Using the Sonny Bono’s song title seems right because the Freedom Of Information Act (FOI) revealed the New York Times’ the manipulation efforts to get a really scary story about “Acidification of the Oceans”. And the FOI has shot it down.
Late last year, the Times posted an Op-Ed “Our Deadened, Carbon-Soaked Seas” timed to appear prior to the Second Ocean Conference where “ocean acidification (OA)” would be discussed. The authors of the piece were Richard W. Spinrad, a chief scientist of the U.S. NOAA and Ian Boyd, a chief scientific adviser to the British government.
The cartoon image accompanying the NY Times posting, shown below, is not too subtle.
”Curious, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to NOAA for the e-mail related to the development and publication of the op-ed. I received 443 pages of e-mail in return.
First, the op-ed was actually written by NOAA staff Madelyn Applebaum, not Spinrad or Boyd. The purpose was to tout NOAA not inform the public about ocean acidification.”
Because global temperatures were not responding to increasing atmospheric CO2, the warmers began looking for new narratives to use to frighten the public into giving them more money. The oceans were thought to be a good target. To explain why global temperatures were only inching up, they jumped on the theory that the heat was being trapped in the ocean. Just like that, the “heat” decided to go into the ocean and not warm the atmosphere. The logic of that proposition was viewed as somewhat problematic, to say the least.
Another narrative was to say that the ocean was being made acidic and that would have a devastating effect on sea life. This narrative, acidification of the ocean, had been around for a number of years. But it needed some spicing up. Former head of NOAA, Jane Lubchenco, referred to ocean “acidification” as global warming’s “equally evil twin.”
Tony Heller posting on RealClimateScience.com shows how the global temperature increase is indeed man-made. Man-made as in “man”ipulating the data. Heller says NASA has changed the data over the past 15 years so that it now shows the year 2001 is about 0.2°C higher on the NASA 2016 chart than it was on NASA’s 2001 chart.
And you can note that the 1880 temperature anomaly was made colder by 0.3°C between the 2001 and the 2016 charts. Those two changes increase the amount of “man-made” warming by about 0.5°C over those years.
The warmers have also been waring against the satellite temperature measurements saying they are in error. But the weather balloons temperature measurements confirm the satellite’s temperature measurements. There are no independent checks on the NASA system (GISS) or other surface measuring systems.
The chart below show the temperatures by year for the period from 2000 to 2016 using RSS satellite and GISS temperatures and the temperature trends for those years.
Note that while the surface measuring GISS shows warming, the RSS satellite system show a cooling trend.
Heller says “The fact that the US space agency is ignoring satellite data, is a pretty strong indication that the agency has collapsed into a hopelessly corrupt and decadent state”.
The prior posting, “Some Background Regarding An El Nino” began like this: “Currently, the weather is being strongly affected by an El Nino. El Nino is but one part of a weather/climate system known as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). There are three phases of ENSO — El Nino, La Nina and Neutral. ENSO is important because of its ability to change the global atmospheric circulation, which in turn, influences temperature and precipitation across the globe. The global atmospheric circulation is called the Walker Cycle Circulation“.
This posting examines the Walker Circulation.(I have seen both cycle and circulation used but much of my sourcing for this posting uses Circulation.)
First lets talk about high and low pressure centers. Fair weather generally accompanies a high-pressure center while clouds and precipitation generally accompany a low-pressure center. Low-pressure centers are formed by a hot surface. For example, the hot Pacific Ocean water that is driven to the Maritime Continent by the trade winds along the equator. The air is hot and moisture laden and as it rises, it cools and the moisture becomes rain. It reaches high-level winds that drive it to the west or east. This air is now dry and cool. It begins to fall forming a high-pressure center. The air in the high-pressure center begins to flow toward the low pressure center residing above the hot seawater located in the Maritime Continent. Along the way it begins to warm and pick up moisture and then rise. This completes the circulation.
Currently the weather is being strongly affected by an El Nino. El Nino is but one part of a weather/climate system known as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). There are three phases of ENSO — El Nino, La Nina and neutral. ENSO is important because of its ability to change the global atmospheric circulation, which in turn, influences temperature and precipitation across the globe. The global atmospheric circulation is called the Walker Cycle and we will look at that in the next posting.
Many of you already are fully informed about the ENSO but my guess is that some of you are not. I thought it might be helpful to provide some background information. (1)
First of all, we are talking about the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Ocean from South America to the Maritime Continent(2), a distance of about 10k miles along the equator. Usually the trade winds blow along the equator toward the west. This moves the hot surface water to the Western Pacific. The sea surface is about ½ meter higher in Indonesian than it is in Ecuador. Usually, sea-surface temperatures off South America’s west coast range from the 60°s to 70°s F, while they exceed 80°F in the “warm pool.” This description is essentially that of the neutral phase.
On occasions the easterly winds weaken and the hot water begins to flow eastward toward South America. This is the beginning of an El Nino. It typically starts in the May-June timeframe as the water flows eastward. It reaches it peak strength about December. January through March/April typically are the months that the El Nino begins to lose it strength. Some El Ninos maintain strength longer such as the 1998/1999 El Nino, which is considered one of the strongest ever.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 7, 2016. The event was focused on the “threat” of climate change. A CNSnews.com posting “EPA Chief: Climate Change Is Certain But You Can’t Predict the Future” related the comments made by the Administrator at that meeting.
A CNS News reporter asked the Administrator the following question:
“According to the Energy Information Administration – although alternative and renewables are growing slightly – fossil fuels will still account for 80 percent of U.S. energy needs through 2040. Federal data also shows that U.S. carbon emissions are at almost a 20-year low right now. How do those facts fit into the picture the EPA is painting of the U.S. energy landscape?”
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies(GISS) has had three directors since its founding in 1961. It’s first director was Robert Jastrow. From 1981 to 2013, GISS was directed by James E. Hansen. In June 2014, Gavin A. Schmidt was named the institute’s third director.
The last two are noted for their complete commitment to the theory of man- made catastrophic global warming (CGW). Hansen is considered by many as the godfather of this movement. His testimony in a Congressional hearing was the “alarm bell” for the liberal politician. He presented charts that were very alarming and have subsequently been shown to be very wrong. He was (and still is ) an activist having been arrested many times for impeding coal trains and other tricks in an attempt to gain publicity for his cause. But it seems he has been wrong much more than he has been right. The following is one of his many scary predictions that have not been realized. Hansen is informing the newly elected President Obama in January 2009 that there were only 4 years left to save Earth.
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration, he added.
Soaring carbon emissions are already causing ice-cap melting and threaten to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns in the near future. “We cannot afford to put off change any longer,” said Hansen. “We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”
Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.
Doesn’t Hansen contradict himself when he says that Obama can save the Earth but that “current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming”? Sounds like a mixed message to me. And of course, those 4 years pass almost 8 years ago.
Can you trust the science that Hansen communicates?
Hansen’s successor, Gavin Schmidt, gained his notoriety as a climate modeler. Dr Schmidt does promote the theory of CGW but seems to have an aversion to actually debating the topic. The last time he was to debate, he agreed to show up but not at the same time as his debate opponent. HUM, wonder what that means.
According to Wiki he has received recognition for his communicative skills: “In October 2011, the American Geophysical Union awarded Schmidt the Inaugural Climate Communications Prize, for his work on communicating climate-change issues to the public.”
Yet he doesn’t think he can communicate with Texans. Well, let him explain as he does on the Youtube below:
So it is because a Jewish, atheist from New York cannot communicate with Texans. That explains it. He obviously is an open-minded person of the type that is needed to sort though the differences between warmers and skeptics, of course unless they are Texans.(sarc)
By the way, he was born, raised and educated in England.
The Scientific Consensus on the theory of man-made global warming.
First is a peer-reviewed paper showing that only 36% of 1,077 geoscientists and engineers surveyed believe in the man-made global warming crisis as defined by the United Nations’ Kyoto model.
According to the paper, the Kyoto position expresses “the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
Thirty-six percent is not insignificant. But it certainly is a long way from the oft-cited 97% “consensus” among scientists that man is causing temperatures to change.
Researchers behind “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change,” which appeared in Organization Studies, also found “the proportion of papers” collected from a science database “that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75%” between 1993 and 2003 “to 45% from 2004 to 2008.”
The Heartland Institute’s James Taylor reminds us in Forbes that “survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.”
The great elucidator of the man-made global warming theory, Al Gore, made a pronouncement on 26 January 2006 saying that:
“Americans have been hearing it for decades, wavering between belief and skepticism that it all may just be a natural part of Earth’s cyclical warming and cooling phases.
And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return,” Gore said.
He sees the situation as “a true planetary emergency.”
“If you accept the truth of that, then nothing else really matters that much,” Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We have to organize quickly to come up with a coherent and really strong response, and that’s what I’m devoting myself to.”
I would suggest you update your will, but according to him it wont make any difference because we are all doomed. Lets see—-10 years, that’s up on 26 January 2016. That’s only 3 weeks away. My gosh, my bucket list is only partially completed.
James Delingpole is a Brit that writes for Brietbart.com. He has a sharp mind that he uses to take the obvious and throw it back at the pretenders often with good humor. Somewhat like Mark Steyn. They are a formidable pair and I am glad they are on our side.
The Delingpole posting that I want to discuss was written before the COP21 Paris meeting of the massive group of hanger-ons that go to these conferences on stopping global warming. But, the points he makes in this posting “Twelve Reasons Why The Paris Climate Talks Are A Total Waste” are essentially timeless within the current discussion of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory.
I may summarize the discussion in some of the twelve reasons. So I do recommend that you link to his original posting to read the reasons in their entirety. Don’t ignore the links that are included in this listing.
So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming
Climate Change Sanity 