UN Climate Summit Rejects Its Own Science – Links Typhoon Haiyan to Global Warming – UN Summit Degenerates Into Unscientific Claims to Advance Political Agenda – Climate Depot Special Report
WARSAW – The United Nations global warming summit in Warsaw has contorted its own science reports in an attempt to claim that Tyhpoon Haiyan/Yolanda was a result of man-made global warming. The UN’s 19th session of the Conference of the Parties, being held in Warsaw Poland, is exploiting the tragedy in the Philippines in order to advance the UN’s political agenda.
Climate Depot’s Special Report includes the latest scientific studies, analyses, including the UN IPCC’s own report, which counters the UN climate summit’s claims about Typhoons and extreme weather.
UN CLAIMS:
UN head Ban Ki-moon says Typhoon Haiyan due to climate change – ‘We have seen now what has happened in the Philippines. It is an urgent warning. An example of changed weather and how climate change is affecting all of us on Earth.’
Typhoon Fuels Call for Global Warming Compensation Funds at UN Summit – Poor nations ‘blame countries that industrialized 200 years ago for damaging the atmosphere’ – Bloomberg News: ‘Some 130 countries, including islands concerned they’ll disappear with rising sea levels, are pushing for reparations as part of a “loss and damage” mechanism at United Nations climate talks in Warsaw this week. They blame countries that industrialized 200 years ago for damaging the atmosphere.’
Climate Poll Con Job: ‘When you don’t like the poll numbers, make up your own poll’ – Media Duped Again By Stanford U. Pollster Jon Krosnick’s Shoddy Agenda Driven Climate Polling
Climate Depot Special Report
Stanford University’s Jon Krosnick ([email protected]) has been receiving a huge splash of publicity with his allegedly surprising state-by-state poling showing ‘the vast majority of Americans in each of 40-plus states surveyed say global warming is real, serious and man-made’ (USA Today) Jon Krosnick is the director of Stanford’s Political Psychology Research Group.
Krosnick’s polling results, complete with handy maps showing rising “belief” in man-made global warming, are a climate activists dream. According to Krosnick’s new poll: “Majorities of residents in every state surveyed said the government should limit greenhouse gas emissions by businesses and, in particular, by power plants. Majorities also favored a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions; tax breaks to encourage the production of energy from the sun, wind and water; carbon sequestration; and government regulations or tax breaks to require or encourage improvements in the energy efficiency of automobiles, appliances and buildings. No state had a majority of residents opposed to any of those policies.”
[Update: President Obama tweets about Stanford Prof. Jon Krosnick’s bogus poll on climate change]
Could Krosnick be right? Is his poll a true shocker that shows the American public is now in lock step with Al Gore and the UN IPCC and the mainstream media?! Answer: Don’t bet on it.
Even fellow global warming activists like UN IPCC’s Princeton University Prof. Michael Oppenheimer acknowledged this week that Krosnick’s Stanford polls tend to skew to more “believers” in man-made global warming. Oppenheimer tweeted on November 12: “Interesting new poll; often more believers in Stanford polls.”
Krosnick’s polling flies in the face of recent polling showing a committed lack of belief and concern about man-made global warming from large segments of the U.S. public. See: 2013 Rasmussen Reports Poll: Most People Don’t Blame Humans for Global Warming
Obama: ‘Dial testing’ of his State of the Union speech showed that the favorability ratings ‘plummeted’ when he vowed to act on climate change if Congress refused to do so — Wash Post excerpt: ‘Obama expressed concerns about the political pain involved, saying that ‘dial testing’ of his State of the Union speech showed that the favorability ratings ‘plummeted’ when he vowed to act on climate change if Congress refused to do so.’
2013 Pew …
Media/Climate Activists ‘Hype False Claims’ About Typhoon Haiyan As Scientists Reject Climate Link – Claim of ‘strongest storm ever’ refuted – Climate Depot Special Report
Climate Depot’s Exclusive Round Up of Typhoon Haiyan
Scientists reject Typhoon Haiyan link to man-made global warming: Storm expert Brian McNoldy of U. of Miami: ‘We don’t get to pick and choose which storms are enhanced by a warmer climate and which ones aren’t’ — Brian McNoldy, a senior research associate at the University of Miami: ‘While Haiyan was absolutely amazing, it’s not alone. It’s in an elite company of a handful of other tropical cyclones scattered across the decades and across the world.’ — Haiyan ‘was just as subject to this year’s climate as the numerous others that weren’t so impressive. Extremely intense tropical cyclones are rare, but have always been a part of nature — we don’t need to find an excuse for them.’
Gabe Vecchi, a research oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said that if global warming altered Haiyan, it did not do so to a significant extent. ‘I expect that the contribution of global warming to Haiyan’s extreme intensity is likely to have been small, relative to other factors like weather fluctuations and climate variability.’
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. rips media for Haiyan hype: ‘Super powerful storm doesn’t need the extra hype. Reality is bad enough…Philippine Met Service predicted max 18 ft surge from Typhoon Haiyan. So Anderson Cooper’s [show] of CNN ‘off by 22-32 ft’ — Pielke Jr. : ‘Indeed, pretty scary and devastating. So why the need to hype with false claims of 40-50 ft? (on CNN’s Anderson Cooper)
Philippine Met Service: ‘Some of the reports of wind speeds were exaggerated’
Media incorrect to claim (driven by warmist Jeff Masters) of Being The Most Powerful Hurricane Ever — Haiyan Was Only A Category 4 — ‘Weather officials said Haiyan had sustained winds of 235 kph (147 mph) with gusts of 275 kph (170 mph) when it made landfall. By those measurements, Haiyan would be comparable to a strong Category …
New Study: ‘2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’
[Also see: Gore still warning of ‘extreme’ weather, ‘increasing storms’ and ‘other extreme events‘]
#
According to the latest analysis of data by the The SI Organization, Inc.
18 OCT/13 FRI
11:50 AM | 2013 – a year with minimal extreme weather events in the US
There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.
To begin with, the number of tornadoes in the US this year is on pace to be the lowest total since 2000 and it may turn out to be the lowest total in several decades. The table below lists the number of tornadoes in the US for this year (through 10/17) and also for each year going back to 2000.
(Source: NOAA, http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html)
Year # of Tornadoes
2013 771
2012 1119
2011 1894
2010 1543
2009 1305
2008 1685
2007 1102
2006 1117
2005 1262
2004 1820
2003 1374
2002 938
2001 1219
2000 1072
Second, the number of wildfires across the US so far this year is on pace to be the lowest it has been in the past ten years and the acreage involved is at the second lowest level in that same time period (table below).
(Source: National Interagency Fire Center; http://www.nifc.gov/)
2013 Fires: 40,306 Acres: 4,152,390
2012 Fires: 67,774 Acres: 9,326,238
2011 Fires: 74,126 Acres: 8,711,367
2010 Fires: 62,471 Acres: 3,233,461
2009 Fires: 78,792 Acres: 5,921,786
2008 Fires: 80,094 Acres: 5,254,109
2007 Fires: 85,822 Acres: 9,321,326
2006 Fires: 96,358 Acres: 9,871,939
2005 Fires: 66,552 Acres: 8,686,753
2004 Fires: 63,608 Acres: 8,097,880
*2013 data through 10/16
In addition to wildfires, extreme heat is also way down across the US this year. In fact, the number of 100 degree days across the country during 2013 is not only down for this year, but it is perhaps going to turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records.
(Source: NOAA, USHCN reporting stations; through August)
The …
UN IPCC claim: ‘Since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia’ — Real Science Rebuttal: ‘The IPCC has now abandoned any attempt to base their claims on facts. Historical data shows that the climate has gotten better since the 1950s’
Via Real Science:
IPCC Reaches A Tipping Point
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.
The IPCC has now abandoned any attempt to base their claims on facts. Historical data shows that the climate has gotten better since the 1950s.
US droughts were the worst in the 1950s
Violent tornadoes are down
Major hurricane landfalls peaked in the 1950s, and are down to historic lows in the current decade.
Record daily temperatures have declined in the US since the 1950s.
Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/
Below is what they said about the weather in 1950. The IPCC has degenerated to making up utter nonsense in support of an ugly political agenda.
UN IPCC Report Exposed By Its Own Members as ‘a pure political process’ — ‘Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors’ — Climate Depot Round Up
Update: The UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers report is out. Follow updates here.
#
Climate Depot’s Special Report Revealing the IPCC as Political, Not Scientific
‘This is a pure political process’: Why the UN IPCC Meeting Isn’t Being Televised: ‘Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors’ — ‘At the [UN IPCC] meeting, one sentence after another has been projected onto large screens. Diplomats, bureaucrats, and politicians from dozens of UN nations have haggled, horse traded, and negotiated. Eventually, phrasing that everyone can live with has been agreed upon. Then they’ve moved on to the next sentence. The meeting is closed to the public. It is closed to the media. No minutes are kept. But let us imagine that a television camera had been smuggled inside. What would we see?’ In 2007 we saw: ‘An agonizing, frustrating process, as every sentence had to be wordsmithed on a screen in front of representatives of more than 100 governments’ (Report from Donna Laframboise of NOconsensus.org)
UK Daily Mail reporter David Rose UN IPCC: ‘What’s happening here in Stockholm is final terminological shift. Global warming is dead. Long live climate change. New ocean acid emphasis!’ — ‘Cunning work, IPCC. Surface temp pause is inexplicable, but it’s wrong metric, so who cares? And PS, one unknown day it will get really hot.’
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report — Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
‘This is a pure political process’: Why the UN IPCC Meeting Isn’t Being Televised: ‘Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors’
…Polar Bear Expert: ‘The annual minimum reached in late summer has little impact on polar bear health and survival. What matters most to polar bears is the presence of ample ice in spring and early summer (March-June), which is their critical feeding period’
What polar bear habitat could look like in another 5-6 weeks
http://polarbearscience.com/2013/09/22/what-polar-bear-habitat-could-look-like-in-another-5-6-weeks/
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC, Sept. 20 report), the annual sea ice minimum extent was reached on Sept. 13, 2013.
At 5.10 million square kilometers, this year’s low was a whopping 1.69 million square kilometers above the minimum extent for 2012 (which was the lowest since 1979) and well within two standard deviations of the 19979-2010 average. (Two standard deviations: “Measurements that fall far outside of the two standard deviation range or consistently fall outside that range suggest that something unusual is occurring that can’t be explained by normal processes”).
The minimum extent for 2013 is virtually indistinguishable from the minimum for 2009, which was 5.13 million square kilometers. The ice was distributed a bit differently in 2009 – more in the east and less in the west — than it was this year (see Fig. 1 below).
Figure 1. I used JAXA to plot the date the 2013 minimum was reached (September 13, 5.10 million square kilometers, white) with an overlay (purple) for the same date back in 2009 (September 13, 2009, 5.13 million square kilometers), when that year’s minimum was reached. Areas of overlap are pink.
You’ll know from previous discussions here that the annual minimum reached in late summer has little impact on polar bear health and survival (see excellent summary of the evidence for that here). What matters most to polar bears is the presence of ample ice in spring and early summer (March-June), which is their critical feeding period.
But after the fast that many polar bears endure over the height of the summer, they are eager to get back onto the ice and resume hunting. When in the fall does that become possible?
I wondered what the similarity in extent for 2013 and 2009 might tell us about polar bear habitat development over the next month or so.
In other words, what might polar bears this year expect in the way of sea ice development by say, the end of October? When might they be able to start hunting?
So I used the JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) “Sea ice monitor” feature, which I used to generate Fig. 1 (which maps sea ice concentration for any date you choose back to 2002, see here), to plot the date the 2013 minimum was reached (September 13) with an …
Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming: ‘The 97% figure represented just 75 individuals’ – – Another study’s ‘results add up to little more than ‘carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas’ and ‘mankind affects the climate.’
Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/contrary-to-reports-global-warming.html
Meaningless consensus on climate change
Andrew Montford, Special to Financial Post | 19/09/13 8:51 AM ETMore from Special to Financial Post
NASA file/APa wealth of new empirical and semi-empirical evidence is now suggesting that any warming is likely to be far, far less than has been predicted by the vast electronic hypotheses that are the climate models.
Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming
Apart from a handful of eccentrics, everyone believes in the reality of manmade climate change. That’s the message of a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the latest in a series of similar efforts that have been used as a stick with which to beat policymakers. But scratch at the surface of any of these publications and you find that there is considerably less to them than meets the eye.
The earliest paper in this series, by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois, reported the results of an opinion poll of climate scientists that Zimmerman had prepared for her MSc thesis. The headline conclusion – that 97% of climatologists thought that mankind was having a significant impact on the climate – was widely reported at the time.
However, although the survey was sent to over 10,000 scientists, there were actually only 79 responses from climatologists, so the 97% figure represented just 75 individuals. [The Hockey Schtick broke this news here] And what was not reported in the paper or in any of the ensuing publicity was that many participants were appalled by the survey and recorded their feelings at the time, calling it simplistic and biased, and suggesting that it was an attempt to provide support for a predetermined view.
A second paper, by William Anderegg and colleagues, took a rather different approach, dividing scientists into those who were “convinced” and “unconvinced” by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and then assessing their relative numbers and their scientific credentials. It was observed at the time that the authors appeared to be trying to create a handy blacklist of scientists non gratae, and so their conclusions – that 97% of scientists were “convinced” and that their expertise was greater than that of their “unconvinced” colleagues – were unsurprising.
But again, the problems with the …