New paper debunks "acidification" scare, finds warming increases pH

The Hockey Schtick
A paper published today in Climate of the Past reconstructs water pH and temperature from a lake in central Japan over the past 280,000 years and clearly shows that pH increases [becomes more basic or alkaline] due to warmer temperatures, and vice-versa, becomes more acidic [or "acidified" if you prefer] due to cooling temperatures. This finding is the opposite of the false assumptions behind the "ocean acidification" scare, but is compatible with the basic chemistry of Henry's Law and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans with warming. 

Thus, if global warming resumes after the "pause," ocean temperatures will rise along with CO2 outgassing, which will make the oceans more basic, not acidic. You simply cannot have it both ways:

"Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense. 

Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense. 

Take your pick – REAL SCIENCE says you can’t have both."

In addition, the paper shows that pH of the lake varied over a wide range from ~7.5 to 8.8 simply depending on the temperature of each month of the year. As the "acidification" alarmists like to say, a variation of 1.3 pH units is equivalent to a 1995% change in hydrogen ions due to the logarithmic pH scale, just over a single year! Summer months are of course associated with warmer temperatures and more alkaline, higher pH and winter months associated with colder temperatures and much more "acidified" lower pH values. Note also how pH varies widely over ~7.5 to 8.8 simply dependent on the depth at a given time, because colder deeper waters can hold higher partial pressures of CO2 than the warmer surface waters:   ..."

NOAA Report Destroys Global Warming Link To Extreme Weather

Forbes
Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have demolished claims by global warming activists that global warming caused or worsened many extreme weather events last year.
According to NOAA’s new publication, Explaining Extremes of 2013 from a Climate Perspective, there is no discernible connection between global warming and 2013 extreme weather events such as the California drought, Colorado floods, the UK’s exceptionally cold spring, a South Dakota blizzard, Central Europe floods, a northwestern Europe cyclone, and exceptional snowfall in Europe’s Pyrenees Mountains.
The California drought provides a good example of global warming activists making false and irresponsible claims regarding global warming to deliberately mislead people who aren’t familiar with scientific studies and evidence. The liberal Center for American Progress and its media allies such as the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News, Associated Press, and others have all published stories claiming global warming caused or worsened the ongoing California drought. Scientists, however, say just the opposite. “[F]or the California drought, which was investigated by three teams from the United States, human factors were found not to have influenced the lack of rainfall,” NOAA reported in an accompanying press release."

I have a computer model

Bishop Hill
I have a computer model, which I use for predicting the weather. The algorithm is fairly straightforward and goes something like this:

It will rain tomorrow.

(Round where I live that's likely to be a pretty effective prediction.)
Anyway, if I run my computer model repeatedly, I find that 100% of the runs give the same result - "It will rain tomorrow". I conclude, therefore, that we can say with 100% confidence that it will rain tomorrow. ............"

Global warming: Can Owen Paterson save us from an unimaginable energy disaster?

Christopher Booker, Telegraph

There is no way of meeting the Climate Change Act's targets, except by closing down Britain's entire economy"

Using 1999 GISS Data, Global Warming Trend Since 1866 Only 0.5°C Per Century!

NoTricksZone
We are told over and over again that the globe has warmed by 0.8°C since 1880 or 1850. Lately we have seen article after paper after publication that states this number in Fahrenheit, 1.44°F, because that sounds larger. But is this number correct? What is it based on?

New paper finds West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat below

The Hockey Schtick
A paper published today in Earth and Planetary Science Letters finds evidence that one of the largest glaciers in West Antarctica, the Thwaites Glacier, is primarily melting from below due to geothermal heat flux from volcanoes located along the West Antarctic Volcanic Rift System, i.e. not due to man-made CO2.

CAGW proponents have alleged that West Antarctic glaciers such as such as the Thwaites Glacier and the neighboring Pine Island Glacier are rapidly melting due to man-made greenhouse gases and/or ocean heating, despite observations showing the air temperature in the Antarctic hasn’t risen since 1979, Antarctic sea surface temperatures have fallen since 2006, and ARGO ocean heat content of the Southern Ocean shows no increase at any level of the top 2000 meters since the system was put in place in 2004. The authors find the neighboring Pine Island Glacier also overlies the same volcanic rift system and thus may also be melting from geothermal heat below. 

The West Antarctic Volcanic Rift System is illustrated by JoNova below, and just so happens to correspond to the areas of notable glacier melt and alleged warming. In contrast, East Antarctica, which holds > 80% of Antarctic ice mass and does not have any known underlying volcanoes, is significantly increasing in ice mass. 

The paper joins several others finding geothermal heat largely if not entirely responsible for glacier melt in multiple regions in both Antarctica and Greenland, i.e. not anthropogenic. "

Almost Five Years Since Barack Obama Killed The Space Program

Real Science
It has been nearly five years since President Obama killed the space program. so that the formerly great agency could focus on junk science and CO2 based superstition."

ED: from the comments:

Yes, he did. With a stroke of his pen, Obama flushed the $10+ billion that taxpayers had invested in Constellation to that point. His alternative plan was to let startup space tech companies start over from scratch and propose a better rocket. My father in law was an executive at an aerospace manufacturer at the time, and I asked what he thought about it. He explained that all the other designs that were kicking around had already been evaluated and Constellation was the best around. There was absolutely no rational excuse for flushing that investment.
My father in law said that they see this occasionally during a change of administration. The new guy doesn’t want to carry through the old guy’s project and give him the “credit”, so they flush the old projects and start something the new guy can claim credit for. Obama showed this behavior quite clearly when he announced his “Brain Map” project (with ZERO new revenue earmarked to pay for it).
This kind of egotistical behavior is very harmful to science. Even if the Brain Map is a good idea, Obama doesn’t deserve credit for it. And stamping Obama’s name onto the project then not bringing any new money to the table only ensures that other deserving science goes unfunded.
Obama has been the most anti-science president in US history."

Desperate Warmists Try to Save their Skins by Throwing Alarmist 'Sea Ice' Professor to the Wolves

Breitbart
If ever you've worried about vanishing Arctic ice, the 'expert' almost certainly to blame is a Cambridge professor called Peter Wadhams. For years now, Wadhams has been the go-to doommonger of choice for any newspaper or green pressure group or huckster politician in need of a scare story about why the Arctic sea ice will very soon be a thing of the past, that it's all our fault and that basically we're all doomed. And because he's a professor from a highly respected university who just happens to specialise in studying sea ice and who has led more than 40 expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic people have tended to believe him.  ......Poor Peter Wadhams is being thrown to the wolves not because his science is flawed and unduly alarmist - it's quite obvious that his contemporaries have known this for quite some time - but rather because these unconscionable creeps need a handy sacrificial victim to distract from their corruption, incompetence and malpractice.The many journalists who so credulously reported on his nonsense deserve little credit either. In their eagerness to get a quick attention-grabbing story they not only failed in their basic duty to check the credibility of their sources but also they helped promulgate a myth which formed one of the main pillars of the great global warming narrative."

Bad News for the alarmists: 'Missing Heat' from Non-Existent 'Global Warming' isn't Hiding in the Ocean After All

Brietbart
Using a combination of satellite observations and direct measurements taken by a network of 3,000 floating Argo temperature probes, the NASA team set out to calculate temperature changes and thermal expansion in the deep ocean (below 1.24 miles).
What they have found is that the deep ocean has not warmed measurably since at least 2005.
This unfortunate discovery represents a major problem for the climate alarmists because the "missing heat" supposedly hiding in the deep oceans has long been their favoured explanation as to why there has been no measured "global warming" for the last 18 years."

New paper finds climate sensitivity to CO2 is only 0.43C, about 7 times less than the IPCC claims

The Hockey Schtick
A new paper published in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change by renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about 0.43C, about 7 times less than the IPCC claims, but in line with many other published low estimates of climate sensitivity. 

The paper further establishes that climate sensitivity to tiny changes in solar activity is comparable to that of CO2 and by no means insignificant as the IPCC prefers to claim. "

Global Warming – Even Less Worse Than It Seems

Real Science
Satellite data shows that the Earth hasn’t warmed much since they were launched in the late 1970s. But it is even “less worse” than that. Besides the fact that the start date of 1979 was one of the coldest years on record in the Northern Hemisphere, two volcanic eruptions on the left half of the temperature graph greatly exaggerate the trend, by artificially cooling the past.
The animation below removes those volcanic years except for 1983 – which I very conservatively adjusted upwards for the super El-Nino which occurred that year, but was masked by dust from El Chichon. As you can see, a realistic evaluation of temperature data shows that there has only been a tiny amount of warming since the very cold year of 1979  ......As an extra bonus, in 1975 the National Academy of Sciences showed no warming from 1900 to 1970."

California Drought – Almost As Dry as 1923 and 1976

Sunshine Hours
According to the NOAA, California Precipitation for Sept-Aug  is the 3rd lowest of all time behind 1923/24 and 1976/77.
It must be “Global Warming” caused by CO2 if it is almost as dry as 1923."

Australian summer maximums “warmed” by 200%

JoNova (Australia)
Which causes more summer heatwaves: carbon dioxide or Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) adjustments?
Ken Stewart has analyzed the adjustments used to create the all-new ACORN wonder dataset and compared them with another BOM dataset called AWAP, and finds, extraordinarily, that the trend in average summer maximums has been tripled by adjustments that the BOM imply are neutral.
Since summer maxima are the ones used to generate the most headlines in Australia, I ask again if the Bureau of Meteorology is a scientific agency or a PR group?  Increasing the trend in summer maxima would produce more headlines of hottest ever month, season, heatwave, and weekend.
In this graph Stewart splits the data into months, and compares the trends in maxima in the AWAP and ACORN datasets, across the entire nation. We see that most of the adjustments happen to data from the hottest months of the year, October to March. Even though the measured maxima in February and March are possibly cooler now than they were in the early 1900s, they have been adjusted to show warming trends.
When was the last time you heard the BOM tell you that their “hottest ever” February record depended on adjusting down the past hotter records?   ......We might be worried about “two degrees of warming” but people living in 1926 got two degrees of cooling some 88 years after the fact."

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #152

WUWT
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) "

'Where's the global warming?' Expert says public are growing sceptical of climate change

Express

This week saw the 18th anniversary since the Earth's temperature last rose - something that Dr Benny Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Forum, says experts are struggling to understand.
He explains that we are now in the midst of a "crisis of credibility" because the global warming - and accompanied 'Doomsday' effects - that we were once warned about has not happened.
Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) once predicted a temperature rise of 0.2 degrees per decade - but are now baffled by the fact our planet's temperature has not increased for almost two decades."