Advertisements

New study outlines how to talk about climate change to increase donations

We truly are living deep in the caverns of “collective” eco-madness.

Watts Up With That?

From the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – SAN DIEGO and the “follow the money” department, comes this study that shows activist groups how to fleece more money from the public.

Members of the general public who thought about the problem of climate change in collective terms were, relative to control, willing to donate up to 50 percent more. CREDIT Courtesy Nick Obradovich, Climatic Change. Members of the general public who thought about the problem of climate change in collective terms were, relative to control, willing to donate up to 50 percent more. CREDIT Courtesy Nick Obradovich, Climatic Change.

How to talk about climate change so people will act

What can you do about climate change? The better question might be: What can we? University of California San Diego researchers show in a new study that framing the issue collectively is significantly more effective than emphasis on personal responsibility.

Published in the journal Climatic Change, the study finds that people are willing to donate up to 50 percent more cash to the cause when thinking about the problem in collective terms.

Thinking about climate change from a…

View original post 898 more words

Advertisements

European Union Scraps Biofuel Targets

Brilliant news (if it sticks). And hopefully the devastation of SE Asian rainforests will now ease. Callously brought about by an 80% increase in palm oil plantations, in the region, to satisfy the EU’s insane, feel-good, 10% biofuel mandate.

Feels great filling up the Ferrari with ‘biofuel’, not so good for the Orangutans and their habitat across the other side of the globe.

I have lived in the SE Asian region for over ten years and regularly fly over the areas of Indonesia and Malaysia and have witnessed, with my own eyes, the dramatic and speedy devastation of flora and fauna wreaked by Palm oil plantations, ramped up in recent years to supply Europe’s penchant for feel-good, ‘Green’ biofuels.

Where has Greenpeace been?
Where was/is the outrage from the “save the planet” crew?

Watts Up With That?

Biofuel Tree

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Roger Helmer MEP – The European Union has scrapped post 2020 biofuel targets, thanks to pressure from green groups concerned about environmental damage.

Green transport target will be scrapped post-2020, EU confirms

EU laws requiring member states to use “at least 10%” renewable energy in transport will be scrapped after 2020, the European Commission confirmed, hoping to set aside a protracted controversy surrounding the environmental damage caused by biofuels.

The European Commission will table a revision of the Renewable Energy Directive at the end of 2016, aiming to further push renewable sources like wind and solar across the European Union.

On transport, “we will look specifically at the challenges and opportunities of renewable fuels including biofuels”, said Marie C. Donnelly, Director for Renewables at the European Commission.

The current directive, adopted in 2008, requires each EU member state to have “at least 10%” renewable…

View original post 129 more words


“The Hottest Year Evah”

FRANCE-ENVIRONMENT-CLIMATE-COP21-gas-ring-Getty-640x480

 

Been hearing that 2015 was the hottest year on record? This depends entirely on which temperature data set is being referred. There are two main methods of measuring global temperature:

  • The much more accurate and comprehensive satellite measurement systems, RSS/UAH, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower atmosphere, the exact place where global warming theory is meant to occur and be measured! Or…
  • NASA and NOAA’s preferred surface-based thermometers which measure “different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we ‘homogenise’ the data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].”NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt’s admission about the satellite record versus the surface temperature record (doctored in square brackets by Climatism)
  • The other issue with surface-based thermometer readings is that you can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometres without finding a thermometer nearby. The Arctic region is a great example of this, as well the oceans which cover 70 percent of the planet.

With the ever increasing divergence of surface temperatures (NASA GISS) from satellite ones (UAH/RSS), and the subsequent divergence of overheated climate models (IPCC CMIP5) to observed reality, it is worth some background on the temperature measurement systems used to measure global temperature and fundamentally to help combat misinformation about NASA and NOAA’s “Hottest Year Ever” – PR claims that tell us everything about marketing, and nothing about science…

Satellite-v-thermometer-628x353.png

Measuring global temperatures: Satellites or thermometers? 

via CFACT

by

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

The official global temperature numbers are in, and NOAA and NASA have decided that 2015 was the warmest year on record. Based mostly upon surface Dr_-Roy-Spencerthermometers, the official pronouncement ignores the other two primary ways of measuring global air temperatures, satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons).

The fact that those ignored temperature datasets suggest little or no warming for about 18 years now, it is worth outlining the primary differences between these three measurement systems.

Three Ways to Measure Global Temperatures

The primary ways to monitor global average air temperatures are surface based thermometers (since the late 1800s), radiosondes (weather balloons, since about the 1950s), and satellites measuring microwave emissions (since 1979). Other technologies, such as GPS satellite based methods have limited record length and have not yet gained wide acceptance for accuracy.

While the thermometers measure near-surface temperature, the satellites and radiosondes measure the average temperature of a deep layer of the lower atmosphere. Based upon our understanding of how the atmosphere works, the deep layer temperatures are supposed to warm (and cool) somewhat more strongly than the surface temperatures. In other words, variations in global average temperature are expected to be magnified with height, say through the lowest 10 km of atmosphere. We indeed see this during warm El Nino years (like 2015) and cool La Nina years.

The satellite record is the shortest, and since most warming has occurred since the 1970s anyway we often talk about temperature trends since 1979 so that we can compare all three datasets over a common period.

Temperatures of the deep ocean, which I will not address in detail, have warmed by amounts so small — hundredths of a degree — that it is debatable whether they are accurate enough to be of much use. Sea surface temperatures, also indicating modest warming in recent decades, involve an entirely new set of problems, with rather sparse sampling by a mixture of bucket temperatures from many years ago, to newer ship engine intake temperatures, buoys, and since the early 1980s infrared satellite measurements.

How Much Warming?

Since 1979, it is generally accepted that the satellites and radiosondes measure 50% less of a warming trend than the surface thermometer data do, rather than 30-50% greater warming trend that theory predicts for warming aloft versus at the surface.

This is a substantial disagreement.

Why the Disagreement?

There are different possibilities for the disagreement:

1) Surface thermometer analyses are spuriously overestimating the true temperature trend
2) Satellites and radiosondes are spuriously underestimating the true temperature trend
3) All data are largely correct, and are telling us something new about how the climate system operates under long-term warming.

First let’s look at the fundamental basis for each measurement.

All Temperature Measurements are “Indirect”

Roughly speaking, “temperature” is a measure of the kinetic energy of motion of molecules in air.

Unfortunately, we do not have an easy way to directly measure that kinetic energy of motion.

Instead, many years ago, mercury-in-glass or alcohol-in-glass thermometers were commonly used, where the thermal expansion of a column of liquid in response to temperature was estimated by eye. These measurements have now largely been replaced with thermistors, which measure the resistance to the flow of electricity, which is also temperature-dependent.

Such measurements are just for the air immediately surrounding the thermometer, and as we all know, local sources of heat (a wall, pavement, air conditioning or heating equipment, etc.) can and do affect the measurements made by the thermometer. It has been demonstrated many times that urban locations have higher temperatures than rural locations, and such spurious heat influences are difficult to eliminate entirely, since we tend to place thermometers where people live.

Radiosondes also use a thermistor, which is usually checked against a separate thermometer just before weather balloon launch. As the weather balloon carries the thermistor up through the atmosphere, it is immune from ground-based sources of contamination, but it still has various errors due to sunlight heating and infrared cooling which are minimized through radiosonde enclosure design. Radiosondes are much fewer in number, generally making hundreds of point measurements around the world each day, rather than many thousands of measurements that thermometers make.

Satellite microwave radiometers are the fewest in number, only a dozen or so, but each one is transported by its own satellite to continuously measure virtually the entire earth each day. Each individual measurement represents the average temperature of a volume of the lower atmosphere about 50 km in diameter and about 10 km deep, which is about 25,000 cubic kilometers of air. About 20 of those measurements are made every second as the satellite travels and the instrument scans across the Earth.

The satellite measurement itself is “radiative”: the level of microwave emission by oxygen in the atmosphere is measured and compared to that from a warm calibration target on the satellite (whose temperature is monitored with several highly accurate platinum resistance thermometers), and a cold calibration view of the cosmic background radiation from space, assumed to be about 3 Kelvin (close to absolute zero temperature). A less sophisticated (infrared) radiation temperature measurement is made with the medical thermometer you place in your ear.

So, Which System is Better?

The satellites have the advantage of measuring virtually the whole Earth every day with the same instruments, which are then checked against each other. But since there are very small differences between the instruments, which can change slightly over time, adjustments must be made.

Thermometers have the advantage of being much greater in number, but with potentially large long-term spurious warming effects depending on how each thermometer’s local environment has changed with the addition of manmade objects and structures.

Virtually all thermometer measurements require adjustments of some sort, simply because with the exception of a few thermometer sites, there has not been a single, unaltered instrument measuring the same place for 30+ years without a change in its environment. When such rare thermometers were identified in a recent study of the U.S., it was found that by comparison the official U.S. warming trends were exaggerated by close to 60%. Thus, the current official NOAA adjustment procedures appear to force the good data to match the bad data, rather than the other way around. Whether such problem exist with other countries data remains to be seen.

Changes in radiosonde design and software have occurred over the years, making some adjustments necessary to the raw data.

For the satellites, orbital decay of the satellites requires an adjustment of the “lower tropospheric” (LT) temperatures, which is well understood and quite accurate, depending only upon geometry and the average rate of temperature decrease with altitude. But the orbital decay also causes the satellites to slowly drift in the time of day they observe. This “diurnal drift” adjustment is less certain. Significantly, very different procedures for this adjustment have led to almost identical results between the satellite datasets produced by UAH (The University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California).

The fact that the satellites and radiosondes – two very different types of measurement system — tend to agree with each other gives us somewhat more confidence in their result that warming has been much less than predicted by climate models. But even the thermometers indicate less warming than the models, just with less of a discrepancy.

And this is probably the most important issue…that no matter which temperature monitoring method we use, the climate models that global warming policies are based upon have been, on average, warming faster than all of our temperature observation systems.

I do believe “global warming” has occurred, but (1) it is weaker than expected, based upon independent satellite and weather balloon measurements; (2) it has been overestimated with poorly adjusted surface-based thermometers; (3) it has a substantial natural component; and (4) it is likely to be more beneficial to life on Earth than harmful.

About the Author: Dr. Roy Spencer

Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981. As Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Spencer previously directed research into the development and application of satellite passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring global temperature, water vapor, and precipitation. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precision monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Spencer also serves as U.S. Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) flying on NASA’s Terra satellite. He has authored numerous research articles in scientific journals, and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

•••

See also :


USGS appears to be removing its websites claiming all glaciers will be melted from Glacier National Park by 2030

“Why do I suspect the USGS has chosen not to seek funds for new aerial photography because such photography will show that GNP’s GLACIERS HAVE GROWN SINCE 2005.” !!

A great example of deliberate and organised Government funded man-made global warming alarmism that appears rife within Government funded institutions.

Another example which proves – unfortunately and sadly – that Government agencies appear the last places to seek the truth on global warming, climate change, global weirding or whatever they choose to call it on any particular day!

Watts Up With That?

Government is apparently removing its websites claiming Glacier National Park will be glacier free by 2030

glacier-national-park-screencap

by Dr. Roger Roots, founder of Lysander Spooner University.

In the fall of 2015 I offered a bet of $5,000 if the glaciers at Glacier National Park disappear by 2030 (as predicted in all GNP signage, pamphlets, films and publications). See here. As of yet, no one has taken me up on my bet.

The Park’s glaciers were melting rapidly throughout the 1990s, as the catastrophic-manmade-global-warming-by-CO2 movement was riding high. Bills were introduced in Congress for “cap and trade” programs, carbon taxes and other reforms.

The National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey published websites showing photos of the Park’s glaciers taken in prior decades next to more recent photos of the same glaciers. This ‘repeat photography’ showed massive decreases in the size of the GNP glaciers.

(I have often pointed out…

View original post 350 more words


Wind and solar a waste of money for UK, Prof Sir David MacKay said in final interview

Devastating interview for feel-good ‘unreliables’ – wind and solar – from Prof MacKay, who served as chief scientific advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (UK) for five years until 2014.

Interesting how government bureaucrats always end up telling the real truth when their tenures are up!

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/wind-and-solar-a-waste-of-money-for-uk-prof-sir-david-mackay-sai/

There are two pieces of news today, which should really drive a stake through the heart of the renewable scam, if our politicians had not already boxed themselves into a corner.

First up from the Telegraph:

Wind turbines and solar panels are a waste of money if Britain wants reliable low carbon electricity supplies through the winter, the late Professor Sir David MacKay said in his final interview.

Prof MacKay, who served as chief scientific advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change for five years until 2014, died from cancer last month.

In an interview with the science writer Mark Lynas, filmed 11 days before his death and released posthumously, Prof Mackay said the “sensible thing” for the UK to do was to focus on nuclear and on carbon capture and storage technology, which traps the emissions from power stations.

He criticised the…

View original post 649 more words