Amongst the long list of non-scientific nonsense promulgated by left-wing climate crazies is, “OMG, the glaciers are melting!” Putting aside for a moment that globally glaciers have been melting at a pretty constant rate for 6000 years or so — surprise, surprise, we are in an inter-glacial period — the liars who run the National Park Service, for example have signs all over Glacier National Park (their poster child” for glacier melt, which they dub “A showcase of melting glaciers…” ) saying, “THE GLACIERS, GONE BY 2020.” The great scientist Al Gore even used the park in his wonderful movie An Inconvenient Truth (cited by a UK court as being untrue on all of its most important claims).

Oops. It’s 2022. And the glaciers are still there. Another inconvenient truth to add to the list.

Judith Curry’s most recent post on Climate Etc. brings this whole Glacier saga into excellent scientific focus…

Glacier saga
Posted on November 10, 2022
by Judith Curry

The loss of glaciers from Glacier National Park is one of the most visible manifestations of climate change in the U.S.  Signs were posted all around the park, proclaiming that the glaciers would be gone by 2020.  In 2017, the Park started taking these signs down.  What happened, beyond the obvious fact that the glaciers hadn’t disappeared by 2020?

Not only are Montana’s glaciers an important icon for global warming (e.g. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth), it also seems that the glaciers are an important political icon for progressive politicians in Montana. Earlier this week, Reilly Neill, a (sort of) politician in Montana, went after me on Twitter:

A number of progressive academic types are leaving twitter owing to Elon Musk’s takeover.  What???   And miss all this fun???

Well, it just so happens that I have some analyses of Montana glaciers and climate in my archives; maybe I can help Reilly (and the “real scientists of Montana”) understand what is going on.

[Read the rest of the story here…]

Reblogged from Shortfall

By David Siegel
October 5, 2022

As of October 5, 2022: Number of peer-reviewed papers listed on this page: 115

I’m glad you’re interested in science. However, I don’t think peer review is the signal of scientific rigor you think it is. Simple statistical analysis shows that the majority of peer-reviewed findings are false or meaningless, and the press will take any paper and blow it up into a headline. But people often ask me for peer-reviewed papers refuting the standard dogma of climate alarm, and there are many. Keep in mind that all atmospheric data before 1980 is suspect, and all ocean measurements before 2005 are worthless. Everyone knows Antarctica is not warming, so I’ll focus on trying to figure out man’s role in the climate.

When I ask people who are sure that humans are having an alarming impact on the earth’s climate, I ask them to name one single paper that convinced them. So far, I have never gotten a paper.

No one reads papers, but I do. Some of them I don’t think are worth sharing, but a few are, and I present them here. I’ll write summaries, because I know people won’t click through. If you are convinced humans are causing climate change, you might want to understand the science a bit more; these summaries are designed to help you do that. There is much more at Climatecurious.com.

[See the whole list of papers and the rest of this post HERE.]

It’s time to state the obvious

by Michael Shellenberger
October 4, 2022

reblogged from Substack

Over the last several weeks, many mainstream news media outlets have claimed that hurricanes are becoming more expensive, more frequent, and more intense because of climate change.

• The Financial Times reported that “hurricane frequency is on the rise.”
• The New York Times claimed, “strong storms are becoming more common in the Atlantic Ocean.”
• The Washington Post said, “climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes.”
• ABC News declared, “Here’s how climate change intensifies hurricanes.”
• Both the FT and N.Y. Times showed graphs purporting to show rising hurricane frequency using data from the U.S. government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

All of those claims are false.

Read rest of post HERE.

Despite terrible news of hurricane Ian in Florida this week, the good news is that hurricanes in Florida have become steadily less prevalent in Florida over the past 170 years, and that trend continues.

More and more media and climate alarmists have been claiming that hurricanes are getting, or going to get, more powerful due to human production of CO2, but this statement is not supported by any actual data, and is based purely on speculation using computer models that are known to have numerous flaws. Even the notoriously alarmist IPCC states in its most recent AR6 report that there is only “limited evidence for anthropogenic effects on TC intensifications” (Chapter 11, Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate, 11.7.1.4). Indeed most studies have concluded the opposite. See for example Klotzbach and Landsea (2015) which states, “Large, significant downward trends are present in accumulated cyclone energy [i.e. hurricane strength] in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere, and globally.” Or Vecchi et al (2021) which concluded that over the past century, there is no discernible increase in the ratio of major (Category 3 to 5) hurricanes to all hurricanes in the North Atlantic notwithstanding a recent 50-year increase: “Our results indicate that the recent increase in NA basin-wide MH/HU ratio or MH frequency is not part of a century-scale increase. Rather it is a rebound from a deep local minimum in the 1960s–1980s,” and indeed the authors hypothesize that the “recent increases contain a substantial, even dominant, contribution from internal climate variability, and/or late-20th century aerosol increases and subsequent decreases…”

Glad to be the bearer of good news!

As the media continues to trumpet the false narrative that climate change is causing an increase in number of hurricanes and hurricane power, the data continues to say the exact opposite.

Indeed, the downward trend is quite consistent over different timescales. Looking at data from the last 250 years or the past 50 years show the same thing: hurricanes are getting fewer in number, and waning in intensity both here in North America and globally. Given that the world has warmed approximately 1.6ºC since 1750 (near the low point of the Little Ice Age), the overall decrease in hurricane activity and strength is to be expected because of the correspondingly smaller temperature differential between the poles and the equator.

Researchers from the National University of Mexico documented hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea from 1749 through 2012 and concluded that the linear downward trend is 0.778 fewer hurricanes per year. Rojo-Garibaldi et al (2016).

We recently discussed here that global major hurricane frequency has been declining for the last 40 years (see Hurricane frequency continues its 40-year DECLINE).

Hurricane expert Ryan Maue also provides the clear data showing that total energy of hurricanes (also known as tropical cyclones), both globally and in the northern hemisphere, is slightly declining over the last 50 years and dramatically declining over the last 30 years.

None of these clear facts, however, stop climate alarmists from continually attempting to misrepresent the exact opposite.

A great example of such an alarmist is Don Lemon who on September 27, 2022 attempted to bully a weather reporter in to admitting that climate change is responsible for the severity of hurricane Ian. Don apparently does not understand the difference between weather and climate, even though the badgered weather reporter (National Hurricane Center Acting Director Jamie Rohme) tried unsuccessfully to educate him. Watch the video clip below.

This is amazing. Don Lemon tries to blame Hurricane Ian on climate change. NOAA's hurricane director shuts him down. pic.twitter.com/svTjHtE8hl

— Alex Pfeiffer (@__Pfeiffer) September 28, 2022

Here’s the transcript:

If you are tired of climate alarmism about hurricanes, check out @RyanMaue on Twitter and on the web. He is always a great source of real scientific information as opposed to propaganda.

Deconstructing what we knew in real-time.
Midnight to 8 AM Wednesday (Sept 28) radar loop of nearly Category 5 Hurricane Ian pic.twitter.com/f4ooXdon0n

— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) September 29, 2022

The latest data from hurricane (aka “tropical cyclone”) expert Ryan Maue continue to show a steady decline in global hurricane activity despite the alleged tiny increase in “global mean surface temperature” (a fiction of the “consensus” crowd of anti-scientists) over the past 40 years. The upper line is all hurricanes (winds at or above 64 knots) and shows a statistically significant and fairly steady decline in numbers. The lower line, showing major hurricanes (winds at or above 96 knots) is fairly flat overall with a notable spike in the 2015-16 season. All of this is of course much to the chagrin of the climate alarmists (aka liars from the anti-science crowd) who keep shouting from the rooftops and all the corporate media that “climate change” is causing massive increases in “extreme weather,” all the while when nearly every measure of “extreme weather” continues to decline or stay the same.

For more real science see Dr. Ryan N. Maue’s Global Tropical Cyclone Activity and follow him on Twitter @RyanMaue.

Real science demonstrates there is no climate emergency and there are no climate-related financial or other risks caused by fossil fuels and CO2.

Happer & Lindzen

In their response to a “Request for Information on Climate-Related Financial Risk” Fed. Reg. 34856 (July 21,2022), world renowned scientists William Happer (Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University) and Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) made it plain that not only is there no financial risk to fossil fuel use or CO2 production, but on the contrary it will be “disastrous” if fossil fuel and CO2 production is reduced to zero.

SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES THERE IS NO CLIMATE-RELATED FINANCIAL RISK CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2, BUT THERE WILL BE DISASTROUS TRANSITION RISK CONSEQUENCES FOR PEOPLE WORLDWIDE AND THE U. S. IF FOSSIL FUEL USE AND CO2 EMISSIONS ARE REDUCED TO “NET ZERO”

August 8, 2022

We (Happer and Lindzen) are career physicists who have specialized in radiation physics and dynamic heat transfer for decades.

In our scientific opinion, there is no scientific basis for the CFTC inquiry. Real science demonstrates there is no climate emergency and there are no climate-related financial or other risks caused by fossil fuels and CO2.

Frankly, the “science” cited to support of the CFTC inquiry and possible action is merely government opinion by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), which is not science and cannot be used as the scientific basis for any CFTC or other government action.

Moreover, there will be a disastrous transition risk for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the country by reducing fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions to “net zero.” Contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, and thus no plant food. Reducing CO2 will reduce the amount of food available for the poor and people worldwide.

And, without fossil fuels there will be no low-cost energy worldwide and less CO2 for photosynthesis making food.

Thus, with all due respect, the Commission should not adopt any guidance, interpretations, policy statements, or regulations, or take other action on the erroneous science there is a climate-related financial or any other risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2. If any such action is taken, it should be ruled invalid by the courts.

Here’s the science why… [See entire response here]

Reblogged from Climate Etc.
Posted on August 28, 2022 by curryja | Leave a comment

by Javier Vinós & Andy May

“Once you start doubting, just like you’re supposed to doubt. You ask me if the science is true and we say ‘No, no, we don’t know what’s true, we’re trying to find out, everything is possibly wrong’ … When you doubt and ask it gets a little harder to believe. I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.” Richard Feynman (1981)

5.1 Introduction

The 1990s discovery of multidecadal variability (see Part IV) showed that the science of climate change is very immature. The answer to what was causing the observed warming was provided before the proper questions were asked. Once the answer was announced, questions were no longer welcome. Michael Mann said of a skeptical Judith Curry: “I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility” (Mann 2008). But as Peter Medawar (1979) stated, “the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not.” Scientists’ opinions do not constitute science, and a scientific consensus is nothing more than a collective opinion based on group-thinking. When doubting a scientific consensus (“just like you’re supposed to doubt,” as Feynman said) becomes unwelcome, the collective opinion becomes dogma, and dogma is clearly not science.

… [See the rest of the post on Climate Etc.]

The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (III). Meridional transport

Reblogged from Climate Etc.
Posted on August 15, 2022 by curryja | Leave a comment

by Javier Vinós & Andy May

“The atmospheric heat transport on Earth from the Equator to the poles is largely carried out by the mid-latitude storms. However, there is no satisfactory theory to describe this fundamental feature of the Earth’s climate.” Leon Barry, George C. Craig & John Thuburn (2002)

3.1 Introduction

Nearly all the energy that powers the climate system and life on Earth comes from the sun. Incoming solar radiation is estimated at 173,000 TW. By contrast geothermal heat flow from radiogenic decay and primordial heat is estimated at 47 TW, human production of heat at 18 TW, and tidal energy from the Moon and the Sun at 4 TW. Other sources of energy, like solar wind, solar particles, stellar light, moonlight, interplanetary dust, meteorites, or cosmic rays, are negligible. Solar irradiance, thus, constitutes over 99.9 % of the energy input to the climate system… [See the rest of the post on Climate Etc.]

A new paper by renowned climate scientist Willie Soon, and 24 others points out huge flaws in the politically driven conclusions of the IPCC’s climate propaganda. “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate” is a 71-page paper by 25 renowned scientists that contains 536 references and concludes that

By reviewing the literature and available data, we identified 16 different estimates of how the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has varied since the 19th century (and earlier) – see Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3. Although some of these estimates are very similar to each other, others imply quite different trends and hence can lead to different conclusions. The IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5) appears to have tried to overcome this problem by ignoring those datasets that give conflicting results. Worryingly, from reading Matthes et al. (2017), it appears that the CMIP6 modelling groups have been actively encouraged to consider only one estimate of TSI for the 1850-present period, i.e., the Matthes et al. (2017) dataset [110]. In terms of scientific objectivity, this seems to us to have been an approach that is not compatible with the results already published in the scientific literature and even unwise relative to the results highlighted by this paper and of other recently published works.

Connolly et al. (2022), pp. 55-56

The paper makes a number of specific recommendations to scientific researchers and closes with:

“Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress.”

Connolly, p. 57