WUWT
The rate of warming curves for all 4 major temperature series show that
there has been a significant drop in the rate of warming over the last
17 years. In 1998 the rate of warming was between +2.0 and +2.5 °C per
century. Now, in 2015, it is between +0.5 and +0.8 °C per century. The
rate now is only about 30% of what it was in 1998. Note that these
rates of warming were calculated AFTER the so-called “Pause-busting”
adjustments were made. .......
One of the strange things about the GISTEMP “Pause-busting”
adjustments, is that the year with the highest rate of warming (since
1880) has changed. It used to be around 1998, with a warming rate of
about +2.4 °C per century. After the adjustments, it moved to around
1937 (that’s right, 1937, back when the CO2 level was only about 300
ppm), with a warming rate of about +2.8 °C per century.
If you look at the NOAA series, they already had 1937 as the year
with the highest rate of warming, so GISTEMP must have picked it up from
NOAA when they switched to the new NCEI ERSST.v4 sea surface
temperature reconstruction.
So, the next time that you hear somebody claiming that Global Warming
is accelerating, show them a graph of the rate of warming. Some climate
scientists seem to enjoy telling us that things are worse than
predicted. Here is a chance to cheer them up with some good news.
Somehow I don’t think that they will want to hear it."
Saturday, 29 August 2015
Renewables subsidies are slashed in UK. Solar, Wind, Hydro industry “shocked”
JoNova (Australia)
The ugly truth — British families won’t want solar:
The ugly truth — British families won’t want solar:
Juliet Davenport, chief executive of Good
Energy, said: “The proposed cuts mean that installing solar panels at
home will no longer be attractive to British families.”
That’s what happens when it is a terrible product. It’s called the “free market”.
Met Office sacked by the BBC – but the truth is even odder
Christopher Booker, Telegraph
The bulk of the data used by the winning bidder will still have to be supplied by the UK Met Office anyway..."
Friday, 28 August 2015
Former NOAA Meteorologist tells of years of censorship to hide the effect of “natural cycles”
JoNova
Pierre Gosslin has a great post: Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles”.
David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds. Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.
But jobs are on the line, so only retired workers can really speak, and no one can name names.
We can corroborate David Dilley’s remarks. Indeed, he is probably just one of many skeptics hidden in the ranks of NOAA. Way back in 2007, David Evans got an email from a different insider within NOAA, around the time he started talking publicly about the missing hotspot. The insider said, remarkably: “As a Meteorologist working for [snip, name of division] it has been clear to me, as well as every single other scientist I know at NOAA, that man can not be the primary cause of global warming and that the predictions of “gloom and doom” due to rising temperatures is ridiculous”.
So there are probably many skeptics at NOAA, but given the uniformly aggressive public stance of NOAA apparently none of them can speak until after they retire."
Pierre Gosslin has a great post: Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles”.
David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds. Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.
But jobs are on the line, so only retired workers can really speak, and no one can name names.
We can corroborate David Dilley’s remarks. Indeed, he is probably just one of many skeptics hidden in the ranks of NOAA. Way back in 2007, David Evans got an email from a different insider within NOAA, around the time he started talking publicly about the missing hotspot. The insider said, remarkably: “As a Meteorologist working for [snip, name of division] it has been clear to me, as well as every single other scientist I know at NOAA, that man can not be the primary cause of global warming and that the predictions of “gloom and doom” due to rising temperatures is ridiculous”.
So there are probably many skeptics at NOAA, but given the uniformly aggressive public stance of NOAA apparently none of them can speak until after they retire."
A detailed review of the book: ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’, by Mark Steyn
WUWT
The hockey stick was never validated, yet it became so famous that it was taught to young children all over the world in elementary schools. Many years later, in 2005, it was thoroughly debunked by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (often abbreviated M&M). They showed that using the statistical technique invented by Michael Mann even random number series (persistent trendless red noise, see M&M Figure 1) will generate a hockey stick. Basically, Mann had mined many series of numbers looking for hockey stick shapes and gave each series that had the shape he wanted a much higher weight, up to a weighting factor of 392! This was truly a case of selecting a desired conclusion and then molding the data to fit it. Prominent statisticians Peter Bloomfield, Dr. Edward Wegman and Professor David Hand said Michael Mann’s method of using principle components analysis was inappropriate and misleading and exaggerated the effect of recent global warming."
The hockey stick was never validated, yet it became so famous that it was taught to young children all over the world in elementary schools. Many years later, in 2005, it was thoroughly debunked by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (often abbreviated M&M). They showed that using the statistical technique invented by Michael Mann even random number series (persistent trendless red noise, see M&M Figure 1) will generate a hockey stick. Basically, Mann had mined many series of numbers looking for hockey stick shapes and gave each series that had the shape he wanted a much higher weight, up to a weighting factor of 392! This was truly a case of selecting a desired conclusion and then molding the data to fit it. Prominent statisticians Peter Bloomfield, Dr. Edward Wegman and Professor David Hand said Michael Mann’s method of using principle components analysis was inappropriate and misleading and exaggerated the effect of recent global warming."
Climate Crisis, Inc. has become a $1.5 trillion industry
CFACT
The annual revenue of the Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! That’s equal to the annual economic activity generated by the entire US nonprofit sector, or all savings over the past ten years from consumers switching to generic drugs. By comparison, revenue for the much-vilified Koch Industries are about $115 billion, for ExxonMobil around $365 billion.
The annual revenue of the Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! That’s equal to the annual economic activity generated by the entire US nonprofit sector, or all savings over the past ten years from consumers switching to generic drugs. By comparison, revenue for the much-vilified Koch Industries are about $115 billion, for ExxonMobil around $365 billion.
Sea Level Fraud – Worse Than It Seems
Real Science
Currently active NOAA tide gauges average 0.63 mm/year sea level rise, or two inches by the year 2100. ......The fraudsters at the University of Colorado claim five times that much. Eighty-seven percent of tide gauges are below CU’s claimed rate. And the criminals at NASA are claiming 20 times that much rise by the year 2100. Fraud is the new normal for academic and government science.
--------------------------
"A NASA expert says a three-foot sea rise would endanger millions of people - and we appear to be powerless to stop it." SkyNews
Currently active NOAA tide gauges average 0.63 mm/year sea level rise, or two inches by the year 2100. ......The fraudsters at the University of Colorado claim five times that much. Eighty-seven percent of tide gauges are below CU’s claimed rate. And the criminals at NASA are claiming 20 times that much rise by the year 2100. Fraud is the new normal for academic and government science.
--------------------------
"A NASA expert says a three-foot sea rise would endanger millions of people - and we appear to be powerless to stop it." SkyNews
Saturday, 15 August 2015
WSJ: Obama’s Climate Plan Will Increase Poverty & Redistribution
TheHockeySchtick
Perhaps it is bad manners to suggest that the poor themselves might
prefer higher incomes rather than the EPA’s form of carbon justice. U.S.
economic growth is already much slower than it should be, and the new
EPA climate-change rule will make it worse by subtracting billions of
dollars every year from potential GDP by misallocating capital and
undermining business confidence. This will result in few opportunities
and smaller wage gains, with damage to the poorest Americans in
particular.
For these reasons, a recent study commissioned by the National Black
Chamber of Commerce estimates that the EPA plan will increase the black
poverty rate to 32% in 2025 from 26% today. Hispanic poverty will rise
to 29% from 23%. No fewer than 28 states raised such economic hardships
in their comments to the EPA, to no avail.
The contradiction of modern climate liberals is that they promise
lower energy bills and a wind-and-solar jobs boom, with zero trade-offs.
But then they demand more redistribution to mitigate the economic and
human damage that are the real outcome of their policies. Instead of
offering to weatherize the homes of the least fortunate, how about
trying to increase prosperity? " (THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)
US House Science Committee Accuses EPA Chief Gina McCarthy of Lying to Congress
USBackLash
From reading the letter from members of the House Science Committee to bull-dyke EPA Chief Administrator Gina McCarthy, it seems that libtard EPA Chief lied a few times while testifying before Congress regarding topics from the science behind the EPA’s Clean Water Rule, the agency’s approach to regulating ozone levels and concerns, and about withholding highway funding from states who can’t comply with the new rules."
From reading the letter from members of the House Science Committee to bull-dyke EPA Chief Administrator Gina McCarthy, it seems that libtard EPA Chief lied a few times while testifying before Congress regarding topics from the science behind the EPA’s Clean Water Rule, the agency’s approach to regulating ozone levels and concerns, and about withholding highway funding from states who can’t comply with the new rules."
Australian Psychology Society uses biases and fallacies to accuse skeptics of bias and fallacies
JoNova (Australia)
If psychologists want to be taken seriously, and want psychology to be called “a science”, they need to elect a director who knows what science is.
The Climate Study group in Australia published a half page advert in The Australian last week – Psychology and Climate Alarm: how fear and anxiety trump evidence. In reply, Prof Lyn Littlefield, Executive Director of the Australian Psychology Society wrote a letter to The Australian
protesting — claiming that the Climate Study Group are the ones
suffering from the confirmation bias they accuse climate scientists of.
Littlefield seems to think that scientists are robots. She talks of “vested interests” of the skeptics, but is blind to the 3500:1 ratio of funding for climate “belief”. Then she accuses skeptics of cherry picking and bias. It’s projection, projection all the way down.
The world cooled for 37 years while CO2 rose. Does that matter? No, says Lyn, the Royal Society was founded in 1662. Welcome to a conversation with a blind believer. Seriously, the good scientific psychologists need to speak up lest the fawning confused believers in their profession stay glued to the public mouth-piece. (Lucky Jose Duarte has spoken, and Littlefield should read his blog. Where are the other good psychs?)
Littlefield wants to talk “fallacies”, so let’s take her “jumping to conclusions” fallacy and raise it. Those who jump to assume long reports from human committees are “facts” are falling for the fallacy known as “argument from authority”. Real scientists look at the data — which is exactly what the Climate Study Group did."
If psychologists want to be taken seriously, and want psychology to be called “a science”, they need to elect a director who knows what science is.
Executive Director: Professor Lyn Littlefield OAM FAPS
“The advertisement, ‘Psychology and
the New Climate Storm’ misuses psychology-based arguments to add
credibility to myths and misinformation about climate change. In doing
so, the authors illustrate aptly the very error bias (confirmation bias)
they are erroneously attributing to the climate science community.”
It’s the “the pot calling the kettle black”, exclaims Littlefield.
But since her arguments are entirely fallacies, this is the kettle
calling the pot calling the kettle black. The Climate Study Group
mentioned many scientific observations, and in reply Lyn Littlefield
can’t find an error in any of them, she can only cite “the consensus”.
So instead of using a thermometer to measure the temperature, she wants
to use keyword studies in abstracts of publications, and pronouncements
of sub-committees of scientific associations. Hey, it’s not like
consensuses have been wrong before, or grants committees, journal
editors, and scientists could possibly have any personal motivations,
training deficits, or biases, right? But who would expect a psychologist
to spot those…Littlefield seems to think that scientists are robots. She talks of “vested interests” of the skeptics, but is blind to the 3500:1 ratio of funding for climate “belief”. Then she accuses skeptics of cherry picking and bias. It’s projection, projection all the way down.
The world cooled for 37 years while CO2 rose. Does that matter? No, says Lyn, the Royal Society was founded in 1662. Welcome to a conversation with a blind believer. Seriously, the good scientific psychologists need to speak up lest the fawning confused believers in their profession stay glued to the public mouth-piece. (Lucky Jose Duarte has spoken, and Littlefield should read his blog. Where are the other good psychs?)
Littlefield wants to talk “fallacies”, so let’s take her “jumping to conclusions” fallacy and raise it. Those who jump to assume long reports from human committees are “facts” are falling for the fallacy known as “argument from authority”. Real scientists look at the data — which is exactly what the Climate Study Group did."
Saturday, 8 August 2015
Validation Of A Climate Model Is Mandatory: The Invaluable work of Dr. Vincent Gray
WUWT
No computer model has ever been validated. An early draft of Climate Change 95 had a Chapter titled “Climate Models – Validation” as a response to my comment that no model has ever been validated. They changed the title to “Climate Model – Evaluation” and changed the word “validation” in the text to “evaluation” no less than describing what might need to be done in order to validate a model.
Without a successful validation procedure, no model should be considered to be capable of providing a plausible prediction of future behaviour of the climate."
Fudging To Assure Reliability Masquerading As Validation
Attempts at validation during the 120 years of the instrumental period also proved problematic for the same reasons as for the historical record. A major challenge was the cooling period from 1940 to 1980 because it coincided with the greatest increase in human production of CO2. This contradicted the most basic assumption of the AGW hypothesis that a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase. Freeman Dyson described the practice, generally described as “tweaking”, and discussed in several WUWT articles. It is the practice of covering up and making up evidence designed to maintain the lies that are the computer models.
They sought an explanation in keeping with their philosophy that any anomaly, or now a disruption, is, by default, due to humans. They tweaked the model with human sourced sulfate, a particulate that blocks sunlight and produces cooling. They applied it until the model output matched the temperature curve. The problem was after 1980 warming began again, but sulfate levels continued. Everything they do suffers from the T. H. Huxley truth; “The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
As Gray explained,
Instead of validation, and the traditional use of mathematical statistics, the models are “evaluated” purely from the opinion of those who have devised them. Such opinions are partisan and biased. They are also nothing more than guesses."
No computer model has ever been validated. An early draft of Climate Change 95 had a Chapter titled “Climate Models – Validation” as a response to my comment that no model has ever been validated. They changed the title to “Climate Model – Evaluation” and changed the word “validation” in the text to “evaluation” no less than describing what might need to be done in order to validate a model.
Without a successful validation procedure, no model should be considered to be capable of providing a plausible prediction of future behaviour of the climate."
Fudging To Assure Reliability Masquerading As Validation
Attempts at validation during the 120 years of the instrumental period also proved problematic for the same reasons as for the historical record. A major challenge was the cooling period from 1940 to 1980 because it coincided with the greatest increase in human production of CO2. This contradicted the most basic assumption of the AGW hypothesis that a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase. Freeman Dyson described the practice, generally described as “tweaking”, and discussed in several WUWT articles. It is the practice of covering up and making up evidence designed to maintain the lies that are the computer models.
They sought an explanation in keeping with their philosophy that any anomaly, or now a disruption, is, by default, due to humans. They tweaked the model with human sourced sulfate, a particulate that blocks sunlight and produces cooling. They applied it until the model output matched the temperature curve. The problem was after 1980 warming began again, but sulfate levels continued. Everything they do suffers from the T. H. Huxley truth; “The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
As Gray explained,
Instead of validation, and the traditional use of mathematical statistics, the models are “evaluated” purely from the opinion of those who have devised them. Such opinions are partisan and biased. They are also nothing more than guesses."
Friday, 7 August 2015
Cooling Atlantic Trend: Iceland Sees Coldest Summer in More Than 20 Years… “Cold Period Taking Over”
NoTricksZone
The Iceland Monitor website here writes the North Alantic island is having its coldest summer in more than 20 years."
The Iceland Monitor website here writes the North Alantic island is having its coldest summer in more than 20 years."
How Climate Scientists Cheat And Deceive
NALOPKT
Apparently some CNN hack has written an article about deniers in Oklahoma. It is a long, rambling piece, with the usual cliches about creationism, 97%, settled science, droughts, blah, blah.
Paul Matthews has a good summary here.
But he alerts me to one particular section where the ubiquitous Katharine Hayhoe crops up with some astonishingly dishonest comments. Seasoned Hayhoe watchers will no doubt be aware of her regular attempts to mislead by, for instance, ignoring climate history from the inconvenient past. Nevertheless, she really hits new lows this time: .................
For Hayhoe to claim that sceptics commonly misuse error filled satellite data to disprove global warming is dishonest bunkum unworthy of a proper scientist. Even NOAA, who organised this paper, with Tom Karl the Chief Editor, admitted back in 2006 that the earlier errors no longer existed and that the new datasets showed no discrepancies.
Nobody is arguing that satellite data is perfect, and we know that surface data certainly is not. But the increasing divergence of satellite and surface temperatures in recent years is a serious and embarrassing issue for the climate establishment. For Hayhoe to attempt to try to hide this by building strawmen is an abuse of her position, and shows that she can no longer be regarded as a serious scientist."
Apparently some CNN hack has written an article about deniers in Oklahoma. It is a long, rambling piece, with the usual cliches about creationism, 97%, settled science, droughts, blah, blah.
Paul Matthews has a good summary here.
But he alerts me to one particular section where the ubiquitous Katharine Hayhoe crops up with some astonishingly dishonest comments. Seasoned Hayhoe watchers will no doubt be aware of her regular attempts to mislead by, for instance, ignoring climate history from the inconvenient past. Nevertheless, she really hits new lows this time: .................
For Hayhoe to claim that sceptics commonly misuse error filled satellite data to disprove global warming is dishonest bunkum unworthy of a proper scientist. Even NOAA, who organised this paper, with Tom Karl the Chief Editor, admitted back in 2006 that the earlier errors no longer existed and that the new datasets showed no discrepancies.
Nobody is arguing that satellite data is perfect, and we know that surface data certainly is not. But the increasing divergence of satellite and surface temperatures in recent years is a serious and embarrassing issue for the climate establishment. For Hayhoe to attempt to try to hide this by building strawmen is an abuse of her position, and shows that she can no longer be regarded as a serious scientist."
Global Coal Boom Accelerating Despite Obama’s Green Posturing
WUWT
All this underscores the foolishness and futility of the Obama climate-change regulations designed to drastically reduce coal production in the U.S. As we use less and the rest of the world uses more, the impact on global temperatures will be very close to zero.
Coal production in the U.S. is much safer and less carbon-intensive (clean coal technologies have reduced pollutants by 30%) than coal from other nations. So Obama’s war on coal may make global warming worse.
Some might say this gesture by the Obama administration to cut off coal production in the U.S. is a useful first step to save the planet. Except this isn’t just a cheap sign of goodwill.
It’s a tremendously expensive gesture that will cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise utility prices by as much as $1,000 per family and reduce GDP by as much half a percentage point a year when we are already barely growing. The poor will be hurt most.
What makes the Obama administration regulations doubly destructive is that the U.S. has more coal than any other nation.
With at least 300 years of supply at a value of trillions of dollars, we are truly the Saudi Arabia of coal. To leave it in the ground would be like Obama telling Nebraska to stop growing corn, Idaho to stop growing potatoes and Silicon Valley to give up on the digital age."
All this underscores the foolishness and futility of the Obama climate-change regulations designed to drastically reduce coal production in the U.S. As we use less and the rest of the world uses more, the impact on global temperatures will be very close to zero.
Coal production in the U.S. is much safer and less carbon-intensive (clean coal technologies have reduced pollutants by 30%) than coal from other nations. So Obama’s war on coal may make global warming worse.
Some might say this gesture by the Obama administration to cut off coal production in the U.S. is a useful first step to save the planet. Except this isn’t just a cheap sign of goodwill.
It’s a tremendously expensive gesture that will cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise utility prices by as much as $1,000 per family and reduce GDP by as much half a percentage point a year when we are already barely growing. The poor will be hurt most.
What makes the Obama administration regulations doubly destructive is that the U.S. has more coal than any other nation.
With at least 300 years of supply at a value of trillions of dollars, we are truly the Saudi Arabia of coal. To leave it in the ground would be like Obama telling Nebraska to stop growing corn, Idaho to stop growing potatoes and Silicon Valley to give up on the digital age."
The real 'deniers’ in the climate change debate are the warmists
Christopher Booker, Telegraph
Among the more useful things psychologists
have come up with in helping us to understand the world is what they
call “projection” – that tendency in people who are not seeing the world
straight to “project” on to others the very failings they suffer from
themselves.
One prominent example
of this has been the contemptuous itch of those who passionately believe
that the world faces a catastrophe from global warming to dismiss
anyone daring to question their beliefs as a “denier”. In fact, it has
long been obvious that the only real “deniers” on the climate front are
those true believers themselves, who cannot face up to all the evidence
which makes their scare story ever less convincing."
Obama’s $2.5 trillion plan to kill jobs, coal, make a 0.1% reduction in CO2, and cool world by zero degrees
JoNova (Australia)
Welcome to the fairy-land world where we try to control the weather with our electrical generation sources.
Obama’s new plan to stop storms and hold back the tide could make the US poorer by as much as $2.5 trillion dollars, but will not make any difference to the global climate even if it is carried out (somehow) and even if the highly immature, overly politicized science is “right” (despite the evidence). The plan is for the U.S. to cut overall electrical power plant emissions by 32 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels.
This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100."
Welcome to the fairy-land world where we try to control the weather with our electrical generation sources.
Obama’s new plan to stop storms and hold back the tide could make the US poorer by as much as $2.5 trillion dollars, but will not make any difference to the global climate even if it is carried out (somehow) and even if the highly immature, overly politicized science is “right” (despite the evidence). The plan is for the U.S. to cut overall electrical power plant emissions by 32 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels.
This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100."
Obama’s green energy plan is a suicide note for the US economy. But you won’t hear that on the BBC
This expert assessment from Australian commentator Jo Nova suggests that the Obama vanity project will cost the American economy a staggering $2.5 trillion, put a million people out of work...and for what? At best, it will achieve a reduction of 0.1 per cent in world CO2 emissions and not change the temperature one iota. Another economic assessment of the massive true cost of ‘renewables’ is here. ........"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)