US Tornado Season Quieter than Normal

This week we read of a US tornado that caused devastation across Illinois (LINK)

Image: NOAA

Residents and emergency crews ramped up the tedious cleanup process Sunday in communities across tornado-damaged northern Illinois, piling pieces of shattered walls at the curb, finding medications buried in rubble and removing splintered tree limbs from farm fields.

 Several residents remained hospitalized with injuries from Thursday night's powerful storms, officials said, but most people in the communities from tiny Fairdale to Kirkland to subdivisions near Rochelle were able to continue to salvage personal belongings or haul debris from damaged property.

However, don't let the alarmists, the pushers of the falsified AGW hoax fool you. The Weather Channel reports:  US tornado season has been quieter than ever. NBC News reports:

2015 Tornado Season Is Much Quieter Than Normal: Weather Channel

This year's tornado season is off to a slow start, despite last week's deadly twisters that devastated an Illinois town, forecasters said Tuesday. 

The tornado count is 59 percent below average for the year-to-date, thanks mostly to the bitterly cold conditions that gripped the nation, keeping out the warm and moist Gulf Coast air needed to set off the spiraling winds. 

"It's the flipside of the very cold winter we've just had," Weather Channel lead meteorologist Kevin Roth said. "The never-ending cold weather systems kept the southern air away for much longer than normal. What was bad news for some has been good news for others. It has been a really slow start to the tornado season."

Read More Here: NBC News

One wrong equation caused the climate scare

By 关节拖好垄

HOW DID MANY USUALLY SENSIBLE EXPERTS GET "GLOBAL WARMING" SO VERY WRONG? VERY SIMPLE...

Oops! One wrong equation caused the climate scare

RED FACES all round among the profiteers of doom. A wrong equation that falsely triples the tiny direct warming caused by doubling CO2 concentration has been discovered and exposed in a major peer-reviewed paper just published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences(LINK - pdf), one of the world’s top learned journals. No rogue equation, no climate crisis.

It says the amount by which climate scientists multiply the direct warming from, say, CO2 to allow for “temperature feedbacks” – changes to the climate because it has warmed that make it warm still further – is equal to the reciprocal of 1 minus a third of the sum of all the feedbacks.

They say the feedbacks, measured in Watts per square meter of the Earth per Celsius degree of direct warming, add up to 2. So the equation tells them to multiply by 3. Just 1 Celsius degree of warming from doubling CO2 in the air suddenly, wrongly becomes 3 degrees. A non-event becomes a crisis.

James Hansen – the former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (who once said anyone who questioned his math should be tried for “high crimes against humanity”, for which the penalty is death) – had lifted the rogue equation, the Bode system-gain relation, from a 551-page tome by R.W. Bode about feedback amplification in electronic circuits, published 70 years ago.

Hansen, and the tiny handful of other climate scientists who realized the rogue equation came from electronic circuitry, had assumed it would work for all kinds of dynamical systems from electronic circuits to the Earth’s climate. But it doesn’t.

It applies only to certain systems whose output (in a circuit, the voltage) does not operate to bring the system back into balance after an overload. But in the climate rising temperature restores the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Warming acts against the feedbacks. It damps them down.

Also, in a circuit, when the feedbacks reach a threshold value the current suddenly changes direction and goes around the circuit the other way. A positive current instantaneously becomes a negative current. In process engineers’ jargon, the current flicks from the positive to the negative rail. But in the climate rising feedbacks cannot flick temperature down when they were driving it up just before.

Why does this matter? Because it means the true warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3 or 5 or 10 Celsius. All the scare stories have been wrong from the get-go. Scientists came up with these exaggerated predictions because, and only because, they were using the wrong equation.

Take the misplaced equation out of your computer model – as the paper by four leading researchers in the Science Bulletin demonstrates – and the climate “crisis” melts away. And it’s the only thing that will melt away. Just three months ago, the world had more sea ice than for 35 years. Also, despite record increases in CO2 concentration, there has been no global warming for 18 years 3 months.

Now we know why.

Not a single red cent need have been spent on making global warming go away. But in Paris this December world leaders – unless they and their advisers read the Science Bulletin – will approve a savage global-government treaty that will give the unelected UN unprecedented powers to tax and regulate elected governments in the name of Saving The Planet from Thermageddon.

And all because of one wrong equation.

Greenpeace co-founder addresses International Conference on Climate Change.

Patrick Moore, previous President of Greenpeace, addresses the recent International

Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-(9) in Las Vegas.

Patrick is the author of Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist in which he wrote that, after the collapse of World Communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the environment movement was hi-jacked by the "political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalization than with science or ecology."

During his address, Patrick tells how the early environmentalists aroused public awareness which led to the cessation of  US hydrogen bomb tests and then took on French atmospheric bomb testing in the Pacific. It took some years to drive these tests underground. He then moved from what he was against, to what he was in favour of. He currently is helping to promote genetically modified "Golden Rice" to help reduce world hunger.

http://youtu.be/NtcNjoDe5Pg

If Lewandowsky is a climate scientist then so am I.

Anthony Cox

Shag on Rock
Apologies to Josh

You can’t keep Lew down and he has just co-authored a paper proving the temperature is rising. Lew’s idea is that statements about the temperature pause, including by the IPCC, simply don’t take into account natural variation which in a cooling phase will suppress the AGW warming.

This idea has been around for yonks. 

Cohenite looked at the idea in 2008. Basically the technique is detrend for all natural factors by removing the estimate of their temperature effect and what is left should be the pure AGW signal.

Lots of people have done this; the original paper was Keenlyside et al in 2008. Easterling and Wehner in 2009 extended this concept to the usual grotesque AGW exaggeration. The previous Keenlyside et al effort predicted masking of underlying AGW due to SST driven natural variation. Unfortunately, when the ENSO is removed from temperature trends there is no post 2000 underlying AGW. Easterling and Wehner revisit this trainwreck of an idea to prove that future cooling will still have underlying AGW. Their null hypothesis [NH] really settles the matter. The NH is that there will be an “equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends” [p6]. This is high order virtual reality; the concept of the 100 year flood explains why. Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] climate phases have greater probability of floods during a negative phase during which time [about 30 years] there may be several 1 in 100 year floods. During the positive, El Nino dominated PDO phase there will most likely be no 1 in 100 year flood.

The same principle applies to temperature. Positive PDOs will have increasing temperature trends and vice-versa for negative PDOs. The paper doesn’t consider ENSO at all apart from an admission that it is not modelled well [p6]. Table 1 shows more positive temperature trends in the 20thC. This was due to positive PDO dominance not, as the paper claims, AGW.

The recent definitive paper on this idea by Foster and Rahmstrof in 2011 supposedly extracted a pure AGW signal after removing all natural factors. F and R are a lot of fun.They removed all the natural factors that may have contributed to temperature increase and were left with a range of 0.014 to 0.018 K yr⁻¹ as the pure AGW forcing. They calculated a rate which was constant from 1979. This should have set the alarm bells ringing for a start since CO2 was increasing exponentially during this period; if the dominant forcing factor was increasing the AGW temperature effect should also have been increasing. But it seems that their methodology was also flawed. By including a linear trend for warming in their analysis as an independent variable, Foster and Rahmstorf have demonstrated that global warming is well correlated with global warming. Furthermore Bob Tisdale shows Forster and Ramstorf were wrong to consider ENSO as an exogenous factor and to exclude it from their analysis.

Just when you think this nonsense is over along comes Lew. Lew says this:

Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

Credit where credit is due. This is smart. Lew doesn’t remove natural variation he selects models which have natural variation in phase with AGW. AGW is now proved because there is temperature increase when you factor in natural variation.

But seriously this is a dog’s breakfast. What is he saying; that AGW is only to be measured when there is natural warm phase such as in the +ve PDO:

That is AGW is only to be shown when the world is heating through a warm natural phase as shown in the red lines? Is this because natural variation in the cool phase eliminates any AGW signal as shown in the blue lines? And surely in the warm phases of natural variation wouldn’t the warming be especially high if AGW and natural variation are working together?

Desperation and absurdity is now the stock in trade of alarmists like Lewandowsky.

A real scientific paper about Ocean Heat Content [OHC] has just been published by leading oceanographic experts Wunsch and Heimbach. They show that the deep oceans are cooling and that, logically, heat in the ocean probably comes from the bottom of the ocean due to geothermal activity not from the surface down as AGW theory insists in the most ridiculous way [see here and here]. Figure 18 from Wunsch and Heimbach sums up the nonsense about OHC:

That’s it folks; AGW demolished and Lew left like a Shag on a rock.

How Wrong Can The Age be? The Age's Dementia.

The Age, a consistent pusher of the falsified Man Made Global Warming Hypothesis, has shown some lack of journalistic integrity in their recent editorial

Repeal of carbon tax shames our nation

Take their opening sentence:-

The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists concur: the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.

Three thoughts out of three wrong. Have they forgotten Journalistic Integrity? Whatever happened to Sceptical Journalism?

NewsTrust is a guide to good journalism: 

They write that "the best way to learn news literacy is to think like a journalist." (link)

The four Ds of thinking like a journalist exemplify these qualities. They are: 

1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.

Looking at the Age and their support for the global warming hoax, they have completely failed in every respect to think like good journalists.

Applying the four Ds to the above opening sentence.

"The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists"

The consensus notion has been pushed by three flawed yet peer-reviewed papers:

1. Oreskes: LINK
2. Doran and Zimmerman: LINK
3. Cook et al: LINK

A sceptical journalist can easily research the validity of these three "peer reviewed" papers. Taking the last first, google search result for "cook 97 consensus" leads with three rebuttals of the paper. Lord Monckton reviewed the paper and found  0.3% CONSENSUS, NOT 97.1%

Enough said.

Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” (link)

Naomi Oreskes wrote in her paper:

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong.

That's probably the most accurate part of her paper. The US Senate Environment Committee:

FACT: Oreskes’s study contained major flaws. Oreskes did not inform readers in today’s commentary that she admitted to making a search term error that excluded about 11,000 papers –more than 90% of the papers– dealing with climate change. Oreskes also failed to inform readers that, according to one critique of her study, less than 2% of the abstracts she analyzed endorsed what she terms the “consensus view” on human activity and climate change and that some of the studies actually doubted that human activity has caused warming in the last 50 years.

Two down and one to go:

Doran and Zimmerman:

A google search of "Doran and Zimmerman" finds the word "flawed" arising frequently. One such result is the paper by Murray Goot of Macquarie University as part of the Garnault Review. (link)

Criticism of the paper has focused on the second of the two findings, the claim that ‘97% of climate scientists’ agree that the planet is experiencing anthropogenic climate change; specifically, the criticisms have focused on the nature of the sample, the number of respondents in the sample regarded as most expert in 3 the area, and especially on the wording of the questions. The first of the two findings that showed 90% agreeing that ‘compared with pre-1800s levels’ the ‘mean global temperatures have generally risen’ rather than ‘fallen, or remained relatively constant’ is relatively
uncontroversial; protagonists on both sides of the debate on anthropogenic global warming can readily agree to that.

 Although response to the first question was 3,146, the second question received only 79 responses - 77 agreed to the question:

 According to one critic the question ‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’ is a question to which ‘most climate scientists’ would say yes ‘even if they aren't concerned about future climate change’. On this view, the question was deficient at every turn. 

 The Age editorial continues:

the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate (sic) and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.

Temperate is an adjective. So, does a rise in temperate mean "more temperate?" Or did they mean a "rise in temperature?" Let's assume the latter.

According to the Alarmists, the main greenhouse gas (GHG) is carbon dioxide which they falsely label carbon. (carbon dioxide is one carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms. If the call CO2 'carbon', why don't they call water (H2O) 'oxygen'?)

Scientists agree that rises in temperature precede rises in  the "green house gas" atmospheric CO2. (link) 

What is actually happening this century?

The main data sets that the "climate" scientists use all show no temperature (temperate?) rise this century whilst the rise in atmospheric CO2 continues.

Climate4You 

Has the Age invoked the 4Ds?

1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.

I detect that they have not shown discernment, doubt their partiality and demandbetter journalism.

Green Grubs (Weekend Humour)

After the repeal of the despised tax on vital to life carbon dioxide, the tax that, according to IPCC Scientist Professor Roger Jones (link), would reduce, by 2100,  global temperature by four thousands of a degree, Sarah Hanson-Young(@SarahinSen8) tweeted: "climate sceptic grubs."

This got me thinking.......what colour are most grubs?

Now, I am probably wrong, but I get a strong image in my mind and that image is Green.

When I worked in the pottery industry, I worked with a marvellous industrial chemist who was great at creating and naming glazes;  Great Keppel Blue is one that comes to mind.

Perhaps, if Tom was still with us, he could create a new colour called Sarah Hansen's Grub Green.

He could also create some colours for some of SHY's fantasies, like Sea Patrol red (the colour her cheeks should have been) and economic immigrant blue for SHY's open border policy blue. 

And perhaps Earthling Brown after old Greens leader Bob. 

Perhaps Milne mauve?

And for Bill Shorten, with his pitch for (as Christopher Pyne said) a "rotten stinking carcass around his neck," could I suggest "Pitch Black?"

Remember the nematodes, SHY, they are attracted by the CO2 emissions of "green grubs" and kill them.

 It contains insect-pathogenic nematodes of the species Heterorhabditis bacteriophora that seek out actively for grubs in the soil. Attracted by CO2 emissions of the grubs they enter into their body, kill them and reproduce inside the cadaver. (link)

 

A small but significant battle win in the war against the AGW hoax.

Headlines from around the world are noting the Abbott Government's win in reversing the useless economy destroying carbon dioxide tax; some looking on with praise but more with disdain, eg

Today's reversal of our carbon laws represents a tragedy for our politics, a travesty for public policy and a train wreck for climate action. (link)

The simple facts are that

• there has been no global warming for 18 years; (link)
• the man-made global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been falsified. (link)

Even so, the Abbott Government still pays obeisance to the AGW hoax. There are true believers of AGW in Abbott's front bench, the Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt included.

Note that Mr Hunt doesn't correct ABC's Tony Jones who erroneously says carbon pollution when talking of carbon dioxide emissions

TONY JONES:Okay. Let's move on. With no carbon price in place from today and no Direct Action policy, is any company in Australia now free to put as much carbon pollution into the atmosphere as they wish, with no penalty or any way of stopping them? 

GREG HUNT:Well, of course, under Labor's carbon tax there was no constraint on individual companies. They could simply pay to pollute. And, of course, the biggest problem with the carbon tax was that meant that the power companies could simply put out as many emissions as they want and pass on the cost to consumers.

Mr Hunt has budgeted for $2.55 Billion  for an emissions reduction scheme. (link)

There are many more expenditure items in the 2014 budget including (See Portfolio Budget Statement)

Many say that PM Abbott does not believe in the hoax, but this week, after the carbon dioxide tax reversal he was quoted as saying: (link)

"So we are a conservationist government and we will do what we think is the sensible thing to try to bring emissions down."

As Viv Forbes wrote in the post Death by Delay: (link)

Unfortunately, the job is not nearly over. We still have the Green Energy subsidies and targets, far too many bureaucracies still white-anting away, too much being spent on climate-fests, global warming research, climate bureaucracies, Kyoto carbon credit forests and the silly “Direct Action” still breathes. Flannery and Gore will never give up, the Green/ALP coalition waits its chance, much of the media will maintain the rage . . . etc

So beware, all ye who celebrate the tax reversal win, it is but a small battle win in the war against the AGW hoax.