University of Vermont climate study of sedimentary cores shows periods of extreme storminess occurred thousands of years before any human influence.
Previous periods of extreme storminess: A 13,000 year scientific study of lake sediments by the reliable method of drilling and retrieving cores reveals that the climate of the United States has been through numerous periods of more extreme climate. The research explains:
“ Storm magnitude, as estimated by average terrigenous layer thickness, was greatest at 11,800, 10,800, and 1,200 years before present, when New England climate was cool and moist.”
“Storminess reached variable maxima lasting ~1,500 years, centered at approximately 2,600, 5,800, 9,100, and 11,900 years ago, and appears to be presently increasing toward another peak.”
Here we see the periods of greatest climate variation from the established normal happen when conditions are “cool and moist,” which runs contrary to current climate alarmism theory which states that a warmer, drier climate will result in more extreme events.
The research points out that the USA is “increasing towards another peak” in storminess therefore the peaks of extreme climate were larger before the industrial revolution that started in 1851.
As the 2015 Atlantic hurricane season winds down, NOAA is fear mongering again even as Atlantic hurricane activity has dropped a whopping 80 percent from 10 years ago.
That’s according to a new analysis released yesterday by Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist and team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. To blunt this historical news, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced yesterday that global warming could be to blame for an active hurricane season last year around Hawaii. Meanwhile, as the Atlantic hurricane season finishes out its eleventh year, there hasn’t been a category 3 or higher hurricane to hit landfall in over a decade.
With the upcoming UN-sponsored Paris Climate Talks in early December, NOAA’s scientists have instead released a new report saying that global warming may have played a role in the increased hurricane activity around Hawaii last year. To hammer home its point, NOAA reiterated that “tropical storm Iselle slammed into the Big Island in August 2014 and was one of three tropical disturbances that approached Hawaii last year, making it the third largest number” since recordkeeping began.
Siegel’s article has now been read 9,000 times and suggests 46{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of alarmists are now climate skeptics.
More specifically the survey at the bottom of the article asked readers: If you were a supporter of decarbonization before reading this essay, please state your new view on climate change … a large proportion of respondents indicated that: “I found it very convincing and will try to have conversations with others about this.” Brilliant right?
Meanwhile, Siegel has this follow-up written on WUWT and he summarized his climate odyssey on climatecurious.org. He also has a follow up article giving a three-step recipe on how “climate change” can be solved:
We must focus on liberal media outlets to get them to learn how biased they are and why they are buying the wrong story. It’s a huge challenge because they associate decarbonization with doing good for the environment, and to them, anyone who says otherwise is a hardcore conservative bent on destroying the future. It’s hard for them to admit they are wrong. The media parrots what the PR people tell them to say. Ask hard questions. Do what you can to influence liberal media, blogs, journalists, and others. Simply having conversations, asking questions, and sending people my essay will help.
I would like to target a small number of well-known people to convert and then they will spread the message naturally. The people on my list are influential liberals: Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Jeff Skoll, Jon Stewart, Elan Musk, George Clooney, Mike Bloomberg, George Soros, Thomas Steyer, etc. My goal is to put together a very small, very exclusive event where a few of such people can spend a day with the people I list in my article and learn what’s really going on in climate science. Then people can use verifiable science and influence to help us put the environmental movement (and climate science) back on track. If you can help me reach them, I hope to make this event a reality.
Dear Science, Mathematics (and other) Teachers of Australia,
The Australian education system is broken, and it is doubtful that it can be salvaged. I have not heard or seen any teachers association in Australia object to the demonstrable nonsense that is peddled nowadays as science, in our schools, technical colleges, universities, textbooks, and by celebrity Authorities (some with a Nobel Prize) on television and radio programmes.
Having taught in Australian high schools, TAFE colleges, and universities, I am dismayed and appalled by the apathy and ignorance of Australian teachers at large.
New European Union (EU) law intending to be ‘green’ by limiting electricity power usage in domestic vacuum cleaners turns out to be more wasteful in energy. Scientists and consumers baffled by Brussels lawmakers’ faux pas.
North Americans, don’t be afraid, your old vacuum cleaner is just fine but if you feel like buying a new one anyway, no problem either.
If you live across the pond in the EU, however, you might just want to hang on to your old vac. The good bureaucrats of the EU have prescribed a new ‘greener’ standard: new vacuum cleaners have been limited to a maximum energy use of 1.6 kW (as of September 2014) and 0.9 kW as of September 2017. That’s a major change in energy consumption, mandated by EU law; needless to say, some manufacturers are not happy and the consumers—they’ll have to find out.
2. Dr. David Evans has shown, using the same flawed radiative model of the IPCC as the basis, that “The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C”
Dear Science, Mathematics (and other) Teachers of Australia,
The Australian education system is broken, and it is doubtful that it can be salvaged. I have not heard or seen any teachers association in Australia object to the demonstrable nonsense that is peddled nowadays as science, in our schools, technical colleges, universities, textbooks, and by celebrity Authorities (some with a Nobel Prize) on television and radio programmes.
Having taught in Australian high schools, TAFE colleges, and universities, I am dismayed and appalled by the apathy and ignorance of Australian teachers at large.
It is no wonder that physics and mathematics in particular, in Australia, have become decrepit, when no voice is raised by teachers associations against the tide of mysticism and other claptrap that now engulfs our education system.
It seems that Australian teachers are either (1) ignorant of their subject matter, (2) prepared to put hidden agendas before scholarship, or (3) both (1) and (2). For what other reasons can there be for their silence?
As a case in point I draw your attention to the appearance of astronomer Professor Brian Schmidt, Nobel Laureate (Physics), Australian National University, on the ABC programme Q&A on 15 September 2014, where, on national television, he gravely misinformed a thoughtful 11 year old boy interested in physics; and the audience besides.
Dear Science, Mathematics (and other) Teachers of Australia,
The Australian education system is broken, and it is doubtful that it can be salvaged. I have not heard or seen any teachers association in Australia object to the demonstrable nonsense that is peddled nowadays as science, in our schools, technical colleges, universities, textbooks, and by celebrity Authorities (some with a Nobel Prize) on television and radio programmes.
Having taught in Australian high schools, TAFE colleges, and universities, I am dismayed and appalled by the apathy and ignorance of Australian teachers at large.
It is no wonder that physics and mathematics in particular, in Australia, have become decrepit, when no voice is raised by teachers associations against the tide of mysticism and other claptrap that now engulfs our education system.
It seems that Australian teachers are either (1) ignorant of their subject matter, (2) prepared to put hidden agendas before scholarship, or (3) both (1) and (2). For what other reasons can there be for their silence?
As a case in point I draw your attention to the appearance of astronomer Professor Brian Schmidt, Nobel Laureate (Physics), Australian National University, on the ABC programme Q&A on 15 September 2014, where, on national television, he gravely misinformed a thoughtful 11 year old boy interested in physics; and the audience besides.
2. Dr. David Evans has shown, using the same flawed radiative model of the IPCC as the basis, that “The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C”
3. Kimoto has shown climate sensitivity is ~.15-.2C due to the IPCC false assumptions of a fixed lapse rate and a mathematical error in calculating the Planck feedback parameter:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=kimoto
4 Volokin et al have shown that planetary surface temperatures are a function of solar insolation and surface pressure only, not greenhouse gas concentrations, on all 8 planets for which we have adequate data, including Earth & Venus.
5. The surface temperature and tropospheric temperature profile can easily be derived from physical first principles including the 1st LoT, Ideal Gas Law, Poisson Equation, Newton’s 2nd Law, and Stefan-Boltzmann Law for solar forcing only, and without greenhouse gas “radiative forcing,” and perfectly replicates the verified 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. Thus, once again, sensitivity to CO2 is mathematically proven to be essentially zero.
6. Convection dominates radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere by a factor of ~8X, and increased greenhouse gases accelerate convection, thereby erasing any alleged cold-heats-hot greenhouse gas radiative effects on the surface.
A new report released this week by the U.N.-funded WMO said that the levels of the three most potent ‘greenhouse gases’ in our atmosphere reached new levels in 2014. The good news is that CO2 rose less than 2 ppm, with the other two gases barely climbing at all. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increased to only 397.7 parts per million (PPM), up 1.9 PPM from 2013.
A new report released this week by the U.N.-funded WMO said that the levels of the three most potent ‘greenhouse gases’ in our atmosphere reached new levels in 2014. The good news is that CO2 rose less than 2 ppm, with the other two gases barely climbing at all. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increased to only 397.7 parts per million (PPM), up 1.9 PPM from 2013.
They also said methane levels measured 1,833 parts per billion (PPB) in 2014, and were up only 9 PPB from 2013. The globally averaged level of nitrous oxide in 2014 grew to 327.1 PPB, which is 1.1 PPB above the previous year. The largest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapor, which makes up 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of all so-called greenhouse gases. All of which may be bad news if you’ve instituted economy-crippling policies ahead of a UN-sponsored climate treaty.
But if you’ve ever wondered what the greenhouse gas/effect means, this may help: A greenhouse is a glass-covered enclosure that is pumped with higher amounts of CO2 (usually around 1,800 PPM) to promote plant growth. As the sun’s visible and ultraviolet light passes through the glass ceiling and walls, it gets absorbed by the floor, ground, and greenhouse contents. This heat then radiates off the items in the greenhouse and, because it’s in an enclosed structure (the glass), is unable to escape into the cooler air around the structure.
Think of it like your car in the hot sun. It’s not filled with CO2, but the heat has no way to escape because of the glass and steel enclosure. Government climate scientists believe that gases like water vapor and CO2 act like the glass and steel, preventing the heat from escaping into space, giving you an Earth-sized greenhouse. Hence the term “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gases.” But they seem to overlook the fact earth’s atmosphere is open to space (i.e. nothing like a closed greenhouse).
The theory of global warming involves a lot of assumptions. First it states that, with all things being equal, the Earth “maintains a constant average temperature averaged out over the course of a year.” As sunlight comes in, it heats the air and Earth, some gets absorbed, some gets emitted back into outer space, and what’s left maintains a relatively moderate temperature for the planet. Remember, energy can’t be destroyed. So what comes in has to either be converted into something else, absorbed, or reflected back into outer space.
According to the ‘theory’ how fast this energy is radiated back into outer space depends on how much of a particular gas is in the atmosphere, like water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane. The more of a particular gas we have in the atmosphere, the less energy can get bounced back out into space.
This, say climate scientists, causes the lower atmosphere to stay warmer (near the surface), but also warms the upper atmosphere (remember, energy can’t be destroyed). Water vapor is the most potent shield for keeping this energy from escaping the Earth. For a more in-depth tutorial and examples, go here.
Global warming theory also says that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. It predicts that the upper atmosphere will warm from trapped heat, just like in a greenhouse. The surface of the Earth warms later to reach equilibrium. Except since 1979, we’ve had orbiting satellites measuring the atmosphere and it shows the upper atmosphere is warming much less than expected by this theory.
Because nature abhors imbalances, global warming theory also says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this upper atmospheric heat by increasing in temperature until the energy coming in equals the energy going out. To do this, the Earth’s temperature at the surface goes up to meet the temperature of the upper atmosphere and balance is restored. But as noted above that isn’t happening. That fact alone should put the greenhouse gas theory into the coffin.
But there is far too much money involved in the global-warming cottage industry and, as less hysterical climate scientists keep trying to say, the planet is not as sensitive to imbalances as some people would have you believe. In fact, the Earth is quite adept at keeping up with changes as it has done so for the last 4.5 billion years.
The largest CO2 sponge on the planet are the oceans around us. The largest emitter of CO2 on the planet are microbes that produce CO2 as they consumer decaying organic matter. What man contributes, while significant, barely registers when compared to natural, ongoing processes (including, but not limited to, volcanic activity beneath the oceans).
Regardless of all this, the 2014 CO2 level is actually a 12-month average as CO2 in the atmosphere fluctuates throughout the year, and is lower when the Northern Hemisphere is in full bloom (plants absorb CO2) and higher in the winter (when more ocean is covered in ice and fewer plants are in bloom).
To put this in context, CO2 levels went up on such an infinitesimal scale as to be unquantifiable. Methane, which is considered to have 21-23 times the heat trapping power of CO2, rose to 1,833 PPB in 2014. That’s up 9 parts per billion (with a B). Mix 9 red marbles into a billion white marbles, and you begin to understand the silliness that ensues every time one of these reports come out.
Which always seem to happen right before a UN-sponsored climate conference like the one coming up in December.
New European Union (EU) law intending to be ‘green’ by limiting electricity power usage in domestic vacuum cleaners turns out to be more wasteful in energy. Scientists and consumers baffled by Brussels lawmakers’ faux pas.
North Americans, don’t be afraid, your old vacuum cleaner is just fine but if you feel like buying a new one anyway, no problem either.
If you live across the pond in the EU, however, you might just want to hang on to your old vac. The good bureaucrats of the EU have prescribed a new ‘greener’ standard: new vacuum cleaners have been limited to a maximum energy use of 1.6 kW (as of September 2014) and 0.9 kW as of September 2017. That’s a major change in energy consumption, mandated by EU law; needless to say, some manufacturers are not happy and the consumers—they’ll have to find out.
What’s the Issue?
Though I barely know such household gadgets, I think most vacs sold on this continent are using motors rated in the 1.5+ kW range, well above the 2017 limit mandated by the EU standard. I hazard the guess that few of the bureaucrats who wrote the new regulations ever use any vacuum themselves. After all, they are there to make regulations, not to live by them.
If they did use a vac, they might just realize that working twice as long with a 0.9 kW “energy-saving” implement compared to a 1.5 kW system for half the time does not save any energy at all. In fact, it consumes more energy (consumed energy = power x time).
The following resolution was released yesterday by the Schiller Institute, with the intention of rapidly collecting signatures from qualified professionals, political leaders, and ordinary citizens internationally. The main posting of the resolution can be found here, as well as the downloadable leaflet for signatures.
The conditions of life for billions of people depend upon rejecting the agenda being presented at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris this December. The COP21 Paris initiative to adopt a legally binding agreement to reduce CO2 emissions must be rejected on two grounds: the scientific reality that mankind’s activity is not going to cause catastrophic climate change, and the very real, lethal consequences of the CO2 reduction programs being demanded.
The American Meteorological Society has weighed into the debate on the climate fraud allegedly committed by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
It thinks that NOAA’s dodgy, data-fudging, parti-pris scientists should be allowed to go on spending taxpayers’ money on green propaganda unimpeded by the scrutiny of pesky skeptics like Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX).
Here’s how the AMS’s executive director, Keith L Seitter, puts it in an open letter to the congressman:
Singling out specific research studies, and implicitly questioning the integrity of the researchers conducting those studies, can be viewed as a form of intimidation that could deter scientists from freely carrying out research on important national challenges.
The reason for this, he goes on to “explain”, is that scientists who work for public institutions such as NOAA are a bit like a cross between Einstein, St Francis of Assisi and Joan of Arc, only, obviously more brilliant, saintly, self-sacrificial and nobly dedicated to the furtherance of human knowledge.
You’ll have heard of it, COP-21, the latest United Nation conference on all things climate, coming to Paris (France) in December. Wouldn’t you know it, just in time for that “cataclysmic” event, nature does not want to play according to the organizers’ script.
Rather than the polar ice caps having shrivelled to mere remnants by now, forecast for many years by all climate modelling enthusiasts, the polar ice shields have been growing by leaps and bounds. For example, according to a recent report by NASA scientists HJ Zwally et al., the Antarctic ice shield has been growing for 15 years already, even at an alarming rate. Then we learn that near the earth’s opposite pole, in Greenland, the rate of ice accumulation is breaking new records too; see the figure below (source: Danish Met. Inst., Nov. 7, 2015) and, last not least, the seasonal growth of the sea ice extent in the Arctic is not far behind.
Consternation
It must come as total consternation to all those people who have claimed for years now that “climate change” or “global warming” as it used to be termed is about ready to “incinerate” all life on earth. For example, “climate modellers” like S. Rahmstorf at Germany’s PIK have claimed for years that the polar regions would be most sensitive to any warming and that the polar ice masses were going to recede in a great hurry and that the ocean levels would rise fast. In reality, none of that is the case.
In fact, the polar ice masses continue to grow, some reaching new all-time records in both ice extent and accumulated mass. Also ocean levels are NOT rising as previously predicted.
If you feel somewhat confused, please don’t shoot the messenger. As the lateAlan Caruba has claimed for years, the climate fear-mongering is nothing but an elaborate hoax. The fact that even Pope Francis subscribes to the climate gospel now does not cause the ice masses to shrink. Perhaps his Holiness’ recent encyclical letter “Laudato Si, on care for our common home” may sway some folks’ views but even the Pontiff cannot dictate nature’s course. Just as an aside, the Vatican has never signed on to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 that was to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
If the now two-decade long lack of lack of the prophesized warming and actually increasing ice masses at the earth’s poles are not enough to worry about, there are even more dire facts that may jolt you back to reality.
NASA is just days away from a flyby in which its Cassini space probe will fly through liquid plumes on Saturn’s moon Enceladus.
The agency’s scientists said on Wednesday, October 28, its craft would fly down within 30 miles of the surface of the icy moon and attempt to pass through the plumes erupting from its south pole in hopes of determining whether the ocean moon has conditions suitable for life.
The hope, say NASA scientists, is to figure out if Enceladus has geothermic activity similar to that found in Earth’s ocean. The hot-water vents allow simple life forms such as bacteria to thrive in an otherwise inhospitable environment.
In its brief 19,000mph flyby, Cassini will collect little more than a droplet of liquid. While the craft lacks the instruments to detect microscopic life, the team believes Cassini’s hardware will at least be able to determine whether Enceladus has the hydrogen to suggest the conditions that could support life.
“This flyby can’t detect life, but it will provide valuable insights into how habitable the ocean in Enceladus might be,” said Cassini program scientist Curt Niebur.
“This is a very big step in a new era of exploring ocean worlds in our solar system, bodies with great potential to provide life.”
Siegel’s article has now been read 9,000 times and suggests 46{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of alarmists are now climate skeptics.
I have not heard or seen any teachers association in Australia object to the demonstrable nonsense that is peddled nowadays as science, in our schools, technical colleges, universities, textbooks, and by celebrity Authorities (some with a Nobel Prize) on television and radio programmes. 
The good news is that CO2 rose less than 2 ppm, with the other two gases barely climbing at all. The 
Scientists and consumers baffled by Brussels lawmakers’ faux pas.
The following resolution was released yesterday by the 
Wouldn’t you know it, just in time for that “cataclysmic” event, nature does not want to play according to the organizers’ script.
