Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?
Did a spotless sun cause the Little Ice Age after all?
Did a spotless sun cause the Little Ice Age after all?
Tag: climate
Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?
No decline in polar bear population
Though the data is sketchy in places, it appears there has been no decline in the polar bear population for the past four years.
Though the data is sketchy in places, it appears there has been no decline in the polar bear population for the past four years.
Climate cleansing: Google to censor skeptics?
From JunkScience: Google to censor climate skeptics?
From JunkScience: Google to censor climate skeptics?
Former “alarmist” scientist says human-caused global warming is based on false science
Former “alarmist” scientist says human-caused global warming is based on false science.
Former “alarmist” scientist says human-caused global warming is based on false science.
IPCC announces reforms for next report
The IPCC announced this week it has established new procedures in an effort to avoid the problems that occurred with the last report.
I remain very skeptical of these reforms, as well as anything this UN organization publishes. Consider this quote for example:
On the issue of citing non-peer-reviewed literature, such as reports from nongovernmental organizations and climate activists, the new procedures say that IPCC report authors can include such documents “as long as they are scientifically and technically valid. [emphasis mine]
How convenient. Decide that something written by Greenpeace is “scientifically and technically valid” and you can use it as evidence.
The IPCC announced this week it has established new procedures in an effort to avoid the problems that occurred with the last report.
I remain very skeptical of these reforms, as well as anything this UN organization publishes. Consider this quote for example:
On the issue of citing non-peer-reviewed literature, such as reports from nongovernmental organizations and climate activists, the new procedures say that IPCC report authors can include such documents “as long as they are scientifically and technically valid. [emphasis mine]
How convenient. Decide that something written by Greenpeace is “scientifically and technically valid” and you can use it as evidence.
Climate scientist banned from Saudi Arabia for showing picture of dog with Saudi dress
Climate science meets Islam! A climate scientist was immediately banned from Saudi Arabia when he showed a picture of dog with Saudi dress during a lecture there.
Climate science meets Islam! A climate scientist was immediately banned from Saudi Arabia when he showed a picture of dog with Saudi dress during a lecture there.
The science remains uncertain
Two papers published this week by the American Geophysical Union once again indicate that the science of climate change remains exceedingly uncertain. More significantly, the models that try to predict the future of the Earth’s climate continue to appear unreliable, with such large margins of error that it is at this time foolish to make any policy based on their predictions.
The first paper took a close look at the deep water currents in the Atlantic to see if it could track changes to what the authors’ call the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), more generally referred to as the Atlantic conveyor belt. This conveyor belt begins with the sinking of salty dense water in the northeast Atlantic off of Europe and Africa. The deep water current then travels south and into the Indian and Pacific Oceans where it comes to the surface only to flow back to the Atlantic, traveling north along the coast of North America as the Gulf Stream, bringing with it the warm temperatures that make Europe’s climate much warmer than its latitude would normally suggest.
According to most global warming models, higher temperatures should cause the glaciers in the Arctic and Greenland to melt, thereby pouring an increased amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic. This infusion of fresh water is then expected to lower the salinity and density of the Atlantic water, thus preventing it from sinking and thus acting to slow the conveyor belt, and possibly even causing it to shut down. The consequence would be no more Gulf Stream to warm the climate of Europe.
In other words: Disaster! Death! Destruction! All caused by global warming!
Unfortunately for these global warming models, the paper above found no trend at all. The conveyor belt is not slowing, as predicted. To quote the paper’s abstract:
» Read more
We don’t know.
Since 2003, the sea level ceased rising
An inconvenient truth: New data now shows that since 2003, the rate of sea level rise has stablized, and since 2007, the rate of increase has actually slowed.
An inconvenient truth: New data now shows that since 2003, the rate of sea level rise has stablized, and since 2007, the rate of increase has actually slowed.
Climate change is a serious problem, but the solutions are a joke
This from someone who believes in climate change: “The solutions are a joke.”
This from someone who believes in climate change: “The solutions are a joke.”
Earth Day predictions from 1970
The predictions of disaster from the first Earth Day, 1970. I especially like this one:
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. . . . By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University [emphasis mine]
A consensus was reached and the science was settled!
Remember this the next time some blowhard global-warming pundit tries to claim “the science is settled” today.
The predictions of disaster from the first Earth Day, 1970. I especially like this one:
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. . . . By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University [emphasis mine]
A consensus was reached and the science was settled!
Remember this the next time some blowhard global-warming pundit tries to claim “the science is settled” today.
“Our conclusion was there is no benefit to the environment of oxo-degradable plastics.”
“Our conclusion was there is no benefit to the environment of oxo-degradable plastics.”
Instead, they say burn them!
“Our conclusion was there is no benefit to the environment of oxo-degradable plastics.”
Instead, they say burn them!
Global warming advocate discovers that anti-nuclear activists lie!
Confusion in the environmentalism movement: A global warming activist discovers that anti-nuclear activists lie!
Confusion in the environmentalism movement: A global warming activist discovers that anti-nuclear activists lie!
Met Office chief says he has received death threats from climate change skeptics
This is wrong, if true: The chief of the UK’s Met Office said yesterday that he has received death threats from climate change skeptics.
A Met Office spokesman confirmed Mr Hirst had received death threats made in a number of ”unsavoury emails”, but said they were ”isolated incidents” and the organisation had not felt it necessary to involve the police.
This is wrong, if true: The chief of the UK’s Met Office said yesterday that he has received death threats from climate change skeptics.
A Met Office spokesman confirmed Mr Hirst had received death threats made in a number of ”unsavoury emails”, but said they were ”isolated incidents” and the organisation had not felt it necessary to involve the police.
The UN loses the 50 million climate refugees that they predicted in 2005 would exist by 2010
The UN loses 50 million nonexistent climate refugees, predicted by them in 2005 to overwhelm us by 2010.
The UN loses 50 million nonexistent climate refugees, predicted by them in 2005 to overwhelm us by 2010.
Federal funding for IPCC back in budget
The pigs win: Funding for the IPCC restored to budget in 2011 budget deal.
The pigs win: Funding for the IPCC restored to budget in 2011 budget deal.
Hot time on the ol’ Sun tonight!
After literally years of inactivity, well below all initial predictions, the Sun truly came to life this past month. Below is the March monthly update of the Sun’s sunspot cycle, published by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. The red curve is the prediction, while the dotted black line shows the actual activity.
As you can see, the Sun’s sunspot activity shot up precipitously. Though I don’t have the data from past years, the March jump appears to me to probably be one of the fastest monthly rises ever recorded.
Does this mean the newest prediction from the solar scientists at the Marshall Space Flight Center calling for a weak solar maximum in 2013 is wrong? Probably not, though of course in this young field who knows? I would say, however, that the overall trend of the data still suggests the next maximum will be very weak.
Stay tuned! The next few months should finally give us a sense of where the next maximum is heading.
Will EPA Lose Control of Greenhouse Gas Rules?
Will the EPA lose control of greenhouse gas rules?
The article above, written for the journal Science, is clearly on the side of the EPA. Nonetheless, it does outline well the political dynamics of this regulatory battle between the EPA and Congress.
Will the EPA lose control of greenhouse gas rules?
The article above, written for the journal Science, is clearly on the side of the EPA. Nonetheless, it does outline well the political dynamics of this regulatory battle between the EPA and Congress.
Record loss of ozone over Arctic
I thought the banning of CFCs was going to change this? March sets a record for ozone loss over the Arctic.
Or to put it another way, climate science is far more complicated than too many climate scientists want to admit.
I thought the banning of CFCs was going to change this? March sets a record for ozone loss over the Arctic.
Or to put it another way, climate science is far more complicated than too many climate scientists want to admit.
EPA Whistleblower Criticizes Global Warming Science and Policy in New Peer-Reviewed Study
EPA whistleblower slams global warming science and policy in new peer-reviewed study. The paper’s conclusion:
The scientific hypotheses underlying global warming alarmism are overwhelmingly contradicted by real-world data, and for that reason economic studies on the alleged benefits of controlling greenhouse gas emissions are baseless.
EPA whistleblower slams global warming science and policy in new peer-reviewed study. The paper’s conclusion:
The scientific hypotheses underlying global warming alarmism are overwhelmingly contradicted by real-world data, and for that reason economic studies on the alleged benefits of controlling greenhouse gas emissions are baseless.
Comparing the Earth, as seen by Russian and American satellites
Comparing the view of Earth, interpreted differently by Russian and American satellites.
Comparing the view of Earth, interpreted differently by Russian and American satellites.
“Worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years”
From Watts Up With That: New sea level data shows that there has been “no acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years,” despite the increase in temperatures. Key quote from the paper:
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.
From Watts Up With That: New sea level data shows that there has been “no acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years,” despite the increase in temperatures. Key quote from the paper:
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.
Human-caused climate change – then and now
The question of human-caused climate change – unclear now and unclear 8,000 years ago.
The question of human-caused climate change – unclear now and unclear 8,000 years ago.
EPA vote postponed in Senate as Reid struggles to get Democrat votes
This is a good sign: The Senate vote on restricting the power of the EPA has been postponed by Harry Reid as he struggles to get Democrat votes.
This is a good sign: The Senate vote on restricting the power of the EPA has been postponed by Harry Reid as he struggles to get Democrat votes.
Random variations are still too large for climate models
The uncertainty of science: a paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters has concluded that the the long term random variations of the climate, sometimes lasting as long as three or four decades, are large enough to hide any actual changes to the climate. In the quote from the abstract below, the term “random walk” is jargon for a long term random fluctuation having nothing to do with climate change.
This result indicates that the shorter records may not totally capture the random variability of climate relevant on the time scale of civilizations, for which the random walk length is likely to be about 30 years. For this random walk length, the observed standard deviations of maximum temperature and minimum temperature yield respective expected maximum excursions on land of 1.4 and 2.3°C and over the ocean of 0.5 and 0.7°C, which are substantial fractions of the global warming signal.
In other words, it might simply be too soon to be making predictions about the climate, based upon the presently available data.
The uncertainty of science: a paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters has concluded that the the long term random variations of the climate, sometimes lasting as long as three or four decades, are large enough to hide any actual changes to the climate. In the quote from the abstract below, the term “random walk” is jargon for a long term random fluctuation having nothing to do with climate change.
This result indicates that the shorter records may not totally capture the random variability of climate relevant on the time scale of civilizations, for which the random walk length is likely to be about 30 years. For this random walk length, the observed standard deviations of maximum temperature and minimum temperature yield respective expected maximum excursions on land of 1.4 and 2.3°C and over the ocean of 0.5 and 0.7°C, which are substantial fractions of the global warming signal.
In other words, it might simply be too soon to be making predictions about the climate, based upon the presently available data.
Two NASA climate missions face one year schedule slip
Continue budget problems at NASA: Two climate missions each face a one year schedule slip.
Continue budget problems at NASA: Two climate missions each face a one year schedule slip.
The Sun shows some signs of life
Earlier this week NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center published its monthly update of the Sun’s sunspot cycle. As I do every month, I’ve posted the newest graph below, showing the continuing slow rise in sunspots (blue/black lines) in comparison with the consensis prediction made by the solar science community in May 2009 (red line).
» Read more
The icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica: are they melting?
NASA scientists have published a paper warning that there is growing evidence that the melting at the polar caps is accelerating. From the press release:
The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. In comparison, the 2006 study of mountain glaciers and ice caps estimated their loss at 402 gigatonnes a year on average, with a year-over-year acceleration rate three times smaller than that of the ice sheets.
Several things to note after reading the actual paper:
Climate science hearing changes nothing
There was a hearing in Congress today on climate science, though it apparently changed nothing: the Republican leadership in the committee is going to proceed with legislation to try to roll back the EPA regulations relating to carbon dioxide imposed by the Obama administration.
The most interesting detail I gleaned from the above article however was this quote, written by the Science journalist himself, Eli Kintisch:
The hearing barely touched on the underlying issue, namely, is it appropriate for Congress to involve itself so deeply into the working of a regulatory agency? Are there precedents? And what are the legal and governance implications of curtailing an agency’s authority in this way?
What a strange thing to write. If I remember correctly, we are a democracy, and the people we elect to Congress are given the ultimate responsibility and authority to legislate. There are no “legal or governance implications.” If they want to rein in a regulatory agency, that is their absolute Constitutional right. That Kintisch and his editors at Science don’t seem to understand this basic fact about American governance is most astonishing.
There was a hearing in Congress today on climate science, though it apparently changed nothing: the Republican leadership in the committee is going to proceed with legislation to try to roll back the EPA regulations relating to carbon dioxide imposed by the Obama administration.
The most interesting detail I gleaned from the above article however was this quote, written by the Science journalist himself, Eli Kintisch:
The hearing barely touched on the underlying issue, namely, is it appropriate for Congress to involve itself so deeply into the working of a regulatory agency? Are there precedents? And what are the legal and governance implications of curtailing an agency’s authority in this way?
What a strange thing to write. If I remember correctly, we are a democracy, and the people we elect to Congress are given the ultimate responsibility and authority to legislate. There are no “legal or governance implications.” If they want to rein in a regulatory agency, that is their absolute Constitutional right. That Kintisch and his editors at Science don’t seem to understand this basic fact about American governance is most astonishing.