Global Warming or Global Bullshit?

[festeringZit]

[h=1]Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures[/h] [h=2]The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry[/h]

24K​

3K​

40​

205​

28K​

Email

The Yavari Valley rainforest, Peru Photo: Alamy








By Christopher Booker

8:14PM BST 25 Apr 2015

10860 Comments


Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

An adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.
Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.
Below, the raw data in graph form

For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.
Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.
But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.

 

[festeringZit]

[ Why would anybody in their right mind listen to a maggot like this? ]

[h=1]WIKILEAKS: ENVIRONMENTALIST LEONARDO DICAPRIO USED SONY PRIVATE JET LIKE A TAXI BETWEEN LA AND NYC[/h]
[h=2]Actor and staunch environmentalist Leonardo DiCaprio used the Sony private jet like a taxi service last year to transport his friends and family back and forth between Los Angeles and New York, according to new documents published by Wikileaks.[/h]Former Sony executive Amy Pascal reportedly approved hundreds of thousands of dollars to send DiCaprio, his mother, his manager, his brother, and his friends on multiple tours across the country.
As Showbiz411 put it, his group left a carbon footprint the size of Godzilla’s left foot.
DiCaprio, who has yet to make any movies for Sony pictures, was also flying from Los Angeles to Las Vegas for $26,000 per round trip on Sony’s tab.
The leaked emails revealed bill approvals for various trips in dollar amounts including $59,000, $37,206, and $63,600.
Catering and ground transportation we’re also provided for Leo and his crew.
Breitbart News reported in April that DiCaprio boarded a private jet six different times within six weeks last year.
A partnership between DiCaprio and Netflix was announced in March. The team will work together to create a series of environmental and conservation-themed documentaries.
The actor also announced last month his plans to transform his private island off the coast of Belize into an eco-resort and conservation area.
Leo attended the UN Climate Summit last September where he pleaded with world leaders to address climate change.
He said:

As an actor I pretend for a living. I play fictitious characters often solving fictitious problems.
I believe humankind has looked at climate change in that same way: as if it were a fiction, happening to someone else’s planet, as if pretending that climate change wasn’t real would somehow make it go away.
None of this is rhetoric, and none of it is hysteria. It is fact. The scientific community knows it, industry and governments know it, even the United States military knows it. The chief of the U.S. Navy’s pacific command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, recently said that climate change is our single greatest security threat.
​

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon awarded DiCaprio with the honorary Messenger of Peace title because of his “credible voice in the environmental movement.”

 

[festeringZit]

[video=youtube;bw2bkISm0Ys]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=54&v=bw2bkISm0Ys[/video]

 

[SheriffJoe]

Global Warming Skepticism On The Rise In Europe

Siv Jensen is seen as an anomaly in Norway. She’s the conservative finance minister of a country committed to fighting global warming, but she does not believe mankind is causing global temperatures to rise.

In a recent interview, Jensen said “no” when asked if she believed mankind was causing global warming. She then immediately doubled down by answering “yes” to the actual follow-up question, “Are you serious?”

Europeans seem to be getting tired of global warming alarmism. Skepticism of man-made warming from greenhouse gas emissions seems to be a growing trend in Europe.

A little farther north, in Germany, 15,000 German coal miners protested their country’s environmental policies last week which favor green energy sources, like wind and solar, over coal. Electricity in Germany has gotten so expensive that media outlets call it a “luxury good.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/global-warming-skepticism-on-the-rise-in-europe/

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]Australia PM adviser says climate change is 'UN-led ruse to establish new world order'[/h][h=2]Tony Abbott's business adviser says global warming a fallacy supported by United Nations to 'create a new authoritarian world order under its control'[/h]

Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council Photo: AP

Climate change is a hoax developed as part of a secret plot by the United Nationsto undermine democracies and takeover the world, a top adviser toTony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, has warned.

Maurice Newman, the chief business adviser to the prime minister, said the science showing links between human activity and the warming climate was wrong but was being used as a “hook” by the UN to expand its global control.

“This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN,” he wrote in The Australian.

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.” Born in Ilford, England, and educated in Australia, Mr Newman, a staunch conservative and former chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, has long been an outspoken critic of climate change science.

He was appointed chairman of the government’s business advisory council by Mr Abbott, who himself is something of a climate change sceptic and once famously described climate change as “absolute cr**” – a comment he later recanted.

In his comment piece – described by critics as “whacko” – Mr Newman said the world has been “subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years”.
“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error,” he wrote.
“The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook. Eco-catastrophists [ ...] have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House.”
Environmental groups and scientists described Mr Newman as a 'crazed’ conspiracy theorist and some called on him to resign.
“His anti-science, fringe views are indistinguishable from those made by angry trolls on conspiracy theory forums,” said the Climate Change Council.
Professor Will Steffen, a climate change scientist, told The Australian Financial Review: “These are bizarre comments that would be funny if they did not come from [Mr Abbott’s] chief business adviser.” Mr Abbott’s office did not respond but his environment minister said he did not agree with Mr Newman’s comments.
The article was written by Mr Newman to coincide with a visit by Christiana Figueres, the UN climate change negotiation, who has urged Australia to reduce its reliance on coal. Australia is one of the world’s biggest emitters of carbon emissions per capita.
Since his election in 2013, Mr Abbott has abolished Labor’s carbon tax, scaled back renewable energy targets and appointed sceptics to several significant government positions.

 

[NFLTrends]

Record Antarctic sea ice a logistic problem for scientists

http://news.yahoo.com/record-antarctic-sea-ice-logistic-problem-scientists-071717226.html

Growing sea ice surrounding Antarctica could prompt scientists to consider relocating research stations on the continent, according to the operations manager of the Australian Antarctic Division.


Rob Wooding said that resupplying Australia's Mawson Station -- the longest continuously operated outpost in Antarctica -- relied on access to a bay, a task increasingly complicated by sea ice blocking the way.

"We are noticing that the sea ice situation is becoming more difficult," Wooding told a media briefing on Monday ahead of two days of meetings between top Antarctic science and logistics experts in Hobart, the capital of Tasmania.

Wooding said that at Mawson, the ice typically only breaks up for one or two months of the summer, but in the last four to six years this has not happened every year, and some years only partially.

"In the 2013-4 season we couldn't get anywhere near Mawson due to the sea ice and we had to get fuel in there by helicopter which is inadequate for the long-term sustainability of the station," he said, adding that the French and Japanese had similar problems.

Wooding said Australia had not yet come close to shutting down a base because of sea ice, but had to look at "unusual measures" to keep operating.

Tony Worby, from an Australian centre studying Antarctic climate and ecosystems, said that in contrast to the Arctic where global warming is causing ice to melt and glaciers to shrink, sea ice around Antarctica was increasing.

It hit a new record in September last year, with the US-based National Snow and Ice Data Center reporting that the ice averaged 20.0 million square kilometres (7.72 million square miles) during the month.

Scientists have struggled to predict sea ice conditions, which are believed to be affected by the strong winds of the Southern Ocean which can push the ice out from the continent of Antarctica.

This does not happen in the Arctic because the ocean is hemmed in by land masses.

"We know that the changing Antarctic sea ice extent is very largely driven by changes in wind," Worby said.

Local conditions can also have a dramatic effect, with icebergs sometimes unpredictably grounding themselves in inconvenient locations and staying there for years as more sea ice builds around them.

Wooding said potential solutions included using large aircraft to deliver crucial fuel and other supplies to the outposts, as well as hovercraft, or funding other ways to resupply stations.

"I think a lot of it really will revolve around perhaps shifting more to an over-ice approach, or to even thinking about where your stations are located -- I think (that) is something that will have to be looked at over time as well," he said.

"There are some spots that may become more difficult for operations."

Worby said he did not believe the ice would become so thick that operations would become impossible.

But he told the briefing: "It's almost an inevitability that we are going to get ships stuck occasionally -- it's just the nature of working down in Antarctica."

He said because the ice was thickest around the continent, sometimes several metres, logistics teams could unload heavy equipment such as tractors off ships and drive them ashore.

Worby added that while Antarctic sea ice was increasing, the overall net trend remained modest while a significant component of the increase seen recently could be natural variability

 

[Acebb]

LMFAO, this delusional environmentalist thinks Obama is in climate change denial

[h=1]Obama’s Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial[/h]
And yet Mr. Obama — acting on his own, since these are all executive actions requiring nothing from Congress — has opened huge swaths of the Powder River basin to new coal mining. He’s still studying whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, though the country’s leading climate scientists have all told him it would be a disaster. And now he’s given Shell the green light, meaning that, as with Keystone, it will be up to the environmental movement to block the plan (“kayaktivists” plan to gather this weekend in Seattle’s harbor, trying to prevent Shell from basing its Arctic rigs there).

@)

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]Drought Blamed on Irreversible “Climate Change” Ends After Rainfall[/h]

“Global warming” proponents disproven by thunderstorms
Kit Daniels
Prison Planet.com
May 15, 2015
The drought affecting Texas that was blamed on irreversible “climate change” is now over thanks to recent statewide rain.

Credit: Angi English / Flickr

The U.S. Drought Monitor reveals that only small pockets of Texas are still undergoing drought conditions, in stark contrast to last year when the state was experiencing a severe drought which mainstream scientists blamed on permanent “global warming.”


“The climate scientists have been warning us for decades that, due to climate change, there is likely to be a desert emerging in the Southwest — including West Texas, the area where most of Austin’s water comes from,” global warming proponent Roger Baker wrote last year.
And about year ago CNN’s Donna Brazile infamously tweeted that “climate change is real” in response to the drought.
“Most southerners now experience only 2 seasons – hot & humid,” she wrote. “Drought is present in places that had plenty of H20.”
But the contrary, West Texas and other regions of the state just experienced rain storms lasting days.
“Reports from across the [West Texas] region indicate rainfall totals for the past week or so range from as little as just more than an inch to a foot or more,” Ron Smith with Southwest Farm Press reported. “Some fell in a short period of time, creating erosion and flooding problems, but farmers say they’ll take on the repair chores in exchange for much needed moisture in the soil profile.”
In fact, the U.S. Drought Monitor shows that on May 13, 2014, nearly 21% of Texas was under “exceptional drought” conditions, but on Tuesday that percentage was zero.
Overall, moderate to exceptional drought in Texas declined from 73% to just under 23% over the past year, a drop of over 50%.
It’s funny how “global warming” proponents are constantly disproven by the weather, and in a lame attempt to downplay their failed predictions, they are now trying to replace the phrase “global warming” with “man-made climate change.”
“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians,” MIT Professor Richard Lindzen admitted. “The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”

 

[beefdiesel]

It's all a scam. Nothing more.

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]After 10,000 years giant Antarctic ice-shelf will be gone by 2020, Nasa report says[/h][h=2]New Nasa studies warn of "bad news for our planet" as looming crack threatens to shatter Larsen B ice-shelf into pieces[/h]

A view of leading edge of remaining part of Larsen B ice shelf Photo: REUTERS


Antarctica's Larsen B ice-shelf is on course to disintegrate completely within the next five years, according to a new study by Nasa, the US space agency.

The 10,000-year-old ice shelf, which partially collapsed in 2002, is “quickly weakening” and likely to “disintegrate completely” before the end of the decade, researchers predicted, after observing warning signs including large developing cracks and faster-flowing tributary glaciers.

“These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating,” said Ala Khazendar of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California.

“Although it’s fascinating scientifically to have a front-row seat to watch the ice shelf becoming unstable and breaking up, it’s bad news for our planet. This ice shelf has existed for at least 10,000 years, and soon it will be gone.”

[SUP]The Larsen B ice shelf (AP/NASA)[/SUP]

The data for the study was collected by aircraft measuring ice surface elevations and bedrock depths and space-based “synthetic aperture radars” that have been operating since 1997. The Larsen B ice shelf is currently 625 square miles in area and 1,640ft at its thickest point.
The studies have shown that two of the three glaciers feeding Larsen B have sped up markedly since the shelf split in 2002, with scientists now predicting that a major crack is likely to move all the way across the shelf, splintering the remnants into icebergs that will float away.
• Antarctica reveals secrets as sea ice vanishes
The scientists fear that the cracking of the shelf could see the three glaciers – named Leppard, Flask and Starbuck – accelerate rapidly towards the ocean.
“After the 2002 Larsen B collapse, the glaciers behind the collapsed part of the shelf accelerated as much as eightfold – comparable to a car accelerating from 55 to 440mph,” said a Nasa release on the study published online in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

 

[festeringZit]

[ What a friggen maggot this piece of shit is. ]

[h=1]Kerry Compares His Courage To Lincoln, Churchill, Dr. King, Gandhi And Mandela[/h]

By Michael Dorstewitz, Biz Pac Review
Secretary of State John Kerry compared himself to Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln and other great historical luminaries for having the courage and tenacity to tackle the most heinous enemy plaguing mankind — climate change.

“My heroes are people who dared to take on great challenges without knowing for certain what the outcome would be,” Kerry said in an address to the Atlantic Council on Thursday.

“Lincoln took risks, Gandhi took risks, Churchill took risks, Dr. King took risks, Mandela took risks, but that doesn’t mean that every risk-taker is a role model.”

 

[scottcarter]

5/19/2015 @ 9:53AM

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat


Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all.

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

 

[NFLTrends]

5/19/2015 @ 9:53AM

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat


Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all.

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

when has any media recently reported anything that goes against their agenda?

 

[SheriffJoe]

BIDEN TO THE NAVY: ‘OUR FORCES WILL HAVE TO BE READY’ FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ces-will-have-to-be-ready-for-climate-change/

Using the military to fight the weather????

 

[festeringZit]

BIDEN TO THE NAVY: ‘OUR FORCES WILL HAVE TO BE READY’ FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ces-will-have-to-be-ready-for-climate-change/

Using the military to fight the weather????

Why is no one of the left calling out these maggots?

 

[festeringZit]

[ More bad news for the Global Warming scammers and the fucking brainless idiots that listen to them ]
[h=1]Former UN Lead Author: Global Warming Caused By ‘Natural Variations’ In Climate[/h]

Michael Bastasch



12:09 AM 05/22/2015

18332
712









Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.
Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century.
What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius– higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.

Ads by ZINC​

“This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations,” Lloyd wrote in his study.


Top 20 Celebrities Who Are Just Plain Ugly POPHitz

Dirty Jokes in Cartoons You Didn't Understand as a KidRanker.com

Container Ship Sinks, Destroys $53 Million In Luxury CarsMyFirstClassLife



by Taboola
Sponsored Links





The United Nations’ IPCC claims there’s been 0.85 degrees Celsius of warming since the late 1800s, and concludes that most of this warming is due to human activities– mainly, the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use. The IPCC says that “more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” have been caused by human activity.
If Lloyd’s results hold, the IPCC may have to revise how much warming it attributes to mankind. In any case, the IPCC’s estimate of man-made and natural warming (0.85 degrees) is still below the standard deviation for the last 8,000, according to Lloyd’s results. This means that warming is not very significant within the context of the Earth’s recent climate history.
Lloyd arrived at his conclusion after the “differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed.” Lloyd noted the “differences were close to normally distributed.”
But Lloyd’s study hits at a larger debate within climate science: how much warming is attributable to mankind or nature. Clearly, Lloyd and the IPCC he once contributed to now represent different ends of the spectrum.
“The key challenge in understanding climate change is to assess the natural climate variability,” Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in April.
At the time, Ronald Bailey, a science write for Reason magazine, wrote that there has still not been enough observed warming to meet the IPCC’s standard of “enhanced warming” — that is, warming above natural levels.
In his article, Bailey noted that there has not been enough temperature rise since the IPCC set its benchmark for “enhanced warming” in 1990. Curry noted that there was a big jump in temperature between 1993 and 1998, but that was basically because of the latter year’s El Niño.
“The magnitude of natural climate variability over the past 1000 years and even the past 100 years is hotly debated,” Curry added. “Personally, I think the role of natural climate variability has been substantially underestimated in our interpretation of recent climate change.”
But not all scientists agree with Bailey’s article, and some argue that signs of human influence on the Earth’s climate were evident in the 1970s. Indeed, by 1995 the IPCC stated that the “balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” The international body has only made stronger statement on man’s climatic influence ever since.
“I would not pin anything on what was said by IPCC in 1990,” Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told TheDCNF in April. “In the reports since then there have been thorough evaluations of past IPCC projections and whether they were out of line.”
Human influence on the climate may have been observable in the 1970s, but scientists have had trouble explaining why satellite data shows that average global temperatures have been virtually flat for more than 18 years. Satellites measure the troposphere — the lowest few miles of the atmosphere — in contrast, to surface temperature measurements, which most climate bodies rely on for estimates of global average temperature average.
But even surface temperature data showed a hiatus in warming for about 15 years or so. Scientists have offered up dozens of explanations for why global temperatures have been flat since the late 1990s. The most prominent explanation is that oceans have been absorbing most of the “heat” from increased greenhouse gas emissions, meaning surface temperatures show less warming than they otherwise would.
“What is evident now is that the signal of global warming emerged from the noise of natural variability about the mid 1970s,” Trenberth added. “There are fluctuations in global mean temperatures: from year to year with El Niños, etc., and from decade to decade, so that trends reflecting global warming need to be taken over at least 20 years.”

 

[scottcarter]

[h=1]New Reports Show Impact of Manmade Global Warming[/h]

• Published: July 11th, 2012

By Andrew Freedman (AKA dumbfuck)

The influence of manmade global warming on the climate system continues to grow, with human fingerprints identified in more than two dozen climate “indicators” examined by an international research team — from air temperatures to ocean acidity — for a comprehensive annual “State of the Climate” report released Tuesday.
In a related study also released on Tuesday, climate researchers said manmade global warming is already shifting the probability of many extreme weather and climate events, making heat waves, droughts, and other events more likely to occur in some parts of the world. The study found that manmade global warming made the devastating Texas drought and heat wave of 2011, which was the most expensive drought in the Lone Star State's history, at least 20 times more likely compared to years with similar large-scale weather patterns in the 1960s. The report also tied other recent extreme events worldwide to manmade warming.
Together, the two reports amount to a comprehensive accounting of the present state of the climate system, over which mankind is now exerting a greater impact than ever before.

Drought map from June 2011, showing the intensifying drought in Texas and northern Mexico. Credit: NOAA.​

“Every weather event that happens now takes place in the context of a changing global environment,” said deputy NOAA administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan in a press release. The reports were released during a time when extreme weather events have been making international headlines, with the U.S. having just experienced an historic heat wavethat has withered crops. Drought has expanded across the lower 48 states, affecting 56 percent of the contiguous U.S., and Russia is burying the dead from flash flooding that struck Krymsk, a small town near the Black Sea. Through June, the U.S. has had its warmest 12-month period, warmest year-to-date on record, and also saw a string of deadly wildfires.
The “State of the Climate 2011” report, published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS), presents a peer reviewed tour through the weather and climate events of 2011. The overriding theme that emerges from the report is that the effects of human activities are readily evident, be it in the form of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — global carbon dioxide concentrations hit a new all-time high of 390 parts per million last year, and will cross the 400 ppm threshold worldwide by 2016 — to the inexorable increase in ocean heat content.
The report shows that a La Nina event, characterized by cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures, helped keep global average surface temperatures down compared to 2010, but it was one of the warmest La Nina years on record.
In the Arctic, which has been warming at twice the rate of the rest of the globe, 2011 had the second-lowest sea ice extent on record. Barrow, Alaska, located above the Arctic Circle, experienced a record 86 straight days when the temperature failed to drop below freezing.
The report also contains evidence from ocean salinity measurements that the global water cycle is intensifying. “The dry regions are getting drier and the wet regions are getting wetter,” Kate Willet, a senior scientist at the U.K. Met Office said on a conference call with reporters.
The other climate assessment, which was also released by NOAA and the AMS, represents a step forward in efforts to decipher how manmade global warming is influencing specific extreme weather and climate events.

Global average surface temperature departures from average during 2011. Credit: NOAA.​

As the reports, along with prior studies, point out, some extreme events are much more likely to occur in a warming world. Researchers used different and largely novel approaches to analyze a half-dozen extreme weather and climate events that occurred last year, from the brutal Texas drought and heat wave to the deadly Thailand floods.
The report notes that global warming has already been playing a role in shifting the odds for several of these extreme events, including the Texas drought. The 2011 growing season was by far the warmest and driest in Texas history, and the drought was the worst one-year drought on record there as well, costing billions in agricultural losses.
The study concluded that, due to manmade global warming, La Nina-related heat waves are now 20 times more likely to occur in Texas than they were 50 years ago.
According to Peter Stott, who leads the Climate Monitoring and Attribution team at the U.K.’s Met Office, since manmade global warming is boosting average temperatures, it makes it more likely that certain thresholds will be reached or exceeded when a La Nina occurs. Weather patterns during La Nina years naturally tend to favor warmer and drier conditions in the Lone Star State.
“You’re [now] much more likely to have exceptional warmth,” in Texas during a La Nina year, Stott said.
Other researchers looked at international events and came to different conclusions depending on the questions researchers asked and the specific event in question. For example, scientists looked into the shifting odds for two unusual months that the U.K. experienced in 2010 and 2011. The U.K. had a very warm November of 2011, and rare cold during December 2010, during which time much of Britain experienced a white Christmas.
The study found that, because of manmade global warming and other factors, cold Decembers are now half as likely to occur as they were 50 years ago, and warm Novembers are 62 times more likely to take place.
Other experts in the burgeoning field of “extreme-event attribution” took on the challenge of determining whether there was a global warming influence on the record Thailand floods of last year.
The floods were the worst to occur there since 1942, with some areas remaining submerged by 6 feet of water for more than two months, according to NOAA. The floodwaters damaged or destroyed many high tech manufacturing centers, leading to delays in shipping equipment such as laptop computers.
In this case, the researchers found evidence that the floods were manmade, but not because of climate change. The study concluded that the rainfall amounts were not actually unprecedented or that unusual for Thailand, and that industrial development, reservoir management policies, and other trends on the ground contributed to the flooding.
“The flooding was unprecedented but the rainfall that produced it was not,” Stott said.
Stott is working with an international team of scientists to advance extreme-event assessments, and has raised the possibility of eventually being able to conduct them in near-real time if the science advances far enough.

 

[scottcarter]

1. Flooding Could Last for Weeks as Record Rain Has Fallen ...
   
   www.weather.com/.../plains-rain-flood-threat-wette...
   The Weather Channel
   14 hours ago - Austin (Camp Mabry), Texas – Extremely heavy rainfall Monday dumped5.20 inches of rain at Camp Mabry, lifting Austin to its wettest May on record. The rain tally is 16.72 inches of rain through May 26, making it by far the wettest May on record, topping the old record of 14.10 inches in May 1895.

-


May Is Already the Wettest Month in Texas History
TIME‎ - 19 hours ago
Across Texas, the average rainfall in May has measured 7.54 inches, beating the June 2004 record of 6.66 inches, according to figures provided by the Office of the State

-


3 Dead After Record Rains Unleash Dangerous ... - CNN.com

www.cnn.com/2015/05/24/us/severe-weather/
CNN
4 days ago - Texas and Oklahoma: 3 dead after record rains unleash dangerous flooding.

 

[NFLTrends]

Is the 97% agree total BS?

Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. President Obama tweeted that, and it has been repeated by countless others. It is tempting for a politician to claim that 97 percent of experts agree with you. But do they?

The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook, Climate Communications Fellow for the Global change Institute at the University of Queensland, and his colleagues, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in May, 2013. The paper says nothing about the would-be dangers of climate change and it counts the number of publications, rather than the number of scientists, in support of human-made climate change. Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The paper is a treasure trove of how-not-to lessons for a graduate class on survey design and analysis: the sample was not representative, statistical tests were ignored, and the results were misinterpreted.


What was an incompetent piece of research has become a highly influential study, its many errors covered up.

Some of the mistakes in the study should be obvious to all. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.

Cook and Co. analysed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is half a per cent or less of the total, rather than 97 percent.

The remainder of Cook’s “evidence” is papers that said that humans caused some climate change and, more importantly, papers that Cook’s colleagues thought said as much.

There is vigorous debate about how much humans have contributed to climate change, but no one argues the effect is zero. By emitting greenhouse gases, changing the landscape, rerouting rivers, and huddling together in cities, we change the climate – perhaps by a little, perhaps by a lot – but not one expert doubts we do. However, a true consensus – 100 per cent agreement – does not serve to demonize those experts who raise credible concerns with the state of climate research.

The trouble does not end there. Cook has been reluctant to share his data for others to scrutinize. He has claimed that some data are protected by confidentiality agreements, even when they are not. He was claimed that some data were not collected, even when they were. The paper claims that each abstract was read by two independent readers, but they freely compared notes. Cook and Co. collected data, inspected the results, collected more data, inspected the results again, changed their data classification, collected yet more data, inspected the results once more, and changed their data classification again, before they found their magic 97 percent. People who express concern about the method have been smeared.

We would hope that the president of the United States of America does not spend time checking such trivia. That is the job of the editor of the journal, Dan Kammen of the University of California at Berkeley, who unfortunately has chosen to ignore all issues I and others raised about them. Similarly, the journal’s publisher, the Institute of Physics, and Cook’s employer, the University of Queensland, have turned a deaf ear to my concerns. What was an incompetent piece of research has become a highly influential study, its many errors covered up.

And for what? If Cook’s results are to be believed, 97 percent of experts agree that climate change is real and largely human-made. This does not tell us anything about the risks of climate change, let alone how these compare to the risks of climate policy.

That is a difficult trade-off, and it should be informed by the best possible science rather than dodgy work like Cook’s.



Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has been involved in the IPCC since 1994.

 

[SheriffJoe]

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015 -

See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...ate-change-june#sthash.NmmbgbxN.a9MkN3aq.dpuf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the exception of Muslims, climate cultists are the biggest joke on the planet right now.