Category Archives: IPCC

Is There A Pause In Global Temperatures?


The “pause”, meaning the lack of global temperature rise in the 21st century, has gotten a lot of attention. The warmers want to deny that it is significant. The skeptics say that it is very significant in that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has been increasing during this period of time. According to the wamer’s theory, global temperatures should have been rising. Last year, some of the keepers of the global temperature records decided they had, had enough of this focus on the “pause”. So they made some bogus changes to the way the temperature was measured and when they were finished, they said—– see there really was no pause. Click here to see how they have tried to pull this off.

There are several global temperature amassing groups. These groups broadly are divided by being ground based or satellite based. The former are dependant on temperatures measured mostly from ground-based stations supplemented by some ocean surface temperature measurements. The ground-based stations are primarily in populated areas. Northern Hemisphere stations predominate. The vast areas of the oceans (75 % of the globe’s surface) are minimally covered. There are also enormous areas of land where population is very limited, or no one at all. In those areas, computers predict the missing temperatures.

The ground station leaders are: (1) (GISS), NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2) (HadCRUT4) the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. (3) NCEI) NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.

(For those of you with longer memories, yes, the University of East Anglia was the headquarters of the Climategate gang)

The latter group consists of two satellite based global temperature-measuring organizations. Satellites measure radiance in various wavelengths in troposphere. The troposphere extends about 7 miles above the Earth’s surface and the troposphere is where all of our weather occurs. The radiance measurements are translated into temperatures. In 1979, the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) was the first satellite system to begin reading these temperatures. Start up problems are typical with any new breakthrough technology. For example early on there were problems with orbital decay and also with drift.   The UAH promptly made allowances for those problems as they have  with some smaller ones as time has past. The weather balloons (radiosondies) that have been used for many years, show agreement with the UAH satellite measurements. This is confirming proof of the satellite systems high accuracy and because it actually measures temperature across nearly the entire globe, that makes it the gold standard. The other satellite system is the Remote Sensing System (RSS). UAH and RSS have a few differences in how they make their tropospheric measurements, still the resulting temperatures are in close agreement. The satellites measurements cover about 95% of the Earth’s surface eliminating the use of computers to simulate actual measurements, as is the case with the ground based systems.

The illustration below shows the Earth’s atmosphere with the troposphere being the lowest part.

earth_stratosphere_diagram

The final player in this drama is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a branch of the UN. It was created to show how man was causing global warming and what the consequences of that would be. No, the IPCC was not created to examine the science of global warming; the founders had already decided man was the cause. The IPCC is programmed to report on the status of their work about every 5 years or so. The IPCC is often said to be the warmer’s equivalent of the “spoken word.” Most of the mainstream media accepts without question any pronouncement that is said to be from the IPCC—in their mind, it is the ultimate authority. Many major newspapers and science journals (and other media, too) do not allow, in their media, skeptical views, research, questions, letters to the editor, etc.

The IPCC produce temperature forecasts. These forecasts are the basis for catastrophic things that will happen—-flood, drought, snow, sea level, vast migrations of people, etc. —–if we do not quit using fossil fuels.

In the next posting, we will compare the IPCC temperature forecasts to the ground and satellite measured temperatures.

cbdakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Interesting Admission From A Top Warmer Scientist.


Reddit.com has a site called AskScience where an inquiring mind submits a question and expert scientist answer the inquiry.  Recently a question was submitted by a person concerned that the IPCC was underestimating the problem of catastrophic man-made global warming.   The questioner wanted to know the answer to the following:

” Given the nonlinear nature of the atmosphere, how can we have any confidence in long term predictions of temperature rise? “

A Major warmer scientist from MIT answered the question as follows:”

We are worried about that too. Climate is an enormously complex system and we do not pretend that we can predict is with much accuracy, which is why, for example, in the IPCC reports there is a generous range of possible outcomes. (K.E.)   (My emphasis.)

green_men_of_climate_alarmism

Kerry Emanuel (KE) answered that question.   Are you asking who he is? Well, see the following introduction that he provided:

“I’m Kerry Emanuel, a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I do research on hurricanes and other types of severe weather, on climate change, and how climate change might affect severe weather. My research is mostly theoretical, but I also build computer models and occasionally participate in field experiments and build and use laboratory experiments. I have flown research aircraft into hurricanes, and wrote a book called “Divine Wind: The History and Science of Hurricanes”, aimed at a general reader and covering both the science of hurricane and how they have influenced history, art, and literature.”

If one googles Dr Emanuel, the source will almost invariably call him a “conservative warmer”. At one time he did vote for a Republican candidate. However he voted for President Obama because Emanuel admits that he is a single-issue voter and Obama signs the warmer’s songs. So much for being called a conservative.

Anyway, almost all of us agree with Dr Emanuel that warmer’s predictions are unlikely to be accurate.

cbdakota

Ice Cores and Global Climate Part 2. Are Current Temperatures Highest Ever?


As discussed in the previous posting, examination of ice cores can provide high quality data about the Earth’s climate from thousands of years in the past.    Antarctica’s ice cores cannot be surpassed for the longest age records. Let us look once again at the Vostok ice core drilling. (Click on all the charts to enlarge.)

Vostok-400Kd

This illustration reverses the direction of time flow from that of the previous posting’s chart. It does expand the data from about 120,000 years ago to the present.

The chart blue line is the ice core temperature data referenced to the global temperature. The flat red line is the average of global annual temperature means for the period 1998 to 2008. This provides a reference with which to compare the past temperatures. And lastly, the green is the annual mean temperature for 2008.   Several things are obvious. First, recent temperatures are not as warm as previous temperatures at their peak. Second, the globe began to exit the last glacial period about 15,000 years ago, and the temperature increased fairly rapidly (of course rapidly on this chart may be several thousand of years). It is not possible to attribute this rise nor really any other rise shown on this chart to something that man has done.   The current period has been relatively stable.

Continue reading

4 Major Warmers Change Their Mind And Now Back Building Nukes


Back when there was temporary shortage of natural gas, that fossil fuel was the favorite of warmers. When it became abundant, they were against it.   They just pretend to be even handed. Well what about nuclear energy? It doesn’t produce carbon dioxide (CO2) but they do not like it. My guess is that many of them are just following through on their objective of destroying capitalism.

However, a group of influential warmers now say they were wrong to oppose nuclear energy.

At the Paris COP21 in December 2015, a press conference was held where 4 noted warmers announced that they were going to back development of nuclear energy.

Continue reading

2015 Was Not The Hottest Year


Seems like that every day some warmer announces that 2015 was the hottest year on record. One wants to ask, “what record” are you taking about? Reconstructed temperatures for thousands if not millions of years suggest that there are many periods that have had higher temperatures that those we are experiencing today. For those years which we have reasonably accurate temperature measuring devices they would suggest that 2015 was likely not the hottest although it might be among the hottest.   Of course there is the problem of “man-made” warming as discussed in this posting “ This Is “Man-Made” Global Warming Courtesy Of NASA”.

To give another perspective on this issue, let us use the recent posting by James Delingpole “No, 2015 Was Not The Hottest Year Evah…”. Delingpole has a really sharp wit. He uses it in this posting of his, and if you wish to experience it, click on the posting link above.   I plan on just using his 5 points that he believes clarify the issue and demonstrate that 2015 was not the hottest year. So here goes:

“Here is why they’re all talking rubbish and you needn’t worry about that “Hottest Year Evah” one bit.

  1. The satellite data show no warming

Compare the two trends (below): the upward one comes from the surface temperature dataset used by NASA GISS (and NOAA and the Met Office – they’re all pretty much interchangeable); the flat trend comes from the more accurate satellite data. Which one do you trust?

delingpolesatellite2016-01-20-13-31-07-300x222

  1. NASA has fiddled the raw temperature data on an ‘unbelievable scale’

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Continue reading

300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House Science Committee: ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’


This posting is a reblog of Anthony Watts posting on his site “WattsUpWithThat?”
The issue here is that NOAA, undoubtedly to assist the COP21 Paris meeting participants, manipulated their global temperature record to in an attempt to show that the 18+years of no significant warming (“the pause”) had not really occurred.

Now 300 scientists have sent a letter to Representative Lamar Smith saying that NOAA did not follow the Data Quality Act. This, along with Smiths subpoenas of email communications from those people in NOAA who manipulated the temperature record, hopefully with out the perpetrators of this scam.
cbdakota

Warmer Proof For Ocean Acidification Is Invalid


In 2004, a paper by Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine was published that purports to show that as the atmospheric CO2 increases, the oceans become acidified (1).   In 2010, Dr Feely made a presentation to the US Congress where he used this graph to illustrate the reduction of seawater pH.   It is reported to be widely used as a reference.

The graph is shown below:

Feelygraph

The question that one researcher asked, when he saw the chart was-Why the pH readings, in Feely’s chart, began in 1988?; which was surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter.

Marrita Noon’s posting “What if Obama’s climate change is based on pHraud?” relates the story of this researcher’s observations:

Continue reading

EPA Chief Provides Non-Answer To Reporter.


Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 7, 2016. The event seerimageswas 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?”

Continue reading

GISS Directors (Hansen and Schmidt) Are Marvelous Communicators?


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.

From the January, 2009  Guardian posting “President ‘has four years to save Earth’” James Hansen said:”

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.

cbdakota

Media Buried These Stories On “Global Warming”


The Investors Business Daily posted “Three More Global Warming Stories Media Don’t Want You To See”. The stories are about the so-called consensus, the loss of Greenland ice and climate model performance.

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.”

Continue reading