2015 the hottest year on record

[Wrecker45 3,378]

5 hours ago, ProDee said:

There are many indications that the 1940’s were as warmer or warmer than the present, and that government climate scientists intentionally erased the warmth.

They're scratching their heads as to why it was warmer and what they can do about it.  They simply started making "adjustments".  Because how could it be warmer then with less CO2 in the atmosphere ?  That's not helpful at all.

Obviously an exctract from the climatgate emails. Investigation after investigation has found nothing to answer.

Yet I read that and see concerted efforts to manipulate an outcome they are seeking.

 

[dieter 3,325]

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Obviously an exctract from the climatgate emails. Investigation after investigation has found nothing to answer.

Yet I read that and see concerted efforts to manipulate an outcome they are seeking.

 

Dear Wrecker and ProDee

You can present all the 'evidence' you like, the bottom line is that the Scientific community,as such, believes that the likes of you and Mr Roberto of the Hanson Rejects are preaching unscientific crap.

I hope you can live comfortably in your skins while the world fries because it ain't gonna affect you. Your grandchildren may remember you both as ignorant dogmatic yes sayers, the type that just upholds the status quo so we can make a buck or two in the short term.

 

[Gator 17,361]

Original scientific graphs were simply changed to suit a new global warming narrative.  It cooled between 1940 and 1978, but that was too "inconvenient".

 

[Gator 17,361]

...

Edited November 10, 2017 by ProDee

[dieter 3,325]

 

https://climatecrocks.com/2015/12/12/denier-for-hire-its-still-a-thing/

 

This is what Wrecker and Pro Dee should be advocating, not their collection of Climate Change Sceptics for Hire.

[Gator 17,361]

More incredible science theory.

Monday 17 September 2012 20.14 AEST

As sea ice shrinks to record lows, Prof Peter Wadhams warns a 'global disaster' is now unfolding in northern latitudes.

One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years.

"This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates".

Wadhams says the implications are "terrible". "The positives are increased possibility of Arctic transport, increased access to Arctic offshore oil and gas resources. The main negative is an acceleration of global warming."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice

Umm no.  He was only out by 4.64 million square kilometres.

2017 Arctic sea ice minimum (you know, summer) had 500,000 more square kilometres than a decade ago (2007).

But how can that be when the last decade has been the hottest on record.  How can sea ice defy temperature.

Answer ?

It can't.  It's simply defied NASA's fraudulent "adjustments". 

The Arctic sea ice minimum extent in 2017 was 1.23 million square kilometres greater than the year Prof Wadhams made his alarmist prediction.

Trigger warning.  This post is not a safe space for Lefties.  Too late.

Edited November 11, 2017 by ProDee

[Gator 17,361]

But hang on.  NASA and NOAA have shown that 1940 through to 1978 wasn't so cold after-all.   You mean they rewrote records to suit their global warming aim ?

1975 : Ice Age Coming – Global Cooling To Cause Terrorism And Nuclear Blackmail

 

[Gator 17,361]

Global Climate Monitoring: The Accuracy of Satellite Data

March 12, 1997

Recently, much scientific debate has focused on the global temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere as measured by orbiting satellites. And while these data are exceedingly precise, verified by multiple satellite observations, and balloon measurements taken in-situ, they reveal no discernable warming trend in the Earth's lower atmosphere over the last 18+ years.

OK

2017

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20^th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

 

OK.  Got it. 

In the 1997 top NASA article they say there's been "no warming for 18+ years" and in 2017 NASA says "unprecedented decades of warming since the mid-20th century".  Due to humans of course.  But what about the concerns for global cooling in 1975 ?

Only a deranged Leftist doesn't see hypocrisy here.

Especially when satellite data doesn't show warming for 20 years.  And minimum arctic sea ice extent is greater in 2017 than 2007. 

Edited November 11, 2017 by ProDee

[Gator 17,361]

Prof Peter Ridd: the Great Barrier Reef recovers, our science institutions are failing us, science needs to be checked

The coral reef recovers.

Peter Ridd: Coral Reefs recover — “the scientists make hay when it dies in a spectacular way but they are quiet when it recovers.”

On symbionts — “There is a large variety of symbionts and some allow coral to grow faster but are more sensitive to bleaching.”

All the corals on the Great Barrier Reef live and grow much faster in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Thailand where the water is much hotter than it is on the reef and the corals just juggle these symbionts.   4:20

Corals have a little thermometer built in them, when you take a core of them from many years ago we know what the temperature of the water was back when Captain Cook sailed up the coast, it was actually about the same temperature then. It was colder 100 years ago, but it has recovered from that. The temperatures on the reef are not even significantly warmer than average on a hundred year timescale.

Corals that bleach in one year will be less susceptible to bleaching in following years.

[Gator 17,361]

Dr. Richard Lindzen is anything but convinced by headlines claiming 2015 is the warmest year on record. He says what’s most important is that climate models have been over-predicting warming for more than 40 years.

“Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, tells the science blog Climate Depot. “Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?”

 “All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations,” Lindzen says. “Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity.”

Scientists with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared 2015 the hottest on record Wednesday, with the average global temperature reaching 0.87 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average.

Democrats and environmentalists used the news to push for more government action on global warming, but what they neglected to mention is temperatures were driven up last year by an incredibly strong El Niño — a naturally occurring warming event.

The strong El Niño briefly brought global temperatures to levels predicted by most climate models, but it’s likely that once the warming event goes away temperatures will move back down to levels well below what climate scientists say will happen if more carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere.

“But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen says.
Lindzen and other experts skeptical of hyped-up claims about man-made global warming argue those who claim 2015 is the hottest on record ignore the fact the changes in global temperature being observed are very small.

He also cautions that surface-based temperature readings — taken by weather stations, buoys, ships and other means — are subject to biases and errors that can make them highly unreliable. Lindzen has pointed out in the past that “70% of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well.”

“They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree,” he said in November. “Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”

Check out some of the badly sited weather stations collecting data:

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

Prof Peter Ridd: the Great Barrier Reef recovers, our science institutions are failing us, science needs to be checked

The coral reef recovers.

Peter Ridd: Coral Reefs recover — “the scientists make hay when it dies in a spectacular way but they are quiet when it recovers.”

On symbionts — “There is a large variety of symbionts and some allow coral to grow faster but are more sensitive to bleaching.”

All the corals on the Great Barrier Reef live and grow much faster in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Thailand where the water is much hotter than it is on the reef and the corals just juggle these symbionts.   4:20

Corals have a little thermometer built in them, when you take a core of them from many years ago we know what the temperature of the water was back when Captain Cook sailed up the coast, it was actually about the same temperature then. It was colder 100 years ago, but it has recovered from that. The temperatures on the reef are not even significantly warmer than average on a hundred year timescale.

Corals that bleach in one year will be less susceptible to bleaching in following years.

More sophistry from The Australian on coral reef science in wake of Great Barrier Reef bleaching

Bleached and algae covered coral at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, May 2016: Credit: XL Catlin Seaview Survey

If you’ve been reading The Australian recently, you might think that coral reef science is in some kind of crisis.

The Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper has been attempting to spin the worst coral bleaching event in the reef’s recorded history as a beat-up by environmentalists and high-profile scientists.

It isn’t.

The latest instalment came earlier today from the newspaper’s environment editor Graham Lloyd, under the print headline “The bleaching of parts of the reef is dividing the scientific world” and online under the headline “Great barrier battleground over coral bleaching.”

Lloyd seems to be trying to construct a narrative that the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and the subsequent death of about a quarter of all the corals has opened some sort of schism among scientists.

The bleaching, writes Lloyd, has “unleashed long-simmering tensions over the quality of reef research.”

This is, in my view, bollocks [sorry kids].

Lloyd includes three individuals to back up his claims. They have two things in common.

One is that none of them are anywhere close to being actual experts in coral biology.

The second thing Lloyd’s “experts” all have in common is a broad rejection of the science linking dangerous human-caused climate change to fossil fuel burning, something Lloyd does not mention.

Let’s look for a minute at who Lloyd quotes to back up his narrative.

First there is Prof Judith Curry, of Georgia Tech University, who has no peer-reviewed publications at all in relation to coral reefs.

Having a solid body of peer-reviewed research behind you in the relevant scientific field should be the pre-requisite for assigning “expertise”.

Curry is a favourite among climate science deniers for her view that human-caused climate change is a beat up.

Then there is the curious inclusion of Jim Steele, of San Francisco State University. According to that university’s website, Steele is “emeritus” – which means he is retired.

I cannot find a publication listing for Steele, but this biography suggests expertise in biology and, in particular, birds. In 2013, Steele released a book claiming that climate change was natural and not being caused by humans.

Then there is James Cook University’s Prof Peter Ridd, who is not a coral biologist. He has published work on how sediments and waters move around coral reefs, but I am told he has no expertise on the biology of corals.

Lloyd again neglects to mention Ridd’s work on projects to support the construction of fossil fuel export facilities along the Queensland coastline close to the reef.

Nether does he mention Ridd’s tendency towards climate science denialism.

Lloyd does get quotes from one actual expert on coral bleaching – arguably one of the the world’s foremost authorities on the issue, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of the University of Queensland.

Lloyd includes a discussion of Hoegh-Guldberg’s seminal 1999 paper on coral bleaching which warned that “present and future increases in sea temperature are likely to have severe effects on the world’s coral reefs within 20 – 30 years”.

Hoegh-Guldberg is currently at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Hawaii with a couple of thousand other reef and coral experts. He has read the story in The Australian, and told me:

What is curious for me is that Graham Lloyd chose to speak with Ridd, Curry and Steele, and not the scores of coral experts that are available in Australia and elsewhere.

When you look into the background of each individual, you find that Peter Ridd is a sedimentologist, Judith Curry a climatologist, and Jim Steele – a bird enthusiast who works in the Sierra Nevada – which at last count appears to be a long way from a coral reef.

I don’t think there is a single scientist at this meeting who will support the position taken by sedimentologist Peter Ridd or, for that matter, Curry and Steele.  That is pretty telling.

Not exactly your most qualified experts. None of them has published in the peer-reviewed literature on coral bleaching – they are simply not experts.

But in my view, not only did Lloyd choose people who were “simply not experts” but he also missed some key facts and nuance in his scrambled narrative.

For example, Lloyd looks at the issue of calcification rates of corals saying that “one paper claims there has been a 15 per cent decline in calcification rate between 1990 and 2005.”

Lloyd is referring to this 2009 Science paper by Dr Glenn De’ath, of the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS).

You can see if you follow that link that this paper was corrected by the authors in 2013, to show that calcification rates had actually dropped by a likely 11.4 per cent, rather than 14.1 per cent, as had originally been estimated (not 15 per cent, as Lloyd had written).

Lloyd cites “quality assurance work” carried out by Ridd (and published in the journal Marine Geology) that claimed to have found “two major flaws” in the 2009 De’ath et al paper. One of those flaws had been addressed in the correction, which Lloyd had not mentioned.

Neither had Lloyd mentioned that De’ath et al had actually responded to Ridd’s paper in the same Marine Geology journal and explained why they thought his criticisms were not valid.

Lloyd also raises the issue of historical coral bleaching, writing that “there is certainly documented evidence of earlier bleaching” than prior to 1980.

He cites a paper (actually a book chapter) from retired AIMS scientist Ray Berkelmans which pointed out that British scientists visiting the reef in 1929 witnessed bleaching.

But does this Berkelmans paper show that this 1929 event was evidence of “reef-wide bleaching” as Lloyd claims?

I asked Berkelmans, who retired from AIMS in March 2015. He told me:

We should not draw any conclusions from that 1929 event. We just don’t know how wide-spread it was. This was one observation at Low Isles – we don’t know if it was a patch of reef, if it was lo tide or just confined to the reef flat.

So does Berkelmans think his work, cited in The Australian, is evidence that mass coral bleaching is not a modern day phenomenon driven by global warming?

“No,” he said.

“There are of course early reports of bleaching – there was one in the US in the late 1890s. But we certainly know that since the 80s we are seeing many, many more [episodes of bleaching] and they are widespread and include widespread losses of coral.”

So the point is this.

Nobody has claimed that some corals have not occasionally bleached when under local stresses, such as high water temperatures or high pollution levels (Hoegh-Guldberg points to this 1993 paper to illustrate this).

The issue at hand is whether there has been mass coral bleachinghappening simultaneously across not only the Great Barrier Reef, but across multiple ocean basins around the globe, and that this is a new phenomena. The answer to that, from all genuine experts, seems to be yes.

So is there debate in the scientific literature about the precise nature of coral bleaching and the multiple and interweaving factors that contribute to it? Of course there is.

But does this mean that the current bleaching event has opened up some kind of schism among marine scientists that is distinct from the everyday cut and thrust of science? No.

 

[Gator 17,361]

Admissions from Alarmists

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” 
– Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
 

[Gator 17,361]

At UN Summit, World Rulers Adopt Agenda for Global Socialism

Written by  Alex Newman·

A far-reaching United Nations plot to re-engineer civilization and impose global socialism on humanity, variously dubbed “Agenda 2030” and the “Sustainable Development Agenda,” was ushered in on Friday with a “thunderous standing ovation,” the UN Department of Public Information reported. Every one of the 193 UN member governments on the planet — from communist and Islamist dictatorships to those ruling what remains of the “Free World” — vowed to help impose the UN's controversial goals on their subjects. Indeed, according to the UN and the global agreement itself, not a single human being will be allowed to escape what one prominent internationalist ominously referred to as the next “Great Leap Forward.”    

That the UN Agenda 2030's 17 so-called “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) and its accompanying 169 targets are essentially a recipe for global socialism and corporatism is hardly open for dispute, as countless analysts have pointed out in recent weeks. Goal number 10, for example, calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.” The brutal communist dictatorship ruling mainland China even boasted of its “crucial role” in creating the UN agenda. But as the UN document makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is simply not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries.

In other words, Western taxpayers: Prepare to be fleeced so that your wealth can redistributed internationally. Of course, as has been the case for generations, most of the wealth extracted from the productive sector in what remains of the free world will be redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes that will be propped up with more Western aid. More than a few governments and dictators also announced that they would be “aligning their national development plans with the Sustainable Development Agenda,” essentially ensuring a growing supply of poor people to exploit as a pretext for more UN-led global socialism.     

The UN document, formally entitled “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” was adopted on Friday, September 25, at the start of the UN's three-day Summit on Sustainable Development in New York. Speaking at the opening ceremony of the confab, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon hinted at just how far-reaching the plot really is. “The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere,” he explained, presumably conflating “leaders” with mass-murdering gangsters such as Kim Jong Un, Raul Castro, and Robert Mugabe who somehow managed to seize control over entire nations. “It is a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.”

Edited November 12, 2017 by ProDee

[dieter 3,325]

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

Dr. Richard Lindzen is anything but convinced by headlines claiming 2015 is the warmest year on record. He says what’s most important is that climate models have been over-predicting warming for more than 40 years.

“Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, tells the science blog Climate Depot. “Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?”

 “All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations,” Lindzen says. “Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity.”

Scientists with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared 2015 the hottest on record Wednesday, with the average global temperature reaching 0.87 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average.

Democrats and environmentalists used the news to push for more government action on global warming, but what they neglected to mention is temperatures were driven up last year by an incredibly strong El Niño — a naturally occurring warming event.

The strong El Niño briefly brought global temperatures to levels predicted by most climate models, but it’s likely that once the warming event goes away temperatures will move back down to levels well below what climate scientists say will happen if more carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere.

“But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen says.
Lindzen and other experts skeptical of hyped-up claims about man-made global warming argue those who claim 2015 is the hottest on record ignore the fact the changes in global temperature being observed are very small.

He also cautions that surface-based temperature readings — taken by weather stations, buoys, ships and other means — are subject to biases and errors that can make them highly unreliable. Lindzen has pointed out in the past that “70% of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well.”

“They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree,” he said in November. “Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”

Check out some of the badly sited weather stations collecting data:

Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen   Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.   Quotes   Articles   Arguments   Blogs   Links   Search   Quotes by Richard Lindzen Climate Myth What the Science Says ""We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming"" 25 July 2012 (Source) This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia. "If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something." 30 April 2012 (Source) A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points. "Only with positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds does one get the large warmings that are associated with alarm. What the satellite data seems to show is that these positive feedbacks are model artifacts." 22 February 2012 (Source) Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative. "...one can see no warming since 1997." 22 February 2012 (Source) Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded. "As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years." 22 February 2012 (Source) Phil Jones was misquoted. "You have to remember, this is an issue where what most scientists agree on has nothing to do with the alarm. I think the real problem is so many scientists have gone along with it without pointing out that what has been established reasonably well has nothing to do with the urgency that’s being promoted, which is largely a political matter." 6 April 2011 (Source) A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points. "In the North Pole, you don’t have a [ice] cap, you have sea ice; it’s very variable. And as far as Greenland and Antarctica go, there’s no evidence of any significant change. I mean, you know, again your measurements aren’t that great, but any reports you hear are again focusing on tiny changes that would have no implication." 6 April 2011 (Source) Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and summer or multi-year sea ice might be all gone within a decade. "The crucial thing is sensitivity: you know, what do you expect a doubling of CO2 to do? If it's only a degree, then you could go through at least two doublings and probably exhaust much of your fossil fuel before you would do anything that would bother anyone." 6 April 2011 (Source) Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. "[Emissions cuts] would be a moral disaster, because it would mean that much of the world would preclude development and so they'd be more vulnerable to the disasters that occur regardless of man [...] Your vulnerability increases as your wealth decreases." 6 April 2011 (Source) Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change. "The evidence is pretty good that even if everyone [cut emissions] in the whole world it wouldn't make a lot of difference." 6 April 2011 (Source) If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale. "It's a heavy cost for no benefit, and it's no benefit for you, no benefit for your children, no benefit for your grandchildren, no benefit for your great-great-great-great-grandchildren. I mean, what's the point of that?" 6 April 2011 (Source) The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over. "For Australia to act now is, you know, a bit bizarre, and certainly cannot be justified by any impact it would have on Australia or anyone." 6 April 2011 (Source) A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points. "I think even Flannery acknowledged that Australia doing this [a carbon tax] would have no discernible impact for virtually a millennium, even if Australia's output during that millennium was increasing exponentially." 6 April 2011 (Source) CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels "If we doubled CO2, it's well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened. [...] But 1 degree is reckoned as not very significant. The question then is: is what we've seen so far suggesting that you have more than that, and the answer is no." 6 April 2011 (Source) Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. "If we doubled CO2, it's well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened." 6 April 2011 (Source) Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. "The models do say you should have seen 2-5 times more than you've already seen, you know, you have to then accept, if you believe the models, that you actually should have gotten far more warming than you've seen, but some mysterious process has cancelled part of it." 6 April 2011 (Source) This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia. "If nothing else changed, adding the amount of CO2 that we've added thus far should account for maybe a quarter of what we've seen." 6 April 2011 (Source) Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change. "There's not too much disagreement that there has been a very small increase in temperature [...] This is pretty tiny; it's a fraction of a degree." 6 April 2011 (Source) A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate. "If it's greenhouse warming, you get more warming in the middle of the troposphere, the first 10, 12 kilometres of the atmosphere than you do at the surface. There are good theoretical reasons for that, having to do with how the greenhouse works." 12 December 2010 (Source) We see a clear "short-term hot spot" - there's various evidence for a "long-term hot spot". "CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving..." 26 November 2008 (Source) Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant "There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995." 11 March 2008 (Source) Statistical significance requires sufficient timescales but many lines of evidence indicate global warming is still happening. "the main greenhouse gas is water vapor which is both natural in origin and highly variable in its distribution. In the absence of good records of water vapor we aren't even in a position to say how much total greenhouse gases have increased." 10 June 1997 (Source) Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse. "On the planet the most wonderful constituent is water with its remarkable thermodynamic properties. It's the obvious candidate for the thermostat of our system, and yet in most of these models, all water-related feedbacks are positive. I don't think we would have existed if that were true" 27 September 1989 (Source) Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. "In the current models, for reasons that puzzle almost everyone, the cloud feedbacks are positive rather than negative" 27 September 1989 (Source) Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative. "Water vapor is far and away the most important greenhouse gas, except for one form which isn't a greenhouse gas: clouds. Clouds themselves as liquid water are as important to the infrared budget as water vapor. Both swamp by orders of magnitude all the others. With CO2 one is talking about three watts per square meter at most, compared to a hundred or more watts per square meter for water" 27 September 1989 (Source) Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse. "in 1983 a panel of the National Academy of Sciences recommended a technique to validate climate models known as "fingerprinting"--efforts to find at least regional effects in modeling that are correct. This has turned out to be a disaster in methodology, because all the models differ even in their signs [directions] of predicted change, and they don't even agree on these features for the present climate" 27 September 1989 (Source) Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean. "It is interesting that before this last appearance of 'greenhouse warming' (1970 to present), there were actually quite a log of books on the coming ice age. Now a new set of books on the coming warming are hitting the stands" 27 September 1989 (Source) The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. "the models showing that warming will occur with increasing CO2 predict after-the-fact (post-predict) that since the 19th century we should have seen between about one and two degrees of warming" 27 September 1989 (Source) This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia. "What we have is data that says that maybe [warming] occurs, but it's within the noise....The point we have to keep in mind is that without any of this at all our climate would wander--at least within limits" 27 September 1989 (Source) Internal variability can only account for small amounts of warming and cooling over periods of decades, and scientific studies have consistently shown that it cannot account for the global warming over the past century. "The trouble is that the earlier data suggest that one is starting at what probably was an anomalous minimum near 1880. The entire record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree...I would say, and I don't think I'm going out on a very big limb, that the data as we have it does not support a warming" 27 September 1989 (Source) The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites. "Urbanization also creates problems in interpreting the temperature record. There is the problem of making corrections for the greater inherent warming over cities--in moving weather stations from a city to an outlying airport, for example" 27 September 1989 (Source) The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites. "I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small" 27 September 1989 (Source) Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change. Back to Climate Skeptics		00  :  00  :  97   The Consensus Project Website THE ESCALATOR (free to republish) Smartphone Apps iPhone Android Nokia
© Copyright 2017 John Cook

 

[Gator 17,361]

Another excellent discussion by Willie Soon, who can't believe the morons who believe that CO2, which is the equivalent of 4 cents in $10,000, is the driver of global warming.

Naturally, he believes solar activity is the driver.  WHICH IT IS.

(may have to scroll back to the beginning)

 

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

Another excellent discussion by Willie Soon, who can't believe the morons who believe that CO2, which is the equivalent of 4 cents in $10,000, is the driver of global warming.

Naturally, he believes solar activity is the driver.  WHICH IT IS.

(may have to scroll back to the beginning)

 

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

• Willie Soon is researcher at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Documents: Koch brothers foundation among groups that gave total of $1.25m

 

 

 

 Willie Soon does not accept that rising greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change, instead blaming the sun. Photograph: Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images

•  
•  
•  
• View more sharing options

 This article is 2 years old

Shares

14,707

Comments

878

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent

@suzyji

Sunday 22 February 2015 08.32 AEDTFirst published on Sunday 22 February 2015 08.14 AEDT

A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.

The documents draw new attention to the industry’s efforts to block action against climate change – including President Barack Obama’s power-plant rules.

Lobbyist dubbed Dr Evil behind front groups attacking Obama power rules

 

 

Read more

Unlike the vast majority of scientists, Soon does not accept that rising greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial age are causing climate changes. He contends climate change is driven by the sun.

In the relatively small universe of climate denial Soon, with his Harvard-Smithsonian credentials, was a sought after commodity. He was cited admiringly by Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who famously called global warming a hoax. He was called to testify when Republicans in the Kansas state legislature tried to block measures promoting wind and solar power. The Heartland Institute, a hub of climate denial, gave Soon a courage award.

Soon did not enjoy such recognition from the scientific community. There were no grants from Nasa, the National Science Foundation or the other institutions which were funding his colleagues at the Center for Astrophysics. According to the documents, his work was funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel lobby.

“The question here is really: ‘What did API, ExxonMobil, Southern Company and Charles Koch see in Willie Soon? What did they get for $1m-plus,” said Kert Davies, a former Greenpeace researcher who filed the original freedom of information requests. Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center, of which Davies is the founder, shared the documents with news organisations.

“Did they simply hope he was on to research that would disprove the consensus? Or was it too enticing to be able to basically buy the nameplate Harvard-Smithsonian?”

From 2005, Southern Company gave Soon nearly $410,000. In return, Soon promised to publish research about the sun’s influence on climate change in leading journals, and to deliver lectures about his theories at national and international events, according to the correspondence.

The funding would lead to “active participations by this PI (principal investigator) of this research proposal in all national and international forums interested in promoting the basic understanding of solar variability and climate change”, Soon wrote in a report to Southern Company.

Harvard's high-profile alumni join fossil fuel divestment campaign in open letter

 

 

Read more

In 2012, Soon told Southern Company its grants had supported publications on polar bears, temperature changes in the Arctic and China, and rainfall patterns in the Indian monsoon.

ExxonMobil gave $335,000 but stopped funding Soon in 2010, according to the documents. The astrophysicist reportedly received $274,000 from the main oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, and $230,000 from the Charles G Koch Foundation. He received an additional $324,000 in anonymous donations through a trust used by the Kochs and other conservative donors, the documents showed.

Greenpeace has suggested Soon also improperly concealed his funding sources for a recent article, in violation of the journal’s conflict of interest guidelines.

“The company was paying him to write peer-reviewed science and that relationship was not acknowledged in the peer-reviewed literature,” Davies said. “These proposals and contracts show debatable interventions in science literally on the behalf of Southern Company and the Kochs.”

In letters to the Internal Revenue Service and Congress, Greenpeace said Soon may have misused the grants from the Koch foundation by trying to influence legislation.

Soon did not respond to requests for comment. But he has in the past strenuously denied his industry funders had any influence over his conclusions.

“No amount of money can influence what I have to say and write, especially on my scientific quest to understand how climate works, all by itself,” he told the Boston Globe in 2013.

As is common among Harvard-Smithsonian scientists, Soon is not on a salary. He receives his compensation from outside grant money, said Christine Pulliam, a spokeswoman for the Center for Astrophysics.

World's biggest PR firm calls it quits with American oil lobby – reports

 

 

Read more

The Center for Astrophysics does not require scientists to disclose their funding sources. But Pulliam acknowleged that Soon had failed to meet disclosure requirements of some of the journals that published his research. “Soon should have followed those policies,” she said.

Harvard said Soon operated outside of the university – even though he carries a Harvard ID and uses a Harvard email address.

“Willie Soon is a Smithsonian staff researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a collaboration of the Harvard College Observatory and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,” a Harvard spokesman, Jeff Neal, said.

“There is no record of Soon having applied for or having been granted funds that were or are administered by the University. Soon is not an employee of Harvard.”

Both Harvard and the Smithsonian acknowledge that the climate is changing because of rising levels of greenhouse gas concentrations caused by human activities.

Pulliam cast Soon’s association with the institutions as an issue of academic freedom: “Academic freedom is critically important. The Smithsonian stands by the process by which the research results of all of its scholars are peer reviewed and vetted by other scientists. This is the way that the scientific process works. The funding entities, regardless of their affiliation, have no influence on the research.”

Topics

• Climate change

[Gator 17,361]

A quick lesson on how this global warming madness started.

Bert Bolin a Swedish scientist was the first to talk about the dangers of CO2 in 1974 when global scientists were worried about global cooling.  He said fossil fuels and the increase in CO2 may help warm the planet by a few degrees over the next 50 years.  Originally considered absurd two things happened.  The temperatures started to warm, and the miners went on strike.  

The oil crisis of the 1970s plunged the world into recession and the miners brought down Ted Heath’s conservative government.  The beginning of the politicisation of energy was through Margaret Thatcher, who wanted nuclear energy.  She didn’t trust the Middle East and she didn’t trust the miners, therefore coal, so she wanted nuclear power (the fact we don't have it now is a scandal).  

When the concerns re CO2 were raised she saw a great opportunity to go nuclear.  She wasn’t really concerned about the destruction of the planet.  Thatcher went to the Royal Society of scientists and said there’s money on the table to prove this stuff.  Naturally, they did.  

And we’re left with this global madness driven by fund addicted scientists and enabled by deranged Leftists, whose new religion is the climate.
 

[Gator 17,361]

Here's one of James Hansen's from NASA temperature graphs from 1981.  Note the cooling from 1940 to 1980.

Now note the current NASA 20th century temperature graph.  The cooling from 1940 to 1980 has been erased.

Same organisation.  Both NASA graphs of 20th century temperature data.  Two different messages.  It's fraudulent data manipulation that Leftists turn a blind eye to.  And why do they turn a blind eye ?

Because they are the most disingenuous swines to ever draw breath.

[Gator 17,361]

Matt Ridley is a British scientist who appeared on Foxtel's Outsiders program this morning.

He (mistakenly) believes that CO2 and humans are "probably" warming the planet.  But he's more concerned by radical government policies for this mistaken belief.  For this lukewarm attitude he is pilloried by alarmists and labelled a climate misinformer.  There is no hole for the Left.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Matt_Ridley_blog.htm

[Gator 17,361]

Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth

Gulp

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth/

It’s the sun, stupid! (106 papers stress solar influence on climate)

Before deranged Leftists have apoplexy re the source, they are just the "source".  Too hard, I know.

Your religion is a crock.

[Earl Hood 6,086]

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth

Gulp

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth/

It’s the sun, stupid! (106 papers stress solar influence on climate)

Before deranged Leftists have apoplexy re the source, they are just the "source".  Too hard, I know.

Your religion is a crock.

As I have said numerous times to all your skepticism on this subject, (and of course your not a denier)Just sit back and observe what is happening with the world's weather! Climate change is happening now and we are experiencing it across the globe, in extended droughts, intense storms, wildfires in the USA, the list goes on. But go study the data further for possible errors and ignore what's happening as we blog all this! 

[Jara 1,153]

Gotta love that Breitbart. All very objective, scientific. Nothing to do with funding the climate deniers receive from energy companies, Saudi Arabia, etc...

 

Like Earl says, just look at what's happening. ProDee, how do you explain Black Saturday (preferably without misleading graphs from Breitbart)?

[Gator 17,361]

10 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

As I have said numerous times to all your skepticism on this subject, (and of course your not a denier)Just sit back and observe what is happening with the world's weather! Climate change is happening now and we are experiencing it across the globe, in extended droughts, intense storms, wildfires in the USA, the list goes on. But go study the data further for possible errors and ignore what's happening as we blog all this! 

Of course climate changes, whether that be warming or cooling.  Who has denied this ?  It's always changing and always will.

We're presently having less hurricanes and they're no more intense.

The pause is now approx. 20 years despite NASA's fraudulent adjustment of data.

Some warming is BETTER than cooling.

Plus, CO2 lags temperature.  It doesn't drive temperature.

Humans are NOT warming the planet.  SOLAR ACTIVITY dictates climate.

You'll need to find a new religion.

[Earl Hood 6,086]

On 13 November 2017 at 9:30 AM, ProDee said:

Of course climate changes, whether that be warming or cooling.  Who has denied this ?  It's always changing and always will.

We're presently having less hurricanes and they're no more intense.

The pause is now approx. 20 years despite NASA's fraudulent adjustment of data.

Some warming is BETTER than cooling.

Plus, CO2 lags temperature.  It doesn't drive temperature.

Humans are NOT warming the planet.  SOLAR ACTIVITY dictates climate.

You'll need to find a new religion.

No I am into facts and measured data and observation, not sure what you work with? The 20 year pause, give me a break, 1998 was a hot year but as hot or hotter years of global average temperatures have occurred regularly in the 2000's. We are on track in 2017 for a top 3 hottest years ever recorded with no El Niño in operation by the way. But gee 98 was fricking hot, so what? 

Forget the the religious rubbish, you are the myopic ideologue here. What are your scientific qualifications and what scientific papers have you published to justify your statements of so called facts? You make a lot of polemic like assertions about the science based on what? All you do is cast aspersions on NASA and thousands of scientists who are working in the field, observing what is changing, collating data and interpreting what they are seeing, delivering scientific papers for peer assessment. But no I am supposed to listen to your ravings, give me a break! 

I am an engineer who works off facts and logic. I have no qualifications in the field of climate change so I don't know, but my response is to trust in those who do know, the scientific community and the respected agencies who report on climate change. If there is a conspiracy altering facts it is most likely to be coming from the vested interests in the fossil fuel industry than from corrupted university scientists. 

We have listened to deniers like you for 20 years and done nothing, now we need to act

[Gator 17,361]

1 hour ago, Earl Hood said:

No I am into facts and measured data and observation...

I am an engineer who works off facts and logic.

If there is a conspiracy altering facts it is most likely to be coming from the vested interests in the fossil fuel industry than from corrupted university scientists. 

We have listened to deniers like you for 20 years and done nothing, now we need to act.

This post is manna from heaven.  I now get to ask questions and hold you to account to each one. 

We begin.

Despite seeming like a deranged idealogue you have excellent qualifications to argue fact.  So I'll give you some.  Btw, I'm an amateur observer with no scientific qualifications, so you won't find this hard.  Phew. 

But the facts I present below are well researched, not mine, and if you differ please advise.

I'm sure you'll indulge me by answering every question I'm about to pose with sound scientific reason.  If you don't know don't guess.  Remember there is NO consensus in science.  As the great Albert Einstein once said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right.  One experiment can prove me wrong".

I thank you in advance and please number every response.

1. Humans contribute approx. 3% of atmospheric CO2 and nature contributes 97%.  Do you agree ?

2. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is the equivalent of 4 cents in $10,000.  Do you agree ?

3. Out of this 4 cents in $10,000 humans contribute 3%, i.e. 0.12 cents.  Australia contributes 1.5% of that 0.12 cents, i.e. 0.0018 cents. Do you agree with these calculations, i.e. Australia contributes the equivalent of 0.0018 cents in $10,000 in the contribution of atmospheric CO2 ?

4. Do you think there are 100+ influences that contribute to climate change, i.e. solar activity, cosmic rays, ocean circulation, clouds, volcanoes, water vapour, El Niños, etc. or do you think that 0.04% of the atmosphere, i.e. CO2 is the sole driver of temperature ?

5. Do you think NASA has manipulated recent temperature graphs ?  If not, I'll prove they have.

6. Do you think NASA scientists have publicly agreed that there was no significant warming in the 20th century ?  If not, I'll prove they have.

7. Do you think climate scientists were worried about global cooling in the 1970's ?  If not, I'll prove they were.

8. Do you think solar activity, specifically sunspots, could be the driving force of climate change, like scientists prior to the fund addicted generation of the 1980s and beyond ?

8. Explain why we've had cooler periods with 10 times atmospheric CO2, i.e 4000 ppmv, as opposed to our present levels of 400 ppmv ?  If CO2 is the driver of temperature how is this possible ?

9. Ice cores from Antarctica prove that CO2 lags temperature.  Even alarmists acknowledge this was the case.  Do you agree or disagree ?

10. Arctic minimum sea ice extent is greater in 2017 than 2007 in supposedly hotter temperatures and the decade from hell.  Explain how sea ice extent defies temperature ?  Or is data being manipulated ?  If you requite proof of the last 10 years of minimum Arctic sea ice extent I can provide it.

I have more, but thought I'd start with an easy 10.

You and your engineering background should kill this and educate me.

Edited November 14, 2017 by ProDee