Industrial pollution has allegedly ‘held back’ rainfall increases
Industrial pollution has allegedly ‘held back’ rainfall increases
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2013/07/industrial-pollution-has-allegedly-back.html
Industrial pollution has ‘held back’ rainfall increases – Met Office1 July 2013 – Industrial pollutants have played a role in holding back increases in global rainfall which were expected with a warming climate, according to new research from the Met Office.The paper, published in Nature Climate Change, explains for the first time why there has been no increase in global average rainfall over land during the last century despite a 0.8 °C rise in global average temperatures.
Twitter / BigJoeBastardi: http://t.co/ce7zj7mTbK Can …metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/hydological-cycle-research …Can you believe this. Its a concerted effort to blame man for everything, Now we find its holding back increases…
Michael Mann the real climate denier: He denies taxpayers who funded his ‘work’ from seeing that ‘work’
Michael Mann the real climate denier: He denies taxpayers who funded his ‘work’ from seeing that ‘work’
“We’re waiting for every news reporter at every McAuliffe-Mann event to ask: ‘Why are you hiding your activities at a public college that the taxpayers funded?’” Lars Hagen writesin the Washington Times: Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for Virginia governor, will kick off Science Week with Michael Mann. Of all the climate scientists to drag […]…
Matt Ridley: Science Is About Evidence, Not Consensus
Matt Ridley: Science Is About Evidence, Not Consensus
http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-science-evidence-consensus/
It is the evidence that persuades me whether a theory is right or wrong. I could not care less what the “consensus” says.
Last week a friend chided me for not agreeing with the scientific consensus that climate change is likely to be dangerous. I responded that, according to polls, the “consensus” about climate change only extends to the propositions that it has been happening and is partly man-made, both of which I readily agree with. Forecasts show huge uncertainty.
Besides, science does not respect consensus. There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA) and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth—all of which proved false. Science, Richard Feyman once said, is “the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
My friend objected that I seemed to follow the herd on matters like the reality of evolution and the safety of genetically modified crops, so why not on climate change? Ah, said I, but I don’t. I agree with the majority view on evolution, not because it is a majority view but because I have looked at evidence. It’s the data that convince me, not the existence of a consensus.
My friend said that I could not possibly have had time to check all the evidence for and against evolution, so I must be taking others’ words for it. No, I said, I take on trust others’ word that their facts are correct, but I judge their interpretations myself, with no thought as to how popular they are. (Much as I admire Charles Darwin, I get fidgety when his fans start implying he is infallible. If I want infallibility, I will join the Catholic Church.)
And that is where the problem lies with climate change. A decade ago, I was persuaded by two pieces of data to drop my skepticism and accept that dangerous climate change was likely. The first, based on the Vostok ice core, was a graph showing carbon dioxide and temperature varying in lock step over the last half million years. The second, the famous “hockey stick” graph, showed recent temperatures shooting up faster and higher than at any time in the past millennium.
Within a few years, however, I discovered …
Dutch meteorological institute KNMI critical of IPCC- suggests they are leaving out study of natural climate variability
Dutch meteorological institute KNMI critical of IPCC- suggests they are leaving out study of natural climate variability
Dutch advise to IPCC: limiting the scope to human induced climate change is undesirable by Marcel Crok op 5 juli 2013% Governments around the world have been asked by IPCC to think about the future of the IPCC. The Netherlands now sent their submission to the IPCC and made it available on the website of […]…
The UN’s Pretend Climate Scientists: ‘A UN press release falsely describes those attending an IPCC meeting as ‘climate scientists,’ In fact, these people are policy wonks, economists, political scientists, and UN advisors’
The UN’s Pretend Climate Scientists
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-uns-pretend-climate-scientists.html
A UN press release falsely describes those attending an IPCC meeting as “climate scientists,” In fact, these people are policy wonks, economists, political scientists, and UN advisors.Read the rest here. This blog has relocated. You can sign up to receive an e-mail each time a new post is added under the “Email subscription” bar a little below the photo.NoFrakkingConsensus has a Facebook page.…
Cold, hard facts about wildfires
Cold, hard facts about wildfires
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC
By Joe Bastardi and Joe D’Aleo, Weatherbell.com
Its a sad world today when not only does one have to offer weather explanations for a tragedy, but then have to counter obvious lies that are going to be told about it ( hence the reason I am not optimistic about our nation, because too many people accept, rather than question, what they hear). So the first thing I am going to do is show you the facts about how far below normal we are with Wildfires this year.
Enlarged
W are close to a million acres below the 10 yr running mean over 15,000 fire less than the 10 year running mean, less fires than any of the last 10 years, and next to last in acres burned. And yet the climatic ambulance chasers are already out trying to push a lie on this matter that was born of the tragedy of 19 people losing their lives in the wildfire we have been hearing about.
The most destructive incident of fire I know of, and one that is somewhat infamous in meteorological terms is the Dresden Firestorm. Basically what was done to Japan with the Atom bomb was done to Dresden with mass bombing that created and inferno in the center of the city, and the heat plume that developed allowed air to rush in from cooler outlying areas and created what was a literal firestorm. Historians writing on this question the motives of the allies, since Dresden was not a military city. While not an expert on this it appears the decision to do this was the modern day parallel to Shermans burning of all of Georgia, not just the military part. It may have been to completely demoralize the population by hitting a city that really, was looked at as some place like Switzerland.. not really something that was contributing to the German war effort. In fact the Germans moved what little defense they had of Dresden to other places.
In any case, the diagram below shows what happened
Enlarged
In the case of the wildfire there are two things to consider. The air is hot and dry, and the heating by the fire itself increasing the instability by making it even hotter. This means that winds …
League of Conservation Voters guy: If you don’t believe that CO2 causes bad weather, it means that you don’t believe in science
League of Conservation Voters guy: If you don’t believe that CO2 causes bad weather, it means that you don’t believe in science
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2013/07/league-of-conservation-voters-guy-if.html
LCV: Climate change will hurt GOP appeal to young voters – The Hill’s Ballot Box[Navin Nayak, the League of Conservation Voters’ senior vice president of campaigns] “…I think there’s a generation of young voters and even suburban moms that look at a Republican leadership right now that doesn’t believe in science, and is increasingly wondering, ‘Why would I ever support candidates who don’t believe in science or are making decisions based solely on their ties to oil companies?'” he said.…
Unprecedented Arctic Cold Continues: ‘We are almost half way through the Arctic melt season, and there has been essentially no melting north of 80N this year’
Unprecedented Arctic Cold Continues
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/unprecedented-arctic-cold-continues
We are almost half way through the Arctic melt season, and there has been essentially no melting north of 80N this year. COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut It is safe to assume that the hockey team and the mainstream media will choose not to mention this fact to […]…
‘Can A Carbon Tax Solve The Politicization Of Climate Science?’
…Warmist Bob Ward: “Governments will negotiate a summary of the new IPCC report line by line at a meeting…the public can be confident that the report will be the most reliable scientific assessment of climate change that has ever been produced”
Warmist Bob Ward: “Governments will negotiate a summary of the new IPCC report line by line at a meeting…the public can be confident that the report will be the most reliable scientific assessment of climate change that has ever been produced”
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2013/07/warmist-bob-ward-will-negotiate-summary.html
Bob Ward: Draft report on climate offers stark assessment : CtGovernments will negotiate a summary of the new IPCC report line by line at a meeting in Stockholm in September, with the main report to be published shortly thereafter. …Nevertheless, the public can be confident that the report will be the most reliable scientific assessment of climate change that has ever been produced. Most critically, it will allow people to read for themselves the authoritative verdict of the world’s scientific community on the evidence for climate change.…