A recent paper in Nature has received worldwide media attention because of its claim to have shown that the recent hiatus in surface temperature rises was the result of natural variability. The lead author, Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute, also claimed that his work dealt a fatal blow to suggestions that computer simulations have systematically overestimated the global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide concentrations.
However, Nic Lewis, an expert in this area of climate science, today pubished an article demonstrating that there are serious errors in the paper, and that its conclusions cannot be sustained. Lewis said:
“As well as having some basic statistical errors, Marotzke’s study can be shown to utilise circular logic. This means that its conclusions are unsound. Moreover, the stability of estimates for at least one of the two key structural model properties used is so poor that even were he able to rework his paper without the circularity - which appears impracticable – it would very likely be impossible to draw meaningful conclusions. I think the authors have no scientifically-defensible choice but to withdraw the paper.”
“In short, climate change is not worse than we thought,” wrote Bjorn Lomborg in a recent issue of The Wall Street Journal. He is best known as the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and his skepticism is welcome, but insufficient.
First of all, climate change is a very long-term process and always has been. The climate takes decades and centuries to change, largely based on well-known warming and cooling cycles. During the course of these cycles, both related to comparable cycles on the Sun, all manner of climate-related events occur, from hurricanes to blizzards. Nothing new here.
The problem with Lomborg’s commentary is that he confuses climate change with global warming, the hoax concocted in the late 1980s by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in order to have an international tax imposed on “greenhouse gas emissions”, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), that the IPCC guaranteed was going to heat up the Earth in a few decades unless greatly reduced. Lomborg even cites the IPCC which has grown notorious for its lies.
So are the people who claim that global warming has paused truly living in "an alternate reality that is detached from real word observations?" It seems only reasonable that we see what the global warming scientists have to say on the matter. After all, they are the experts in climate research and climate modeling, and they would never fabricate a story and "continue to demonstrate their willful ignorance by repeating the same false story."
Those in climate academia have championed and awarded these folks, and the media have willingly spread the gospel: climate change is real, the science is settled, catastrophe awaits, and global warming hasn’t stopped, except it has, regardless of what the satellite data is showing (which is likely the most accurate way to measure land-based and tropospheric temperatures).
Are the skeptics really living in an alternate reality? A reality “not only of sight and sound, but of mind? A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination.” That’s not the intro to the new and improved Cosmos, but rather The Twilight Zone, whereby the former borrowed heavily from the latter, especially in the episode on climate change. But that’s a whole other article.
“ELDERLY person dies (of cold) every SEVEN minutes due to fuel poverty ‘scandal’ ”
“2014 was the warmest year on record”
Two recent headlines: one is truthful, the other not — and, while seemingly incongruous, they are connected.
It is a fact, according to British charity Age UK, 3.5 million elderly Britons are at risk from winter cold. It is estimated 25,000 “excess winter deaths” across Britain will result from the inability of the poor to afford power because renewable energy policies have driven it beyond reach. One-third of those polled by Age UK worried how they would heat their homes.
Tragically, that first headline is true and the deaths continue.
I must admit, recent letters regarding the imminent dangers of “global warming” have been funny to read. Some even have blasted the News Tribune and other media for printing anything against the religion of global warming.
There is plenty of solid scientific evidence that global warming is a phony science.
In a recent interview, Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science in the UK and former NASA scientist, said, “The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, which is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. ...
Climate science continues to document the powerful, repeating natural patterns that produce the ups/downs of climate change...yet, many political, journalism, celebrity elites, and newly-minted wannabes deny the existence of these past, current and future climate patterns...to the point of grossly misleading the public and constituents in regards to natural climate change, natural global warming, and yes, natural worldwide cooling...so, is it plain anti-science that drives their denial?...an unfathomable ignorance?...or just the intellectually-lame desire to be politically correct?....
Using the UK's MetOffice global HadCRUT4 (HC4) dataset as a proxy for long-term climate change, it allows for a breakdown of when such changes occurred.
For this article's definitional purposes, long-term change is defined at those points where the HC4 30-year global average shifted to a new level (up or down) by 0.1°C, for at least 12-months in a row.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency claims the Keystone XL oil pipeline poses a global warming danger.
But one organization thinks the agency is just out to stop the consumption of affordable energy.
A January 2014 environmental analysis by the State Department essentially raised no major environmental concerns with Keystone XL. The State Department added that oil companies would develop the tar sands with or without a pipeline.
Environmental groups have argued that oil from the Canadian tar sands is dirtier that traditional crude oil and therefore means more emissions, something they point to as a contributor of what they call "global warming" or, more recently, "climate change."
It was refreshing to see meteorologists apologize for their dire — and wrong — predictions of an unprecedented snow storm that they had said would devastate the northeast. It was a big storm, but the northeast has seen lots of big snow storms before and will probably see lots of big snow storms again. That's called winter.
Unfortunately, we are not likely to hear any similar apologies from those who have been promoting "global warming" hysteria for years, in defiance of data that fail to fit their climate models. What is at issue is not whether there is "climate change" — which nobody has ever denied — but whether the specific predictions of the "global warming" crowd as to the direction and magnitude of worldwide temperature changes are holding up over the years.
After six years of debate and despite Obama’s veto threat, the Keystone XL bill cleared the Senate hurdle on January 29, 2015 . . .
I, and everyone else who supports the building of the pipeline, see it as a critical infrastructure project.
Many opponents say it will have negative environmental and employment impacts, hence the strife.
But all the arguing in the world can’t change the reality that oil will come from Canada. The only question now is how . . .
It’s time for environmentalists to accept the facts and see the truth – the XL pipeline is the lesser of two evils.
Most climate scientists accept that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has some warming effect on Earth’s climate, but undisputed science shows that its direct effect is tiny and declines dramatically as carbon dioxide levels rise.
The climate models produce scary warming forecasts by assuming “positive feedbacks.” This is the basis of their claims that man’s production of this harmless gas of life is pushing Earth toward an irreversible temperature tipping point.
Their main feedback assumption, expressed simply, goes like this: more carbon dioxide produces surface warming, which causes more evaporation from the oceans, which increases water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases greenhouse warming, which causes more evaporation, and so on and so on.
As the Obama administration escalates economic sanctions on Russia and weighs military support to Ukraine, it has revved up a less noticed but far broader campaign to wean Central and Eastern Europe off a deep reliance on Russian energy. It’s a Cold War reprise, but not for military supremacy, and the points on the map aren’t troop deployments, tank battalions and missile silos. Rather, pipelines, ports and power plants are the weapons of what could prove a generation-defining conflict between the U.S. and Russia over how Europe heats and electrifies its homes. --Bradley Klapper and Matthew Lee, Associated Press, 3 February 2015