2013 conflict in Syria blamed on drought caused by global warming — Flashback 1933: ‘YO-YO BANNED IN SYRIA – Blamed For Drought By Moslems’
(Follow Climate Depot on Twitter)
As international tensions heat up over Syria, many global warming activists are trying to capitalize on the situation by blaming man-made global warming for the conflict. Specifically climate change promoters are blaming recent droughts on global warming.
How Climate Change Warmed Syria Up for War — Drought allegedly caused by global warming helped create conflict – ‘So this is our mess too. We’re still cranking away at the carbon pump, and no nation is as culpable as the U.S.’ — William Polk, an ex-US State Department advisor, has written a meticulously detailed account of the genesis of the conflict over at The Atlantic..
Warmist Claim: ‘How Climate Change Primed Syria for War’ — ‘Drought devastated the country from 2006 to 2011′ — ‘Climate change, however, is adding a new dynamic to the game. This is why the US military has identified climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’.
Bill Moyers Tweeted: ‘Climate change in Syria helped spark the civil war there. Which country is next?’ — Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue mocked Moyers: ‘Fighting global warming on par with terrorism and nuclear proliferation. WMD isn’t Sarin gas, it’s carbon dioxide’
#
Seeking the cause of droughts is Syria in not without historical precedent. In a January 23, 1933 news article, Yo Yo’s were banned in Syria because they were also “blamed for drought.” See: Have we progressed?! 2013: Warmists blame Syrian drought on man-made global warming — Flashback 1933: ‘YO-YO BANNED IN SYRIA – Blamed For Drought By Moslems’ — Real Science reaction: ‘In 1933, Syrian experts blamed drought on the use of Yo-Yos.
So it seems that every malady under the Sun is now blamed on global warming, the modern version of the Yo Yo attribution. See: Climate Depot’s Morano on Fox News Mocking Gore’s ‘Climate Astrology’: ‘This is now akin to the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar’ – Morano: ‘There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now because any weather event that happens ‘proves’ their case…Man-made global warming has ceased to be a science, it is now the level of your daily horoscope’ (See also: Have we advanced? ‘Aztec priests encouraged people to sacrifice blood to the gods’
Have we progressed?! 2013: Warmists blame Syrian drought on man-made global warming — Flashback 1933: ‘YO-YO BANNED IN SYRIA – Blamed For Drought By Moslems’
YO-YO BANNED IN SYRIA – Blamed For Drought By Moslems
Drought and severe cold is disast-rously affecting the cattle in Syria,and the Moslem chiefs at Damascushave attributed the wrath of the heavens to the recent introduction of the yo-yo. They say that while the people are praying for rain to come down fromabove the yo-yo goes down, and before reaching the ground springsup through the subtle pull of the string.
The chiefs interviewed the PrimeMinister, and exposed the evil influ-ence of yo-yos, so they were immediately banned. To-day the police paraded the streets and confiscated the yo-yos from everyone they saw playing with them.…
NYT warmist readers refuse to accept war/global warming links: ‘Climate change, our top global challenge, is on track to kill many millions this century, but not from wars’
To the Editor:
Marshall Burke, Solomon Hsiang and Edward Miguel argue that their analysis of the literature establishes a strong link between weather and the level of violence in human society. As they know, however, this result has been met with some skepticism in specialist circles.
On the other hand, there is universal agreement that poverty, inequality and weak civil institutions are at least as important as weather in explaining levels of violence.
Policy makers must not lose sight of this in all the excitement about climate change.
ANDREW R. SOLOW
Woods Hole, Mass., Sept. 1, 2013
The writer is a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.…
How Climate Change Warmed Syria Up for War — Drought allegedly caused by global warming helped create conflict – ‘So this is our mess too. We’re still cranking away at the carbon pump, and no nation is as culpable as the U.S.’
…Why the forthcoming UN IPCC Report is already toast: ‘Report will be dead on arrival and hopelessly out-of-date in light of recent inconvenient peer-reviewed papers published after the cut-off date for inclusion’
Why the forthcoming UN IPCC Report is already toast
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-forthcoming-un-ipcc-report-is.html
The IPCC is set to release its latest Assessment Report 5 [AR5] in about 1 month, yet the report will be dead on arrival and hopelessly out-of-date in light of recent inconvenient peer-reviewed papers published after the cut-off date for inclusion, as well as papers published before the cut-off date which the UN continues to ignore. Since almost the entire report hinges on the output of climate models, and those models have recently been falsified at a confidence level of 98% over the past 15 years, and falsified at a confidence level of 90% over the past 20 years, the entire report and its Summary for Policymakers are already invalidated even before publication. Every single one of the 73 IPCC climate models in the upcoming Report exaggerate global warming. Even the IPCC admits the models have not been validated and that they don’t even know how to validate the models. Several recent peer-reviewed papers have lowered climate sensitivity estimates to a third to one-half [or less] than assumed by the IPCC models. In addition, US & EU envoys are pressuring the UN to explain why the leaked AR5 report doesn’t explain why there has been no global warming for past 15-20 years, which no climate model predicted.
Sent by gReader Pro…
Computer Says No: Nature Publishes Statistical Proof Of Global Warming Standstill
Computer Says No: Nature Publishes Statistical Proof Of Global Warming Standstill
http://www.thegwpf.org/computer-no-nature-publishes-statistical-proof-global-warming-standstill/
The current generation of climate models have overestimated the observed global warming over the past 20 years and have failed to reproduce the global warming hiatus over the past fifteen years.
Commentary from Nature Climate Change, by John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, & Francis W. Zwiers
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.
Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models (see Supplementary Information).
These models generally simulate natural variability — including that associated with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and explosive volcanic eruptions — as well as estimate the combined response of climate to changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations, aerosol abundance (of sulphate, black carbon and organic carbon, for example), ozone concentrations (tropospheric and stratospheric), land use (for example, deforestation) and solar variability. By averaging simulated
temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The
observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty (Fig. 1a).
Figure 1 | Trends in global mean surface temperature. a, 1993–2012. b, 1998–2012. Histograms ofobserved trends (red hatching) are from 100 reconstructions of the HadCRUT4 dataset1. Histograms of model trends (grey bars) are based on 117 simulations of the models, and black curves are smoothed versions of the model trends. The ranges of observed trends reflect observational uncertainty, whereas the ranges of model trends reflect forcing uncertainty, as well as differences in individual model responses to external forcings and uncertainty arising from internal climate variability.
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012).
For …
New paper appears to corroborate Spencer & Braswell’s paper on misdiagnosis of climate feedbacks
New paper appears to corroborate Spencer & Braswell’s paper on misdiagnosis of climate feedbacks
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-paper-appears-to-corroborate.html
A paper published today in Theoretical and Applied Climatology appears to corroborate Spencer & Braswell’s 2011 paper concluding that “atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.” Spencer & Braswell suggested that the “missing heat” at the heart of global warming theory has instead been lost to space:
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”
The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.
In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.
“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.
This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.
Applied …
New paper claims reduced personal income from climate policies will only make you unhappy for 1 year
New paper claims reduced personal income from climate policies will only make you unhappy for 1 year
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-paper-claims-reduced-personal.html
A paper published today in Global Environmental Change finds that a reduction in income, such as due to climate change policies, causes unhappiness for one year, but don’t worry, after a year you’ll adapt to it and the unhappiness will subside. According to the authors, “effects are however temporary and do not hold for a period longer than a year, probably for reasons of adaptation and a downward adjustment of reference consumption and income levels… Our results suggest that climate policy need not reduce happiness in the long run, even when it reduces income and carbon-intensive consumption.” However, the paper does not mention the effect of climate policies which call for increasing reductions of income and consumption over time.
Climate change, income and happiness: An empirical study for Barcelona
Filka Sekulovaa, , , ,
Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergha, b, c,
a Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
b ICREA, Barcelona, Spain
c Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Highlights
•
Experiencing forest fires, has a permanent negative effect on life-satisfaction.
•
Climate policy which affects income and consumption may not reduce overall happiness.
•
Happiness adapts to income decreases after one year.
Abstract
The present article builds upon the results of an empirical study exploring key factors which determine life satisfaction in Barcelona. Based on a sample of 840 individuals we first look at the way changes in income, notably income reductions, associated with the current economic situation in Spain, affect subjective well-being. Income decreases which occur with respect to one year ago have a negative effect on happiness when specified in logarithmic terms, and a positive one when specified as a dummy variable (and percentage change). The divergence in results is discussed and various explanations are put forward. Both effects are however temporary and do not hold for a period longer than a year, probably for reasons of adaptation and a downward adjustment of reference consumption and income levels. Next, we examine the implications of experiencing forest fires and find a lasting negative effect on life satisfaction. Our results suggest that climate policy need not reduce happiness in the long run, even when it reduces income and carbon-intensive consumption. Climate policy may even raise life well-being, …
Peer Reviewed Study: Another CO2 Scare Flops – Little Impact On Tropical Corals From Acidification
Peer Reviewed Study: Another CO2 Scare Flops – Little Impact On Tropical Corals From Acidification
Previous studies have come to similar conclusions. The IPCC scary predictions about harm to coral from CO2 are unfounded. Again, nature is not cooperating with the IPCC’s fear-mongering.…
Scientists: The Tenuous Link between Stronger Winter Storms and Global Warming becomes Even Weaker
The Tenuous Link between Stronger Winter Storms and Global Warming becomes Even Weaker
Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
Come the cold season, whenever there is some type of strong storm system near the U.S. Eastern Seaboard—be it a Nor’easter, a blizzard, or ex-hurricane Sandy—you don’t have to look very hard to find someone who will tell you that this weather is “consistent with” expectations of climate change resulting from human greenhouse gas emissions. The worse the storm, the more “consistent” it becomes.
The complete collection of climate science describes just how complex the physical processes are governing such storm systems. Teasing out any anthropogenic influence, including even the direction of any influence, is darn near impossible. Claims to the contrary are usually based on a highly selective assessment of the science or the data.
A case in point:
The latest en vogue explanation linking human greenhouse gas emissions to strong winter-season East Coast storms involves changes in the characteristics of the jet stream—a river of fast moving air in the atmosphere that influences both the strength and the forward speed of extratropical storm systems. A prominent (in the media, anyway) research study last year by Rutgers’s Jennifer Francis and University of Wisconsin’s Stephen Vavrus suggests that the declining temperature difference between the Arctic and the lower latitudes (adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere warms colder, drier regions more so than warmer, wetter ones—with the notable exception of Antarctica) has led to changes in the jet stream which result in slower moving, and potentially stronger East Coast winter storm systems.
Just Google “Jennifer Francis global warming” to see how this mechanism is supposedly tied to all sorts of extreme weather events.
Even before the Francis and Vavrus study made it to print, we noted that their findings ran afoul of other existing literature which painted a far murkier picture of the influence (if any) that anthropogenic global warming was having in extratropical cold-season storm systems. After reviewing the literature, we cautioned:
So where does this leave us? When the new paper by Francis and Vavrus comes to the attention of the mainstream press, it’ll …