The Global Warming Policy Forum on 15 May 2020 posted “The Sun Has Entered “Very Deep” Solar Minimum”/authored by David Whitehouse. It provided a list of predictions of SC 25’s maximum sunspots. I have rearranged the chart to show the predictions that suggest it will be less active than SC 24, those that expect SC24 and SC25 to be nearly identical and those that predict it will more active.
As a benchmark, SC 24 sunspots at maximum were 116.4
The Senate approved a bill to cut NASA’s global warming research that is done by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). The Bill now goes to the House of Representatives where it is expected to be approved.President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law.NASA was created to explore space but it now spends more on global warming. Former President Obama incredibly told the head of NASA that he wanted the focus to be on Muslim outreach.
NASA will still have a role in global warming research as a good bit of research data is obtained from satellites that they build and operate.But GISS, directed by Gavin Schmidt, will be eliminated as their global warming research duplicates work being done in other government Departments.
Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) is calling for RICO investigations of skeptics and fossil fuel companies. California legislators writing a bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent—fortunately it died this past Thursday. Seventeen State Attorney Generals investigating Exxon. Calls to silence skeptical views are becoming more frequent. A number of major US newspapers are prohibiting discussion of Skeptical views. This theme parallels the Social Justice Warriors efforts to impose their view of politically correct and thus allowable speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution is under siege by the media and the government itself. The Amendment was designed to prevent the Government from squashing dissenting views and is often considered the medias first line of defense from the government crackdowns such as are common in socialist, communist and dictatorial governments (e.g. Venezuela, China and Iran.)
”Climate science acts like it is fighting a holy war. There are only those who are just and those who must be silenced and stopped at all costs. Anyone who mounts reasonable logical, empirical, or skeptical challenges to the orthodoxy must be ruined, not by counterfactual evidence, but by vicious attack”.
Obviously the warmers are not winning the hearts and minds of free people. One reason for this is that the disinformation primarily comes from the warmers. The predictions of catastrophe are many and they have not come true. And you do not need to be a climate scientist to understand how the warmers continue to get it wrong. The mainstream media is complicit in the distribution of this disinformation.
Look at these postings where you can get some idea of how poor their predictions are:
It seems since my last posting, the RSS satellite temperature record will be revised. It appears that it will be cited as proving there was no “pause”. Dr Mears, the chief scientist of RSS said that he has been bombarded with emails wondering why the RSS is supporting the DENIER’S view. Mears believes that the denialists (his words) like to cherry pick the starting point. Watts commented on this by saying:
” It seems to me based on his recent comments that Dr. Mears has gotten fed up with people using his RSS data set to suggest that the world isn’t warming as he expects it should”.
The “pause” in the global temperature rise is at 18+ years. This is disconcerting the warmer scientists because atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) content has been increasing during this period. The warmers have resorted to very poorly disguised attempts to alter the temperature record. Despite their temperature record alterations, the global temperature is well below that forecast by the IPCC in their 1990 report. How much altering of the record must the warmers do to get back in step with the IPCC forecasts? Lord Monckton of Brenchley has posted on the WUWT website “The abject failure of official global-warming predictions”. In his posting he compares land-based temperature organizations and satellite based temperature organizations versus the prediction by the IPCC.
Two charts follow: The first is the UAH plot of global temperatures for an 18 years and 6 months long pause. UAH is a satellite-based record. The second is the RSS satellite based temperatures which differs slightly from the UAH data. The RSS data yields a pause of 18 years and 8 months duration.
UAH Global Temperature Chart Showing Duration of the Pause. The left hand scale shows temperature anomalies (plus and minus) in degrees C. The right hand scale shows atmospheric CO2 concentration in PPM. The heavy blue line is the global temperature trend line for the period In small(er) print in the middle of the chart is the trend line slope. For this chart, the trend is a -0.01C temperature change per century.
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.
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?
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.
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”.
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.
Mike Van Biezen is a physicist and former believer in catastrophic man-made global warming. His epiphany occurred about 7 years ago, he says, when he realized that between 1940 and 1980, global temperatures had actually declined a bit all the while CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere at a high rate. Since then, his research into the theory of global warming has converted him to skepticism. Van Biezen says there are many scientific problems with the assumption that human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”. He has picked 10 of the many scientific problems and listed them in his posting on the Dailywire.com. titled “The Most Comprehensive Assault On ‘Global Warming’ Ever”.
I will use his heading for each of the ten problems and pick out parts of his explanation of the nature of that specific problem. Of course you will get much more out of this if you use the link to his posting and read all of his explanation.
The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) is an important factor in the calculation of global temperature. Big cities are the source of the UHI effect. Mostly the warmers say that they take care of it by adjustments. This is like being between the rock and the hard place because adjustments by the global temperature keepers nearly always increase the present temperature and decrease older temperatures. I don’t know how much too trust. For an example of the UHI, lets look at the temperature records from Central Park in New York City, New York and temperature records from West Point, New York.
Until about 1885 the two temperature records were closely related. After 1885 they began to separate and now New York’s temperatures measures about 2C higher than those measured at West Point. Between 1870 and 1880, the New York City population passed 1 million people. The US Census Bureau estimates the City’s 2014 population at 8.5 million. The country-side temperatures may rise but at a much lesser amount that the temperature in the big cities
provided a list of predictions of SC 25’s maximum sunspots. I have rearranged the chart to show the predictions that suggest it will be less active than SC 24, those that expect SC24 and SC25 to be nearly identical and those that predict it will more active.
Climate Change Sanity 