UNMASKING The Great Arctic Sea-Ice “Death Spiral” Scam

afp_g38de

More scientific evidence that polar bears are doing just fine – a 30% increase in population with some of them “as fat as pigs.”

CONTRARY to popular myth, Arctic sea ice extent is not in a “death spiral“. In fact, there has been no real shrinking of Arctic sea ice in 10 years, which also corresponds to the fact that there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for nearly 20 years.

ALL this despite record “CO2” emissions over the same period, and record hot air bloviated by the trillion dollar climate crisis industry.

THE following is a remarkable post by Tony Heller from his Deplorable Climate Science Blog showing just how corrupt and politicised the “science” of the Arctic has become via the fake-news media and – sadly – from many our most respected scientific institutions including, yes, NASA…


More Spectacular Arctic Fraud At The New York Times

 

The New York Times just published another fake climate article – this time about the Arctic.  They start the article with the claim that satellites were first used to study the Arctic in 1979.

 

Given that we traveled to the moon in 1969, it is absurd to suggest that satellites weren’t used to study the Arctic before 1979. Here is a 1964 satellite image of the Arctic which was published in National Geographic in 1965.

 

Here is a detailed National Geographic Arctic sea ice map from 1971.

 

Here is a detailed satellite image of Antarctica from 1976, also published in National Geographic.

 

The 1990 IPCC report included NOAA Arctic satellite data back to 1973, when it was much lower than 1979.

 

In a spectacular display of scientific malpractice,  NOAA now hides all of the pre-1979 peak Arctic sea ice data. By starting right at the peak, they produce a fake linear downwards trend.

 

This 1985 DOE climate change report had Arctic data back to 1925, which showed little ice from the 1930s to the 1950s.

So why did the New York Times cherry pick 1979 as their start date? Because it came at the end of three of the coldest US winters on record , and Arctic sea ice was at a century peak. The graph below combines the 1985 DOE graph with the 1990 IPCC graph.

If the New York Times authors had bothered to research their own paper, they could have found this out for themselves. It was very warm in the Arctic in 1958

 

Three years later, the New York Times reported a unanimous consensus that earth was cooling.

 

By 1970, the Arctic climate was becoming more frigid, the ice was getting “ominously thicker” – and scientists were worried about a new ice age.

 

The polar ice cap had expanded 12% by 1975, after shrinking 12% before 1958. Icelandic ports were blocked with ice for the first time in the 20th century.

By hiding all the data before the 1979 peak, the New York Times is defrauding its readers. Arctic climate is cyclical – not linear.

Ninety-five years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.

 

 

 

 

Eighty years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.

 

Sixty five years ago, the Arctic was having a meltdown.

 

Then the New York Times  went on to obscure their graph (below) to hide the fact that there has been a large increase in minimum extent since 2012. Note the “End of summer minimum” label is at the 2012 minimum – not the 2017 minimum.

 

The Arctic minimum extent has been increasing for a decade. The New York Times doesn’t want their readers to know this.

 

The New York Times is defrauding their readers at many levels. It is the fake news we have learned to expect from them.

More Spectacular Arctic Fraud At The New York Times | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

•••

See also :

The Other (Inconvenient) Pole :

Global Warming “Pause” Related :

97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong About Effects Of Global Warming, related :

Advertisements

HURRICANE Season 2017 : Inconvenient Tweets

Irma go away

THE last major hurricane before Harvey and Irma to make landfall on the Continental United States was Wilma in 2005, striking one year before Twitter was invented (2006) and two years before the first iPhone was sold (2007).

SINCE 2005, the U.S experienced a record 12 year drought of major landfall U.S hurricanes. The 4,324 day record was finally broken by Harvey which made landfall in Texas as a CAT 4 hurricane on August 25.

AS a guide, the average peak season for the Atlantic hurricane season as stipulated by NOAA (2001) :

NOAA Hurricane season.jpg

South Florida Sun Sentinel at Newspapers.com (Via @SteveSGoddard)

AS happens every time a large natural weather catastrophe strikes, the media is filled with assertions that the calamity’s magnitude is attributable to global warming climate change :

THE best available, peer-reviewed Hurricane and Cyclone data refutes any correlation between increased CO2/temperature and an increase in extreme weather events. However, the climate crisis industry never lets a good storm go to waste. After all, far too many reputations, jobs, money and superstitions are now at stake.

TWITTER provides a wealth of life-saving information and real-time updates for those directly affected by extreme weather events. It also acts as a platform for interesting and often humorous, data-based retorts to combat the litany of alarmist rhetoric spewed by climate ambulance chasers and global warming alarmist trolls…

HERE’S a sample taken from the lives of Irma and Harvey :

In reply to Newsweeks howler!

No trend in Global TC Landfalls. U.S Hurricanes “bottoming out” :

Ooops! Scientist Eric Blake @NHC_Atlantic accidentally spawns “fake news” at MSN | Watts Up With That? :

Historic :

Irma in context :

Harvey :

 

Australian Tropical Cyclones :

•••

Related :


Telegraph Calls Irma “Most Deadly Storm In History”

WHAT’S happened to the Telegraph? Alarmist stupidity beyond groupthink!
Epic.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/07/hurricane-irma-latest-live-updates-storm-nears-cuba-florida/

It is hard to imagine that the Telegraph once used to be a serious newspaper.

As well as continuing to wrongly claim that Irma is themost powerful Atlantic hurricane, their latest report today quite ludicrously states:

The American state is on high alert for the arrival of the Atlantic’s most deadly storm in history, which has already left at least 10 people dead and thousands homeless.

The “most deadly”?

Perhaps they ought to consult Wikipedia:

image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_Atlantic_hurricanes

View original post


Is Irma The Most Powerful Atlantic Storm?

“And we can see that Irma is not in the same league as the others.”

MORE sane and measured ‘scientific’ analysis from Paul Homewood. Refreshing, amongst the diatribe of alarmist speculation and theorising from the usual climate ambulance chasing suspects.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

imageimage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/06/hurricane-irma-latest-live-news-strongest-ever-atlantic-storm/

There seems to be a lot of disinformation around about Irma being the “most powerful Atlantic Ocean storm in recorded history” with sustained winds of 185 mph, such as the Telegraph above. I also heard the same comment on ITV News yesterday.

As I pointed out yesterday:

Four other storms have had winds as strong in the overall Atlantic region but they were in the Caribbean Sea or the Gulf of Mexico, which are usually home to warmer waters that fuel cyclones.

Hurricane Allen hit 190 mph in 1980, while 2005’s Wilma, 1988’s Gilbert and a 1935 great Florida Key storm all had 185 mph winds.

In other words, there have now been four hurricanes as strong or stronger since 1980, about one every decade, and certainly nothing like the “unprecedented” impression left by the headlines.

And as we know, prior to Allen in 1980, we…

View original post 275 more words


THE Best Of Bad Weather

IN the wake of Hurricane Harvey and in light of the predicted “mann-made” blame game seized upon by the usual climate ambulance-chasers, it’s worth having a further look at some of the extreme weather events that Mother Nature has dished up over the years in both; cold and low-CO2 climate periods. Certainly, well before humans could have had any effect on ‘climate’.

A good list of historical climate weather catastrophes was compiled by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) back on his previous site Real Science in 2013…

(Goddard’s new site here)


A Few Low CO2 Natural Disasters

The world’s stupidest people (who run the US government) want you to believe that life was happy and stable in the good old days of low CO2

That leaves one thing capable of contributing to global warming – a process that reduces the amount of heat energy leaving the atmosphere. Since the earth’s energy balance remains stable without a change in an external forcing such as solar insolence (due to changes in the sun’s output or orbital changes) or an internal process turned into a forcing by some change and we see neither Milankovitch cycles, nor the sun itself are in a position to do that, we have to look to an internal change.

Only CO2 fits that need.

Little Green Footballs – Marc Morano: Courting Mendacity

1871 – Chicago Destroyed

ScreenHunter_268 Nov. 13 03.58

1871 – Wisconsin Fire

1886 – Indianola, Texas Destroyed

ScreenHunter_274 Nov. 13 04.18

1896 – St Louis Destroyed

ScreenHunter_273 Nov. 13 04.14

1900 – Galveston Destroyed

ScreenHunter_271 Nov. 13 04.03

1906 – San Francisco Destroyed

ScreenHunter_269 Nov. 13 04.00

1924 Ohio Tornado

1925 Tri-State Tornado

 Below350.org

 Below350.org

1926 – Miami Destroyed

ScreenHunter_270 Nov. 13 04.02

1927 – Mississippi Valley Flood

1927 – Vermont Flood

1931 – China Flood

1930’s – Half Of Oklahoma Fled The State

ScreenHunter_275 Nov. 13 04.28

1936 – Eastern US Flood

ScreenHunter_645 May. 30 20.00

1937 – Midwest Flood

•••

Extreme Weather Related :


CLIMATE Ambulance Chaser – Peter Hannam – Blames Houston’s Residents For Harvey!

FAILING Fairfax Media’s resident climate change catastrophist Peter Hannam is officially off his meds, blaming Houston’s residents for the weather!

HANNAM couldn’t even wait for Harvey and the flooding to subside, for residents to find dry land, before slapping them around as the “self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”” – brutishly and falsely linking the fossil fuel industry to extreme weather events.

MEMO to Peter : There is NO evidence that the use of fossil fuels has had any effect on “extreme weather”. In fact, even the alarmist UN IPCC begrudgingly admitted in their last climate report (AR5) a level of “low confidence” that human greenhouse gas emissions have had any effect on extreme weather events.

IN the IPCC’s own words from their SREX report : “We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme”.

FURTHERMORE, Hurricane Harvey that made landfall in Texas as a category four, ended America’s record 4,324 day major hurricane drought.

BUT, climate facts like these don’t seem to sit well for the alarmist ‘journalists’ over at Fairfax…the one’s that still remain!

PETER, if you’d even bothered to google ‘Galveston Hurricane‘ before perversely smearing and sliming Texan residents, you might have found this piece of perspective via wikipedia:

Screen Shot 2017-08-29 at , August 29, 12.37.55 PM

On September 8, 1900, a Category 4 hurricane ripped through Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 people. It is still North America’s worst natural disaster ever recorded.

 

HOW developed were the Texan oil fields 117 years ago, Peter?

 

See also : EXTREME WEATHER Expert: “World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters” | Climatism

*

More via Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt :

Sydney Morning Herald alarmist Peter Hannan stoops to a new low as floods hit Houston.

He treats weather as climate.

He ignores evidence that cyclones have actually got fewer over the past decades.

And he then blames the victims:

Yes, Houston, you do have a problem, and – as insensitive as it seems to bring it up just now – some of it is your own making…

Houston is facing worsening historic flooding in the coming days as Tropical Storm Harvey dumps rain on the city, swelling rivers to record levels.

But, as the self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”, there’s a connection between rising global greenhouse gas levels and the extreme weather now being inflicted that some of your residents have understood for decades and had a hand in.

To see how deceitful this is, note these conclusions from the latest report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Note also that the IPCC is alarmist, prone to exaggeration, yet is forced to admit:

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale…

In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust… In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low… Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered…

Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century…

Changes in extremes for other climate variables are generally less coherent than those observed for temperature… Analyses of land areas with sufficient data indicate increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in recent decades, but results vary strongly between regions and seasons. For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North America, Central America and Europe, but in some other regions—such as southern Australia and western Asia—there is evidence of decreases.

So there have actually been fewer cyclones or tropical storms like Harvey and little evidence of more floods. Yet Hannan seizes on one of the floods to regularly batter the US gulf coast and insists it’s caused by global warming.

What a snake oil salesman.

One of the world’s top climate scientists, Dr Roy Spencer, explains what Hannan won’t – that this cyclone was not the worst, the floods are not the highest, the deaths are not the greatest and the cause is not man-made:

The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur…

Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.

There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet… By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I’m sure that will continue to rise.

Are the rainfall totals unprecedented?

Even that question is difficult to answer. The exact same tropical system moving at, say, 15 mph might have produced the same total amount of rain, but it would have been spread over a wide area, maybe many states, with no flooding disaster. This is usually what happens with landfalling hurricanes.

Instead, Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area. In both cases, the atmosphere produced the same amount of rain, but where the rain lands is very different. People like those in the Houston area don’t want all of the rain to land on them.

There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw. Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one. The same is true of high pressure areas; when they stall, a drought results.

Even with the system stalling, the greatest multi-day rainfall total as of 3 9 a.m. this Monday morning is just over 30 39.7 inches, with many locations recording over 20 inches. We should recall that Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979 (a much smaller and weaker system than Harvey) produced a 43 inch rainfall total in only 24 hours in Houston.

Was Harvey unprecedented in intensity?

In this case, we didn’t have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.

Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history.

And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.

So what makes this event unprecedented?

The National Weather Service has termed the event unfolding in the Houston area as unprecedented. I’m not sure why. I suspect in terms of damage and number of people affected, that will be the case. But the primary reason won’t be because this was an unprecedented meteorological event.

If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn’t seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn’t look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual…

Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center was asked by a CNN news anchor whether he thought that Harvey was made worse because of global warming. Read’s response was basically, No.

But Peter Hannan, paid alarmist, says yes, yes, yes.

•••

Harvey Related :

Extreme Weather Related :

Failing Fairfax Media Related :


EXTREME WEATHER Expert: “World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters”

EXTREME Weather data.jpg

CLIMATE sceptics have been consistently pointing to data rather than superstition, politics and emotion in order to examine the contentious relationship between human CO2 emissions and global warming climate change.

Climate alarmists will frequently default to the “extreme weather” narrative in order to deceptively promote the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) narrative by instilling fear, doom and gloom directly into the human psyche.

However, by most metrics, the data shows us that extreme weather events are becoming ‘less’ extreme as CO2 increases.

Climate Depot with more…

Professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado Boulder: “The world is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters. This holds for the weather phenomena that have historically caused the most damage: tropical cyclones, floods, tornadoes and drought. Given how weather events have become politicized in debates over climate change, some find this hard to believe…

The US has seen a decrease of about 20% in both hurricane frequency and intensity at landfall since 1900…

Data on floods, drought and tornadoes are similar in that they show little to no indication of becoming more severe or frequent…

Thus, it is fair to conclude that the costs of disasters worldwide is depressed because, as the global economy has grown, disaster costs have not grown at the same rate. Thus, disaster costs as a proportion of GDP have decreased. One important reason for this is a lack of increase in the weather events that cause disasters, most notably, tropical cyclones worldwide and especially hurricanes in the United States.

Why has this occurred? Is it good luck, climate change or something else?

A good place to start is with tropical cyclones, given that they are often the most costly weather events to occur each year.  The figure below shows global tropical cyclone landfalls from 1990 through 2016. These are the storms that cause the overwhelming majority of property damage. Since 1990 there has been a reduction of about 3 landfalling storms per year (from ~17 to ~14), which certainly helps to explain why disaster losses are somewhat depressed.

Even more striking is the extended period in the United States, which has the most exposure to tropical cyclone damage, without the landfall of an intense hurricane. The figure below shows the number of days between each landfall of a Category 3+ hurricane in the US, starting in 1900. As of this writing the tally is approaching 4500 days, which is a streak of good fortune not seen in the historical record.

Read full study here…

Via: https://riskfrontiers.com/weather-related-natural-disasters-should-we-be-concerned-about-a-reversion-to-the-mean/

 

•••

See Also :