Advertisements

HOTTEST YEAR EVAHH : Fourth-Warmest Year on Record? The Devil’s in the Details

HOTTEST YEAR EVAHH - CLIMATISM.png


“A man does not sin by commission only, but often by omission.”
Marcus Aurelius

“Deception by an omission of the truth is as bad as a lie.”
― Jennifer Chiaverini

*

CLAIMS of the “hottest year ever” tell us more about climate change marketing and PR than they do, actual science.

IN our schizophrenic, 24 hour news cycle and the era of internet clickbait, it serves the Climate Crisis Industry and those invested in man-made climate alarmism to produce headlines of “the hottest year ever” in order to push their political and ideological agenda…

THE Guardian’s Dana Nuttercelli is no stranger to pushing the ideological wheelbarrow of “hottest year evahh” hysteria…

*

THANK god for old-school meteorologists like Weatherbell’s Joe Bastardi, who cut through the cheap, lazy, clickbait alarmism to provide a scientific understanding of what really makes up “hottest year ever” claims such that we can use this knowledge to better predict weather and climate, rather than simply feeding the global warming hysteria beast for political, moral and financial gains.

BIG Joe dissects the “hottest year” meme in a great piece out of the The Patriot Post that shows the devil really is in the detail …

*

Fourth-Warmest Year on Record? The Devil’s in the Details

Joe Bastardi · Jul. 30, 2018

I continue to examine the idea that relatively minute increases in water vapor brought on by cyclically warmed oceans are the reason for the earth’s warming. But the way warming is portrayed must be looked at closely. It is very real and adds to forecast problems, but as far as the hysteria you see whipped up in relation to mankind’s self-destructing, it’s just that to me — hysteria.

Let’s assume 2018 is the fourth-warmest on record. Most people live between 70°N and 70°S.

NCEP1

NCEP Temp Anomaly

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

MUST WATCH Weather Report : Forget The Cold! Global Warming Is Real!

ABC indoctrination - CLIMATISM


AUSTRALIA’S billion-dollar-a-year taxpayer funded public broadcaster, the ABC, is never shy pushing their CO2-centric global warming climate change agenda wherever and whenever possible.

THIS particular weather report that had to inconveniently divulge extreme cold temps that have kicked off Australia’s colder than average start to winter would make even infamous NAZI propagandist Joseph Goebbels blush!

Andrew Bolt with the rub…

Global warming has stalled, and the ABC’s weatherman must report “bitterly cold” weather in NSW and likely record low June temperatures for Broken Hill.

So he breaks off to sternly lecture any backsliders:

“Global warming doesn’t mean that cold temperatures won’t be recorded but rather that record heat temperatures will be far more common.”

Watch!

*

“SCIENCE” UPDATE

ABC Weatherman Graham Creed @WeathermanABC again…

“Now on a quick side note, though, Global warming doesn’t mean that cold temperatures won’t be recorded, rather, record heat temperatures will be far more common and widespread.”

THIS statement is yet another ABC global warming climate change falsehood!

According to GCHN and ACORN-SAT data – the official data sets used by Bureau of Meteorologyannual maximum temps are ‘declining’ as CO2 increases…

However, according to GHCN and ACORN-SAT (‘adjusted’ data), the Australian temperature anomaly is, yes, increasing, but this is due to nighttime temps increasing faster than daytime temps are declining…

UHI caused by urban sprawl appears to be the most likely reason for nighttime temps up, IMO. (See link for Urban versus Rural temps station data… NO Australian Under The Age Of 40 Has Experienced Any Global Warming | Climatism)

*

MEANWHILE, according to the much more comprehensive and accurate NASA satellite temps, unpolluted by land-based UHI (Urban Heat Island effect)…

NO Australian Under The Age Of 40 Has Experienced Any Global Warming

ACCORDING to NASA’s MSU satellite data, there has been no warming, at all, over the continent of Australia since the record began 40 years ago…

*

The ABC will fight to the last to protect the warmist faith it has pushed and exaggerated and hyped and defended for years with a truly manic energy.

•••

Related :

“Hottest Year Evahhh” Meme Related :

Climate Science Related :

Climatism Hot Links :

Global Cooling Related :

Origins Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To HELP Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics 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.

Click link for more info…TQ!!! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••


CLIMATE Skeptics Have Valid Reasons To Question Manmade Global Warming

Globe-Earth-Green.jpg

A MUST read op/ed written by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT and CFACT President David Rothbard.

THIS excellent piece focuses on an important part of the climate debate often overlooked – the heat absorption ability of the carbon dioxide molecule as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.

THE article received “coast to coast” attention via a media usually dismissive of sceptical arguments to the supposed “climate crisis”…

RUCKER’s forward received via email …

“Newspapers coast to coast”

CFACT-mastheads-1-12-18-768x380

This CFACT Op Ed appeared in the newspapers above and more!

Media bias against climate realism is rampant – especially on the national level. Some major publications, like the Los Angeles Times, have actually positioned themselves in opposition to free speech by imposing bans on opinions running counter to the Al Gore narrative.

Fortunately that is not the case with many local media outlets.

I’d like to call your attention, for a couple reasons, to a recent op/ed I co-wrote with CFACT President David Rothbard.

First, as we’ve discussed so often before, the contents of our article reveal that the hysterical case for global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are good reasons, scientifically speaking, why those who are skeptical of climate alarmism have their doubts.

Secondly, and most encouragingly, our op/ed hasn’t been circular filed – as it might have been by the establishment media. In fact, it appeared in a host of local newspapers from one end of the United States to the other!

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming

by and

Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”

People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming | CFACT

•••

CO2 Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :

 


Politics Is Obsessed With Virtue Signalling

Virtue-Signalling RIDLEY.jpeg

“Policies are chosen according to whether they mean well, not whether they work. From the climate accord to badger culling, we increasingly judge policies by intentions rather than achievements.”

MATT RIDLEY writes an excellent piece in The Times Of London that drills down into the ‘seeming good is more important than doing good’ sickness that has infected modern Western politics with perilous results…


Politics is obsessed with virtue signalling

From the climate accord to badger culling, we increasingly judge policies by intentions rather than achievements

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at , October 12, 11.24.59 AM.png

THE curse of modern politics is an epidemic of good intentions and bad outcomes. Policy after policy is chosen and voted on according to whether it means well, not whether it works. And the most frustrated politicians are those who keep trying to sell policies based on their efficacy, rather than their motives. It used to be possible to approach politics as a conversation between adults, and argue for unfashionable but effective medicine. In the 140-character world this is tricky (I speak from experience).

The fact that it was Milton Friedman who said “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results” rather proves the point. He was one of the most successful of all economists in getting results in terms of raising living standards, yet is widely despised today by both the left and centre as evil because he did not bother to do much virtue signalling.

The commentator James Bartholomew popularised the term “virtue signalling” for those who posture empathetically but emptily. “Je suis Charlie” (but I won’t show cartoons of the prophet), “Refugees welcome” (but not in my home) or “Ban fossil fuels” (let’s not talk about my private jet). You see it everywhere. The policies unveiled at the [UK] Conservative Party conference show that the party is aware of this and (alas) embracing it. On student fees, housing costs and energy bills, the Tories proposed symbolic changes that would do nothing to solve the underlying problem, indeed might make them worse in some cases, but which at least showed they cared. I doubt it worked. They ended up sounding like pale imitations of Labour, or doing political dad-dancing.

“Our election campaign portrayed us as a party devoid of values,” said Robert Halfon MP in June.

“The Labour Party now has circa 700,000 members that want nothing from the Labour Party but views and values they agree with,” lamented Ben Harris-Quinney of the Bow Group last week. I think that what politicians mean by “values” is “intentions”.

The forgiving of good intentions lies behind the double standard by which we judge totalitarians. Whereas fascists are rightly condemned in schools, newspapers and social media as evil, communists get a much easier ride, despite killing more people. “For all its flaws, the Communist revolution taught Chinese women to dream big,” read a New York Times headline last month.

“For all its flaws, Nazi Germany did help bring Volkswagen and BMW to the car-buying public,” replied one wag on Twitter.

Imagine anybody getting away with saying of Mussolini or Franco what John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn said of Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez. The reason for this double standard is the apparently good intentions of communist dictators: unlike Nazis, communists were at least trying to make a workers’ paradise; they just got it wrong. Again and again and again.

Though Jeremy Corbyn is a leading exponent, elevating intentions over outcomes is not entirely a monopoly of the left. It is something that the coalition government kept trying, in emulation of Tony Blair. Hugging huskies and gay marriage were pursued mainly for the signal they sent, rather than for the result they achieved. (Student loans, to be fair, were the opposite.) Indeed, George Osborne’s constant talk of austerity, while increasing spending in real terms, was an example of the gap between intention and outcome, albeit less sugar-coated.

I can draw up a list as long as your arm of issues where the road to failure is paved with counter-productive benevolence. Gordon Brown’s 50p top tax rate brought in less tax from the richest. Banning fox hunting has led to the killing of more foxes. Opposition to badger culls made no ecological sense, for cattle, hedgehogs, people — or badger health. Mandating a percentage of GDP for foreign aid was a virtuous gesture that causes real inefficiency and corruption — and (unlike private philanthropy) also tended to transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

Or take organic farming, which has been shown repeatedly to produce trivial or zero health benefits, while any environmental benefits are grossly outweighed by the low yields that mean it requires taking more land from nature. Yet the BBC’s output on farming is dominated by coverage of the 2 per cent of farming that is organic, and is remorselessly obsequious. Why? Because organic farmers say they are trying to be nice to the planet.

My objection to wind farms is based on the outcome of the policy, whereas most people’s support is based largely on the intention. There they stand, 300ft tall, visibly advertising their virtue as signals of our commitment to devotion to Gaia. The fact that each one requires 150 tonnes of coal to make, that it needs fossil fuel back-up for when the wind is not blowing, that it is subsidised disproportionately by poor people and the rewards go disproportionately to rich people, and that its impact on emissions is so small as to be unmeasurable — none of these matter. It’s the thought that counts.

The Paris climate accord is one big virtue-signalling prayer, whose promises, if implemented, would make a difference in the temperature of the atmosphere in 2100 so small it is practically within the measuring error. But it’s the thought that counts. Donald Trump just does not care.

One politician who has always refused to play the intention game is Nigel Lawson. Rather than rest on the laurels of his political career, he has devoted his retirement to exposing the gap between rhetoric and reality in two great movements: European integration and climate change mitigation. In his book An Appeal to Reason, he pointed out that on the UN’s official forecasts, climate change, unchecked, would mean the average person will be 8.5 times as rich in 2100 as today, rather than 9.5 times if we stopped the warming. And to achieve this goal we are to punish the poor of today with painful policies? This isn’t “taking tough decisions”; this is prescribing chemotherapy for a cold.

Yet the truth is, Lord Lawson and I and others like us have so far largely lost the argument on climate change entirely on the grounds of intentions. Being against global warming is a way of saying you care about the future. Not being a headless chicken — however well argued your case — leads to accusations you do not care.

The Times

(Climatism bolds)

Politics is obsessed with virtue signalling | Comment | The Times & The Sunday Times

•••

More Must Read Matt Ridley :