Many of the catastrophic warming brigade are shouting that hurricane Harvey is the fruit of global warming tree. The media, the other branch of the Democrat Party, are saying the same thing. Joe D’Aleo’s marvelous website, IceCap, provides a chart that will show open minded people that these big hurricanes have been going on for quite a while. Well before the supposed start of the CO2 caused global warming. The following chart shows the history of the biggest hurricanes that have hit the US since 1851:
Note that Katrina and Sandy are not on the list. Hurricanes can be destructive even if they are not 4 or 5 category storms. Sandy perhaps not even a category 1 hurricane when it made landfall, caused considerable damage from the storm surge. Storm surge occurs when a major storm pushes water on to the shore at levels well above normal.
Further, how do you account for the fact that the last hurricane of category 3 or larger to make landfall on the US was 12 years ago. I guess that means there has been no warming during those 12 years. But wait, how can that be because the warmers keep telling me that the “hottest ever years” are now.
The climate alarmists tell the public that the sea level is going rise 7 to 15 feet by the end of this century. The crops are going to fail. There will be mass extinctions. The extent of the horrors awaiting us in the future are almost unlimited. The basis for all these catastrophes is the predicted rise in temperature based upon the computer models they have programed. For example, the sea level rise is predicated on a rise of temperature in the range of 4 to 7° C or greater by the year 2100. Without the big rise in global temperature, all these supposed disasters will not come to pass.
These computers have been forecasting temperature for many years. How are they doing? If a company had their operations run by these computers, they would be out of business by now. Look at some of the recent revelations. The New American posted “Top Climate Alarmist: Computer Models Wrong, Skeptics Right on “Pause”. From that posting we get this:
“Count on the Fake News media to ignore a huge admission by a Climategate scientist that there has been no measurable global warming over the past 20 years — something he has previously vociferously denied. The admission by Dr. Benjamin Santer, a top global-warming alarmist, should have made headlines — but, of course it didn’t.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, EPA, Global Temperatures, Media Bias, Paris Agreement, President Trump, Sea Level, The Pause, UAH Satellite Temps, warmer prediction fails
The numbers of scientist predicting a drop in global temperature are becoming a large group— ready to challenge the mythical 97%. This blog has posted some of the predictions. The postings have demonstrated that there is not total unanimity as to reason why the temperature will drop. Maybe it is a combination of different things. That is refreshing in light of the warmer’s one size fits all theory that CO2 is essentially raising or will raise global temperature all by itself.
First some discussion that suggests that CO2 is not what the warmers claim.
The warmer’s theory says that atmospheric CO2 molecules intercept low-frequency IR waves radiated from Earth on their way back into space. The exchange warms the atmosphere a little and this causes water to evaporate and move into the atmosphere. Water vapor is a much more significant “greenhouse gas” than CO2. They say that the result is a 3 fold increase in temperature as a result. This is their so-called “climate sensitivity”. This is part of the GIGO that is put into the climate models that the warmers use to predict catastrophic in the future. Let us look and see how well this has turned out for them in the real world versus the computer world.
The chart above was made in June 2013 so it is a little out of date. Next chart will be the latest update.
The important things to know are the following
- All those little hair-like lines represent the output from one of the 73 warmer computers. They are all over the place.
- The heavy black line aggregates all of the 73 outputs into a single line which represents the “official forecast”.
- The blue squares are the actual recorded global temperatures as measured by satellites.
- The actual temperature as measured by the weather balloons are shown as black dots.
- The balloons and the satellites essentially confirm each other and they are, again, actual measurements.
- Every 4 or 5 years, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gathers and produces an analysis of the state of the climate. They then issue a technical report and a summary that is primarily for the politicians of the world. One of the features of the IPCC report is how confident they are that their predictions are spot on.
- The red arrows show their level of confidence, at the time of the report, as to how sure they are that the forecasts are correct.
- The first report said that they were “confident”. As each new report was issued, they got more confident of their forecasts. The last one being 95% certain. This is all happening as the spread between their forecast temperature readings and the actual temperature readings continued to diverge.
Posted in AGW, Antartica, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, ClimateGate, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, ENSO, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Ice cores, Ice Melt, IPCC, NOAA, Sea Level, The Pause, US Temperatures
The UAH satellite global average temperature anomaly went up moderately in April from March’s +0.19° C to +0.27°C. The Southern Hemisphere and the Tropics led the way, but both are well below the same month’s anomalies in 2016. How low will the anomaly go?
The chart and data are from Dr. Roy Spencers blog.
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.98
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.08
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.64 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.33 +0.50 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.29 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.31 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.38 +0.37
2016 10 +0.40 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.26 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05
2017 03 +0.19 +0.30 +0.07 +0.03
2017 04 +0.27 +0.27 +0.26 +0.21
The website CO2 Coalition has a post titled “Climate Change: A summary of the Science”. It one of the best summaries I have come across lately. It is fairly long, so I could do my usual and summarize it, but there is virtually nothing in it that I would want to skip over. So, I will not deprive the reader. I will put it in, in its entirety. I hope that my posting yesterday will fill in any blanks you may have otherwise had.
News 26 Feb, 2017
Climate Change: A Summary of the Science
The climate change science is settled, but not how the climate alarmists want you to think.
Posted in AGW, chemistry, China, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, crop yields, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Media Bias, Ocean Acidification, photosynthesis, Sea Level, Solar Activity, Storms/hurricanes, Sun, sun and climate, The Pause
°If cbdakota were appointed the EPA Administrator, he might begin his work issuing this statement:
I thank President Trump for my nomination and the vote approving the nomination.
Our mission will be that the EPA continues to protect the environment and at the same time does not stifle our Nation’s productivity.
Our initial review of the EPA has found some activities, regulations and guidance documents that need to be critically assessed, cancelled or expanded. The following are several of the items that illustrate the issues we uncovered and our plan to deal with these issues:
The Endangerment Finding (EF) needs to be re-evaluated, revised and updated using current science. The EF is largely based upon the IPCC pre-2007 climate science, making it more than 10 years old. Furthermore, the projections of temperature, sea level and other variables do not match the actual measured temperature and sea level data. These EF projections greatly overstate the size of the changes thus putting into question the amount of endangerment.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, crop yields, Drought, Environment, EPA, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, IPCC, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes, The Pause, Tornados, US Manufacturing Companies, warmer prediction fails
I am rebloging Warren Meyers essay that says we should deny the climate catastrophe that the warmers predict. This is a long chapter showing what the actual global temperature data really is. There has been a lot of adjusting the data on the part of the warmers who, with the exception of the UAH satellite data, control the system. This is the 4th chapter of his essay. He titles this one as 4A and has a 4B which reviews the troubles with the surface temperature record. He says the reader can skip 4B, so I may give just a reference to those who want read it can do so.
In our last chapter, we ended a discussion on theoretical future warming rates by saying that no amount of computer modelling was going to help us choose between various temperature sensitivities and thus warming rates. Only observational data was going to help us determine how the Earth actually responds to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. So in this chapter we turn to the next part of our framework, which is our observations of Earth’s temperatures, which is among the data we might use to support or falsify the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2 positive feedback, CRU Temps, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Interglacial periods, IPCC, The Pause