1: New ice core sulphate records show Sun had more influence on LIA onset than previously thought; 2: Antarctic sea ice hits second all-time record in a week; 3: Infilling, Interpolating, And Temp Adjustments ….. As Seen On Individual Stations; 4: Holding Greenpeace accountable; 5: Phunny Physics; 6: Nick Stokes Shines A Light On USHCN Adjustments; 7: Ed Hoskins: Analysis of the record of fossil-fuel CO2 emissions 1965 -2013; 8: Ecofascists Consider Workers ‘Collateral Damage’ ; 9: Subsidy or no subsidy, that is the question; 10: The BBC’s internal contradictions; Please remember to read the comments, as the information (and the links) contained in them often put the main article into context..
New ice core sulphate records show Sun had more influence on LIA onset than previously thought
Physorg has a story on a new reconstruction of volcanic activity from ice cores in Antarctica. It’s fairly strong on boilerplate but there is an interesting kicker near the end of the article:
A team of scientists led by Michael Sigl and Joe McConnell of Nevada’s Desert Research Institute (DRI) has completed the most accurate and precise reconstruction to date of historic volcanic sulfate emissions in the Southern Hemisphere.
“Both observations and model results show that not all eruptions lead to the same spatial pattern of sulfate deposition,” said Matthew Toohey from the German institute GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel. He added, “Spatial variability in sulfate deposition means that the accuracy of volcanic sulfate reconstructions depends strongly on having a sufficient number of ice core records from as many different regions of Antarctica as possible.” – Click here to read the full article
Antarctic sea ice hits second all-time record in a week
Antarctic sea ice has hit its second all-time record maximum this week. The new record is 2.112 million square kilometers above normal. Until the weekend just past, the previous record had been 1.840 million square kilometers above normal, a mark hit on December 20, 2007, as I reported here, and also covered in my book.
Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, responded to e-mail questions and also spoke by telephone about the new record sea ice growth in the Southern Hemisphere, indicating that, somewhat counter-intuitively, the sea ice growth was specifically due to global warming. – Click here to read the full article
Infilling, Interpolating, And Temp Adjustments ….. As Seen On Individual Stations
So, our friend Paul at NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT gave us another look at the temps and the adjustments made to individual stations. This time in Ohio.
Now, to rational people, this would seem so obvious that the scales are being improperly tilted, the rational people would immediately dismiss this as ludicrous.
But, the climate nutters, faux skeptics and lukewarmers all believe the explanations for the adjustments are right and proper. – Click here to read the full article
Holding Greenpeace accountable
Poor countries should hold Big Green groups and directors liable for deaths, ravage they cause
Guest opinion by Paul Driessen
Fossil fuel and insurance company executives “could face personal liability for funding climate denialism and opposing policies to fight climate change,” Greenpeace recently warned several corporations. In a letter co-signed by WWF International and the Center for International Environmental Law, the Rainbow Warriors ($155 million in 2013 global income) suggested that legal action might be possible.
Meanwhile, the WWF ($927 million in 2013 global income) filed a formal complaint against Peabody Energy for “misleading readers” in advertisements that say coal-based electricity can improve lives in developing countries. The ads are not “decent, honest and veracious,” as required by Belgian law, the World Wildlife ethicists sniffed. Other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make similar demands. – Click here to read the full article
Newtons Laws of Expertise and the 4th Law of Thermodynamics.
Some entertainment for Sunday
William York has a clever article entitled Climate change violates one of Newton’s laws. Excerpts:
The claim that the science debate over cimate change is settled violates the most important of Newton’s Laws. This violation is not of the famous Laws of Motion but of a little known set of derived bylaws, Newton’s Laws of Experts, a major contribution to understanding social dynamics.
Newton’s Laws of Motion may be simply stated as: – Click here to read the full article
Nick Stokes Shines A Light On USHCN Adjustments
Nick Stokes has made an important contribution to the debate around USHCN temperature adjustments, publishing a graph of USHCN adjustments at his blog Moyhu.
As he comments:
There has been a lot of interest in USHCN adjustments. Paul Homewood has been tabulating data from various states, most recently Ohio. Steven Goddard has been getting publicity with various flaky graphs. In criticising one of these, I posted a plot of average US adjustments. In doing so, I followed SG’s practice of a simple average across the USA. It would be better to use some kind of area weighting. – Click here to read the full article
Ed Hoskins: Analysis of the record of fossil-fuel CO2 emissions 1965 -2013
Guest post from Ed Hoskins MAarch (Cantab) BDS (Lond).
The record of recent Man-made CO2 emissions: 1965 -2013
The following calculations and graphics are based on information on national CO2 emission levels worldwide published by BPin June 2014 for the period from 1965 up until 2013. The data is well corroborated by previous similar datasets published by the CDIAC, Guardian  and Google up until 2009 . These notes and figures provide a short commentary on that CO2 emissions history.
The contrast between the developed and developing worlds is stark in terms of their history of CO2 emissions and the likely prognosis for their future CO2 output. – Click here to read the full article
Ecofascists Consider Workers ‘Collateral Damage’
One of the leading leftwing environmentalists last week described the hundreds of thousands of Americans who may lose their jobs due to the Obama administration’s new anti-carbon regulations as “collateral damage” in the fight against global warming.
The offensive comments were issued by William S. Becker, the head of the Climate Action Project, a well-funded environmental group.
In his piece in the Huffington Post praising the new Environmental Protection Agency regulations to stop climate change, he lamented that “there is nothing explicit in the [Obama] plan to mitigate or adapt to the economic disruption the clean energy transition will cause for coal and oil-country families.”
He said that the pain and suffering to the estimated 200,000 families put out of work is an “evolutionary step in technology and the economy” and a move toward “economic progress.” – Click here to read the full article
Subsidy or no subsidy, that is the question
It has been told in many shades and colors, apparently fossil fuels are subsidized. I have never really perceived this as truthful, but also never looked into what actually is being claimed. It at least seemed exaggerated: my thoughts where that this “subsidy” was probably something else, dressed up as a subsidy.
A couple days ago I read an article about those alleged fossil fuel subsidies and in it they even went a step further this time. The claim was not only that these subsidies amount to 544 billion dollars per year, but that we could use these subsidies to “invest” in renewable sources of energy (for which we would need 800 billion dollars per year): – Click here to read the full article
The BBC’s internal contradictions
The reverberations of the BBC’s recent announcements on how to deal with the climate change issue continue unabated. Radio 4’s Feedback programme recently considered two separate instances related to the corporation’s coverage of climate change (audio below). The first of these a “tidal wave” of complaints they had received in relation to Bob Carter’s appearance at the time of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. Interestingly these complaints seem to have been rejected, except in that Carter’s funding arrangements were not made sufficiently clear. – Click here to read the full article