Environmental activists have relied heavily on computer models to predict climate patterns confirming their notion that mankind is toxic.
However, recent studies have shown models have failed to consider real world conditions in their calculations.
Exhibit 1 – Sea ice is more resilient to melting than thought:
Using new satellite data, researchers at University College London reported in Nature Geoscience on Monday that the total volume of sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere was well above average in the autumn of 2013, traditionally the end of the annual melt season, after an unusually cool summer when temperatures dropped to levels not seen since the 1990s.
“We now know it can recover by a significant amount if the melting season is cut short,” said the study’s lead author Rachel Tilling, a researcher who studies satellite observations of the Arctic. “The sea ice might be a little more resilient than we thought.”
Exhibit 2 – The effects of the vast deserts of the Earth have not been considered, and it appears that a good portion of emitted carbon dioxide is disappearing within them.
About 40 percent of this carbon stays in the atmosphere and roughly 30 percent enters the ocean, according to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. Scientists thought the remaining carbon was taken up by plants on land, but measurements show plants don’t absorb all of the leftover carbon. Scientists have been searching for a place on land where the additional carbon is being stored – the so-called “missing carbon sink.”
The new study suggests some of this carbon may be disappearing underneath the world’s deserts – a process exacerbated by irrigation. Scientists examining the flow of water through a Chinese desert found that carbon from the atmosphere is being absorbed by crops, released into the soil and transported underground in groundwater – a process that picked up when farming entered the region 2,000 years ago.
Underground aquifers store the dissolved carbon deep below the desert where it can’t escape back to the atmosphere, according to the new study.
The new desert study concludes that more study is needed… of course.
Many of the comments in the desert piece focus on the replacement of the technical name “carbon dioxide” with the word “carbon”. This switch is misleading, as the former co-founder of Greenpeace and climate scare-science skeptic, Dr. Patrick Moore, discusses in the following Prager University video:
Moore derides climate models in an wonderful article for Heartland, and he asserts that human emissions have been beneficial:
…My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
…Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
Since Moore has become an environmental-activism apostate, Greenpeace has worked hard to demean his professionalism and undermine his work. Supporting better climate science would also get in the way of their anti-business protests featuring kayakers blocking ice-breakers on the way to assist Arctic oil drilling operations, which would then cut down on both drama and donations.
In conclusion, reliance on crazy climate models has lead to even crazier behavior.
You’ve heard it said that the science is settled. And it’s true. It is settled – settled beyond the possibility of any dispute. A fundamental, inescapable, indubitable bedrock scientific principle is that lousy theories make lousy predictions.
Climate forecasts are lousy, therefore it is settled science that they must necessarily be based on lousy theories. And lousy theories should not be trusted.
Put it this way. Climate forecasts, of the type relied upon by the IPCC and over governmental entities, stink. They are no good. They have been promising ever increasing temperatures for decades, but the observations have been more or less steady. This must mean – it is inescapable – that something is very badly wrong with the theory behind the models. What?
There are many guesses. One is that something called “climate sensitivity,” a measure of the overall reaction of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide, is set too high in the models. So Lord Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and I created a model to investigate this. Although our model is crude and captures only the barest characteristics of the atmosphere, it matches reality better than its luxuriously funded, more complex cousins.
The funding is important. Nobody asked or paid us to create our model. We asked nobody for anything, and nobody offered us anything. We did the work on our own time and submitted a peer-reviewed paper to the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It’s title is “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.”
The paper was quickly noticed, receiving at this writing well over 10,000 downloads. Anybody who understood the settled science that bad theories make bad forecasts knew that this paper was a key challenge to the climatological community to show that our guess of why climate models stink is wrong, or to prove there were other, better explanations for the decades-long failure to produce skillful forecasts.
After the paper made international news, strange things began to happen. My site was hacked. A pest named David Appell issued a FOIA request to Legates’s employer, the University of Delaware, to release all of Legates’s emails. But since we received no funding for our paper, which of course implies no state funding from Delaware, the university turned Appell down.
The cult-like Greenpeace had better luck with Soon’s employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who were very obliging.
They turned over all of Soon’s emails. And then Greenpeace sent them to a set of sympathetic mainstream reporters.
Why did Greenpeace do this? Because they suspected we were lying about receiving funding. They were hoping that if they could prove Soon was paid then Soon should have declared to Science Bulletin a conflict of interest, and because he didn’t (none of us did), then he should retract the paper.
Greenpeace went away disappointed. We were telling the truth. Soon, like most research scientists, has in the past accepted money from sources other than our beneficent government (and what makes government money pure?). Greenpeace, for instance, often issues these kinds of grants. But there was no money for this paper, as we said.
But Greenpeace still needed to sidetrack discussion – anything to distract from the news that climate models are broken–hence their cozying up to “science reporters.”
These reporters, all of whom are paid by corporate interests, emailed asking about the “alleged conflict.” I explained to them that we received no funding and thus had no conflict of interest. But they never heard me. It was as if they didn’t want to. I offered to discuss the science behind our paper, but none took me up on this.
Justin Gillis of the New York Times was particularly reprehensible. In an email sent before publishing a hit piece on Sunday, Gillis accused Soon of an “ethical breach.” He issued veiled threats by saying that Soon ought to talk to him, because Soon’s employer “may be preparing to take adverse personnel action against” him.
I told Gillis there was no conflict. And I asked Gillis to explain his ties with Greenpeace and other environmental organizations.
Surprisingly, he refused to answer. Well, he did block me on Twitter.
Greenpeace denies the settled science that bad forecasts mean incorrect theories. Don’t let them change the subject. This is not about some false accusation of conflict of interest. This is about bad science passing for good because it’s politically expedient.
President Obama has committed a mind-boggling $3 billion to a new United Nations Green Climate Fund run by officials from Communist nations, a country that appears on the State Department’s list of terrorism-sponsors and an Arab oil-industry chief.
As if it weren’t bad enough that our commander-in-chief is giving away money while the nation suffers through a colossal budget deficit, there are countless reasons why this is a lousy idea. First of all, the United Nations is a famously corrupt organization that is already largely funded by Uncle Sam to the tune of billions annually. The exact figure is tough to nail down because the U.S. cash flows, not just directly to U.N. coffers from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), but also from a number of other government agencies to the U.N. system.
The entire world body is well known as a pillar of fraud and mismanagement, but that hasn’t slowed the tide of American taxpayer dollars. Even the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, funded primarily by American taxpayers, is a huge joke. A few years ago Judicial Watch reported that the U.N. awarded a genocidal warlord indicted by an international court for crimes against humanity a seat on its laughable human rights council. His name is Omar Al-Bashir, a ruthless African dictator charged by the International Criminal Court of war crimes in Darfur for killing thousands of his own citizens.
The last thing we need is another global U.N. initiative looking for cash. The “urgency and seriousness of climate change” inspired the crooked world body to create the Green Climate Fund, which aims to help the international community combat global warming. Here’s the plan in a nutshell; the fund will promote the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways by providing support to developing countries to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change. This will be accomplished by following the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international environmental treaty that aims to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations.
Predictably, this can’t be accomplished cheaply and President Obama stepped up to the plate with the astounding $3 billion allotment. He made the announcement this month during a speech in Australia. “Now, today, I’m announcing that the United States will take another important step,” Obama said “We are going to contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund so we can help developing nations deal with climate change. So along with the other nations that have pledged support, this gives us the opportunity to help vulnerable communities with an early-warning system, with stronger defenses against storm surges, climate-resilient infrastructure.” The speech, delivered at University of Queensland in Brisbane, went on and on but the snippet is sufficient to relay its gist.
Now let’s take a look at who’s running this new Green Climate Fund that’s supposed to save the world from the ills of global warming. Among the board of directors is Yingming Yang, the Deputy Director General of Communist China’s Ministry of Finance and Jorge Ferrer Rodriguez, a minister in Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Communist island has for years appeared on the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism. Another interesting board member is Ayman Shasly, an official in Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources.
The selection of Shasly as a top dog of a conglomerate looking to halt climate change is peculiar since the oil industry contributes the most greenhouse gas and is well known to have a negative effect on the environment because it’s toxic to nearly all forms of life. Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources is a government body in a country that happens to be the world’s largest producer and exporter of oil. In fact, it has a quarter of the world’s known oil reserves. Shasly’s efforts as a global environmentalist may seem like a conflict of interest, especially since his government has announced plans to increase oil production from around 8 million barrels per day to 12.
How pathetic and hysterical are these climate change nuts? This much!
If his grandkids are 17 or under, they haven’t actually experienced global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise. Continuing the 25 Days Of Climate Christmas
Once upon a time, a jolly old man named St. Nick, or Santa Claus, lived at the North Pole. Every year, at Christmas, he bundled up toys made by his magic elves and flew around the world in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, including his most famous one, Rudolph. Santa brought these presents to all the good little boys and girls in return for nothing more than cookies, milk, and unquestioned love. But he also kept a list of bad little boys and girls, who got a lump of coal in their stockings as a reminder to be better next year.
I’m sorry to have to tell you there will be no presents from Santa this year.
It’s not that you’ve been bad. Rather the world’s governments (sometimes run by bad boys and girls now grown up) have failed to address the long-worsening problem of climate change. Santa is the latest climate victim. As the last of the summer ice at the North Pole finally disappeared, Santa’s workshop sank to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. When the insurance companies cancelled most flood insurance policies, and Canada claimed the North Pole, Santa lost everything and became the latest climate refugee.
Good Freaking Grief, here they go again
I told you the other day about how Warmists are making a concerted push with the “inequities” meme. I’ve seen a bunch of tweets regarding #COP19 along those same lines. Now, here comes the NY Times, which apparently received the memo about the meme
Following a devastating typhoon that killed thousands in the Philippines, a routine international climate change conference here turned into an emotional forum, with developing countries demanding compensation from the worst polluting countries for damage they say they are already suffering.
From the time a scientific consensus emerged that human activity was changing the climate, it has been understood that the nations that contributed least to the problem would be hurt the most. Now, even as the possible consequences of climate change have surged — from the typhoons that have raked the Philippines and India this year to the droughts in Africa, to rising sea levels that threaten to submerge entire island nations — no consensus has emerged over how to rectify what many call “climate injustice.”
Growing demands to address the issue have become an emotionally charged flash point at negotiations here at the 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which continues this week. (snip)
Although the divide between rich and poor nations has bedeviled international climate talks for two decades, the debate over how to address the disproportionate effects has steadily gained momentum. Poor nations here are pressing for a new effort that goes beyond reducing emissions and adapting to a changing climate.
No one uncovers the fraud of the Green is the new Red crowd like William Teach
So, much of the article goes along in the same vein. The inequity meme is part of the “climate justice” progressive talking point, deriving from their “social justice” beliefs, which come from their need to create more and more Big Government.
And what these “developing countries” want is $$$. Lots of it. Because they’ve done so great with all the money we’ve given them for other things. And because Bad Weather is never supposed to happen and the climate is always supposed to stay static.
Fraud! Scam! Many other words describe what the climate justice crowd is about, which is, in large part redistribution of wealth that will benefit the elites the most. Give Communists credit and never sell them short. Yes they are evil, yes their designs are evil, but they are doggedly determined to hold all power over us all. They will use tragedies, they will even create tragedies to use, they will lie, and threaten and will never stop. They will use good causes, like conservation, civil rights, women’s rights, education, gun safety, and of course equality etc. to get their way. They latch onto these causes, and slowly bastardize them to push more Communist propaganda onto society. Their goal is not to actually solve problems. Their goal is to empower themselves. The greatest lie ever told? It is the Communist’s cries of “power to the people”. The people have no power under Communism, they have no rights, but they have equality, equality of misery.
Take environmentalism for instance. There is no shame in caring for the earth, and preserving resources, nothing wrong in protecting endangered species. But the end game for Leftists who mask themselves as environmentalists, or animal rights types is not noble. Their end game is Marxism. So they dress it up and rebrand it as environmental justice because who would be against saving the earth, or elephants? No one would, but, again, that is not their goal is it? No, and it never has been.
Daniel P. Schrag, a White House climate adviser and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, tells the New York Times “a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.” Later today, President Obama will give a major “climate change” address at Georgetown University.
“Everybody is waiting for action,” Schrag tells the paper. “The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”
Obama’s speech today is expected to offer “a sweeping plan to address climate change on Tuesday, setting ambitious goals and timetables for a series of executive actions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and prepare the nation for the ravages of a warming planet,” according to the Times.
Here’s the full context of Schrag’s quotation:
Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who is the head of Harvard University’s Center for the Environment and a member of a presidential science panel that has helped advise the White House on climate change, said he hoped the presidential speech would mark a turning point in the national debate on climate change.
“Everybody is waiting for action,” he said. “The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”
William Teach has the absolutely ideal fisking of one John Kerry
(NY Times) Secretary of State John Kerry urged India on Sunday to begin to address climate change by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases even as it attempts to bring electricity to tens of millions of its citizens now living without it.
“I do understand and fully sympathize with the notion that India’s paramount commitment to development and eradicating poverty is essential,” Mr. Kerry said in a speech at the start of a two-day visit. “But we have to recognize that a collective failure to meet our collective climate challenge would inhibit all countries’ dreams of growth and development.”
Um, wait, what? Did he just say that fighting Hotcoldwetdry is more important than lifting people out of poverty? Yes. Yes he did.
In an effort to prod the Indians to act, Mr. Kerry warned that climate change could cause India to endure excessive heat waves, prolonged droughts, intense flooding and shortages of food and water.
India, because of their geography, has been putting up with those pretty much since the Indian plate slammed into the Asian plate.
“The worst consequences of the climate crisis will confront people who are the least able to be able to cope with them,” he said.
But, if they build a few solar farms, wind turbine farms, and crops for ethanol (all which require massive amounts of land and defoliation), poor, starving people in India might get enough power to….well, they don’t actually have any appliances to need power, because they’re really poor. But, these kinds of 1st World measures will make people like John Kerry Feel Good about themselves.
Experts said at the time that such an effort would not be successful without the participation of India, where the use of refrigeration and air-conditioning is growing rapidly.
Well, some do have AC and refrigeration, which tend to be Good Things, especially that refrigeration, which allows food to be kept longer instead of spoiling. 1st Worlders like Kerry, who already have plenty of homes with AC and fridges, aren’t happy that 2nd/3rd worlders would like the same.
There is nothing to add, that is perfect! The elitist attitude, the cluelessness, the hypocrisy, it is all there
Old Al Gore is preaching a new sermon to his flock at The Gore Cult of
Global Warming Climate Change Dirty Weather. William Teach exposes Gore’s latest load of BS!
(Al Gore’s (big energy sucking) Journal) We are in the midst of a tremendously hot summer. Between crops withering across the Midwest, fires in Colorado, and severe heat waves sweeping the entire country, a lot of people are saying out loud, “I’m too hot!”
Climate Reality has been working to raise awareness of the climate crisis, its links to the massive pollution from dirty energy, and the“dirty weather” it creates. Starting this week in Austin, TX, the Climate Reality “I’m Too Hot” ice cream truck will be distributing sweet treats to folks across the city to raise awareness of the reality of climate change. Learn more and make sure to visit them this week in Texas.
Hmm, I’m assuming the ice cream truck is a fossil fueled on, since if it was powered by something else, they would be trumpeting it. Furthermore, doesn’t ice cream make people fat? And aren’t fat people bad for globull warming?
Good Freaking Grief! Gore is just looking for a new cash cow here. And he will use the money he scams people out of to increase the size of his own Sasquatch-sized carbon footprint
The angriest Envirocrat is back,and he wants you to stop eating meat
Al Gore wants society to ditch meat-heavy diets and go organic to combat global warming.
“Industrial agriculture is a part of the problem,” Gore said Friday during an interview with FearLess Revolution founder Alex Bogusky. “The shift toward a more meat-intensive diet,” the clearing of forest areas in many parts of the world in order to raise more cattle and the reliance on synthetic nitrogen for fertilizer are also problems, he added.
Blah, blah, blah, am I the only one tired of these talking points? I bet not, and I doubt I will be the only one PO’ed that Gore is now playing The Race Card
The former vice president also criticized climate change skeptics, urging those who support curbs to greenhouse gases to “win the conversation” when it comes to global warming. He compared the struggle against climate skeptics to the fight against racism during the civil rights movement.
When racist comments would come up in the course of conversations, “There came a time when people said, ‘Hey man, why do you talk that way? That’s wrong, I don’t go for that, so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’
Is there any smear the Left will not use to get their way? Is there any point where they look in the mirror and think “you know if I have to lie, or use smear tactics to win the debate, maybe I am wrong on the issues” When do Leftists reach that point? Sadly, never it seems.
Hurricane hysteria gives way to global-warming hype:
How Global Warming Is Making Hurricane Irene Worse
– Thnk Progress
Global Warming’s Heavy Cost
– The Daily Beast
And if you don’t buy into the hype, you’re anti-science.
As I already said, these people really need some new BS to spew.
He found out that his whole Climate Change BS is imploding, and Doug powers, at Michelle’s place has the ugly eruption of Mt. Gore
Speaking at a conference in Aspen on Thursday, Al Gore sounded frustrated — like a man who just found out Standard & Poor’s has downgraded his carbon credits to “junk” status.
This is from an article at the Colorado Independent entitled Al Gore Calls BS on Corporate Polluters (Al, Inc. got to Aspen by hitching a ride from Ed Begley Jr. in the sidecar of his bicycle).
Suffice to say it sounds as if the frustration is catching up:
The model of media manipulation used then [cigarette companies delaying implementation of the surgeon general’s report on the hazards of smoking], Gore said, “was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!” Gore exclaimed.
“When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again,” he continued. “There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! … It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word climate. It is not acceptable. They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.”
See Al is upset because, well, he really really wants to save our planet, and by save the planet I mean get even more FILTY RICH than he already is! don’t believe me? Just follow the MONEY!