I’m off to France for a short (working) break tonight, but back in the saddle in early July. Please remember to read the comments below the following articles, as the information (and the links) contained in them often put the main article into context.
Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment
The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.
As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,” however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.
We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true. Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern. – Click here to read the full article
Sanity check: Chief Scientist’s prophecy worthy of Tim Flannery
And that’s not a compliment, by the way.
The IPA newsletter this afternoon dredged up this story which was reported early in ACM’s life: – Click here to read the full article
Model structural uncertainty – are GCMs the best tools?
Rarely are the following questions asked: Is the approach that we are taking to climate modeling adequate? Could other model structural forms be more useful for advancing climate science and informing policy?
Here GCM refers to the global coupled atmosphere-ocean models, whose simulations under the CMIP are used by the IPCC.
The sociology of GCMs is discussed in a fascinating 1998 paper by Shackley et al., entitled Uncertainty, Complexity, and Concepts of Good Science in Climate Modelling: Are GCMs the best tools? Stimulated by Shackley’s paper, here are excerpts from an abstract I’ve submitted to a Workshop to be held next October: – Click here to read the full article
The Global Warming Pause – definition
Back around 2007 I posted a section in Wikipedia Global Warming talk page titled “The Pause”. In this I pointed to the lack of warming since AR3 and the growing number of articles referring to the lack of warming. (I was told there was no pause)
Since then, the “pause” has become accepted terminology to describe the fifteen years or more years without significant warming in the global surface temperature. But sooner or later we are likely to see a significant up or downward movement. This will lead to disputes as to whether the “pause” has ended. Therefore I foresee that we need a definition of the pause. – Click here to read the full article
The Conspiracy Theory
In the Politics of Energy and the Global Warming Agenda we come across certain terms which reflect where we as a Society have gone. Some see this as a Global Conspiracy, others as ineptitude of Politicians bowing to lobbying and self interest groups. In both instances there is certainly an element of ‘Follow the Money’. More likely they are imbued(to inspire or influence thoroughly; pervade) with groupthink: – Click here to read the full article
The Edge of a Cold, Deep Abyss?
The warmists have their models, grants and tidings of doom, but the researchers whose tree ring data has best predicted recent temperature trends see the mercury dropping, perhaps by as much as 4 degrees. If they are right, then there is reason to be worried, very worried indeed – Click here to read the full article
Swimming bear video used to promote climate change threat to polar bears
A video being hyped around the internet – “Witness a polar bear’s heartbreaking swim for ice in the Arctic” said one headline – is simply shameless propaganda, facilitated by the US Geological Survey and its polar bear biologists. USGS scientists involved in this work should be ashamed of themselves.
The caption for the Youtube video (published Jun 21, 2014) says this:
Take a swim with a polar bear family as they traverse the Arctic Ocean in search of sea ice.
This is a load of nonsense and a total misrepresentation of the facts. – Click here to read the full article
My best estimate: less than 1C warming if CO2 level is doubled.
I keep making this argument in bits, and have been meaning to put it together but have never had the time. So rather than putting it off again, I’ve decided to put my assessment of the impact of CO2 on global temperature in this very quickly prepared post. Note, because it is quick, I’m assuming a reasonable competence by you the reader.
First we look at the ubiquitous “global warming graph”. – Click here to read the full article
A Carbon Tax Is A Terrible Idea. Here’s Why.
Former treasury secretary Henry Paulson is calling for a “fundamentally conservative” carbon tax to address the risks of a climate bubble.
Writing in the New York Times, Paulson relates his time in office to today’s climate, writing that “I was secretary of the Treasury when the credit bubble burst, so I think it’s fair to say that I know a little bit about risk, assessing outcomes and problem-solving.”
“Looking back at the dark days of the financial crisis in 2008,” he adds, “it is easy to see the similarities between the financial crisis and the climate challenge we now face.”
But it’s laughable to say that the future state of the global climate should be a concern akin to the financial crisis in 2008. Paulson argues the burning of fossil fuels is the driver of irreversible global warming and climate observations are ahead of what climate models predicted, such as melting Arctic and West Antarctic ice could lead to 14-foot level sea increases. – Click here to read the full article
Cooling Temperature Trend Establishing Across Northeastern Australia
The Hon Greg Hunt MP,
Minister for the Environment.
Dear Minister Hunt,
I wrote to you on 4th March 2014 with concerns that the claims made by the Bureau of Meteorology that 2013 was Australia’s hottest year on record, are somewhat deceptive. In that letter I explained that the official temperature record has been truncated to begin in 1910 (thereby excluding the hot years of the Federation drought) and that the method used to calculate the annual average temperature for Australia is not transparent.
I’ve since come to understand that the annual average temperature for 2013, which the Bureau claimed was a record, is in fact a wholly contrived valued based on modeling of temperatures, rather than the averaging of actual recorded values. That is, careful scrutiny of the Bureau’s methodology shows that recorded temperatures at locations across Australia are submitted to a two-step homogenization process that can have the effect of changing the entire temperature trend at specific locations. A weighted mean of these ‘homogenized’ values is then used in the calculation of the Australian annual mean temperature. In turn, the ‘homogenized’ values are used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which gives advice back to the Australian government on global and Australian temperature trends. – Click here to read the full article