dack writes in with this:

Everyone will be familiar with the difficulty of listening to a conversation held with a friend in a crowded room with many other conversations going on at the same time. So it is with many fields of scientific investigation where it is difficult to tease a particular trend out from masses of data. In the first case, we could call the friend’s conversation ‘The Signal’, and the background conversations ‘The Noise’.

In looking at climate data, trends (the signal) can be graphically represented by a (generally) smooth curve, usually flanked by a range of experimentally predicted or actually measured values (the noise). Joining up every point on a graph of such data would give a jagged line which could be thought of as a combination of many alternating functions over a wide range of frequencies.

“What Will Persuade Conservatives To Fight Climate Change?” The same things that would persuade us to fight plate tectonics, entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics!

by David Middleton, September 17, 2019 in WUWT


Yes… I know entropy falls under the Second Law of Thermodynamics… But I doubt the author of the Clean Technica article does. [Author’s note: By “falls under the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I don’t mean decreases; I mean it falls under the “jurisdiction” of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.]

Guest ridicule by David Middleton

Among today’s Real Clear Energy headlines, almost totally unrelated to energy: What Will Persuade Conservatives To Fight Climate Change?

BBC tells journalists that IPCC is God, can not be wrong –”No debate allowed”

by JoNova, September 8, 2018


Lets all bow to the IPCC — a modern God that shalt not be questioned. The Holy Sacred Climate Cow!

The IPCC is an unaudited and unaccountable foreign committee. Not only are no scientists paid to check its findings, now the publicly mandated BBC is making sure none of their journalists will check its findings either.

Carbonbrief has a copy of the BBC new internal guidance on how to report climate change.

In April, the UK regulator, Ofcom, found the BBC was guilty of not sufficiently challenging Lord Lawson, a skeptic. So in response the BBC now promises they will never sufficiently challenge the IPCC. That’s “false balance” for you.

Climatariat News Network: Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke isn’t a geologist because climate change.

by D. Middelton, September 8, 2018 in WUWT


Guest CNN-bashing by David Middleton (a geologist)

ran across this April 2018 article while looking for something else.  I totally missed this episode of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Secretary Zinke’s stance on climate change is one of several reasons the Climatariat News Network decided that he was being dishonest in describing himself as a geologist…

Media Extrapolating A Trend From A Single Data Point: 2018 Heatwave Edition

by P. Homewood, September 5, 2018 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


This article in something called Inside Climate News seems to be typical of many I have seen this year:  Because we have had much attention in the media on heat waves this year, there must be an upward trend in heat waves and that is a warning signal that man-made global warming is destroying the planet.  Typical of these articles are a couple of features

  1. Declaration of a trend without any actual trend data, but just a single data point of events this year

  2. Unstated implication that there must be a trend because the author can’t remember another year when heat wave stories were so prevalent in the media

  3. Unproven link to man-made global warming, because I guess both involve warmth.