WUWT
In the real world, Antarctic ice is growing at a ferocious rate, hitting
a new record extent every other year. But on planet Green, Antarctic
ice is melting at a dangerous rate. ......The sad thing about this kind of hysterical group think, is that every
so often a group of greens become so convinced the ice has melted away,
that they sail down to the Antarctic to take a look, without proper
preparation. A few of them get lucky – but in at least some cases,
ordinary people have to risk their lives and disrupt fragile scientific
schedules, to rescue groups of idiots who think it is sensible to sail
to Antarctica without proper preparation and equipment."
Saturday, 21 March 2015
Warmism’s First Casualty: Integrity
Quadrant Online
Gone are apolitical scientists who once told the whole story. In their place are activists who distort, omit crucial facts, cherry-pick and torment data contrary to common science ethics. I was initially prepared to write it off as incompetence, but we’ve seen so much of it, time and time again, not to grasp that some darker influence must be at work. The Climategate emails pulled back the curtain on a cabal of scientists who “hide the decline”; select a small subset of, in one infamous instance, tree ring-data that supports their claim while ignoring a broader base of survey findings; conspire to have scientific journals’ editors sacked, and discuss how to stall and stymie perfectly legal Freedom of Information requests. As those emails showed, the climate cabal even expressed joy over the death of a persistent critic."
Gone are apolitical scientists who once told the whole story. In their place are activists who distort, omit crucial facts, cherry-pick and torment data contrary to common science ethics. I was initially prepared to write it off as incompetence, but we’ve seen so much of it, time and time again, not to grasp that some darker influence must be at work. The Climategate emails pulled back the curtain on a cabal of scientists who “hide the decline”; select a small subset of, in one infamous instance, tree ring-data that supports their claim while ignoring a broader base of survey findings; conspire to have scientific journals’ editors sacked, and discuss how to stall and stymie perfectly legal Freedom of Information requests. As those emails showed, the climate cabal even expressed joy over the death of a persistent critic."
BBC & Guardian Lies About Pam
NALOPKT
They claim that Pam was “the most powerful cyclone to hit the South Pacific since records began”.
This is categorically not true. Based on 1-minute windspeeds, we know that, just since 1989, there have been three stronger cyclones in the South Pacific, and Pam also ties with Ron."
They claim that Pam was “the most powerful cyclone to hit the South Pacific since records began”.
This is categorically not true. Based on 1-minute windspeeds, we know that, just since 1989, there have been three stronger cyclones in the South Pacific, and Pam also ties with Ron."
The BBC could have checked Wikipedia for the truth about Cyclone Pam
Christopher Booker, Telegraph
But equally inevitable was that the BBC would
get in on the act. Thus Monday’s Today programme wheeled on Professor
Tim Palmer, in charge of climate modelling at Oxford University, to
confirm President Lonsdale’s worst fears. Such “incredibly intense”
category five cyclones, he told John Humphrys, are “exactly the type of
cyclone that is predicted by the climate models to increase under
climate change, under global warming”.
When Humphrys suggested that we have always had cyclones, Palmer said
that recent examples have seen “wind gusts that have never been measured
before, 200-mile-an-hour winds”. When Humphrys asked him to confirm
that they were indeed unprecedented, Palmer repeated that “these things
have never been seen”.
Had Humphrys
or the programme’s researchers spent a couple of minutes on Google, they
might have seen from Wikipedia that the South Pacific has seen no fewer
than 10 Category Five cyclones in the past twenty years alone. Paul
Homewood was soon able to report on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat
blog that, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Pam’s measured wind speed was only 165mph. Of the five
top South Pacific cyclones since 1989, this ranked it as only the equal
fourth strongest: behind Orson and Monica, which hit the Australian
coast in 1989 and 2006 with wind speeds of 180mph. This was also
equalled by Zoe, which hit Vanuatu in 2002.
Sunday, 15 March 2015
Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world's leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows
Daily Mail
- The Royal Society's motto is 'Nullius in verba' or don't take another's word
- It is the world's first scientific organisation in the world
- Prof Michael Kelly fears that on climate change, it is ignoring the science
- He accuses the organisation of becoming dogmatic about climate change
Saturday, 14 March 2015
Saving the world with fossil fuels
Bishop Hill
The must read article this morning is Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal, who points out that little-mentioned but rather critical point about fossil fuels - we can't do without them. ......I don't think the greens are going to like it."
The must read article this morning is Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal, who points out that little-mentioned but rather critical point about fossil fuels - we can't do without them. ......I don't think the greens are going to like it."
Matt Ridley: Fossil Fuels Will Save the World (Really)
WUWT
The two fundamental problems that renewables face are that they take up too much space and produce too little energy. Consider Solar Impulse, the solar-powered airplane now flying around the world. Despite its huge wingspan (similar to a 747), slow speed and frequent stops, the only cargo that it can carry is the pilots themselves. That is a good metaphor for the limitations of renewables.
To run the U.S. economy entirely on wind would require a wind farm the size of Texas, California and New Mexico combined—backed up by gas on windless days. To power it on wood would require a forest covering two-thirds of the U.S., heavily and continually harvested."
The two fundamental problems that renewables face are that they take up too much space and produce too little energy. Consider Solar Impulse, the solar-powered airplane now flying around the world. Despite its huge wingspan (similar to a 747), slow speed and frequent stops, the only cargo that it can carry is the pilots themselves. That is a good metaphor for the limitations of renewables.
To run the U.S. economy entirely on wind would require a wind farm the size of Texas, California and New Mexico combined—backed up by gas on windless days. To power it on wood would require a forest covering two-thirds of the U.S., heavily and continually harvested."
Matt Ridley talk sense about fossil fuels
[WSJ] - Junk Science 'reprint'
MATT RIDLEY
March 13, 2015 5:33 p.m. ET
The environmental movement has advanced three arguments in recent years for giving up fossil fuels: (1) that we will soon run out of them anyway; (2) that alternative sources of energy will price them out of the marketplace; and (3) that we cannot afford the climate consequences of burning them.
These days, not one of the three arguments is looking very healthy. In fact, a more realistic assessment of our energy and environmental situation suggests that, for decades to come, we will continue to rely overwhelmingly on the fossil fuels that have contributed so dramatically to the world’s prosperity and progress. ..........
Wind power, for all the public money spent on its expansion, has inched up to—wait for it—1% of world energy consumption in 2013. Solar, for all the hype, has not even managed that: If we round to the nearest whole number, it accounts for 0% of world energy consumption.
Both wind and solar are entirely reliant on subsidies for such economic viability as they have. World-wide, the subsidies given to renewable energy currently amount to roughly $10 per gigajoule: These sums are paid by consumers to producers, so they tend to go from the poor to the rich, often to landowners (I am a landowner and can testify that I receive and refuse many offers of risk-free wind and solar subsidies). .............The one thing that will not work is the one thing that the environmental movement insists upon: subsidizing wealthy crony capitalists to build low-density, low-output, capital-intensive, land-hungry renewable energy schemes, while telling the poor to give up the dream of getting richer through fossil fuels."
MATT RIDLEY
March 13, 2015 5:33 p.m. ET
The environmental movement has advanced three arguments in recent years for giving up fossil fuels: (1) that we will soon run out of them anyway; (2) that alternative sources of energy will price them out of the marketplace; and (3) that we cannot afford the climate consequences of burning them.
These days, not one of the three arguments is looking very healthy. In fact, a more realistic assessment of our energy and environmental situation suggests that, for decades to come, we will continue to rely overwhelmingly on the fossil fuels that have contributed so dramatically to the world’s prosperity and progress. ..........
Wind power, for all the public money spent on its expansion, has inched up to—wait for it—1% of world energy consumption in 2013. Solar, for all the hype, has not even managed that: If we round to the nearest whole number, it accounts for 0% of world energy consumption.
Both wind and solar are entirely reliant on subsidies for such economic viability as they have. World-wide, the subsidies given to renewable energy currently amount to roughly $10 per gigajoule: These sums are paid by consumers to producers, so they tend to go from the poor to the rich, often to landowners (I am a landowner and can testify that I receive and refuse many offers of risk-free wind and solar subsidies). .............The one thing that will not work is the one thing that the environmental movement insists upon: subsidizing wealthy crony capitalists to build low-density, low-output, capital-intensive, land-hungry renewable energy schemes, while telling the poor to give up the dream of getting richer through fossil fuels."
Bad News for Trenberth’s Missing Heat – New Study Finds the Deep Oceans Cooled from 1992 to 2011 and…
…that some of the warming nearer to the surface came from the deep ocean. (WUWT)
"Furthermore the ocean, far from being a passive reservoir filled and emptied by the atmosphere, is a dynamically active, turbulent element of a coupled system."
"Furthermore the ocean, far from being a passive reservoir filled and emptied by the atmosphere, is a dynamically active, turbulent element of a coupled system."
Monday, 9 March 2015
BBC’s climate change stance in brazen defiance of the law
Christopher Booker, Telegraph
Next January will see the 10th anniversary of
one of the most curious episodes in the history of the BBC. At a “secret
seminar”, many of its most senior executives met with a roomful of
invited outsiders to agree on a new policy that was in flagrant breach
of its Charter. They agreed that, when it came to climate change, the
BBC’s coverage should now be quite deliberately one-sided, in direct
contravention of its statutory obligation that “controversial subjects”
must be “treated with due accuracy and impartiality”. Anything that
contradicted the party line, from climate science to wind farms, could
be ignored.
The BBC Trust later
reported that the seminar had taken this momentous decision on the
advice of “the best scientific experts” present. Only years later, after
the BBC had spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to suppress the
identities of its “scientific experts”, did it emerge that they had been
nothing of the kind. The room had been full of rabid climate activists,
from pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Stop Climate Chaos."
The BBC’s Climate Change Coverage Is Not Just Dishonest but Illegal
Breitbart
Here was a programme so lamentably biased, so completely uninterested in counterarguments, so blatantly determined to pull the wool over its viewers’ eyes with straw men, false analogies and calculated misrepresentations of the real points at issue, that it constituted a flagrant breach of the BBC’s statutory obligations to accuracy and impartiality. In short, this programme broke the law.
Under the BBC Charter 2006, the BBC is legally obliged to “do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.” Not only did the BBC fail to do this with Climate Change By Numbers but it has also failed to do this with every single documentary it has made on the subject for well over a decade. What’s more, as Booker noted in his 2011 report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation – called The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal – the BBC has been doing so quite deliberately."
Here was a programme so lamentably biased, so completely uninterested in counterarguments, so blatantly determined to pull the wool over its viewers’ eyes with straw men, false analogies and calculated misrepresentations of the real points at issue, that it constituted a flagrant breach of the BBC’s statutory obligations to accuracy and impartiality. In short, this programme broke the law.
Under the BBC Charter 2006, the BBC is legally obliged to “do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.” Not only did the BBC fail to do this with Climate Change By Numbers but it has also failed to do this with every single documentary it has made on the subject for well over a decade. What’s more, as Booker noted in his 2011 report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation – called The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal – the BBC has been doing so quite deliberately."
Even Though Warming Has Stopped, it Keeps Getting Worse?
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I was updating a U.S. Corn Belt summer temperature and precipitation dataset from the NCDC website, and all of a sudden the no-warming-trend-since-1900 turned into a significant warming trend. .....I know others have commented on the tendency of thermometer data adjustments by NOAA always leading to greater warming. As Dick Lindzen has noted, it seems highly improbable that successive revisions to the very same data would lead to ever greater warming trends. Being the co-developer of a climate dataset (UAH satellite temperatures) I understand the need to make adjustments for known errors in the data…when you can quantitatively demonstrate an error exists."
I was updating a U.S. Corn Belt summer temperature and precipitation dataset from the NCDC website, and all of a sudden the no-warming-trend-since-1900 turned into a significant warming trend. .....I know others have commented on the tendency of thermometer data adjustments by NOAA always leading to greater warming. As Dick Lindzen has noted, it seems highly improbable that successive revisions to the very same data would lead to ever greater warming trends. Being the co-developer of a climate dataset (UAH satellite temperatures) I understand the need to make adjustments for known errors in the data…when you can quantitatively demonstrate an error exists."
Silencing skeptics – financing alarmists
WUWT
You would therefore expect that these members of Congress would send similar letters to researchers and institutions on the other side of this contentious climate controversy. But they did not, even though climate alarmism is embroiled in serious financial, scientific, ethical and conflict of interest disputes.
As Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric sciences professor emeritus and one of Grijalva’s targets, has pointed out: “Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy” – and replacing it with expensive, inefficient, insufficient, job-killing, environmentally harmful wind, solar and biofuel sources.
Their 1090 forms reveal that, during the 2010-2012 period, six environmentalist groups received a whopping $332 million from six federal agencies! That is 270 times what Dr. Willie Soon and Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics received from fossil fuel companies in a decade – the funding that supposedly triggered the lawmakers’ letters, mere days after Greenpeace launched its attack on Dr. Soon.
The EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, NOAA, USAID, Army and State Department transferred this taxpayer money to Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resource Defense Council, National Wildlife Fund and Clean Air Council, for research, reports, press releases and other activities that support and promote federal programs and agendas on air quality, climate change, climate impacts on wildlife, and many similar topics related to the Obama war on fossil fuels. The activists also testified before Congress and lobbied intensively behind the scenes on these issues.
Between 2000 and 2013, EPA also paid the American Lung Association well over $20 million, and lavished over $180 million on its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members, to support agency positions. Chesapeake energy gave the Sierra Club $26 million to advance its Beyond Coal campaign. Russia gave generously to anti-fracking, climate change and related “green” efforts.
Government agencies and laboratories, universities and other organizations have received billions of taxpayer dollars, to develop computer models, data and reports confirming alarmist claims. Abundant corporate money has also flowed to researchers who promote climate alarms and keep any doubts to themselves. Hundreds of billions went to renewable energy companies, many of which went bankrupt. Wind and solar companies have been exempted from endangered species laws, to protect them against legal actions for destroying wildlife habitats, birds and bats. Full disclosure? Rarely, if ever."
You would therefore expect that these members of Congress would send similar letters to researchers and institutions on the other side of this contentious climate controversy. But they did not, even though climate alarmism is embroiled in serious financial, scientific, ethical and conflict of interest disputes.
As Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric sciences professor emeritus and one of Grijalva’s targets, has pointed out: “Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy” – and replacing it with expensive, inefficient, insufficient, job-killing, environmentally harmful wind, solar and biofuel sources.
Their 1090 forms reveal that, during the 2010-2012 period, six environmentalist groups received a whopping $332 million from six federal agencies! That is 270 times what Dr. Willie Soon and Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics received from fossil fuel companies in a decade – the funding that supposedly triggered the lawmakers’ letters, mere days after Greenpeace launched its attack on Dr. Soon.
The EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, NOAA, USAID, Army and State Department transferred this taxpayer money to Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resource Defense Council, National Wildlife Fund and Clean Air Council, for research, reports, press releases and other activities that support and promote federal programs and agendas on air quality, climate change, climate impacts on wildlife, and many similar topics related to the Obama war on fossil fuels. The activists also testified before Congress and lobbied intensively behind the scenes on these issues.
Between 2000 and 2013, EPA also paid the American Lung Association well over $20 million, and lavished over $180 million on its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members, to support agency positions. Chesapeake energy gave the Sierra Club $26 million to advance its Beyond Coal campaign. Russia gave generously to anti-fracking, climate change and related “green” efforts.
Government agencies and laboratories, universities and other organizations have received billions of taxpayer dollars, to develop computer models, data and reports confirming alarmist claims. Abundant corporate money has also flowed to researchers who promote climate alarms and keep any doubts to themselves. Hundreds of billions went to renewable energy companies, many of which went bankrupt. Wind and solar companies have been exempted from endangered species laws, to protect them against legal actions for destroying wildlife habitats, birds and bats. Full disclosure? Rarely, if ever."
Friday, 6 March 2015
Statement Regarding Allegations Concerning Dr. Willie Soon
Heartland
1. Background
Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon has been a research physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) for 25 years. Dr. Soon’s research specialty is the influence of changes in solar activity on the Earth’s climate and the study of solar-type stars. Since 1994, together with co-authors, he has written more than 60 peer-reviewed articles and two scholarly books on these and related topics. In 2003 the Smithsonian presented Dr. Soon with an institutional award in “official recognition of work performance reflecting a high standard of accomplishment”.
Recently, articles appearing in the Boston Globe, The New York Times, the Guardian, and other media outlets have claimed that Dr. Soon failed to disclose that some of the funding for research described in several of his recent scientific papers came from “fossil fuel interests”.
These attacks appear to be calculated to damage Dr. Soon’s reputation, to undermine the credibility of his research results, and to threaten his employment at the Center for Astrophysics by improperly suggesting that he has acted unethically and dishonestly. In my opinion, these allegations are malicious and should be retracted. .....
9. Conclusions
The controversy involving Dr. Willie Soon and his coauthors is manufactured and the partisan accusations levelled against them are false. In particular, the editors of the Science Bulletin paper by Monckton et al. have expressed no concern about any undeclared conflict of interest.
The Smithsonian Institution should therefore stand firmly behind its “Statement of Values and Code of Ethics” in general and Dr. Soon in particular. Regrettably, its public statements suggest that instead it may be trying to distance itself from a courageous scientist from whose outstanding research reputation the Institution has benefitted for 25 years. Any credible investigation that is made into the allegations against Dr. Soon must therefore be chaired by a genuinely independent authority and not by any of the persons so far suggested by the Smithsonian.
As an experienced academic manager, independent scientist and colleague of Dr. Soon, the information available to me indicates that by reporting his affiliation with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics he followed all applicable rules regarding conflict of interest disclosure. Furthermore, this disclosure adequately conveys the independence and high quality of research that editors, readers and the general public can expect to see from scientists who work for such an esteemed research institution.
The criticism of Dr. Soon is false, mean-spirited, insulting and potentially libelous. Allowing such attacks to stand, and to allow politics and fear tactics to silence Dr. Soon or any other scientist, or to censor scientific publications, would be a personal calumny and a blow against scientific freedom of expression the world over. "
1. Background
Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon has been a research physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) for 25 years. Dr. Soon’s research specialty is the influence of changes in solar activity on the Earth’s climate and the study of solar-type stars. Since 1994, together with co-authors, he has written more than 60 peer-reviewed articles and two scholarly books on these and related topics. In 2003 the Smithsonian presented Dr. Soon with an institutional award in “official recognition of work performance reflecting a high standard of accomplishment”.
Recently, articles appearing in the Boston Globe, The New York Times, the Guardian, and other media outlets have claimed that Dr. Soon failed to disclose that some of the funding for research described in several of his recent scientific papers came from “fossil fuel interests”.
These attacks appear to be calculated to damage Dr. Soon’s reputation, to undermine the credibility of his research results, and to threaten his employment at the Center for Astrophysics by improperly suggesting that he has acted unethically and dishonestly. In my opinion, these allegations are malicious and should be retracted. .....
9. Conclusions
The controversy involving Dr. Willie Soon and his coauthors is manufactured and the partisan accusations levelled against them are false. In particular, the editors of the Science Bulletin paper by Monckton et al. have expressed no concern about any undeclared conflict of interest.
The Smithsonian Institution should therefore stand firmly behind its “Statement of Values and Code of Ethics” in general and Dr. Soon in particular. Regrettably, its public statements suggest that instead it may be trying to distance itself from a courageous scientist from whose outstanding research reputation the Institution has benefitted for 25 years. Any credible investigation that is made into the allegations against Dr. Soon must therefore be chaired by a genuinely independent authority and not by any of the persons so far suggested by the Smithsonian.
As an experienced academic manager, independent scientist and colleague of Dr. Soon, the information available to me indicates that by reporting his affiliation with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics he followed all applicable rules regarding conflict of interest disclosure. Furthermore, this disclosure adequately conveys the independence and high quality of research that editors, readers and the general public can expect to see from scientists who work for such an esteemed research institution.
The criticism of Dr. Soon is false, mean-spirited, insulting and potentially libelous. Allowing such attacks to stand, and to allow politics and fear tactics to silence Dr. Soon or any other scientist, or to censor scientific publications, would be a personal calumny and a blow against scientific freedom of expression the world over. "
Radical greens
Richard Toll
Religion brings with it unbelievers, apostates, and radicals. The debate on climate policy has long been polarized. Asking an utterly sensible question – which of the many options is the best course of action – is met with howls of derision from both sides. Some protest the idea of taking climate change at all serious. Others are convinced that the maximum action is not enough.
Polarization is not conducive to sound policy. In Europe, the alarmed have the upper hand, climate policy is hardly scrutinized, and special interest groups are gorging on subsidies and rents. Anyone who questions this is put on par with those who deny the Holocaust. The consensus police patrol the media to isolate, ridicule and smear anyone who dares to raise a question. The Royal Observatory and the London School of Economics employ people, Ken Rice and Bob Ward, whose day job it is, or so it seems, to attack others for their climate heresy.
Every movement has its nutters. Climate warriors have long ago stopped being civil. But we seem to be entering a new level of radicalisation."
Religion brings with it unbelievers, apostates, and radicals. The debate on climate policy has long been polarized. Asking an utterly sensible question – which of the many options is the best course of action – is met with howls of derision from both sides. Some protest the idea of taking climate change at all serious. Others are convinced that the maximum action is not enough.
Polarization is not conducive to sound policy. In Europe, the alarmed have the upper hand, climate policy is hardly scrutinized, and special interest groups are gorging on subsidies and rents. Anyone who questions this is put on par with those who deny the Holocaust. The consensus police patrol the media to isolate, ridicule and smear anyone who dares to raise a question. The Royal Observatory and the London School of Economics employ people, Ken Rice and Bob Ward, whose day job it is, or so it seems, to attack others for their climate heresy.
Every movement has its nutters. Climate warriors have long ago stopped being civil. But we seem to be entering a new level of radicalisation."
97% Nonsensus: An Epilogue
Richard Toll
We now also know why Cook wants us to think that time stamps are not there. Not only do they reveal the care taken in collecting the data -- 765 ratings in 72 hours -- but they also show that Cook and co collected data, analyzed them, and went back to collect more data. The first sample and the second sample show different results. This alone invalidates the entire study."
We now also know why Cook wants us to think that time stamps are not there. Not only do they reveal the care taken in collecting the data -- 765 ratings in 72 hours -- but they also show that Cook and co collected data, analyzed them, and went back to collect more data. The first sample and the second sample show different results. This alone invalidates the entire study."
Mastermind - NOT
Biden: Climate skepticism ‘like denying gravity’ (The Hill)
"Vice President Joe Biden blasted climate change skeptics like Sen.
Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), saying their opinion is akin to denying gravity.In an interview
the HBO series “Vice” released Friday in advance of the premiere of its
third season, Biden said it’s increasingly difficult for climate
skeptics to intelligently argue their case."
REALLY ? ....look here
AND Here - Stunning Video: EPA chief says she doesn’t know what the climate models say
Propaganda – Not Science
Real Science
It is easy to demonstrate that global warming experts are propagandists, not scientists. Check out this nonsense ......They carefully cherry picked the time frame misinform the audience, ending the study in 2012. Since the study ended, there has been a massive increase in old/thick ice. Had they ended the study at the current time, the results would have been quite different. .......The starting point of 1975 is also chosen to deceive. The CIA reported a large increase in Arctic ice during the early 1970s. Had they started a few years earlier, the results would have been quite different. ......Let’s go back a little further to 1962 and compare the submarine pictures. The ice was much thinner in 1962 than 2001 .....Now lets go back further to 1940. The ice was two meters thick, the same as now. There has been no change in Arctic ice thickness from 75 years ago. ....There was a similar period of melting from 1910-1940 as from 1975-2012. It is cyclical, not linear. .....The authors are intentionally deceiving the readers to lead them to exactly the wrong conclusion. This is Goebbels style propaganda, not science."
It is easy to demonstrate that global warming experts are propagandists, not scientists. Check out this nonsense ......They carefully cherry picked the time frame misinform the audience, ending the study in 2012. Since the study ended, there has been a massive increase in old/thick ice. Had they ended the study at the current time, the results would have been quite different. .......The starting point of 1975 is also chosen to deceive. The CIA reported a large increase in Arctic ice during the early 1970s. Had they started a few years earlier, the results would have been quite different. ......Let’s go back a little further to 1962 and compare the submarine pictures. The ice was much thinner in 1962 than 2001 .....Now lets go back further to 1940. The ice was two meters thick, the same as now. There has been no change in Arctic ice thickness from 75 years ago. ....There was a similar period of melting from 1910-1940 as from 1975-2012. It is cyclical, not linear. .....The authors are intentionally deceiving the readers to lead them to exactly the wrong conclusion. This is Goebbels style propaganda, not science."
Monday, 2 March 2015
Climate Models Turn Out To Be “Fairy Tales” … Long-Term Central Europe Winters Show Distinct COOLING Trend!
NoTricksZone
Josef Kowatsch and Stefan Kämpfe at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) analyze the winter data from Germany’s DWD Weather Service an conclude that winters have been cooling. The two authors present a lengthy analysis of German winter trends and what factors impact them the most. Today I will focus on the first part of their article, i.e. winter trends in Central Europe – mainly Germany. What follows is an abbreviated summary version."
Josef Kowatsch and Stefan Kämpfe at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) analyze the winter data from Germany’s DWD Weather Service an conclude that winters have been cooling. The two authors present a lengthy analysis of German winter trends and what factors impact them the most. Today I will focus on the first part of their article, i.e. winter trends in Central Europe – mainly Germany. What follows is an abbreviated summary version."
Historic documents show half of Australia’s warming trend is due to “adjustments”
JoNova (Australia)
There was a time back in 1933 when the CSIRO was called CSIR and meteorologists figured that with 74 years of weather data on Australia, they really ought to publish a serious document collating all the monthly averages at hundreds of weather stations around Australia. Little did they know that years later, despite their best efforts, much of the same data would be forgotten and unused or would be adjusted, decades after the fact, and sometimes by as much as one or two degrees. Twenty years later The Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics would publish an Official Year Book of Australia which included the mean temperature readings from 1911 to 1940 at 44 locations.
Chris Gillham has spent months poring over both these historic datasets, as well as the BoM’s Climate Data Online (CDO) which has the recent temperatures at these old stations. He also compares these old records to the new versions in the BOM’s all new, all marvelous, best quality ACORN dataset. He has published all the results and tables comparing CDO, CSIR and Year Book versions. He analyzes them in many ways – sometimes by looking at small subsets or large groups of the 226 CSIR stations. But it doesn’t much matter which way the data is grouped, the results always show that the historic records had warmer average temperatures before they were adjusted and put into the modern ACORN dataset. The adjustments cool historic averages by around 0.4 degrees, which sounds small, but the entire extent of a century of warming is only 0.9 degrees C. So the adjustments themselves are the source of almost half of the warming trend."
There was a time back in 1933 when the CSIRO was called CSIR and meteorologists figured that with 74 years of weather data on Australia, they really ought to publish a serious document collating all the monthly averages at hundreds of weather stations around Australia. Little did they know that years later, despite their best efforts, much of the same data would be forgotten and unused or would be adjusted, decades after the fact, and sometimes by as much as one or two degrees. Twenty years later The Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics would publish an Official Year Book of Australia which included the mean temperature readings from 1911 to 1940 at 44 locations.
Chris Gillham has spent months poring over both these historic datasets, as well as the BoM’s Climate Data Online (CDO) which has the recent temperatures at these old stations. He also compares these old records to the new versions in the BOM’s all new, all marvelous, best quality ACORN dataset. He has published all the results and tables comparing CDO, CSIR and Year Book versions. He analyzes them in many ways – sometimes by looking at small subsets or large groups of the 226 CSIR stations. But it doesn’t much matter which way the data is grouped, the results always show that the historic records had warmer average temperatures before they were adjusted and put into the modern ACORN dataset. The adjustments cool historic averages by around 0.4 degrees, which sounds small, but the entire extent of a century of warming is only 0.9 degrees C. So the adjustments themselves are the source of almost half of the warming trend."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)