Sunspot Enigma: Will Inactive Sun Cause Global Cooling? ‘Earth’s response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man’s influence on climate change. Cold not warmth might be our future’
…Astronomer: Will inactive sun cause global cooling?
Astronomer: Will inactive sun cause global cooling?
http://junkscience.com/2013/07/24/astronomer-will-inactive-sun-cause-global-cooling
David Whitehouse writes at the Global Warming Policy Foundation: The weakness of Cycle 24 indicates that we might be entering a period of low solar activity that may counteract man-made greenhouse temperature increases. Cold not warmth might be our future. We do not know. We must keep watching the sun. Read more……
New Jersey Senate Candidate: ‘Millions will die’ from global warming
New Jersey Senate Candidate: ‘Millions will die’ from global warming
http://junkscience.com/2013/07/24/new-jersey-senate-candidate-millions-will-die-from-global-warming
Huffington Post reports: Climate change is becoming a heated issue in New Jersey’s special U.S. Senate election. “On climate change, either we take real action, or millions will die,” Democratic Senate candidate Rush Holt candidly told voters in an Internet-only campaign ad released Monday. The spot was promptly criticized by Republican Senate candidate Steve Lonegan, […]…
Did the Clean Air Act unleash Atlantic hurricanes?
Did the Clean Air Act unleash Atlantic hurricanes?
http://junkscience.com/2013/07/24/did-the-clean-air-act-unleash-atlantic-hurricanes
The Washington Post reports: Emerging research theorizes the decline of polluting sulfur-based particles in the atmosphere, which block sunlight and cool the Earth beneath, have allowed Atlantic hurricane activity to increase in recent decades. Could it be our efforts to clean the air have, paradoxically, made it more stormy? Read more……
NBC Cheers ‘Firebrand for Science’ Bill Nye Pushing Climate Change
NBC Cheers ‘Firebrand for Science’ Bill Nye Pushing Climate Change | NewsBusters
Aussie warmists: We use climate models because ‘no time travelling climatologists’ — JunkScience.com response: ‘No… climatologists use climate models because they want grant money’
Aussie warmists: We use climate models because ‘no time travelling climatologists’
No… climatologists use climate models because they want grant money. Click for Aussie excuse-making on climate models. Click for Roy Spencer’s “STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means“.
Sent by gReader Pro…
Ocean warming – it’s the aerosols: ‘From CSIRO, but sadly just with modeling, not empirical analysis’
Ocean warming – it’s the aerosols
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/23/ocean-warming-its-the-aerosols
From CSIRO, but sadly just with modeling, not empirical analysis: Rapid upper ocean warming linked to declining aerosols Australian scientists have identified causes of a rapid warming in the upper subtropical oceans of the Southern Hemisphere. They partly attribute the observed warming, and preceding cooling trends to ocean circulation changes induced by global greenhouse gas […]
Sent by gReader Pro…
Earth’s self regulation of Carbon Dioxide is remarkably stable: From CSIRO: ‘What we learned is that in spite of droughts, floods, volcano eruptions, El Niño and other events, the Earth system has been remarkably consistent in regulating the inter-annual variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels,’
Earth’s self regulation of Carbon Dioxide is remarkably stable
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/23/earths-self-regulation-of-carbon-dioxide-is-remarkably-stable
From CSIRO: “What we learned is that in spite of droughts, floods, volcano eruptions, El Niño and other events, the Earth system has been remarkably consistent in regulating the inter-annual variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels,” Tropical ecosystems regulate variations in Earth’s carbon dioxide levels Rising temperatures, influenced by natural events such as El Niño, […]
Sent by gReader Pro…
Review finds the Medieval Warm Period was global & generally warmer than the present, when CO2 was ‘safe’
Review finds the Medieval Warm Period was global & generally warmer than the present, when CO2 was ‘safe’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/review-finds-medieval-warm-period-was.html
A new paper from SPPI & CO2 Science reviews evidence of the Medieval Warm Period in the southern portion of North America, and finds “the studies herein reviewed clearly demonstrate the existence of a Medieval Warm Period far removed from the stomping grounds of the Nordic Vikings, while simultaneously helping to debunk the climate-alarmist claim that the MWP was a minor non-global phenomenon. Quite to the contrary, the MWP was truly global in extent, as demonstrated by data obtained on all of earth’s continents; and it was characterized by temperatures that were generally higher than those of the recent past and present. And it did so in an atmosphere with a CO2 concentration on the order of only 285 ppm, as compared to the 400 ppm of today.”
For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.
[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]
Excerpts:
Climate alarmists claim that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to the burning of fossil fuels – such as coal, gas and oil – have raised global air temperatures to their highest level in the past one to two millennia. And, therefore, investigating the possibility of the existence of a period of equal or greater global warmth within the past one to two thousand years has become a high-priority enterprise; for if such a period could be shown to have existed at times when the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration was far less than it is today, there would be no compelling reason to attribute the warmth of our day to the CO2 released to the air by mankind’s burning of the fossil fuels that supplied the power that sustained the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, in this review of the pertinent scientific literature, results of the search for such knowledge are presented for studies conducted within North American countries located south of the southern border of the United States.Focusing on the North American countries located south of the United States southern border, the studies herein reviewed clearly demonstrate the existence of a Medieval Warm Period far removed from the stomping grounds of the Nordic Vikings, while simultaneously helping to debunk the climate-alarmist claim that the MWP was a minor non-global phenomenon. Quite to the contrary, the MWP was truly global in extent, as demonstrated by data obtained on …
The BIG LIE: Sceptics Funded by Big Oil -no, the Alarmists are.
The BIG LIE: Sceptics Funded by Big Oil -no, the Alarmists are.
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-big-lie-sceptics-funded-by-big-oil.html
The BIG LIE: Sceptics Funded by Big Oil -no, the Alarmists are.Image: Cartoons by JoshHow often do you see articles (eg LINK) saying that “sceptics are funded by BigOil?” OK, please BigOil, we NEED funds, we have not received our share. Where are they?(see Hey Big Oil! Where’s our $$$$s?) “Sceptics are lavishly funded by BigOil.”Well, no! The Wall Street Journal last year exposed this to be a lie. (link)When did it become received media wisdom that global warming skepticism was all the work of shadowy right-wing groups lavishly funded by oil companies? As best we can tell, it started with a 1995 Harper’s magazine article claiming to expose this “high-powered engine of disinformation.” Today anyone who raises a doubt about the causes of global warming is accused of fronting for, say, Exxon, whatever the facts. We know that BigOil sponsors the influential “progressive” think tank of Pew Charitable Trusts thanks to Joanne Nova (link) and also, from the same link, we know that the Heartland institute does NOT depend on BigOil funding even though that has constantly been an assertion. The favorite target of global warming alarmists is the group of big international oil companies. Big Oil is accused of generously funding the global warming skeptics, like The Heartland Institute. (link)WE ALSO HAVE RECENTLY HAD A PAPER BY COOK ET AL (2013) CLAIMING A “CONSENSUS ON ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.”Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. This paper has been rebutted everywhere, including by Lord Christopher Monckton0.3% CONSENSUS, NOT 97.1% Also by Anthony Watts: (link)You’d think such simple elementary errors in data would have been caught in peer review, after all, that is what peer review is for. I think that there was a goal by Cook and his crowd, and that goal was to match the 97% number that has become a popular meme in the literature and the media. This intent seems confirmed by a recent statement by one of the co-authors, Dana Nuccitilli in a media argument that 97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialismThe above-mentioned Dana Nuccitelli describes himself as “a blogger on environmentalguardian.co.uk. He is an environmental scientist and risk assessor and also contributes to (UN)SkepticalScience.com.” (LINK) (UN)SkepticalScience is a blog run by the aforementioned …