Al Gore urges world leaders to sign Paris UN climate deal
…Climate Skeptics turn tables on ‘attribution’ studies – Ask: Is ‘global warming’ causing a decrease in ‘extreme weather’ events?
Washington DC — Despite the fact that the climate data clearly shows declining or no trends in many major indicators of “extreme weather” like tornadoes, hurricanes, rainfall, droughts and heatwaves, climate activists are once again seemingly trying to link every storm to “global warming.”
Man-made global warming proponents are touting yet another study claiming to attribute “extreme weather” to man-made global warming. See: Scientists: ‘Links Between Climate Change and Extreme Weather Are Clear‘
While such studies rely on modeling claims and other assorted statistical methods to “attribute” “global warming” to specific storms, these studies never examine why “extreme weather” is not increasing. The Associated Press is claiming that “Starting in 2004, dozens of complex peer-reviewed studies found the odds of some extreme events — but by no means all — were goosed by man-made climate change.”
Yes, the AP is claiming that “complex” studies found “the odds of some extreme events” are being “goosed by man-made climate change.” Complex? Odds? Goosed? Really?
The AP’s resident climate activist writer Seth Borenstein continued: “When it comes to heat waves, droughts, heavy rain and some other events, scientists who do rigorous research can say whether they was more likely or more severe because of man-made global warming.” Rigorous? (Note: AP’s Borenstein relies on a small cadre of activist scientists to support the “rigorous” claims. Activists like UN IPCC’s Michael Oppenheimer, David Titley and Katharine Hayhoe)
Climate Depot’s Rebuttal:
If “global warming” can cause specific storms or extreme weather events to occur, how come “global warming” can’t cause the significant lack of “extreme weather?” NOAA: Number of major tornadoes in 2015 was ‘one of the lowest on record’ – Tornadoes below average for 4th year in a row –
Is “global warming” causing a decrease in “extreme weather” events? A 2015 study found just that. See: New paper finds global warming reduces intense storms & extreme weather – A paper published in Science contradicts the prior belief that global warming, if it resumes, will fuel more intense storms, finding instead that an increase in water vapor and strengthened hydrological cycle will reduce the atmosphere’s ability to perform thermodynamic Work, thus decreasing the formation of intense winds, storms, and hurricanes.
The media is indulging in what
Cold water in vast Western Pacific, record water vapor, clouds, rain — super big El Nino things going on
…Climate Activism Interferes with Responsible Public Pension Fund Management
Last month, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), which manages the pension funds on which California’s educators rely, voted to divestthe stocks of U.S. thermal coal companies. Many have praised the nation’ssecond largest public pension system for taking this bold action, including California Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León, who specifically blamed the coal companies for causing global climate change.
But is a public pension fund that many California residents now and in the future depend on for retirement income really the right stage for a political climate battle?…
Another Climate Scientist Indicted for Financial Fraud
…Analysis on hysteria about February global temperature rise
The shrill article below is panicking over February temperatures so I suppose I should point out a few obvious things. I have really dealt with this nonsense before but a few comments anyway.
For a start, hanging anything on the figures for one month is dumb. You can have unusually hot months in a year where there is no overall change. Even figures for one year are rubbery. Figures for years can go up and down but still show no overall trend. You need a trend over a period of years to conclude anything. 2015 was a touch warmer but 2016 could be a touch cooler overall. If we get an early return of La Nina, the later months of 2016 could be cool in the same way that the early months were warm. That’s all elementary stuff — even if it is conspicuously overlooked below.
It was a bit boring writing all that freshman-level stuff above but I was listening to some Stravinsky while I wrote it so that kept me alert and happy
But now to get onto the specifics about February 2016: According to NOAA (See here) The February 2016 temperature was 5.69°F above the C20 average. That seems a lot. One can understand it being called “whopping”. But wait a minute. 2005 was 4.12°F above the same average. Was that “whopping” too? Did that presage climate catastrophe? Ten years later we can say that it clearly didn’t. And February 2015 was -0.85°F — BELOW average. Did that warn of an oncoming ice age? Clearly not. Hanging your hat on one month is brick thick. I really shouldn’t have to point out what excreta the article below is. Temperatures fluctuate but there is no statistically significant long-term trend.
So Feb 2016 was a bit higher than 2005. Why? Easy: El Nino. Despite what is said below, it was in fact TOTALLY due to El Nino. How do I know that? Because it was NOT due to a rise in CO2. The recent temperature rises did not fit neatly into any one year. They were concentrated in late 2015 and early 2016, And that is PRECISELY a period over which CO2 levels plateaued. From August 2015 to February 2016, CO2 levels have been stuck on 398 ppm, according to the Cape Grim data. CO2 levels over that period only varied by less than one part per million. Annual …