Environmental activists have plundered Nature's Scientific Reports and released a paper yesterday that they claim removes all doubt there is a global warming pause. After examining 40 peer-reviewed papers that show a global warming hiatus, they claim the papers didn't examine a long enough period of time.
In fact, the authors—Stephan Lewandowsky, James Risbey, and Naomi Oreskes—broke the golden rule of science: they started with a predetermined outcome and then cherry-picked the data to fit their conclusion. It also runs counter to the unaltered datasets from leading climate institutions.
The paper assessed the "magnitude and significance of all possible trends up to 25 years duration looking backwards from each year over the past 30 years." Unsurprisingly, the authors thought the papers didn't use a long enough time frame to show a clear global warming pause over the entire global warming "record." Here we document how this extended global warming record has been tampered, altered, and utilized for politicized "green ideology," and how massive alterations were made to both NASA and NOAA's temperature data series.
According to the satellite record (the most accurate), weather balloons, radiosonde data, sea surface temperatures, and weather stations (least accurate), previously unadulterated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA GISS) data showed a long-term definitive trend: no increase in tropospheric temperatures when the Industrial Revolution began in earnest after World War II.
We do have weather station temperature data, albeit spotty, that goes back to 1881 and it shows regular intervals of warming and cooling, and not the popular upward slope in temperatures used by environmentalists and governments to illustrate dramatic global warming. More on that shortly.
All of this is important because global warming theory predicts the upper troposphere will warm from trapped heat, just like in a greenhouse. The surface of the Earth warms later to reach equilibrium. Except since 1979, we've had orbiting satellites measuring the atmosphere from five miles from the surface and it shows the upper atmosphere is warming far less than expected. They are accurate to .001 degrees Celsius. It doesn't get more accurate than that.
RUTGERS (US) — Scientist have described the process that allows corals to form skeletons, and they say water acidity doesn’t affect the process.
Those skeletons—destined to become limestones—form massive and ecologically vital coral reefs in the world’s oceans.
In a publication in Current Biology, Tali Mass and colleagues at the Rutgers Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences show that specific proteins produced by corals can form limestones in test tubes.
These proteins, secreted by corals, precipitate carbonate that forms the corals’ characteristic skeleton.
“This is a first step toward understanding how coral build their skeleton,” says Mass, a postdoctoral researcher and lead author of the study.
Water acidity does not affect the process, which suggests that these organisms will survive in coming centuries when the world’s oceans are predicted to become more acidic. That also potentially bodes well for the health of the world’s coral reefs, which support ecosystems essential to marine diversity that in turn support fisheries.
“The good news is that the change in acidity will not stop the function of these proteins,” says Mass.
Veteran award-winning journalist Günter Ederer reports of a shocking new global warming data fraud in NASA’s global temperature data series, as relied on by the UN and government climate scientists. The data has been carefully analysed by a respected data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert and is being made publicly available for independent verification.
Professor Ewert’s findings seem to show NASA has intentionally and systematically rigged the official government record of global temperatures to show recent global warming where none would exist without the upwards ‘revisions.’
The astonishing results are now available online to the public. P Gosselin of notrickzone.com reports:
Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).
Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.
The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.
But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:
• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.
Einstein has been proven wrong, yet again - at least on one thing. Second paper proves 'spooky action at a distance' is real, contrary to Einstein’s view. The theory riled Einstein as it suggested data could travel faster than light.
In quantum physics, entangled particles are connected despite distance. This means the action of one will instantly change behaviour of the other. But NIST showed it was possible by separating photon pairs and sending them by fiber optic cable to detectors in distant rooms 184 metres apart.
Einstein called it "spooky" and was referring, specifically, to entanglement - the idea that pairs of sub-atomic particles can be invisibly connected in a way that transcends time and space.
This offended Einstein, since passing information between two points in space faster than the speed of light is supposed to be impossible.
In 1964, the scientist John Stewart Bell devised an experiment designed to rule out hidden variables that could offer a non-weird explanation for 'action at a distance'.
But all the 'Bell tests' performed still contained 'loopholes' that, according to critics, could invalidate proof of entanglement.
Now a new paper, which appears in the Physical Review Letters, has provided the most solid proof yet that entanglement does indeed exist.
University of Vermont climate study of sedimentary cores shows periods of extreme storminess occurred thousands of years before any human influence.
Previous periods of extreme storminess: A 13,000 year scientific study of lake sediments by the reliable method of drilling and retrieving cores reveals that the climate of the United States has been through numerous periods of more extreme climate. The research explains:
“ Storm magnitude, as estimated by average terrigenous layer thickness, was greatest at 11,800, 10,800, and 1,200 years before present, when New England climate was cool and moist.”
“Storminess reached variable maxima lasting ~1,500 years, centered at approximately 2,600, 5,800, 9,100, and 11,900 years ago, and appears to be presently increasing toward another peak.”
Here we see the periods of greatest climate variation from the established normal happen when conditions are “cool and moist,” which runs contrary to current climate alarmism theory which states that a warmer, drier climate will result in more extreme events.
The research points out that the USA is “increasing towards another peak” in storminess therefore the peaks of extreme climate were larger before the industrial revolution that started in 1851.
That's according to a new analysis released yesterday by Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist and team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. To blunt this historical news, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced yesterday that global warming could be to blame for an active hurricane season last year around Hawaii. Meanwhile, as the Atlantic hurricane season finishes out its eleventh year, there hasn't been a category 3 or higher hurricane to hit landfall in over a decade.
With the upcoming UN-sponsored Paris Climate Talks in early December, NOAA's scientists have instead released a new report saying that global warming may have played a role in the increased hurricane activity around Hawaii last year. To hammer home its point, NOAA reiterated that "tropical storm Iselle slammed into the Big Island in August 2014 and was one of three tropical disturbances that approached Hawaii last year, making it the third largest number" since recordkeeping began.
David Siegel of medium.com ran the article, 'What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled' about his conversion from global warming alarmist to climate skeptic.
Siegel’s article has now been read 9,000 times and suggests 46% of alarmists are now climate skeptics.
More specifically the survey at the bottom of the article asked readers: If you were a supporter of decarbonization before reading this essay, please state your new view on climate change ... a large proportion of respondents indicated that: “I found it very convincing and will try to have conversations with others about this.” Brilliant right?
Meanwhile, Siegel has this follow-up written on WUWT and he summarized his climate odyssey on climatecurious.org. He also has a follow up article giving a three-step recipe on how "climate change" can be solved:
- We must focus on liberal media outlets to get them to learn how biased they are and why they are buying the wrong story. It's a huge challenge because they associate decarbonization with doing good for the environment, and to them, anyone who says otherwise is a hardcore conservative bent on destroying the future. It's hard for them to admit they are wrong. The media parrots what the PR people tell them to say. Ask hard questions. Do what you can to influence liberal media, blogs, journalists, and others. Simply having conversations, asking questions, and sending people my essay will help.
- I would like to target a small number of well-known people to convert and then they will spread the message naturally. The people on my list are influential liberals: Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Jeff Skoll, Jon Stewart, Elan Musk, George Clooney, Mike Bloomberg, George Soros, Thomas Steyer, etc. My goal is to put together a very small, very exclusive event where a few of such people can spend a day with the people I list in my article and learn what's really going on in climate science. Then people can use verifiable science and influence to help us put the environmental movement (and climate science) back on track. If you can help me reach them, I hope to make this event a reality.
Even the "lukewarmer" position on anthropogenic global warming has become untenable on the basis of both observations and theory:
1. Lindzen (pictured) & Choi papers based on ERBE satellite observations showed sensitivity (to doubled CO2 levels) of only ~0.18C
2. Dr. David Evans has shown, using the same flawed radiative model of the IPCC as the basis, that "The ECS might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C"
3. Kimoto has shown climate sensitivity is ~.15-.2C due to the IPCC false assumptions of a fixed lapse rate and a mathematical error in calculating the Planck feedback parameter:
4 Volokin et al have shown that planetary surface temperatures are a function of solar insolation and surface pressure only, not greenhouse gas concentrations, on all 8 planets for which we have adequate data, including Earth & Venus.
5. The surface temperature and tropospheric temperature profile can easily be derived from physical first principles including the 1st LoT, Ideal Gas Law, Poisson Equation, Newton's 2nd Law, and Stefan-Boltzmann Law for solar forcing only, and without greenhouse gas "radiative forcing," and perfectly replicates the verified 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. Thus, once again, sensitivity to CO2 is mathematically proven to be essentially zero.
6. Convection dominates radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere by a factor of ~8X, and increased greenhouse gases accelerate convection, thereby erasing any alleged cold-heats-hot greenhouse gas radiative effects on the surface.
7. Many other climate sensitivity estimates have concluded climate sensitivity is effectively zero, or so close to zero as to be unmeasurable and negligible.
A new report released this week by the U.N.-funded WMO said that the levels of the three most potent 'greenhouse gases' in our atmosphere reached new levels in 2014. The good news is that CO2 rose less than 2 ppm, with the other two gases barely climbing at all. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increased to only 397.7 parts per million (PPM), up 1.9 PPM from 2013.
They also said methane levels measured 1,833 parts per billion (PPB) in 2014, and were up only 9 PPB from 2013. The globally averaged level of nitrous oxide in 2014 grew to 327.1 PPB, which is 1.1 PPB above the previous year. The largest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapor, which makes up 95% of all so-called greenhouse gases. All of which may be bad news if you've instituted economy-crippling policies ahead of a UN-sponsored climate treaty.
But if you've ever wondered what the greenhouse gas/effect means, this may help: A greenhouse is a glass-covered enclosure that is pumped with higher amounts of CO2 (usually around 1,800 PPM) to promote plant growth. As the sun's visible and ultraviolet light passes through the glass ceiling and walls, it gets absorbed by the floor, ground, and greenhouse contents. This heat then radiates off the items in the greenhouse and, because it's in an enclosed structure (the glass), is unable to escape into the cooler air around the structure.
Think of it like your car in the hot sun. It's not filled with CO2, but the heat has no way to escape because of the glass and steel enclosure. Government climate scientists believe that gases like water vapor and CO2 act like the glass and steel, preventing the heat from escaping into space, giving you an Earth-sized greenhouse. Hence the term "greenhouse effect" and "greenhouse gases." But they seem to overlook the fact earth's atmosphere is open to space (i.e. nothing like a closed greenhouse).
The theory of global warming involves a lot of assumptions. First it states that, with all things being equal, the Earth "maintains a constant average temperature averaged out over the course of a year." As sunlight comes in, it heats the air and Earth, some gets absorbed, some gets emitted back into outer space, and what's left maintains a relatively moderate temperature for the planet. Remember, energy can't be destroyed. So what comes in has to either be converted into something else, absorbed, or reflected back into outer space.
According to the 'theory' how fast this energy is radiated back into outer space depends on how much of a particular gas is in the atmosphere, like water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane. The more of a particular gas we have in the atmosphere, the less energy can get bounced back out into space.
This, say climate scientists, causes the lower atmosphere to stay warmer (near the surface), but also warms the upper atmosphere (remember, energy can't be destroyed). Water vapor is the most potent shield for keeping this energy from escaping the Earth. For a more in-depth tutorial and examples, go here.
Global warming theory also says that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. It predicts that the upper atmosphere will warm from trapped heat, just like in a greenhouse. The surface of the Earth warms later to reach equilibrium. Except since 1979, we've had orbiting satellites measuring the atmosphere and it shows the upper atmosphere is warming much less than expected by this theory.
Because nature abhors imbalances, global warming theory also says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this upper atmospheric heat by increasing in temperature until the energy coming in equals the energy going out. To do this, the Earth's temperature at the surface goes up to meet the temperature of the upper atmosphere and balance is restored. But as noted above that isn't happening. That fact alone should put the greenhouse gas theory into the coffin.
But there is far too much money involved in the global-warming cottage industry and, as less hysterical climate scientists keep trying to say, the planet is not as sensitive to imbalances as some people would have you believe. In fact, the Earth is quite adept at keeping up with changes as it has done so for the last 4.5 billion years.
The largest CO2 sponge on the planet are the oceans around us. The largest emitter of CO2 on the planet are microbes that produce CO2 as they consumer decaying organic matter. What man contributes, while significant, barely registers when compared to natural, ongoing processes (including, but not limited to, volcanic activity beneath the oceans).
Regardless of all this, the 2014 CO2 level is actually a 12-month average as CO2 in the atmosphere fluctuates throughout the year, and is lower when the Northern Hemisphere is in full bloom (plants absorb CO2) and higher in the winter (when more ocean is covered in ice and fewer plants are in bloom).
To put this in context, CO2 levels went up on such an infinitesimal scale as to be unquantifiable. Methane, which is considered to have 21-23 times the heat trapping power of CO2, rose to 1,833 PPB in 2014. That's up 9 parts per billion (with a B). Mix 9 red marbles into a billion white marbles, and you begin to understand the silliness that ensues every time one of these reports come out.
Which always seem to happen right before a UN-sponsored climate conference like the one coming up in December.
Read more by Thomas Richard at www.examiner.com
New European Union (EU) law intending to be ‘green’ by limiting electricity power usage in domestic vacuum cleaners turns out to be more wasteful in energy. Scientists and consumers baffled by Brussels lawmakers’ faux pas.
North Americans, don’t be afraid, your old vacuum cleaner is just fine but if you feel like buying a new one anyway, no problem either.
If you live across the pond in the EU, however, you might just want to hang on to your old vac. The good bureaucrats of the EU have prescribed a new 'greener' standard: new vacuum cleaners have been limited to a maximum energy use of 1.6 kW (as of September 2014) and 0.9 kW as of September 2017. That’s a major change in energy consumption, mandated by EU law; needless to say, some manufacturers are not happy and the consumers—they’ll have to find out.
What’s the Issue?
Though I barely know such household gadgets, I think most vacs sold on this continent are using motors rated in the 1.5+ kW range, well above the 2017 limit mandated by the EU standard. I hazard the guess that few of the bureaucrats who wrote the new regulations ever use any vacuum themselves. After all, they are there to make regulations, not to live by them.
If they did use a vac, they might just realize that working twice as long with a 0.9 kW “energy-saving” implement compared to a 1.5 kW system for half the time does not save any energy at all. In fact, it consumes more energy (consumed energy = power x time).
The conditions of life for billions of people depend upon rejecting the agenda being presented at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris this December. The COP21 Paris initiative to adopt a legally binding agreement to reduce CO2 emissions must be rejected on two grounds: the scientific reality that mankind’s activity is not going to cause catastrophic climate change, and the very real, lethal consequences of the CO2 reduction programs being demanded.
There is no legitimate basis for having the COP21 conference. Put an end to this now!
Despite the climate-change narrative being presented by an extremely well-funded, top-down propaganda campaign, there is an immense amount of solid scientific evidence which clearly contradicts and/or refutes the claims of coming catastrophic climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, satellite measurements have shown that there has been no average rise in global temperatures for over 18 years, despite the fact that human greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing at an accelerating rate. This underscores the reality that the climate simply does not respond to CO2 levels in the way claimed by climate alarmists; said otherwise, the Earth’s climate system is not highly sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Because many climate models are using these false assumptions of high climate sensitivity to CO2, the predictions of these climate models have been consistently wrong, and with each year they are diverging further from reality. The gradual changes in the climate that have occurred over the recent decades, and the gradual changes which will continue to occur in the future, are not and will not be a cause for alarm. Most of these changes are natural, and any impact mankind may have would be relatively minor. A healthy and growing world economy will be able to adapt to these changes.
We must also recognize that CO2 is not a pollutant—it is an essential part of the biosphere. Because the present atmospheric CO2 levels are well below the optimum for plant growth, human-caused increases in CO2 concentrations are already contributing to increases in agricultural productivity and natural plant growth—creating a measurably greener planet.