Advertisements

BASIC Science For Climate Scientists

AN absolute must watch video by geologist, scientist and leading climate realist, Tony Heller, which unequivocally destroys the purported; CO2-induced, man-made Climate Change “crisis” that is undermining Western economies, frightening our children and warping, otherwise intelligent adult brains.

THE first thought that came to me after watching this superb 20 minutes of pure science and logic was this quote from former UN IPCC Japanese Scientist – Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist:

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” 

WATCH…

Green Jihad

This video is a 20 minute course Tony Heller has composed to teach climate scientists the basic science which many of them choose not to understand. Pay close attention to who Swedish professor Svend Arhenius is related to.

View original post

Advertisements

‘END OF SNOW’ UPDATE : Natural Snow Depth In Australia The Highest In Two Decades


SNOWFALL will become “A very rare and exciting event…
Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Dr David VinerSenior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)

“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” – Spiegel (2000)

“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” – IPCC (2001)

“End of Snow?” – NYTimes (2014)

***

WEATHER is, of course, not climate.

WE are keenly reminded of this fact by our global warming climate change hysterical friends ‘if’ a significant snow event or cold blast is reported on the media.

THOUGH, do keep in mind the “End-Of-World” prophecies declared by our same friends every time a two-day heat wave (in summer) is reported, on repeat, throughout the mainstream media.

THE rules are simple – cold equals weather, hot equals climate!

*

SKIING in Australia takes place in the high country of the states of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, as well as in the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra), during the southern hemisphere winter. The season varies between ski fields and years, starting from mid June and ending mid October. The past three years have seen extended seasons across most higher altitude resorts.

THE 2019 ski season started early after the heaviest May snow in decades across Australia’s east coast.

WHILE most of the regular season since then has been ‘regular’, the latter half has been anything but, with the past two weeks seeing record snow dumps.

OFFICIAL MEASUREMENTS

SNOWY Hydro have been measuring weekly natural snow depths at three locations the Snowy Mountains of NSW since the 1950’s. Their highest measuring site is at Spencers Creek (1,830m elevation) near Charlotte Pass.

THE latest readings have been impressive. Record-breaking, in fact …

ACCORDING to Elders weather:

The natural snow depth at Spencers Creek was 202.7cm this week. This is the earliest date for a depth of two metres to be measured at Spencers Creek in 15 years. 

It’s also an increase of 77.5cm from last week and, impressively, the third weekly increase of more than 70cm so far this season. This is a new record for Spencers Creek. Prior to 2019, there had only ever been two weekly depth increases 70cm or more in any one season, with data available back to 1954.

While there have been some long periods without any significant snow this season, when it has snowed, it’s been exceptional in a historical context.

Elders Weather

*

WITH more snow on the way this weekend for Australia’s ski fields, natural snow depth could reach its deepest level in two decades

*

“SETTLED” SNOW SCIENCE?

WITH ‘unexpected’ snow over the past four years boosting historical averages across Australia’s ski fields, the big question still remains: Is Australia’s premier science body, the CSIRO, and the Ski industry willing to retract their ‘end of snow’ predictions?

A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that resorts could lose a quarter of their snow by 2020 …

By 2020, the average annual duration of snow-cover decreases by between five and 48 days; maximum snow depths are reduced and tend to occur earlier in the year; and the total area covered in snow shrinks by 10-40%

CSIRO Research Publications Repository – Climate change impacts on snow in Victoria

*

THE “97% Consensus Of Experts” AGREED, TOO!

IN 2000, climate expert Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) assured us that :

Snowfall will become “A very rare and exciting event…
Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Dr David VinerSenior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)

*

IN 2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to the activities of mankindpersonkind…

THEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”

warmer-winters-ipcc

warmer-winters-ipcc

*

THE SCIENCE WAS “SETTLED”

2000 : a prediction from Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s GEOMAR Heimholtz Centre for Ocean Research…

“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.” – Professor Mojib Latif

2000 : Spiegel

“Good bye winter. Never again snow?”

2004 : Mark Lynas told us

“Snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . . Many of these changes are already underway, but have been accelerating over the last two decades. Termites have already moved into southern England. Garden centres are beginning to stock exotic sub-tropical species, which only a few years ago would have been killed off by winter…” – Mark Lynas

2005 : Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel

Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”

2005 : George Monbiot on climate change and snow

Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us…

2006 : Daniela Jacob of Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Hamburg …

“Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”

Less Snow and Drier Summers in German Forecast | Germany| News and in-depth reporting from Berlin and beyond | DW | 30.04.2006

2006 : The Independent‘s somber editorial admonished us that the lack of snow was evidence of a “dangerous seasonal disorder”…

The countryside is looking rather peculiar this winter. It seems we have a number of unexpected guests for Christmas. Dragonflies, bumblebees and red admiral butterflies, which would normally be killed off by the frost, can still be seen in some parts of the country . . . Some might be tempted to welcome this late blossoming of the natural world as a delightful diversion from the bleakness of this time of year. But these fluctuations should be cause for concern because it is overwhelmingly likely that they are a consequence of global warming . . . all this is also evidence that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than many imagined…

2007 : BBC “One Planet Special”…

It Seems the Winters of Our Youth are Unlikely to Return” presenter Richard Hollingham … speaks to climate scientists to get their views. Their conclusion? In the words of the BBC, they all give “predictions of warmer winters, for UK & the Northern Hemisphere”.

2007 : Schleswig Holstein NABU

“Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”

2007 : Western Mail (Wales Online) … article, entititled “Snowless Winters Forecast for Wales as World Warms Up” quotes one of the global warming movement’s key figures, Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office…

Former head of the Met Office Sir John Houghton, who is one of the UK’s leading authorities on climate change, said all the indicators suggest snowy winters will become increasingly rare He said, “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”

2007 : Die Zeit

“First the snow disappears, and then winter.”

2008 : Another prediction

A study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps’s entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow…. In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records. ”I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.

2012 :

Enjoy snow now . . . by 2020, it’ll be gone | The Australian

2014 : the global warming theory-obsessed New York Times touted “The End of Snow?”…

The truth is, it is too late for all of that. Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn’t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter — and slow global warming to a safe level. screenhunter_314-feb-07-11-00

This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact. The greatest fear of most climate scientists is continued complacency that leads to a series of natural climatic feedbacks…”

(Climatism bolds)

The End of Snow? – The New York Times

2017 : The Age’s resident global warming catastrophist Peter Hannam signalled the end of snow…

Australia’s ski resorts face the prospect of a long downhill run as a warming climate reduces snow depth, cover and duration. The industry’s ability to create artificial snow will also be challenged, scientists say.

Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia’s ski industry on a downhill slope | The AGE

*

U-TURN!

NOW, of course, climate ‘scientists’ are trying to dig themselves out of snow that’s kept falling …

Looking back at 65 years’ worth of statistics, Environment Canada’s senior climatologist David Phillips noted that since 1948, winter temperatures in the prairie regions have increased by an average of four degrees Celsius… Ironically, warmer weather can mean greater snowfall. “As we warm up, we may see more moisture, we may see more moist air masses, and therefore we could very well see more snow rather than less snow, because the air masses are going to be more moist and so therefore you’re going to be able to wring out more snow than you would be if it was dry air,” Phillips said.

*

UNFORTUNATELY for CO2-centric climatologists like David Phillips, attempting to ‘dig’ themselves out of their “end of snow” dud-predictions, you need cold air to make snow!

VETERAN Boston meteorologist Barry Burbank explains …

“Interestingly, some scientists have stated that increasing snow is consistent with climate change because warmer air holds more moisture, more water vapor and this can result in more storms with heavy precipitation. The trick, of course, is having sufficient cold air to produce that snow. But note that 93% of the years with more than 60″ of snow in Boston were colder than average years. The reality is cooling, not warming, increases snowfall.

Will The Snowiest Decade Continue? – CBS Boston

***

CONCLUSION

LISTEN to what the ‘experts’ promised you back then. Because, if they got it wrong then, how can you trust what they are foretelling today or tomorrow? The answer is you cannot, because they have no idea what long-range conditions Mother Nature is going to serve up in such a “chaotic” and complex system as our climate.

AND, most importantly, does the CSIRO and “97% of all climate experts” still stand by their ‘end of snow’ predictions? Or is their alarmist sophistry simply more global warming climate change fear-mongering based on CO2-centric ideology, eco-religious dogma and overheated UN IPCC and CSIRO climate computer models that do not accord with observed reality?

IN parting, keep in mind how the Climate Change theory-obsessed mainstream media sells you snow in the era of Global Warming theory-madness

•••

UPDATE : 25, AUGUST 2019

AS seen on Sky News Australia’s “Outsiders”. The most watched, daily, Sky news program…

 

•••

SEE also :

RELATED :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

IPCC Extreme Weather Report 2018 SR15 :

EXTREME WEATHER Related :

TEMPERATURE Related :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Pls Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!

Click link for more info…

Thank You! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••

 


MUST READ : Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw – Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion

GLOBAL WARMING GROUPTHINK SHEEP - CLIMATISM

Global Warming Groupthink ‘Siyanz’ | CLIMATISM


Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

FASCINATING article by author Norman Rogers on how the siyanz science of global warming climate change has been fatally corrupted by a culture of groupthink and doomsday hysteria that has snowballed into a viciously protected $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) global Climate Crisis Industry.

*

Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion

From American Thinker

By Norman Rogers

William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States.  He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government.  His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive.  Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council.

The Trump administration is thinking of forming a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.”  The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer.  That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can’t stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change.  The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer.

Following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization.  In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure.  A climate scientist at Georgia Tech says Happer has “false, unscientific notions.”  We are reassured that the global warming scare is absolutely solid science, as everyone except climate deniers knows.

What everyone may not know is that climate science is an industry, and the product is the global warming scare.  If the global warming scare is discredited, the huge industry will collapse.  Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field.  The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world.  They won’t give up the glory without a fight.

Climate computer models, the basis of the doomsday predictions, disagree with each other and disagree with the climate of the Earth.  But according to the climate science mafia, anyone who brings up such embarrassing information is a tool of the fossil fuel industry.  As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry.  The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers.

Climate science has gone off the rails.  President Eisenhower nailed the problem in his 1961 farewell address.  He expressed the fear that because science had become heavily dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color the science in order to increase the flow of federal money.  Nothing works better for increasing the flow of federal scientific money than predicting a future disaster.  If scientists predict a disaster, we have to give them more money to research methods of preventing the disaster.

Since Eisenhower’s address, we have been treated to a parade of scientific doomsday predictions, none of which measured up to the hype.  There was global cooling that preceded global warming.  There were acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, overpopulation, and many others.  It is not only scientists who use a parade of disaster predictions.  Environmental organizations need doomsday predictions, too, in order to keep their members interested.  The press has a bias for sensationalism, so it too promotes the latest doomsday predictions.

Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers are supposed to put the interests of their clients above their own interests.  Doctors are supposed to put their patients’ welfare above their own pecuniary interests.  Journalists are supposed to be objective and not color their work with their own political preferences.  We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code.  Scientists are not different.  They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work.  They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing.  But these things happen.

Most scientists are not in a position to contradict global warming hype.  Science is a profession characterized by ideological schools and groupthink.  Groupthink is worst in sciences where the rules are not clear and the data are confusing — for example, climate science.  Young scientists depend on older, more senior scientists for recognition and promotion.  They are in no position to contradict groupthink.  They have families to feed.  The senior scientists may be running large scientific enterprises financed by federal money.  To express doubts about the mission or the truth of the groupthink would be to threaten their money and the jobs of people in their organization.

The consequence of the groupthink atmosphere is that dissenters come from the ranks of scientists removed from the pressure to conform — for example, retired scientists, amateur scientists, and scientists so accomplished as to be immune to threats and group pressure.  There are thousands of such scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hype.  When they speak out, they are attacked, and the attacks are usually vicious.  The members of the global warming establishment will almost never debate skeptics.  When this was done years ago, the skeptics were too credible.

Science is great, and our modern world is a product of science.  But scientists are humans, not gods.  They play the same games that other beneficiaries of federal money play.  We have been fooled over and over again by fake predictions of disasters or one sort or another.  The fake predictions are never completely fake.  There is usually some real science buried in all the hype.  For example, it is reasonable to expect that some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  What is probably a modest effect has been twisted and exaggerated into a doomsday scenario that demands that we save the planet.  The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored.  Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better with less water.  Greenhouse-operators use CO2-generators in their greenhouses.  CO2 is greening deserts.  How often to you hear about these benefits of CO2?

DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer.  But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria.  The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa.  DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.

Science has created institutions that serve to enhance the image of science.  For example, peer review often degenerates into pal review.  Scientific journals are often filled with papers of dubious value generated by a system that values quantity over quality.  The National Academy of Science pretends to give objective advice to the government, but often the advice is to appropriate more money for science.

Typically, when science invents a new doomsday theory, the environmental organizations embellish it with unscientific flourishes.  The scientist inventors of the theory don’t correct the environmental organizations because that would slow the momentum toward a new surge of federal money.  That should be an ethical violation.  Scientists should have a duty to set the record straight in such circumstances.

There is no simple solution to the parade of doomsday theories.  It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem.  Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending.

Norman Rogers is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.

H/t WattsUpWithThat

•••

 

SEE also : 

Read the rest of this entry »


JAPAN ACKNOWLEDGES THE GLOBAL WARMING ‘PAUSE’ : Sanctions 35 New Coal Power Plants Added To The 100 Currently Operational

sushi-sake-coal-1200x630

Sushi, Sake, and Coal: Japan’s Peculiar Response to the Climate Conundrum » BarbWire


“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming
at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Kevin Trenberth, National Center For Atmospheric Research, USA (2009)

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the
tropical troposphere … This is just downright dangerous.”
Peter Thorne, Hadley Centre, Met Office, UK (2007)

***

THE Japanese government has identified and acknowledged the current ~20 year-long global warming “pause” or “hiatus”. The (inconvenient) atmospheric phenomenon that has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals for many years now.

BASED on data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the government has justified the expansion of its global-leading, ultra-supercritical HELE coal-fired power plant technology both domestically and abroad.

PRIME MINISTER Abe has sanctioned the addition of 35 new coal power plants to the 100 currently operational.

“Japan’s use of coal is not justified exclusively on the basis of the country’s nuclear debacle. The heart of the reason is Japan’s climate.

For the past three decades, there has been no significant warming in its major cities.”

*

CLIMATE Scientist Vijay Jayaraj reports (Climatism attachments, bolds added) :

Sushi, Sake, and Coal: Japan’s Peculiar Response to the Climate Conundrum

We all know that the Japanese love their sushi. Japan is also famous for sake, a rice wine unique to the country. Lately, the Japanese have shown unrestrained love for a commodity that is increasingly demonized by climate groups: coal.

Global warming alarmists blame coal for causing dangerous global warming. But the Japanese beg to differ. They have revived their love affair with coal. Why? That’s an interesting story.

Soon after the Fukushima nuclear incident, public sentiment towards nuclear energy became hostile. Many organizations, including foreign non-profits, called for the closure of nuclear plants on fears of future mishaps.

The Fukushima plant was outdated and less safe than Japan’s other, modern nuclear plants. Yet, the impact of the Fukushima disaster (in which no one died from radiation exposure) remains fresh in people’s minds, and the nation was not ready to defend the operations of other nuclear plants.

The Japanese government caved in to the pressure and closed many nuclear plants. By 27 March 2012, Japan had only one out of 54 nuclear reactors operating. As a result, the country was forced to seek alternative sources of energy generation.

The Japanese understood that renewable sources like wind and solar could not provide stable and affordable electricity, at least not in the magnitude necessary to meet peak energy demands of Japan’s power-guzzling cities.

The most economical and safe solution was coal. Contrary to popular belief and the mainstream media, coal is not as polluting as you might think.

Moreover, coal is a tried and tested source of energy, guaranteeing superior-quality, stable output to meet the energy demands of modern cities and industries.

With the development of “clean coal technology,” coal combustion now results in fewer contaminants and more energy, making it far superior to the combustion plants of previous decades.

So, Japan went against the tide and embraced coal with both arms.

It now employs the most advanced and safest coal combustion technology available on the planet, becoming a leading manufacturer and exporter of clean coal technology.

But Japan’s use of coal is not justified exclusively on the basis of the country’s nuclear debacle. The heart of the reason is Japan’s climate.

For the past three decades, there has been no significant warming in its major cities.

Data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) clearly indicates that there has been no significant deviation in the monthly average temperature between 1998 and 2018. The period between is of special importance to the Japanese government.

As per the climate doomsday theorists, temperatures should have displayed a strong warming trend as the manmade carbon dioxide emissions increased exponentially.

But the temperature levels failed to display any warming trend. That flies in the face of the notion that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration levels control temperature over the island nation—or, for that matter, the world.

Last week, Sapporo recorded its coldest day in 40 years. In fact, winter in Japan had no warming trend from 1986 to 2018, with the January monthly mean temperature anomalies displaying a cooling trend. If anything, there has been a cooling trend in Japan between 1998 and 2018.

So, the reason for Japanese embrace of coal is pretty clear: no significant warming, coupled with the post-Fukushima anti-nuclear hysteria.

No country would want to reduce its emissions when its monthly average temperatures are actually decreasing. It is for this reason that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe refuses to stay true to the hasty anti-coal commitments he made at the UN’s international climate summits.

Instead of discouraging the use of coal, Japan is increasing its dependency on coal. Abe has sanctioned the addition of 35 new coal power plants to the 100 currently operational. The country is also encouraging its Asian neighbors and other developing countries to purchase its clean coal technology.

The Japanese response to the anti-coal establishment, besides being bold, accurately reflects climate reality. Japan understands the need to prioritize the domestic energy needs over faulty, pseudo-scientific forecasts of climate doom.

The lack of warming, however, is not limited to Japan. Satellite temperature measurements (between 1979 and January 2019) show no significant warming in the earth’s atmosphere during the past 19 years.

Other countries should emulate Japan’s example, especially in the developing world. Domestic energy needs are far too important to be slain on the altar of global warming hysteria.

Sushi, Sake, and Coal: Japan’s Peculiar Response to the Climate Conundrum » BarbWire

Vijay Jayaraj

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), is Research Associate for and Contributor for Developing Countries, for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. He lives in Chennai, India.

FOLLOW Vijay on Twitter : @vjxxvj

***

 

REFRESHING to see government energy policy being driven by empirical evidence and real-world data, and NOT by fear, hysteria, mainstream media climate change advocacy and alarmism or politically-driven, CO2-centric, UN IPCC climate models.

BRAVO Japan for standing up to the climate groupthink bullies and misanthropic eco-activists. Instead, supporting their industry and citizens by providing them with cheap, abundant and clean (HELE) coal-fired power technology to advance and maintain their world-renowned pristine environment, civic cleanliness, health and wealth!

“The Japanese response to the anti-coal establishment, besides being bold, accurately reflects climate reality. Japan understands the need to prioritize the domestic energy needs over faulty, pseudo-scientific forecasts of climate doom.”

***

PIC of Kinkaku-ji Palace Kyoto from my recent family trip to ‘pristine’ HELE powered Japan!

IF you haven’t been to Japan – GO! Incredible people, culture and country…

Jamie Japan Trip - Kinkaku-ji Royal Palace Kyoto - Jan 2019

Jamie Japan Trip – Kinkaku-ji Royal Palace Kyoto – Jan 2019 (iPhone 8 – No filter!)

•••

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »


GREAT BARRIER REEF SCIENTIST : Coral Can Take The Heat, Unlike ‘Experts’ Crying Wolf

CRYING WOLF - Great Barrier Reef - CLIMATISM

Crying Wolf : Great Barrier Reef Alarmism | CLIMATISM


“THE journalists come up and they’re not interested in what the truth is. They’re only interested in finding out where the ‘dead’ reef is. And when people who work right up and down the reef can’t actually take them to a single place that is going to suit their dooms-day story, then we sort of need a bit of balance…”
Paul Talbott : GBR Tourist operator

***

STRAIGHT-TALKING former James Cook University marine geophysicist Professor Peter Ridd has been an outspoken critic of the relentless tide of fear-mongering, misinformation and anti-science hysteria advanced by climate change activists concerning the health of the Great Barrier Reef.

IN June of 2016, Ridd made the headlines after suspecting something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the apparent rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef:

AFTER attempting to blow the whistle on the bogus pictures, Ridd was censured and subsequently sacked by James Cook University. (Ridd is currently suing JCU)

After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”!

His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.” Graham Lloyd – The Australian – 11 June 2016

SIMILAR totalitarian treatment was dished out by free-thinking James Cook University to the late and great Bob Carter, a former JCU adjunct Professor. Carter was a world renowned climate change expert and sceptic. His crime – speaking outside the permitted doctrine of global warming climate change.

*

PROFESSOR RIDD writes an ever insightful and eye-opening piece on the reef in today’s Australian.

RIDD comments on the recent backtracking by Scientists from James Cook University who just published a paper on the bleaching and death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef and were surprised that the death rate was less than they expected…

*

Coral can take the heat, unlike experts crying wolf

PETER RIDD

Scientists from James Cook University have just published a paper on the bleaching and death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef and were surprised that the death rate was less than they expected, because of the adaptability of corals to changing temperatures.

It appears as though they exaggerated their original claims and are quietly backtracking.

To misquote Oscar Wilde, to exaggerate once is a misfortune, to do it twice looks careless, but to do it repeatedly looks like unforgivable systemic unreliability by some of our major science organisations.

The very rapid adaptation of corals to high temperatures is a well-known phenomenon; besides, if you heat corals in a given year, they tend to be less susceptible in the future to overheating. This is why corals are one of the least likely species to be affected by climate change, irrespective of whether you believe the climate is changing by natural fluctuations or because of human influence.DSC100583096

Corals have a unique way of dealing with changing temperature, by changing the microscopic plants that live inside them. These microscopic plants, called zooxanthellae, give the coral energy from the sun through photosynthesis in exchange for a comfortable home inside the coral. When the water gets hot, these little plants effectively become poisonous to the coral and the coral throws them out, which turns the coral white — that is, it bleaches.

But most of the time, the coral will recover from the bleaching. And here’s the trick: the corals take in new zooxanthellae, that floats around in the water quite naturally, and can selectselecting different species that are better suited to hot weather.

Most other organisms have to change their genetic make-up to deal with temperature changes — something that can take many generations. But corals can do it in a few weeks by just changing the plants that live in them.

They have learned a thing or two in a couple of hundred million years of evolution.

The problem here is that the world has been completely misled about the effects of bleaching by scientists who rarely mention the spectacular regrowth that occurs. For example, the 2016 bleaching event supposedly killed 93 per cent, or half, or 30 per cent of the reef, depending on which headline and scientist you want to believe.

However, the scientists looked only at coral in very shallow water — less than 2m below the surface — which is only a small fraction of all the coral, but by far the most susceptible to getting hot in the tropical sun. 1493256728125

A recent study found that deep-water coral (down to more than 40m) underwent far less bleaching, as one would expect. I estimate that less than 8 per cent of the Barrier Reef coral died. That might still sound like a lot, but considering that there was a 250 per cent increase in coral between 2011 and 2016 for the entire southern zone, an 8 per cent decrease is nothing to worry about. Coral recovers fast.

But this is just the tip of the exaggeration iceberg. Some very eminent scientists claim that bleaching never happened before the 1980s and is entirely a man-made phenomenon. This was always a ridiculous proposition.

A recent study of 400-year-old corals has found that bleaching has always occurred and is no more common now than in the past. Scientists have also claimed that there has been a 15 per cent reduction in the growth rate of corals. However, some colleagues and I demonstrated that there were serious errors in their work and that, if anything, there has been a slight increase in the coral growth rate over the past 100 years.

This is what one would expect in a gently warming climate. Corals grow up to twice as fast in the hotter water of Papua New Guinea and the northern Barrier Reef than in the southern reef. I could quote many more examples.

This unreliability of the science is now a widely accepted scandal in many other areas of study and it has a name: the replication crisis. When checks are made to replicate or confirm scientific results, it is regularly found that about half have flaws. This is an incredible and scandalous situation, a view shared by the editors of eminent journals and many science institutions. A great deal of effort is going into fixing this problem, especially in the biomedical sciences, where it was first recognised.whitsundays-seaplane

But not for Barrier Reef science. The science institutions deny there is a problem and fail to correct erroneous work. When Piers Larcombe and I submitted an article to a scientific journal suggesting we needed a little additional checking of Great Barrier Reef science, the response from many very eminent scientists was that there was no need. Everything was fine. I am not sure if this is blind optimism or wilful negligence, but why would anybody object to a little more checking? It would cost only a few million dollars — just a tiny fraction of what governments will be spending on the reef.

But the truth will out eventually. The scare stories about the Barrier Reef started in the 1960s, when scientists first started work on it. They have been crying wolf ever since. But the data keeps coming in and, yes, sometimes a great deal of coral dies in a spectacular manner, with accompanying media fanfare. It is like a bushfire on land — it looks terrible at first, but it quietly and rapidly grows back, ready for the scientists to peddle their story all over again.

Peter Ridd was, until fired this year, a physicist at James Cook University’s marine geophysical laboratory.

Coral can take the heat, unlike experts crying wolf | The Australian

•••

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »


GLOBAL Temperatures Rose As Cloud Cover Fell In the 1980s and 90s

Global Temperatures Rose As Cloud Cover Fell In the 1980s and 90s

Figure 1a showing the ISCCP global averaged monthly cloud cover from July 1983 to Dec 2008 over-laid in blue with Hadcrut4 monthly anomaly data. The fall in cloud cover coincides with a rapid rise in temperatures from 1983-1999. Thereafter the temperature and cloud trends have both flattened. The CO2 forcing from 1998 to 2008 increases by a further ~0.3 W/m2 which is evidence that changes in clouds are not a direct feedback to CO2 forcing.

Good find. Makes sense.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

We’ve been discussing the sudden rise in UK and European temperatures in the 1990s, and I was reminded about a study undertaken by Clive Best and Euan Mearns looking at the role of cloud cover four years ago:

image

Clouds have a net average cooling effect on the earth’s climate. Climate models assume that changes in cloud cover are a feedback response to CO2 warming. Is this assumption valid? Following a study with Euan Mearns showing a strong correlation in UK temperatures with clouds, we looked at the global effects of clouds by developing a combined cloud and CO2 forcing model to sudy how variations in both cloud cover [8] and CO2 [14] data affect global temperature anomalies between 1983 and 2008. The model as described below gives a good fit to HADCRUT4 data with a Transient Climate Response (TCR )= 1.6±0.3°C. The 17-year hiatus in…

View original post 290 more words


PROOF : Climate ‘Scientists’ And The Media Openly Lie About Climate Change To Maintain Funding And Keep Global Warming Hysteria Alive

Obama Climate Funding

“Settled Science”


Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

A unique and fundamental difference, IMO, between climate change sceptics or realists, and climate change alarmists is that sceptics must absorb alarmist ‘science’ and corresponding media releases in order to provide a broad understanding of both sides of the debate. Objectivity and oversight can then be carried out, where the mainstream media will not, by detecting errors, exaggerations and even outright lies that exist within the masses of human-induced climate change information disseminated by the CO2-centric legacy media.

THIS is not a scientific observation, though it is quite accurate when you assess the complete lack of knowledge by climate alarmists to the vast body of climate science contradicting global warming dogma. The story or finding that best fits the alarmists catastrophic narrative qualifies, everything else is outlawed.

THIS is problematic as it foments a culture of groupthink where objectivity is heresy, scepticism is “denial” and questions are forbidden. In this environment, scientific discovery and advancement is stifled, debate is (intentionally) shut down, truth and reason an unnecessary evil.

THANKFULLY there are a growing number of dedicated and unpaid sceptics or climate realists across many different forums and mediums who are questioning what is all-too-often demanded as fact or the accepted view of the (bogus) “97% consensus”.

TRUTH seekers working in their free time are doing what the post-modern mainstream media will not do any more – question dogma, authority and the preferred wisdom of the day using little more than empirical data, common sense and reason.

Paul Homewood of the excellent site Not A Lot Of People Know That is one of the many truth seekers successfully calling out the pseudoscience and misinformation that riddles the field of climate ‘science’.

THIS recent post is a classic example of a typical BBC environmental article prefaced wth “climate change” that is completely shredded by Homewood using nothing more than ’empirical data, common sense and reason’…

*

Hotter, Colder – It’s Still Your Fault!

SEPTEMBER 26, 2018

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dave Ward

Emerging from the ice for a brief growing season every Antarctic summer, the lush green mosses of East Antarctica are finally succumbing to climate change.

That is according to a study of the small, ancient and hardy plants – carried out over more than a decade.

This revealed that vegetation in East Antarctica is changing rapidly in response to a drying climate.

The findings are published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

“Visiting Antarctica, you expect to see icy, white landscapes,” said lead scientist Prof Sharon Robinson from the University of Wollongong, in Australia. “But in some areas there are lush, green moss beds that emerge from under the snow for a growing period of maybe six weeks.”

While West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula are some of the fastest warming places of the planet, East Antarctica has not yet experienced much climate warming, so the scientists did not expect to see much change in the vegetation there.

“But we were really surprised when we saw how fast it was changing,” Prof Robinson said.

*

East Antarctica, the researchers say, has become colder, windier and drier due to the combined effects of climate change and ozone depletion.

Read all:

Climate change kills Antarctica’s ancient moss beds – BBC News

 

So, apparently, global warming now means the East Antarctic is getting colder!!

The research was undertaken near Casey Station, the Australian research centre. They have been recording temperatures since 1989, and there is no evidence of temperatures either going up or down:

Read the rest of this entry »