THE Great Global Warming “Pause”

Stop_global_warming_sign_in_blizzard_-_February_10,_2010_blizzard.jpg

BETWEEN the start of 1997 and the end of 2014, average global surface temperature stalled. This 18-year period is known as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” and has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

THE rise in global temperatures that alarmed climate campaigners in the 1990’s had slowed so much that the trend was no longer statistically significant. This despite one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution occurring since February 1997.

THE pause took a pause during the 2015/16 super El Niño which was the strongest such event in recorded history and helped to make 2015 and 2016 the warmest years in the modern warm period. However, 2017 witnessed the biggest drop in global temps in recorded history, seen across most data sets, bringing temps back inline with 1997-2014 averages, rendering “the pause” alive and well, to date.

THERE has been a recent surge in media reports aiming to debunk and bury the inconvenient hiatus, not predicted by any climatologist, science agency, government body, media outlet or UN computer model.

A few of the latest attempts by the mainsteam media at re-writing climate history…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

BEFORE it “never happened” – ‘established’, ‘peer-reviewed’ climate science was all over the pause…

1997 – 2015 TEMPS

 

 

PEER-REVIEWED PAUSE “SCIENCE”

 

The Executive Summary alone mentions the word “pause” eleven times, but the key paragraph is this:

UPDATE

The Met Office link to their “pause” explanation has been deleted! Very un-Orwellian of the climate mafia…

“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.”― George Orwell1984


2017

“The hiatus continues to challenge climate science.” – Hedemann et al | Nature Climate Change …

screen-shot-2017-11-23-at-november-23-2-54-36-pm.png

The subtle origins of surface-warming hiatuses | Nature Climate Change

*

PAUSE for thought via Tony Heller’s RealClimateScience

Before it was disappeared, the hiatus was central to the IPCC report.

The MWP, LIA, 1940’s spike, 1970’s global cooling – all disappeared by the climate mafia.

Sometimes settled science requires rewriting history over and over again.

Deep Sixing The Hiatus | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

*

CALL me a cynic, but if “global warming” is so dastardly, and an “imminent global threat”, as we’re constantly told, isn’t a near 20 year warming “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown” (if that works better for you) a good thing? It definitely wouldn’t appear so by how much abuse, huffing and puffing is spewed out by the climate mafia when those two words – “pause” or “hiatus” are printed or uttered. One might think that the angry voices have skin in the climate game, financially, politically and/or ideologically. Oh…wait!

AS we know, the pause has been a big embarrassment to the climate establishment, because the longer it goes on, the more it casts doubt on their climate models and their theory, and thus threatens the literal trillion dollar industry made up of grants, funds, well-paid government jobs in climate bureaucracies, rent-seekers, advocacy groups, bird-slicers (windmills) and bat-blasters (solar farms)…

A LOT of jobs, reputations and (taxpayer) funds are now at stake.

*

TO conclude, an excellent summary of the pause and what it means for our understanding of the chaotic and complex climate system by Dr David Whitehouse…

The lesson of the pause is not that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, but rather that the computer models, which predicted an acceleration in global warming, and on which current policy is based, have proved to be inaccurate. Nevertheless, the pause is an important event that enriches our understanding of a highly complex climate system. In the future, a long-term rise in global temperatures may resume. There is a good chance, however, that the recent super El Niño only interrupted the 1997-2014 pause. No-one knows. But if the pause were to resume or warming keeps slowing down, many of the fundamental assumptions of climate science would have to be re-assessed.

Dr David Whitehouse is the science editor of the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

•••

UPDATE

THE latest “pause-buster” paper that this post is based on claims that “Missing Arctic temperature data, not Mother Nature, created the seeming slowdown of global warming from 1998 to 2012, according to a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change.” – Zhang et al. …

IF that’s the case, then what for the “missing data” at the other ‘inconvenient’ pole – Antarctica – that has been cooling for the past ~40 year and gaining ice mass?

“Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a−1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a−1..” – H. Jay Zwally et al. …

PERHAPS cancel’s out the apparent “unreported” Arctic data that underpins the latest pause-buster attempt by Zhang et al.

FURTHER, a valid and worthy observation by our friends “Climate Realists” who noted on twitter:

Latest Excuse on the Pause: There was NO pause in global warming because of a lack of data in the Arctic… and yet your told the Arctic is the worst it’s ever been.. work that one out.

AND this via @SimonMaxfield8

FOR the Arctic they give a warming estimate of 0.659°C per decade. This means, without the Arctic data, the global temperature paused, i.e. only one region was contributing to global warming, and a region where it’s been estimated about half is due to natural factors.  

•••

Global Warming Pause/Hiatus Related :

El Niño Related :

 

 

 

Advertisements

CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History

GlobalWarmingFraud

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

THIS brilliant piece of research and writing by, Leo Goldstein. Defeat Climate Alarmism, represents a truly definitive guide to what is, undoubtedly, the greatest pseudoscientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind – the empirically unproven theory of man-made “Global Warming” aka “Climate Change” aka “Climate Disruption”…

SUCH an important and pivotal (quick) read that needs to be spread far and wide, over and over and over again…


Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

Climate Realism Against Alarmism

A Realist Side of the Climate Debate. CO2 is a product of human breath and is plant food, NOT a pollutant.

CLIMATE alarmism is a gigantic fraud: it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending tens of billions of dollars of public money every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda. Climate pseudo-science is wrong on physics, biology, meteorology, mathematics, computer sciences, and almost everything else. And even if the “climate science” were perfectly correct, climate alarmism politics would still be a tyranny and betrayal. Alarmists demand that the US and other Western countries unilaterally decrease their carbon dioxide emissions, while allowing unlimited increase to China and all other countries, which already emit more than 70% of carbon dioxide and almost 100% of other infrared-absorbing gases and soot.How could this happen? Carbon dioxide is exhaled by humans with each breath. How could the idea to call it a “pollutant” and to regulate its “emissions” get such traction in our society? How could a mad suicidal cult and its preachers obtain so much power in the academia and media, and become a cornerstone of the Democrats’ political platform, in the 21st century?

Many factors were in play.

  1. This takeover did not happen overnight, but took some 30-40 years.
  1. Climate alarmism was born and acquired power abroad. It was led by a bunch of non-governmental organizations of the environmentalist and “global governance” persuasion, acting in cahoots with certain United Nations agencies. It infiltrated the US through American branches of foreign NGOs and their fellow travelers, such as NRDC and EDF. Climate alarmism made a huge leap in 1993, when its fanatical disciple Al Gore became the Vice President. Nevertheless, climate alarmism has always been and remains an essentially foreign phenomenon.For example, the infamous Congressional testimony delivered by Dr. James Hansen in 1988, on invitation from Senator Wirth, was instigated by foreign enviros and diplomats in the run-up to the Toronto conference that happened a few weeks later. The climate dogma had been developing largely in lawless UN agencies and unaccountable transnational organizations, often using them as an extra-territorial operational base when national public demanded answers about its mischief.
  1. There is indeed a strong consensus among foreign governments in support of climate alarmism. This consensus has nothing to do with the science. Many governments are promised “reparations” from the United States for alleged harm; other countries expect to benefit from the damage to North American oil & gas exploration inflicted by climate alarmism; and another group of countries enjoys immunity from limitations that climate treaties impose on Europe and North America and receive fringe benefits in the form of outsourced manufacturing and/or preferential trade terms. Finally, many European countries are ruled by coalitions including influential Green Parties, and the rest are too small to resist.
  1. Over the last 8-10 years, climate alarmism has achieved its huge scale by spending tens of billions of dollars on its own public relations, including payments to public relations firms, pseudo-scientists, corrupt academics, university administrators, journalists, and media outlets. It has also created its own institutions with scientific-sounding names and taken over formerly highly-regarded organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences. Climate alarmism continues to demand more and more money, and spends most of it on self-promotion and intimidating its opponents.
  1. The leaders and pseudo-scientists of climate alarmism are driven by many motives. Fear of just punishment is quickly becoming the leading motive, as it should be. Their crimes start with tax evasion, theft of hundreds of billions of dollars, inflicting economic damage on the order of trillions of dollars, include an attempt to murder millions of Americans by shutting down the national energy infrastructure, and possibly include high treason. It is likely that they hide the truth even from their nominal party leaders – Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That makes the current situation even more dangerous and unpredictable.
  1. The foreign interference, money, and some confusion about the subject matter were not the only factors in the meteoric rise of climate alarmism. Since the late 1980s, the global warming agenda has been accepted by the left as “their cause,” and received unconditional support. The majority of the scientists leaned left, and many of them accepted the alarmist claims (which were much more reasonable then than today) of the environmentalists and general media without suspicion. These scientists also bore old prejudices against conservatives, to whom they attributed all kinds of anti-scientific leanings. Although these prejudices provided enough breeding ground for alarmism, the scientific community successfully resisted climate alarmism in 1990’s. The Oregon Petition, signed by more than 30,000 scientists and other professionals knowledgeable in sciences, is just one example.
  1. In 2001, even the International Panel on Climate Change acknowledged that carbon dioxide emissions did not cause harmful climate change. It reacted to this “discovery” by removing the word “anthropogenic” from its definition of “climate change.” That did not stop climate alarmism from gaining momentum. Instead, climate alarmism finally parted ways with science, and declared its dogma to be the undisputed truth.
  1. Scientifically illiterate Al Gore was responsible for the science in the Clinton–Gore administration from 1993-2001. He evaluated scientists according to their agreement with his views on global warming. Not surprisingly, his appointments and budget decisions had effect of deadly poison, administered to the American scientific enterprise. (To tell the truth, it was not all Al Gore’s fault. The scientific enterprise came under fire from many directions, from the academic “social constructivism” theory to “diversity” politics.) The scientific institutions, already leaning left before Al Gore, just fell to the left after his reign.
  1. George W. Bush was too naïve to fight cunning enviros on the government payroll posing as scientists, and was allowed too little time for that anyway. Concerned with maintaining national unity in the aftermath of the enemy attack on 9/11, he appointed Democrat John Marburger as his scientific advisor (Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy). Marburger let government-financed scientific institutions slide further down and to the left, but his appointment did not save Bush from the usual accusations of “manipulating science for political purposes,” “censoring scientific results,” and “silencing the science,” all slogans shouted by the Union of Con Scientists and the rest of the attack pack.
  1. In 1997, the US Senate rejected the Kyoto pact, instigated by climate alarmism, by a 95–0 vote. The main reason was its discriminatory terms against the US. But these terms, demanding unilateral emission cuts by the US and few other countries, were more like an insult added to an injury. The injury was the corruption of the science by environmentalist quackery, of which the global warming catastrophism was just the latest example. This vote proved to be a palliative treatment. Many politically active leftist scientists, including distinguished ones, remained committed to the totalitarian ideals, wanted Congress to accept their beliefs as the science, and called for Congress to restore science to its appropriate place in government. But the First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The leftist scientists either did not understand the First Amendment, decided that it applied only to religion of the “ordinary folk” and not to them, or were egged on by their comrades whose “science” needed “a place in the government” because it took place neither in nature nor in the lab. When the Senate passed a resolution not addressing alarmist beliefs directly, these scientists probably concluded that the Senators did not have scientific arguments against the alarmist beliefs, and acted out of some ulterior political motives. And they accepted the alarmist claims (which were much more moderate then than today) as real science, and opposition to them as politically or financially motivated. Since many of these scientists were quite distinguished and sincere in their ignorance and hubris, their opinion carried much weight with their colleagues.
  1. The lawless nature of the IPCC and other UN agencies allowed climate alarmists to pull off a trick which would be impossible in any national forum. It was like the “telephone” game played by kids. Scientists at the bottom of the IPCC structure were saying one thing, while Greenpeace and its accomplices at the top of the IPCC structure were telling the public something entirely different, and invoking the authority of the scientists. When elected officials disagreed with the Greenpeace allegations, many legitimate scientists thought that the politicians misunderstood the science, and sharply criticized them. The leftist media was only too happy to amplify such criticism.One example is the play on the definition of “climate change.” If climate change is understood as “dangerous anthropogenic global warming,” as in the UN Framework Agreement on Climate Change, then climate change does not happen. If climate change is defined to include natural climate variations, according to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), then it happens and has been happening for billions of years, but is not alarming. And there are dozens or hundreds of mutually incompatible definitions of climate change, produced by climate alarmists and by scientists trying to get crumbs from the alarmist table.
  1. The extreme left apparently took over the Democratic Party in 2002-2005. The DNC started to court the foreign vote openly. Internet made that courting easy and convenient. Democrat Congresspersons welcomed foreign “observers” at the US elections. Al Gore started a hedge fund called Generation Investment Management in the UK, and founded an exchange to trade hot air (voluntary carbon credits). Gore and his minions publicly fantasized that the hot air would become the hottest commodity of the 21st century, and prepped themselves to become multi-billionaires. Unfortunately, they did not stop at fantasizing, but attracted some serious money, and put it at work to scare us into buying those carbon credits. In 2006, following Al Gore’s fraudumentary An Inconvenient Truth, climate alarmism started its own offensive against the US on the American soil. This offensive has been going surprisingly successfully, and led to the current situation.
  1. The recent Attorneys General gambit is a show of desperation, rather than strength. Greenpeace, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and whoever else behind them have sacrificed three state Attorneys General – Eric Schneiderman, Maura Healey, and Kamala Harris – as if they were merely pawns.  Maybe they were.  Those who press an analogy between the energy companies and the tobacco companies just expose themselves as either hopelessly crazy or craftily malicious. Those who act on that analogy are either criminals or enemy agents. Tobacco is a harmful, addictive, and useless (for everybody but the smokers) product. This is why the unconstitutional and corrupt prosecution of the tobacco companies was successful twenty years ago. Oil, gas, and coal are exactly opposite to tobacco. They are energy sources necessary for the existence of civilized society, on which the lives of the majority of Americans depend. And not everybody in this country is an idiot, thinking that the power of his or her dreams can replace electricity and gasoline.By the way, the climate alarmist lobby opposes nuclear power and hydro power as fiercely as it opposes fossil fuels.

Climate alarmism’s Tower of Babel is falling. It is voluntarily supported by the Obama regime from inside, and by the Guardian from outside. The Guardian used to be a respectable newspaper of the British Left, but dropped to the tabloid level and is awaiting indictment for espionage. Other supporters of climatism are in it only for the money, or because they are chained to it as galley slaves to their oars, or because they are too stupid to run away from the falling tower.

Use the Climate Sanity Search to learn more.

(Climatism bolds)

Welcome | Climate Realism Against Alarmism

H/t @tan123

•••

Climate Chnage Fraud Related :


100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong!

Times CMIP5.png

AS egg-on-face moments go, it was a double-yolker. Last week a group of climate scientists published a paper that admitted the estimates of global warming used for years to torture the world’s conscience and justify massive spending on non-carbon energy sources were, er, wrong. | THE TIMES

IN February 2016, climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that the UN IPCC’s CMIP5 climate models grossly exaggerate and over estimate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures. Dr. Christy noted in his testimony that “models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately three″.

Christy CMIP5

UN IPCC CMIP5 Climate models Vs Observations – presented by John Christy PhD to US Senate Congress on Climate Change

 

SEPTEMBER 2017

Dr. Christy was 100% correct …

A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. We are in a better place than I thought.”

ANOTHER author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side” — meaning they exaggerated.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

Screen Shot 2017-09-26 at , September 26, 6.46.02 AM

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.” Myles Allen – professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford 

 

SO, the sceptics – the “climate deniers” – were spot-on, again.

cagw.jpg

The global warming backpedalling begins. “It’s less worse than we thought” | Tallbloke’s Talkshop

AND yet we have spent literally trillions of dollars of other peoples’ (taxpayers) money on alarmist global warming climate change policies, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills, solar panels, mothballed desal plants, pink bats, carbon taxes etc) on the advice of overheated, predictive computer models that do not even observe real-world reality!?

DON’T expect an apology or your money back anytime soon. The climate juggernaut will keep digging at your hip pocket a little while longer – too much money is on the line and too many reputations are now at stake.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

Via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT :

The pause is alive and well!

 

 

There has been a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the findings of the new paper. This article mentions a letter to the Times by the phoneys, Lords Krebs and Stern.

I have also seen a similar letter in the Mail from Myles Allen. It stated that the difference of 0.3C was really rather insignificant, and that we were still all going to die if we did mend our evil ways, only slightly later!

But the difference is actually really huge, bearing in mind that this is over a period of just 15 years, and particularly when the authors admit that emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed.

Climate change predictions — what went wrong? | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

•••

Related :

97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong Related :

The Writing Was On The Wall :

Global Warming “Pause” Related :


CLIMATE Alarmism Has Cost Far More Than Any Global Warming Ever Could

tim-flannery.jpeg

“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007

GLOBAL WARMING alarmists like to bully you into belief by attacking your apparent ‘overindulgent’ lifestyle, claiming that your AC, SUV, even your diet will leave a diminished planet for our “children’s, children’s, children!”. Dire forecasts always pushed out by generations so no one can keep tabs.

 

flannery rain.jpg

YET, as the Malthusians preach their favourite eco-memes from the comfort of their air-conditioned / centrally-heated, inner suburban eco-palaces, they care little about those who live on planet ‘struggle-street’, right now.

SUCH catastrophic prognostications will inevitably continue from hysterical climate pontificators, even as a landmark paper by warmist scientists in ‘Nature Geoscience’ now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. Begs the questions; who are the real science “deniers”? And, is that “science” really “settled”?

the-tim-flannery-prediction-years.jpg

Long term rainfall map for Melbourne showing the very short dry period when Professor Flannery made his predictions. Everything back to normal now! | Climate Change Denier

ANDREW BOLT writes an excellent piece in The Herald Sun on one of our favourite global warming climate change hysterics, Tim Flannery, whose alarmist predictions have led to radical climate policies that have cost Australian’s literally billions upon billions in green schemes and scams – virtuous offerings to the green faith that have helped to destroy Australia’s once thriving economy and ruined people’s livelihoods.

A MUST READ…

Billions wasted. Desalination plants mothballed. Power prices through the roof. Pensioners unable to pay for their heating. It’s time to count the shocking price we’ve paid for listening to global warming scaremongers like Tim Flannery.

Andrew Bolt: We’re paying for scientists’ climate of fear

AS THE panic ends, check out the shocking price we’ve paid by treating global warming scaremongers like Tim Flannery as our gurus.

Listening to these preachers cost us billions. In fact, we’re still paying the bills — just as some climate scientists are waking up to themselves and saying, “whoops”.

BLOG WITH ANDREW BOLT

BLAME YOUR POWER BILL SPIKE ON POLITICIANS’ GLOBAL WARMING CON

CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES ALL PAIN AND NO GAIN

Haven’t you heard? It turns out the science was not settled, after all, and sceptics were right to laugh at Flannery (pictured) and his richly paid gabble of Chicken Littles.

A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. We are in a better place than I thought.”

Another author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side” — meaning they exaggerated.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

MORE ANDREW BOLT

Former chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery. Picture: Sam Mooy

That is actually not news to sceptics. Dr Roy Spencer, who runs one of the four main measurements of world temperature from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has pointed it out for years, but most journalists ignored him. Likewise, they’ve largely ignored that the predicted climate catastrophes have not happened, either.

We have had not more cyclones but fewer; not less rain in Australia but more; not fewer polar bears but more; and not worse crops but record ones, here and overseas.

So why have we wasted a fortune to cut the emissions we now learn aren’t actually causing a warming catastrophe — or certainly not as fast as first said? Why do we have horrendously expensive and mothballed desalination plants in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, still waiting for the drought we were told would be permanent?

Why have we also destroyed our cheap and reliable electricity system, replacing “dirty” coal-fired generators with so much dodgy wind and solar power that we now face blackouts and world-record prices?

True, it’s not all Flannery’s fault. It obviously takes more than one panic merchant to create such mayhem. But Flannery’s career should stand as a reproach to us all, particularly to hypsters who promoted him — the ABC, above all — and to the sheep who believed him.

Flannery is the mammologist who somehow emerged as our high priest of global warming, warning of Armageddon unless we repented our sins against Mother Earth. Our emissions had caused the rains to fail, he proclaimed. Perth could become the world’s first “ghost metropolis”, he warned in 2004.

Former Greens leader and environmentalist Bob Brown. Picture: Chris Kidd

“In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months,” he cried in 2007. And he topped it all that year with this: “Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems.”

As I said, he wasn’t alone. Greens leader Bob Brown in 2006 agreed we faced the “spectre of permanent drought” and The Age quoted armies of alarmists, including the Bureau of Meteorology’s Bertrand Timbal: “We are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”

So up went the desalination plants. Then down came the laughing rain, flooding Brisbane and filling dams.

You’d think that cosmic joke would have ended Flannery’s career and the global warming scare in one great thunderclap.

But no. Flannery, made our Chief Climate Commissioner by the Gillard Labor government, still heads the Climate Council and still bobs up as an ABC presenter and honoured guest.

And he’s still at it. For instance, two years ago he exploited the category 5 Cyclone Pan that hit Vanuatu, telling the ABC: “Elements of the damage wreaked by that cyclone are being influenced quite strongly by climate change.

“Sadly we’re more likely to see them more frequently in the future.”

In fact, that very next cyclone season our Bureau of Meteorology recorded a first in its satellite records — not a single severe cyclone hit Australia, compared with 11 in 1982.

Why did we ever listen to Flannery and scaremongers like him?

See now what their panic-making has inspired — global warming schemes that have hurt us infinitely more than global warming itself.

MORE ANDREW BOLT

BLOG WITH ANDREW BOLT

•••

More On Flannery Here :

Dud-Prediction and Failed IPCC Model Related :

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


There Is No Climate Change Crisis

cop22_wheresmymoney_scr.jpg

Image by Josh – Watts Up With That?

With the UN’s annual climate gabfest, held this time in exotic Marrakech, now done and dusted, it is worth drilling down on the exact “science” that these luxurious and opulent meetings are supposedly based upon…

Assessing the current state of the climate should be a necessary precursor to all ‘climate-crisis’ meetings in order to justify not only the hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 carbon emissions emitted whilst jetting in the thousands of climate elites from every corner of the globe. But also to account for the millions upon millions of (your) taxpayer dollars spent in order to hold each lavish event.

25,903 participants had the time of their lives…

COPP22 Participation.png

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

The Science

The following “State of the Climate” report via CFACT was presented by Climate Depot’s Marc Morano at COP22. Each point is, of course, backed up by real-world data and peer-reviewed science

  • Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming.
  • The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
  • Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
  • Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.
  • Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
  • Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
  • So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
  • A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’
  • 2016 Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade’
  • Deaths due to extreme weather have declined dramatically.
  • Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.

Climate Truth File 2016 – CFACT (SLR link by Climatism)

I would also add to the list, the stubborn and inconvenient fact that 97% of 102 UN-IPCC CMIP5 predictive climate models DO NOT accord with observed reality.

They are all running ‘too hot’.

This is problematic as these same unverifiable climate models form the basis of the literal trillions of dollars of taxpayer money that directly funds radical climate policy and the schemes and scams that go with it like misguided and “unreliable” energy solutions – wind and solar.

Failed Climate Models.jpg

Climate Models Don’t Work | Climatism

Decide for yourself if there is a so called “Climate Crisis” and just how are the estimated trillions of dollars, earmarked to de-carbonise the globe, supposed to change the weather or adjust the temperature of the planet, and by how much exactly? No one really knows.

If you feel CFACT’s list of peer-reviewed and scientific climate realities are “cherry-picked”, ask yourself why no UN climate ‘expert’ or anyone at a climate conference will ever dare discuss these points. Of course they won’t and can’t because each point fundamentally wrecks their climate narrative and political agenda.

Then ask yourself why Marc Morano and his CFACT delegation were forcibly censored and shut-down by UN security for presenting these pesky facts (in front of a life-size Donald Trump cutout no less! Gold).

Note to Marc and other dissenters of the preferred wisdom of climate theology: If you want an invite to a UN climate event, and wish to remain for the entire two weeks enjoying the inner-sanctum of climate groupthink, pampering and chatter, you best pack the preferred memes of the climate crisis industry and use them frequently – “the science is settled” and “97% of all scientists agree”. Both equally deceptive and thoroughly debunked climate memes aimed to stifle debate, intimidate and isolate.

“Science” is never settled, nor does science listen to or work through “consensus”.

What We Do Know About UN Climate Meetings and Radical Agenda 

With such little evidence of a ‘climate crisis’, why does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate Christiana Figueres UNFCCCchange policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?

In Brussels February, 2015 she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

Global warming has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is has become as ideology. A new religion. Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.

Figueres also added that Communism is the best model to fight global warming.

Ideology over Science 

In 2013, UN IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3 Dr. Ottmar Endenhoefer unleashed this stunning revelation…

IPCC leader on wealth redistribution goals.jpg

Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII” « JoNova

 

Follow The Money 

The shock election of Donald J. Trump as President-elect of the United States has put Green groups in a literal (money) spin…

WUWT’s Eric Worrell :

The Marrakesh COP22 climate conference has ended – and green groups are just waking up that without US financial support, nobody has committed any money to anything.

I’m a little worried by the lack of financial support to help poor countries adapt. This conference has been taking place in Africa, it was generally agreed that there should be more money, but in concrete terms unfortunately these decisions failed to materialise,” said Lutz Weischer, team leader on international climate policy at Germanwatch.

It is genuinely possible most of the members of groups like Greenpeace and Germanwatch really didn’t know where all the money was coming from. Sounds crazy, but think about it – all greens had to do in the past is make a lot of noise, and bundles of cash turned up. They never had any reason to question where the cash was coming from.

I suspect climate activists are only now waking to the horrible possibility that after years of partying on the US taxpayer’s dime, they really don’t have that many friends anymore.

•••

UPDATE

The two week conference, catering for 25,903 participants was declared the “conference of action”. Which is why the Paris rule has been delayed to 2018!

What a waste of time and…’CO2 carbon emissions’.

As with all climate conferences, kicking the can down the road was to be expected and who’s complaining with another guaranteed two years of champagne, foie gras and chatter at exotic locations, on the taxpayer dime…

climate-change-crisis-date

See more : ‘Breakthrough’ At Midnight: UN Climate Talks Agree To Delay Paris Rules Until 2018 (As Expected) | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Related :

Climatism Related :

 


Fossil Fools

WITHOUT access to fossil fuels, every tree on the planet would have been cut down by now to provide for peoples heating, cooking and industry.

TAKE the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic for a classic example: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy?

image

Haiti is almost 99% deforested, as they rely totally on wood for domestic and industrial fuel. On the other side, the forests of the fossil fuel burning, eco-terrorists – the Dominican Republic, remain lush and green.

EMBRACE “unreliables” and you will end up as the next Haiti.

FUEL-poverty stricken German’s are already robbing forests to use wood to heat their homes in winter, unable to pay for radically priced “green energy”.

PROOF: http://m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/a-878013.html

Related :

• Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity