An exceptionally cloudy period in the South East of England put something of a dampener on the holiday period as heavy rain fell across large swathes of the country.Read more
Environmental lobbying group shuts down after climate bill stalls
Climate advocates stung by defeat in the Senate are folding one of their big umbrella lobbying groups.
You wouldn't be here without CO2
‘The whole thing turns on a preposterous theory based on maligning a wholly benign rare gas that is in fact essential to existence of life on earth’
The incredible fact is that the whole thing turns on a preposterous theory based on maligning a wholly benign rare gas that is in fact essential to the existence of life on earth.
Bid Adios to the Anti-Global Warming Movement
Future historians will pinpoint Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s energy legislation, released last Tuesday, as the moment that the political movement of global warming entered an irreversible death spiral. It is kaput! Finito! Done!
Don't Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste
By Thomas Richard
It's the sun, stupid
Read here. Researchers using lake sediment cores determine that severe weather for the northeastern United States has followed a cyclical pattern with a 3,000 year gap between each peak. The latest severe weather period began some 600 years ago with onset of the Little Ice Age. The major forces driving this natural cycle are thought to be solar changes, along with changes in the Atlantic Oscillation (AO).Atmospheric CO2 levels are not even considered to be an influence on this natural cycle of storminess.
“The authors’ data indicate that “the frequency of storm-related floods in the northeastern United States has varied in regular cycles during the past 13,000 years (13 kyr), with a characteristic period of about 3 kyr.” There were four major storminess peaks during this period; they occurred approximately 2.6, 5.8, 9.1 and 11.9 kyr ago, with the most recent upswing in storminess beginning “at about 600 yr BP [Before Present], coincident with the beginning of the Little Ice Age.”…..authors say that the pattern they observed “is consistent with long-term changes in the average sign of the Arctic Oscillation [AO], suggesting that modulation of this dominant atmospheric mode may account for a significant fraction of Holocene climate variability in North America and Europe.”…..authors also report that “during the past ~600 yr, New England storminess appears to have been increasing naturally,” and they suggest that “changes in the AO, perhaps modulated by solar forcing, may explain a significant portion of Holocene climate variability in the North Atlantic region.” They further state that their explanation is appealing “because it makes a specific prediction that New England storminess should be at its greatest when Europe is cold (characteristic of the low-phase AO),” such as during Little Ice Age conditions”
Hooray! School system pulls global warming book and video from classrooms
By Joe Dejka, World-Herald
Millard Public Schools will stop using a children’s book about global warming — but only until the district can obtain copies with a factual error corrected.A review committee, convened after parents complained, concluded that author Laurie David’s book, “The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming,” contained “a major factual error” in a graphic about rising temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.Mark Feldhausen, associate superintendent for educational services, this week sent a letter to parents who complained, including the wife of U.S. Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska, outlining the committee’s findings.”Although the authors have pledged to correct the graph in subsequent editions, the committee recommends that this correction be made to all MPS-owned texts before using it with students in the future,” Feldhausen wrote.
Corrected versions will continue to be used in Millard’s sixth-grade language arts curriculum, he wrote. However, the district will cease to use a companion video about global warming, narrated by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, he wrote.
The committee found the video “without merit” and recommended that it not be used.
Robyn Terry, the congressman’s wife, had described the video as a “political commercial.”Lee and Robyn Terry released a statement saying they were pleased with the decision and “impressed” by the district’s handling of the case.
“We are pleased with their decision not to use the politically natured global warming video as a classroom instruction tool and that they have set a standard that information-based texts must be factually correct to be put in front of our children,” they wrote.
Read the rest here.
Climate Depot's Marc Morano Takes on ABC News' Dan Harris
We’ve all sort of known the media have been in the tank for the global warming alarmist movement. For evidence, look no further than a March 2008 segment that aired on ABC “World News” attacking leading climate skeptic, University of Virginia environmental scientist Professor Emeritus Fred Singer.
And the same culprit behind that 2008 segment, “World News” weekend anchor Dan Harris, was at it again with a piece that aired on May 23 attempting to link climate change skeptics to white supremacists.
But for balance, Harris included a few brief remarks, all of 10 seconds, from Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, a news aggregator website Harris called “aggressive.” But the actual interview Harris conducted with Morano was much more extensive and in depth. Throughout the interview, Harris asked Morano questions, but with premises that weren’t necessarily true.
During the back-and-forth, Harris asked Morano about the “threat” from people who challenged global warming skeptics, the validity that ClimateGate was a real scandal, the charges from Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., that ClimateGate exposed fraud, how someone could be skeptical of global warming with such a broad consensus and what Harris deemed as “interesting,” that climate skeptics were susceptible to threats as well. However, 99 percent of that was left out of the segment. What was left out of the ABC News segment? Transcript as follows:
HARRIS: So we’ll just get your reaction, I know this is a complaint you’ve heard before, but of late, climate scientists say they’re seeing a big spike in threatening e-mails, and the FBI is looking into it and the scientists say that it’s stopping them from doing their work for some are quite scared. What is your – what do you think of this alleged trend?
MORANO: Well, first of all, no one advocates violence. There’s always lunatics on any side of any hotly contested debate that will make threats or do threats of physical harm or death threats. No one is advocating that. But, what I will say is these scientists who for decades have been telling people that the debate was over, the science is settled and that we must act now. We must radically alter our lifestyles. We need to make all these changes in order to confront the crisis of global warming.
That’s all been now exposed, especially the lie of consensus as a con job. The idea that all scientists agree with a con job, the idea, you know, that this was the best science that we can have was a con job. So right now, the public is very appropriately venting their anger to the very scientists who spend decades refusing to debate, suppressing dissenting opinion, trying to redefine what peer-reviewed literature meant and using the U.N. political process, which called — demonized skeptics as “flat-earthers.” And so, the public is appropriately angry at these scientists. And again, no one’s advocating violence but it is refreshing to see these scientists hear from the public, when you go to a used car salesman and you get conned, you get a lemon, you don’t go back to the used car dealer all happy and pleasant. You have a lot of anger and that’s what these scientists are appropriately feeling and that is why I actually published the e-mails, publicly available e-mails, of these scientists on my Web site, Climate Depot.
HARRIS: Now, on ClimateGate, isn’t it true that several of the subsequent investigations exonerated these guys from cooking the books?
MORANO: Right, you’re referring to Lord Oxburgh and these other reports? U.N. scientists have like laughed. Richard Tol, a lead author at the U.N. is laughing at this Oxburgh report and other scientists. This was essentially a light piece of paper – a couple of pages long. Didn’t interview any of the skeptics. Had a very narrow focus on what they were looking at and these were all warmists. The head of it, Lord Oxburgh, had massive conflict of interests that he never would have gotten away with had it been the other way around and say a skeptic was heading an oil-funded interest. This was a complete laughingstock investigation.
And the bottom line is, we’ve seen the e-mails, we’ve heard the top U.N. scientists now turning on each other. I have a whole report of U.N. scientists turning on the U.N. saying it’s run its course, it’s time to disband it. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chief should resign. So these little committees that get together that are all politically connected, full of global warmist, aren’t going to change the fact there’s a civil war going on within the U.N. over these ClimateGate e-mails. And the American people realize what ClimateGate was all about. You don’t need a committee to read the very words of these scientists.
HARRIS: I recognize you’re no longer in the employ of Sen. [James] Inhofe. Let me ask you about his recent report. Some of the scientists we have spoken to say that of all the pushback they have gotten in recent months – the most disturbing thing to them was this report from Sen. Inhofe that named the 17 scientists and tends to raise the specter of criminal investigation or criminal charges. People are calling that “McCarthyite.” How do you — what’s your pushback on that?
MORANO: No, I think he’s identified, if I’m not mistaken, 17 scientists that warrant further investigation. This is absolutely appropriate. These are scientists, many of them on the government dole, the United Nations money. These scientists who’ve actively been involved in at least the appearance of or actively involved in rebuking Freedom of Information Act requests – scientists who get public fund s to do research that have a lot of questions to answer. And for them to say, “Oh my gosh, what horror!” No, they’re on the public dime in many cases and they’re advocating public policy changes and radical changes to our lifestyles down to the toilet paper we use, down to the light bulbs we can use. Down to how much we’re going to be paying for gas and home energy, all based on their science which has now -been credible accusations that they have cooked the books. So it’s completely appropriate for the government to start looking at them and naming names.
HARRIS: When you attack the consensus, that’s where I get a little confused because you can say what you want about the U.N., but you can also add in to their — you know, NASA, NOAA, the American Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the National Academy of Sciences in pretty much every developed nation on the planet.
How can you construct a consensus this broad on a hoax?
MORANO: First of all, it’s not a “broad consensus.” What you just said there were political arguments. You’re insulting the intelligence of ABC News by using that as proof of a consensus. What you’ve done is – all those groups you’ve mentioned – the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Advancement [of Science], the American Chemical Society – they’ve all had two dozen or so governing board members vote on a statement that is vaguely similar to what the United Nations says about global warming. Science groups don’t take direct votes of their member scientists. Most of the members we find out aren’t even aware these statements are issued at the time they’re issued. But what’s happened since is massive blowback. The American Chemical Society was shocked at the number of dissenting scientists upset at their stand. The National Academy of Sciences is having a big blowback. The American Physical Society is having a big blowback of member scientists. When you get away from that political governing board, the American Meteorological Society, it has been documented, has been staffed by former [Vice President Al] Gore staffers in their bureaucracy.
Dan, you’re bringing up a political argument and masquerading it as science and that’s a disservice to ABC News viewers. Look at the actual scientific conferences. In Norway, in 2008 – I can send you the documentation. There was a scientific conference held only every four years – the Geological Congress. It’s called the Olympic event of scientists. Two-thirds of the scientists were estimated to be skeptical, hostile and dismissive of UN IPCC scientists. In Canada, 50,000 earth scientists canvassed – remember the member scientists, not the politically connected  board members – 67 percent rejected a consensus on manmade global warming. Scientists are speaking up around the world and the blowback against this call for Nuremberg trials for skeptics by Grist magazine, blowback against Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s saying coal barons who are skeptical need to be put in jail.
I had scientist join the Senate list of 700 dissenting scientists simply because the head of the U.N. compared them to flat-earthers. They say things like we can remain silent no longer. We’re not going to be demonized like this. So, the idea of broad consensus is now laughable. Even the ClimateGate scientists don’t have a consensus when they’re talking about the U.N. and my favorite quote – it was Kevin Trenberth, I believe, who said “We can’t do geo-engineering because we don’t understand the climate system well enough to know what impact it will have.”
That’s your consensus, Dan? I think you can do better than that.
HARRIS: One last question. You alluded to this, but I want to give you the chance to flesh it out a little bit. Somebody from Sen. Inhofe’s office made this point. I think it’s an interesting one. You made it as well – that scientists and others who have skepticism about climate change have been harassed as well.
MORANO: Yes, I have an entire documented report. Let’s start from the top. On Climate Progress, Joe Romm’s blog, he defended a post saying the future generations will strangle climate skeptics in bed. Talking Points Memo had a piece that said when will climate skeptics be executed, when can we start punishing them now for what they’ve done? Grist magazine, I mentioned the Nuremberg-style trials. I mentioned threats and intimidation. I had two e-mails that were threatening to me that the Sergeant of Arms in the Senate had to investigate. So, I laugh when I hear these scientists say, ‘Oh these are threatening e-mails.’ Skeptics have been getting these for years. Talk to Tim Ball in Canada, the climatologist who’s skeptical. He’s gotten death threats. There’s been reports in, I want to say Europe. I can’t remember the guy’s name, but I can get it for you. There’s been reports about skeptical scientists in Europe having their tires flattened after receiving threats. So threats are on all sides of this. There’s no way we can look at this and say, “Oh these poor ClimateGate scientists” or “poor U.N. scientists.” The bottom line is they were at ground zero perpetuating a con job of the illusion of a consensus. They deserve the public wrath they’re getting. It’s refreshing that they’re finally getting a hostile reaction. They’re not in their little cocoon of the U.N. or the mainstream media like ABC News.
HARRIS: Are there other points that I have not given you a chance to make that you feel like I should – that need to be made?
MORANO: Yeah, other than just public opinion – you know Richard Lindzen had a great quote: “The educated are very vulnerable to manmade climate fears, but ordinary people see right through them.” And the bottom line is whether you’re talking Australia, Canada, Europe, England, India, South Africa, America – skepticism has grown by leaps and bounds. We now have more Americans believing in haunted houses than manmade global warming. That’s scientific progress and that is why these ClimateGate scientists and the U.N. scientists are in a panic. That and their civil war going on. Again, I can send you a report of all the scientists turning against the U.N. Lead authors, former chairmen, former members. We have reports of scientists leaving. It was the best science politics can manufacture and it’s been exposed through ClimateGate and now through the civil war going on in the U.N. and it’s about time. The American people can breathe a sigh of relief. People around the world can breathe a sigh of relief. This whole manufactured crisis is ending. It’s dying and we’re watching the last throes of it and we should all be happy about that.
HARRIS: Marc, thank you for doing this. I appreciate it.
MORANO: Thank you, Dan. I appreciate it.
HARRIS: Have a good rest of your weekend.
MORANO: Alright, I’ll expect to do a rebuttal to your piece on Sunday night or Monday morning. So look for it. I don’t expect the — I think you did the Fred Singer piece last year, which was atrocious reporting. I believe that was you, right? You did the piece on Fred Singer?
HARRIS: I did the piece on Fred Singer.
MORANO: So I’m not expecting much from you, but we’ll have fun.
HARRIS: Well, thank you for having low expectations.
MORANO: I have very low expectations.
The Arctic: Over 1,000+ Years, CO2 Has Zero Impact On Polar Warming & Cooling
The AGW hypothesis states that human CO2 emissions will cause the world to warm, with the the globe’s polar areas being especially vulnerable to rapid warming, due to CO2. The evidence from the last 1,000 years plus does not support the hypothesis.
Previously, we examined the data from Antarctica. Now we look at the actual Arctic area data (see chart below) and find that like the Antarctic, the northern polar regions have temperature swings unrelated to the CO2 levels. From peak to valley, Arctic temperatures changed more than 1.6 degrees Celsius while CO2 levels remained fairly stable. (click on image to enlarge)
Despite the alarmist claims of polar regions melting due to CO2-induced warming, there is no evidence to support that claim, either historically or currently. In fact, the highest temperatures reached over the last 1,000+ years were during the Medieval Period (about 1,000 years before present) when CO2 levels were close to being their lowest, based on the ice core data.
Temperature data is from the Greenland GISP II ice core, which ends in year 1905. CO2 levels are from the same dataset used in the previous Antarctica graph.
More historical charts here. Other climate history postings here. Modern temperature charts.
Oops. Greenland Was Warmer 80 Years Ago
Near-Surface Greenland Air Temperatures: 1840-2007 is a new paper analysing Greenland temperature data and has come to the conclusion that Greenland was warmer in the 1930’s than now!
“Using a set of 12 coastal and 40 inland ice surface air temperature records in combination with climate model output,” the authors say they reconstructed “long-term (1840-2007) monthly, seasonal, and annual spatial patterns of temperature variability over a continuous grid covering Greenland and the inland ice sheet,” after which they say they compared “the 1919-32 and 1994-2007 warming episodes” and made “a comparison of Greenland ice sheet surface air temperature temporal variability with that of the Northern Hemisphere average.”
Based on the results depicted in the figure above, the four researchers determined that “the annual whole ice sheet 1919-32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994-2007 warming,” and that “in contrast to the 1920s warming, the 1994-2007 warming has not surpassed the Northern Hemisphere anomaly.” Indeed, they note that “an additional 1.0°-1.5°C of annual mean warming would be needed for Greenland to be in phase with the Northern Hemisphere pattern.”
What it means
In spite of all the fuss climate alarmists make about Greenland being on the verge of crossing a tipping point and beginning to experience dramatic ice loss, the results of Box et al. demonstrate there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the nature of its 1994-2007 warming episode. In fact, it is much less impressive than the 1919-1932 warming; and it becomes even more “less impressive” when it is realized that the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration only rose by about 5 ppm during the earlier period of stronger warming but by fully 25 ppm (five times more) during the later period of weaker warming.
It is interesting to note that the 1930’s were the warmest in the US also – I wonder how widespread the 1930’s warming actually was or if this is just a co-incidence.
Source via Climate Depot