James Hansen, a former NASA scientist dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, has a new study out claiming future warming could be worse than predicted, with the world suffering through massive sea level rise and super storms.
Hansen’s global warming doomsday scenario suffers from one (well, at least one) major flaw: it depends on a slowdown of Atlantic overturning circulation, which transports warm water from the tropics to the North Atlantic where it warms the atmosphere.
Hansen and his co-authors list a “slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region” as one of five impacts man-made global warming would have on the planet.
A new study debunks claims made by Hansen, Rahmstorf and Mann that man-made warming will slow the AMOC or even completely shut it down.
“Claims of strengthening or reducing of the AMOC are therefore pure speculation,” Aussie scientists wrote in their recently published paper.
The Aussie scientists specifically refuted the study by Rahmstorf and Mann claiming ice melt was slowing the AMOC based on climate models and proxy data. That study directly contradicted actual measurements of the AMOC taken by oceanographer Thomas Rossby of the University of Rhode Island.
A federal science agency is “seriously” interested in reviewing tens of millions in taxpayer-funded grants awarded to a university professor who wants President Obama to prosecute those who don’t share the administration’s view that mankind is changing the world’s climate.
The National Science Foundation’s inspector general appears poised to look into Jagadish Shukla’s management of federal grant money, much of it from the science agency itself.
The science agency has its own rules and guidelines governing grants, which would be applicable to the millions Shukla, 71, received from the agency.
“The longstanding cozy relationship between [government] grantmakers and grantees makes them blind to even the most obvious conflict of interest,” Bonner Cohen, a scholar with a free-market think tank in Washington, told The Daily Signal.…
Questioned by Congressman McKinley if EPA’s climate regulations will have any measurable impact on the Earth’s climate, Administrator Gina McCarthy won’t say but responds, “[W]e see it as having enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”
ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “I think sir we see it as having had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”
House Energy and Commerce Committee
March 22, 2016
Daily Caller: EPA Chief: Climate Regs Meant To Show ‘Leadership’, Not Fight Global Warming – Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted her agency’s signature regulation aimed at tackling global warming was meant to show “leadership” rather than actually curb projected warming. – McCarthy admitted as much after being questioned by West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley, who pressed the EPA chief on why the Obama administration was moving forward with economically-damaging regulations that do nothing for the environment.
“I don’t understand,” McKinley said in a Tuesday hearing. “If it doesn’t have an impact on climate change around the world, why are we subjecting our hard working taxpayers and men and women in the coal fields to something that has no benefit?”
“We see it as having had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris,” McCarthy responded.
McKinley was referring to EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan, which forces states to cut carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. The CPP is expected to double the amount of coal plant closings in the coming years, and even EPA admits it won’t have a measurable impact on projected global warming.…
Veteran German Meteorologist: 2015 El Niño “Weather Event” Does Not End IPCC-Confirmed Pause!
In the today’s hard copy edition of the Nordesee Zeitung, a north German daily, in a letter to the editor veteran and retired German meteorologist Klaus-Eckard Puls writes a 3-point response to recent alarmist claims made by IPCC climate scientist Prof. Mojib Latif. Image: partial shot of letter appearing in the 22 March 2016 edition of the Nordsee Zeitung. Prof. Latif recently claimed in Bremerhaven that the future of the planet was at stake, and unless drastic action is taken quickly, “the basis for existence for many people will be destroyed by climate change” Pause has not ended In his letter to the daily Nordsee Zeitung, Puls reminds readers that the IPCC confirms the 15-year pause in global temperature in its most recent report and that “the warm 2015 El Nino year changes nothing“. Puls notes that even IPCC climate scientist Latif was correct in characterizing the El Niño phenomenon as a “weather event” and that “it has nothing to do with climate“. Climate refugees claims false In the second point, concerning climate refugees, Puls reminds: “Previous UN prognoses of 50 million environmental refugees by 2010 proved to be false. In countries that are in the so-called danger zone the number of inhabitants is actually growing.” No detectable anthropogenic sea level rise signal In his third point of rebuttal, Puls tells readers that sea level rise has steadily slowed down since the end of the last ice age, and that there has been “no detectable anthropogenic rise signal“. Interestingly the newspaper left out Puls’s title as a degreed meteorologist. Titles are rarely left out in such situations in Germany. Klaus-Eckard Puls is also the staff of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).
— gReader Pro…
German Geology Expert: Glaciers Are Not Melting “Faster Than Ever” …Requests Statement From Deutsche Welle
Geologist and climate science site “Die kalte Sonne” operator Dr. Sebastian Lüning has written an e-mail to Deutsche Welle German public radio in response to their claims of “glaciers melting faster than ever before” made in a recent broadcast. Mont Blanc Massif, Photo by Gnomefililiere, CC BY-SA 3.0 Just days ago Kenneth Richard posted on the subject here and showed using published scientific literature that this is likely far from being true. In recent years, the documented rise in sea levels contributed from glacier and ice sheet melt has not come close to reaching the high levels attained during the 1920s and 1930s period as documented by Gregory et al., 2013.” Unfortunately Deutsche Welle was sloppy in that they didn’t bother to fact-check, and so as a result they put out overly alarmist information to the public. I translated Dr. Lünning’s e-mail message in English: ================================ To: Deutsche Welle [German Public Television] From: Dr. Sebastian Lüning Sent: 22 March 2016 Topic: Film “Das große Gletscher-Schmelzen” [The great glacier melt] from 27 February 2016 Dear editorial board, Concerning the above mentioned broadcast, the film commentary claims beginning at the 1:55 mark: ‘Globally glaciers are losing ice faster than ever before’. That is not correct, as in the past in the Alps there have always been characteristic ice melt phases – the last 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period. 5000 years ago (during the mid-Holocene climate optimum) Glaciers in the Alps were in fact almost completely melted away. The claim made in the film does not meet the latest level scientific knowledge. I also very much wondered as to why you completely left out the crucial paleo-climatological context in the report, thus as a result making the current ice melt appear more threatening than it really is. I would like to receive your comment on this, which I would like to publish at www.kaltesonne.de. Yours sincerely Dr. habil. Sebastian Lüning ===================================== Readers can also (politely) send the same or similar message to DW, should they wish. NoTricksZone is also very interested in DW’s comment and would be happy to publish it for international readers as well.
— gReader Pro…
What could the theory of “ego depletion” possibly have to do with global warming?
Ego depletion is the idea in psychology that humans have a limited amount of willpower that can be depleted. It’s been largely accepted as true for almost two decades, after two psychologists devised an experiment in self-control that involved fresh-baked cookies and radishes.
One group of test subjects were told they could only eat the radishes, another could eat the cookies. Then they were given an unsolvable puzzle to solve. The researchers found that radish eaters gave up on the puzzle more quickly than the cookie eaters. The conclusion was that the radish eaters had used up their willpower trying not to eat the cookies.
Daniel Engber, writing in Slate, notes that the study has been cited more than 3,000 times, and that in the years after it appeared, its findings “have been borne out again and again in empirical studies. The effect has been recreated in hundreds of different ways, and the underlying concept has been verified via meta-analysis. It’s not some crazy new idea, wobbling on a pile of flimsy data; it’s a sturdy edifice of knowledge, built over many years from solid bricks.”
But, he says, it “could be completely bogus.”
A “massive effort” to recreate “the main effect underlying this work” using 2,000 subjects in two-dozen different labs on several continents found … nothing.
The study, due to be published next month in Perspectives on Psychological Science, “means an entire field of study — and significant portions of certain scientists’ careers — could be resting on a false premise.”
Engber laments that “If something this well-established could fall apart, then what’s next? That’s not just worrying. It’s terrifying.”
Actually, it’s science.
As Thomas Kuhn explained in his 1962 book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” this kind of event is typical in the course of scientific progress.
A “paradigm” takes hold in the scientific community based on early research, which subsequent studies appear to confirm, but which can later collapse as findings that don’t fit the paradigm start to accumulate. Kuhn found several such “paradigm shifts” in history.
The ego depletion findings also come as scientists are starting to realize that much, if not most, of what gets published is essentially bogus because it can’t be reproduced by subsequent studies.
“By some estimates,” notes an article in Quartz, …