Brilliant 4:29s – Lifestyles of the rich and hypocritical…
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!
HOW developed were the Texan oil fields 117 years ago, Peter?
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 :
- Hurricane Harvey: Devastating – Not Unprecedented | Climatism
- It’s over – 4324 day major hurricane drought ends as Harvey makes landfall at Cat 4 | Watts Up With That?
- JUDITH CURRY – “Anyone blaming Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on.” |Climate Etc.
- 15 Feet Of Sea Level Rise In Ten Minutes | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
Extreme Weather Related :
- EXTREME WEATHER Expert: “World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters” | Climatism
- The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con | Climatism
- OPEN Letter To The Bureau Of Meteorology – Tropical Cyclone Trends | Climatism
Failing Fairfax Media Related :
YET another example of why – sadly – government climate agencies, like the UK Met Office, BoM, CSIRO, NASA and NOAA, who have been captured by the radical environmental movement, cannot be trusted on anything “climate change” or “global warming” or whatever name beats their PR departments alarmist drum the hardest.
By Paul Homewood
This is quite an amazing piece of evidence that the UK Met Office are actively involved in defrauding the public.
The above tweet was published early this morning, forecasting the day’s weather (Aug 28th).
Note that the record to beat was 28.3C.
A few hours later they triumphantly sent this tweet:
Miraculously, the previous record temperature dropped by 1.1C!
Is it surprising that nobody trusts official Met Office data any more?
The lengths that the Met Office, NOAA, GISS etc go to in order to distort the truth should surprise none of us now.
But this latest piece of fraud really does take the biscuit, as many commenters have spotted.
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International
Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian activist, and former president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” (Wikipedia)
A MUST SEE 5 mins by Patrick Moore PhD, on the “man-made climate change” scam…
Dr Moore Related :
- Confessions of a ‘Greenpeace Dropout’ to the U.S. Senate on climate change | Climatism
- MUST READ Greenpeace founder delivers powerful annual lecture, praises carbon dioxide – full text | Climatism
- Think You Know Greenpeace? Look Again | Climatism
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | C;imatism
- Patrick Moore: Greenpeace has made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth | Climatism
- MUST SEE : GREENPEACE Co-Founder – No Evidence Global Warming Is Caused By Humans | Climatism
When people turn on wind power, it’s a one-way proposition: they never, ever worship these things again.
And when the convert was among those who first championed the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time, they don’t just quietly fall out of love, they tend to become the loudest critics of all; a bit like reformed smokers berating their old smoking buddies for lighting up.
One character who fits that mould is co-founder of the German Greens, Otto Georg Schily; who has just joined the growing throngs of Germans who now recognise the country’s maniacal obsession with massively subsidised wind and solar power as “an economic, social and ecological disaster”.
Germany’s Energiewende “An Economic, Social and Ecological Disaster”, Writes Top German Socialist!
No Tricks Zone
19 May 2017
In a referendum slated for this coming Sunday, Swiss citizens are being called to vote on a national energy strategy…
View original post 477 more words
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States…De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation…Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.” – John Holdren
If you’re relatively familiar with the climate “debate”, you will know that the rapid cooling period from the 1940’s to the 1970’s led to climate “experts” (climate scientists) declaring the end of life as we know it, in the form of the “Global Cooling” scare:
A few examples (And apologies if these sound all too familiar with the current
global warming climate change scare) :
1. In 1976 the CIA warned that (man-made) Global Cooling would bring – “Drought, Starvation, Social Unrest And Political Upheaval”:
2. The UN was so concerned about man-made Global Cooling during the 1970’s that they wanted to melt the Arctic by spreading black soot on it:
3. Our featured climate expert ‘John Holdren’ predicted and feared a new “Ice Age” during the 1970’s Global Cooling scare:
(Interestingly, the link to Holdren’s global cooling hysteria no longer exists)
Now time to introduce our second climate change “Expert” (UN climate scientist) – Dr Stephen Schneider…
Steve Schneider pleaded with President Nixon for funding in order to halt the feared Global Cooling crisis of the 1970’s:
Four years later (1981) Professor Stephen Schneider became a Global Warming alarmist:
Published: August 22, 1981
A team of Federal scientists says it has detected an overall warming trend in the earth’s atmosphere extending back to the year 1880. They regard this as evidence of the validity of the ”greenhouse” effect, in which increasing amounts of carbon dioxide cause steady temperature increases.
The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ”almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ”flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world” within a century or less.
A leading participant in past carbon dioxide studies has been Dr. Stephen H. Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
And yes, nowadays, expert scientist John Holdren (Obama’s former science Czar), just like his comrade Professor Stephen Schneider, fears not man-made Global Cooling but Global Warming:
1997: John Holdren predicts ten degrees warming:
I don’t blame them for changing the name to “Climate Change” – covers all bases.
The perfect scam: Hot, cold, wet, dry, flood, drought, whatever – it’s all your fault…
1970′s Global Cooling Scare Related :
- Feds Alarmed By Global Cooling in 1974 | Climatism
- CIA 1974 National Security Threat : Global Cooling/Excess Arctic Ice Causing Extreme Weather | Real Science
- 1974 Shock News : CIA Said Global Warming Was A Good Thing | Real Science
- 1975 : Climatologists Wanted Permission To Melt The Arctic To Stop Disastrous Climate Change | Real Science
- 1972 : UN Scientists Wanted To Melt The Arctic By Spreading Soot On It | Real Science
- 1974 : NCAR Called Global Cooling The “New Norm” And Blamed Climate Disasters On It | Real Science
- 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
- The New Crisis : The Same As The Old Crisis | Climatism
- 1922 US Government Shock News : Radical Change In Arctic Climate – Glaciers Gone | Climatism
- 1970s Global Cooling Scare | Real Science
- Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.
- 21 Jul 1976 – C.I.A. WARNING Changes to climate to bring upheaval
- Climate Change And Its Effect On World Food (1974)
- TIME – Weather – The Big Freeze
NOAA TORNADO LIES: Another solid example of why government climate agencies like NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, BoM, MetOffice – run by a handful of activist administrators, are the last places to hear or read the truth on “global warming” aka “climate change”.
“The bottom line is that the NOAA headline graph is grossly dishonest. Indeed, if a company published something like that in their Annual Accounts, they would probably end up in jail!
NOAA themselves know all of this full well.
Which raises the question – why are they perpetuating this fraud?”
Read all of the excellent deconstruction of yet more NOAA fraud via Paul Homewood here…
By Paul Homewood
According to NOAA, the number of tornadoes has been steadily growing since the 1950s, despite a drop in numbers in the last five years.
They show the above chart prominently in their Tornadoes – Annual 2016 Report.
However, they know full well that it is meaningless to compare current data with the past, as they explain themselves in the section Historical Records and Trends, which is hidden away on their own website:
One of the main difficulties with tornado records is that a tornado, or evidence of a tornado must have been observed. Unlike rainfall or temperature, which may be measured by a fixed instrument, tornadoes are short-lived and very unpredictable. If a tornado occurs in a place with few or no people, it is not likely to be documented. Many significant tornadoes may not make it into the historical record since Tornado Alley was…
View original post 592 more words