DEADLY Snowfall Wreaks Havoc Across EuropePosted: January 8, 2019 Filed under: Dud predictions, Global Cooling, Grand Solar Minimum, Snow Pack, Weather | Tags: Climate Change, Climate science, Climatology, Dud Predictions, Europe, global cooling, Grand Solar Minimum, Science and Environment, snow, Snowfall, Snowpack 1 Comment
SOME OF WHAT THE “97% CONSENSUS” ASSURED US ABOUT SNOWFALL :
❄️ SNOW will become “A very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” – Dr. Viner CRU (2000)
❄️ “Milder winter temps will decrease heavy snowstorms” IPCC (2001)
❄️ “Resorts could lose 1/4 of snow in 15 years” – CSIRO (2003)
❄️ “Alps Under Threat” THE AGE (2005)
❄️ “End of Snow?” NYTimes (2014)
AND, for the “global warming = more moisture in the air” enthusiasts, don’t forget that you need *cold* air to make snow.
Snow in Bavaria [image credit: BBC]
It seems that rumours of the end of snowy European winters have been greatly exaggerated. Countries as far south as Greece have been badly affected.
Winter storms have killed several people across Europe, including in Germany, reports DW.com.
While conditions have improved in some parts, meteorologists predict it’s just the calm before the next storm.
View original post 191 more words
Snowfall on Alaska mountains has doubled – climate change blamedPosted: December 20, 2017 Filed under: Climate science, Dud predictions, Settled Science, Snow Pack | Tags: Alaska, climate, Climate Change, Climate science, Climatology, Global Warming, snow, Snow Pack Data Leave a comment
SNOW will become “a very rare and exciting event.” “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” – Dr David Viner (CRU, 2000)
“The End of Snow?” NY Times (2014)
From DARTMOUTH COLLEGE and the “snowfalls are a thing of the past” department.
Unprecedented findings strengthen connections between winter storms and tropical waters
HANOVER, N.H. – December 19, 2017 – Snowfall on a major summit in North America’s highest mountain range has more than doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Age, according to a study from Dartmouth College, the University of Maine, and the University of New Hampshire.
The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans.
The research demonstrates that modern snowfall in the iconic Alaska Range is unprecedented for at least the past 1200 years and far exceeds normal variability.
“We were shocked when we first saw how much snowfall has increased,” said Erich Osterberg, an assistant…
View original post 906 more words
Study: a ‘statistically significant downward trend since 1950 exists’ in hurricane landfallsPosted: December 10, 2017 Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Alarmist media, Carbon Dioxide, Climate science, Dud predictions, Extreme Weather, Fact Check, Failed Climate Models | Tags: Climate Change, Climate science, Climatology, Cyclones, Dr Roger Pielke Jr, Extreme weather, Hurricanes, Inconvenient Truths Leave a comment
MORE inconvenient climate “science”…
This is going to rattle some cages, while at the same time vindicating Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. A new study in Geophysical research Letters studies hurricane activity in the Atlantic concludes that a “statistically significant downward trend since 1950 exists”.
An Energetic Perspective on United States Tropical Cyclone Landfall Droughts
Authors Ryan E. Truchelut, Erica M. Staehling
The extremely active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season concluded an extended period of quiescent continental United States tropical cyclone landfall activity that began in 2006, commonly referred to as the landfall drought. We introduce an extended climatology of U.S. tropical cyclone activity based on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and use this data set to investigate variability and trends in landfall activity. The drought years between 2006 and 2016 recorded an average value of total annual ACE over the U.S. that was less than 60% of the 1900–2017 average. Scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity…
View original post 290 more words
Climate Science: Put Up or Shut UpPosted: October 9, 2017 Filed under: Alarmism uncovered, Carbon Dioxide, Climate Alarmism, Climate models, Data Tampering, Empirical Evidence, Fact Check, Failed Climate Models, Failed Green Schemes, Global Temperature, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Green Energy, Pseudo-Science, Scientific Fraud, Wind Farms | Tags: CARBON DIOXIDE, Climate Change, Climate Change Scam, Climatology, Empirical Evidence, Global Warming Scam, Global Warming Scare, Religion, rowan dean 1 Comment
The brilliant Rowan Dean.
That’s the theme of an article by Rowan Dean in The Courier-Mail, Australia: Time for climate scientists to produce evidence that carbon dioxide emissions affect climate Full text below with my bolds and images.
IT’S time for so-called climate scientists to either cough up one single, solitary shred of genuine scientific evidence that proves that the climate is being changed by mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions, or ‘fess up and admit that the whole thing is a gigantic hoax.
That’s the bottom line.
Asked at the beginning of this year for one of those “predictions for 2017”, I claimed that this would be the year the Australian public wakes up and realises they are being hoodwinked by the whole climate change/renewables scam.
I told Paul Murray’s lively late night TV show on Sky News that 2017 would be the year the climate con comes to an end. So how is my prediction…
View original post 689 more words
Georgia Tech Climatologist Quits Over “Craziness” In Field Of Climate SciencePosted: February 28, 2017 Filed under: Carbon Dioxide, Climate Alarmism, Climate science, Climatism, Fact Check, Government Grants/Funding, Green Agenda, Pseudo-Science, Sceptics, Scientific Fraud | Tags: Climate Change, climate religion, Climate science, Climatology, Corrupt Science, Georgia Tech University, Global Warming, Global Warming Agenda, ideology, Judith Curry, Monopolistic Funding, Political Science, Scientific Fraud, Tucker Carlson Leave a comment
A MUST SEE interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight, featuring Professor Judith Curry who has recently quit her position as the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Her reasoning is simple yet so very damaging and dangerous, not only to “climate science” but to the fate of all “sciences”. Her resignation is to do with, not only being vilified by colleagues for having a sceptical (scientific) view of “climate change”, but importantly the ongoing ‘monopolistic’ funding of research into the science of man-made global warming, versus the non-existent resources directed toward the study of natural climate change.
This imbalance of government funding skews and distorts the science that is output, and as Joanne Nova notes, a “lack of funding for alternatives leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”
The systemic failure self-perpetuates :
- Where’s the motivation in proving anthropogenic global warming wrong?
- How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?
- “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, 1935
The oneway-traffic flow of government funding leads not only to an unhealthy distortion of science, but also to an unhealthy bias in the scientific and media reporting we receive on climate change.
MUST SEE interview between Tucker Carlson and Dr. Curry here:
- Judith Curry : Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan | Climatism
- Climate money: Monopoly science « JoNova (Judith Curry IPCC Update) | Climatism
- Climate Etc. – Dr Curry Website
- The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con | Climatism
SHOCK NEWS! Climate Change Causing Climate Models to FailPosted: August 26, 2013 Filed under: Climate, Climate Changes, Climate models, Climate science, Climatism, Global Cooling | Tags: Climate Change, Climate science, Climatology, CMIP5, failed climate models, Global climate model, Global Warming, WUWT Leave a comment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
STUDY: Climate change causing climate models to become less reliable
A groundbreaking new study has shown that climate change is the underlying cause of increasingly frequent and severe climate model failures. Researchers at Pennsylvania State Community College have discovered a critical link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration and general circulation model errors.
“Climate change has made it increasingly difficult to predict climate change,” says Dr. Manyard Michael, the lead scientist behind the study. “The current 16 year pause in global warming illustrates just how serious this situation has been; if not for climate change, we now know that we would have been able to accurately predict the current break in warming and clearly show that climate change is actually accelerating faster than forecast – not stopping as climate change is making it appear to those outside of the climate science community.” Dr. Michael also noted that they stumbled on this important finding almost by accident. “We just happened to notice that the higher carbon dioxide concentrations climbed, the more we had to adjust the data to get the results we knew to be right, and the more we adjusted the data, the bigger the error in the models. It’s a very strong positive feedback.”
This research has been quietly in the works for several years, and was almost compromised by the 2009 research theft known as “climategate.” For example, one particular email that has been cited repeatedly said in part, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Skeptics have misrepresented this quote to suggest that climate scientists can’t explain why the climate is not behaving as forecast and thus there is no climate change happening when in actuality, the researcher was lamenting exactly the opposite. He knew the fact that climate models did not predict a lack of warming meant climate change had progressed much faster than previously thought, and he was expressing sadness that man has brought the climate to this point.
Climate change deniers and anti-science websites have long grasped at the seemingly endless string of model failures and ever increasing forecast error as a way to argue the theory that humans are causing global warming is somehow falsified. Noted climate modeler Dr. Hans Jameson of the National Model Rocket Association commented, “thanks to this research, we can say with certainty what we in the climate research community [have] known all along, that the bigger the climate model errors, the more confident we can be that manmade climate change is happening.” Because climate change continues to accelerate faster than at any time since before the dinosaurs, the scientific consensus is that that there will be some truly stunning model failures on the horizon.
The researchers also stressed that mainstream climate science has demonstrated a remarkable ability to hindcast. As Dr. Michael points out “we can now predict the lull in warming of the past 16 years with surprising accuracy.” He further remarked that “given how well we can predict the past, the only thing that explains the difficulty of forecasting the future with equal success is the increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses. This research changes everything.” And while they are yet unable to fully explain the exact mechanics behind the correlation, the researchers expressed 99% confidence in their conclusion.
The study which is set to be published in every scientific journal is expected to open up new areas of unprecedented spending in the emerging field of climate research research.*
* Editor’s note: The phrase “climate research research” is not a typo. With Dr. Michael’s study, the greenhouse theory has matured to the point where it can not only explain climate-related phenomena, but also its own apparent inability to explain such phenomena. Craig might also have called Dr. Michael’s study meta-climatology or climatolology. Sort of like the all-seeing eye that can see even itself.
If you find that confusing, then just look at the diagram below:
* This hilarious yet 100% true parody of the outright failure of climate models was a comment posted on Anthony Watt’s blog, Watts Up With That, by reader identified as “Craig”.
Related: Modelling Climate Alarmism
Rodney Hide: NZ PM’s Scientific Adviser Talks Non-SciencePosted: August 20, 2013 Filed under: Consensus, Politics, Science | Tags: Climate Change, Climatology, Consensus, New Zealand Climate Politics, science, Scientific consensus Leave a comment
- “Consensus is the cachet of politics, not science.”
- “It’s not what people think or say that matters in science but what objective reality does.”
- “Consensus doesn’t decide science. The facts do.”
- “The theory of man-induced catastrophic global warming rules out next-to-nothing and tells us next-to-nothing.”
- “The global warming scare is more akin to a modern-day religion than science. “
- “Science doesn’t argue from authority, elected position, or status. It’s the objective world that decides science; not governments.”
From New Zealand’s National Business Review:
The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, has done us all a favour and provided a textbook illustration of the difference between science and non-science.
His recent report, New Zealand’s Changing Climate and Oceans, boldly predicts an average temperature increase of 2.1 degrees Celsius by 2090. That prediction is the key give-away. It’s not science; it’s prophecy.
Science makes bold and surprising predictions but about the here and now, not a hundred years hence. The difference is that scientific predictions are testable whereas prophecies aren’t.
We won’t know for a hundred years whether Sir Peter’s prediction stacks up and the historical experience with prophecies is that there are always excuses when their time is up.
But that’s not all. The Gluckman Report tiresomely declares there’s scientific consensus for the theory of human-induced catastrophic global warming. But so what? Consensus is the…
View original post 437 more words