Thursday, November 17, 2016

GWPF Newsletter: Greenland Blowing Away All Records For Ice Growth








U.S. Tornadoes Lowest Since Records Began

In this newsletter:

1) Greenland Blowing Away All Records For Ice Growth
Real Climate Science, 14 November 2016
 
2) U.S. Tornadoes Lowest Since Records Began
Watts Up With That, 16 November 2016
 
3) Holman W Jenkins Jr: Green Elites, Trumped
The Wall Street Journal, 16 November 2016
 
4) As Many As Half Of Global Warming Research Papers Might Be Wrong
Investor’s Business Daily, 11 November 2016
 
5) Roger Pielke Jr: Wikileaks And Me
Roger Pielke Jr, 14 November 2016

Full details:

1) Greenland Blowing Away All Records For Ice Growth
Real Climate Science, 14 November 2016

Greenland’s surface has been gaining about 3.5 billion tons of ice per day since the first of September. This is about 50% above normal.
 

screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-6-25-51-am
Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

This is occurring just as global land temperatures are cooling at a record rate.


screen-shot-2016-11-13-at-8-11-06-pm
www.woodfortrees.org/data/rss-land/

Full post

2) U.S. Tornadoes Lowest Since Records Began
Watts Up With That, 16 November 2016
Anthony Watts

Latest data from NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center indicate that as of today, the total count for 2016 of US tornadoes are fewest in a calendar year since record-keeping began in 1954. That’s a hard fact that flies in the face of claims of extreme weather being enhanced by warmer temperatures, as many have tried to claim.

This graph from NOAA SPC shows that with 830 tornadoes so far this year (in black), it has crossed the minimum line (in magenta) showing 879 as the previous lowest number recorded on this date.
 

tornado-graph-big
Source: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/adj.html

Additionally, the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Nashville said today:
There have only been 5 tornadoes in Tennessee this year. It’s been the quietest year for tornadoes in the state since 1987.

Meanwhile the U.N.’s weather bureau is warning of this:

It is very likely that 2016 will be the hottest year on record, with global temperatures even higher than the record-breaking temperatures in 2015. Preliminary data shows that 2016’s global temperatures are approximately 1.2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, according to an assessment by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

So, in the “hottest year ever” there’s actually the lowest number of tornadoes, ever.

Full post

3) Holman W Jenkins Jr: Green Elites, Trumped
The Wall Street Journal, 16 November 2016

The planet will benefit if the climate movement is purged of its rottenness.




Hysterical, in both senses of the word, is the reaction of greens like Paul Krugman and the Sierra Club to last week’s election. “The planet is in danger,” fretted Tom Steyer, the California hedge funder who spends his billions trying to be popular with green voters.

Uh huh. In fact, the climate will be the last indicator to notice any transition from Barack Obama to Donald Trump. That’s because—as climate warriors were only too happy to point out until a week ago—Mr. Obama’s own commitments weren’t going to make any noticeable dent in a putative CO2 problem.

At most, Mr. Trump’s election will mean solar and wind have to compete more on their merits. So what?

He wants to lift the Obama war on coal—but he won’t stop the epochal replacement of coal by cheap natural gas, with half the greenhouse emissions per BTU.

He probably won’t even try to repeal an egregious taxpayer-funded rebate for wind and solar projects, because red states like this gimme too. But Republican state governments will continue to wind back subsidies that ordinary ratepayers pay through their electric bills so upscale homeowners can indulge themselves with solar.

Even so, the price of solar technology will continue to drop; the lithium-ion revolution will continue to drive efficiency gains in batteries.

Mr. Trump wants to spend on infrastructure, and the federal research establishment, a hotbed of battery enthusiasts, likely will benefit.

In a deregulatory mood, he might well pick up an uncharacteristically useful initiative from the Obama administration. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission quietly is revisiting a scientifically dubious radiation risk standard that drives up the cost of nuclear power.

What a Trump election will do is mostly dismantle a green gravy train powered by moral vanity that contributes nothing to the public welfare.

A phenomenon like Trump, whatever its antecedents, is an opportunity—in this case to purge a rottenness that begins at the commanding heights. The New York Times last year published a feature entitled “short answers to the hard questions about climate change” that was notable solely for ignoring the hardest question of all: How much are human activities actually affecting the climate?

This is the hardest question. It’s why we spend tens of billions collecting climate data and building computerized climate models. It’s why “climate sensitivity” remains the central problem of climate science, as lively and unresolved as it was 35 years ago.

Happily, it only takes a crude, blunderbussy kind of instrument to shatter such a fragile smugness—and if Mr. Trump and the phenomenon he represents are anything, it’s crude and blunderbussy.

As with any such shattering, the dividends will not be appropriated only by one party or political tendency.

Democrats must know by now they are in a failing marriage. Wealthy investors like George Soros,Nat Simons and Mr. Steyer, who finance the party’s green agenda, have ridden the Dems into the ground, with nothing to show for their millions, and vice versa.

On the contrary, the WikiLeaks release of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails only dramatizes what a liability they’ve become, demanding attacks on scientists and even loyal Democrats who don’t endorse their climate-disaster scenarios. Their anti-coal, anti-pipeline, anti-fracking stance especially hurts Dems with union households, which turned out in record numbers for Mr. Trump.

It was always crazy to believe in an unprecedented act of global central planning to wean nations away from fossil fuels, but equally idiotic not to notice that our energy economy is ripe slowly to be transformed by technology anyway.

One greenie who is beyond the need for handouts is Bill Gates, who has made himself non grata by saying the current vogue for subsidizing power sources that will always need subsidies is a joke—an admission of defeat.

Honest warriors like Mr. Gates and retired NASA alarmist James Hansen insist real progress can’t be made without nuclear. Why haven’t others? Because the Tom Steyers and Bill McKibbens would sacrifice the planet 10 times over rather than no longer be fawned over at green confabs. That’s rottenness at work.

There’s a reason today’s climate movement increasingly devotes its time and energy to persecuting heretics—because it’s the most efficient way to suppress reasoned examination of policies that cost taxpayers billions without producing any public benefit whatsoever.

Full post

4) As Many As Half Of Global Warming Research Papers Might Be Wrong
Investor’s Business Daily, 11 November 2016
Kerry Jackson

The global warming alarmist community firmly believes it has science on its side. The science is settled, its members repeat incessantly to show how “sciency” they are, despite the fact that they are wrong. And 97% of scientists believe man’s carbon dioxide emissions are causing climate change, they say with great conviction, even though it’s simply not true.

Among its many efforts show it’s a coalition of the enlightened, the Democratic Party works hard to convince the public that it’s the “party of science.” At the same time, it labors just as aggressively to portray the Republican Party as the “anti-science party,” and it enthusiastically tags doubters as unthinking hicks.

Given these facts, what are the alarmist community and the Democrats, whose platform hysterically calls climate change “an urgent threat,” to do about research that has found that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue”?

If this is indeed the case, then half of all global warming papers might also be untrue.

According to the foreword of “Peer Review: Why Skepticism Is Essential,” written by Donna Laframboise for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “a significant part of the references in the fourth assessment” of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report were made “to ‘gray literature.’ “

“That is, press releases, ‘reports’ from pressure groups and the like, which are not remotely the normal peer-reviewed scientific literature.” In other words, IPCC-referenced propaganda.

For the moment, let’s imagine that from here on out, every piece of literature used by the IPCC to further the narrative is published by ostensibly reliable researchers. That still leaves much room for doubt. The Global Warming Policy Foundation report says that “even if all the citations used by the IPCC were peer-reviewed, this would not mean they were infallible.”

Laframboise says science is plagued with an “reproducibility crisis,” meaning that published findings cannot be independently verified. She believes that “there is no reason to believe that the politically charged arena of climate science is exempt from” the problems found in other scientific research, “or that it doesn’t share the alarming rates of irreproducibility observed in medicine, economics and psychology.”

“Currently, climate research is not subjected to meaningful due diligence prior to the IPCC presenting it as sound in its reports,” Laframboise writes.

“Until key climate findings meet a higher standard than mere peer review, we cannot claim that our climate policies are evidence-based.”

But the alarmist community isn’t interested in evidence. It is consumed with fueling panic and creating a climate of fear, and goes out of its way to bully those who don’t agree with its narrative. Rather than provide real evidence — it simply can’t — it traffics in condemnations, character assassination, reprisals and marginalization. Its members act more like a high-school clique than responsible and open-minded adults. Those holding a different opinion are treated as “others.”

Full post

5) Roger Pielke Jr: Wikileaks And Me
Roger Pielke Jr, 14 November 2016

I haven’t had a chance to update this blog with anything related to the surprise (to me at least) at finding myself the subject of an email in the John Podesta email leaks from Wikileaks. That email revealed that an organization that was founded and led by Podesta, the Center for American Progress, engaged in a successful effort to have me removed as a writer at 538, the “data journalism” site created by Nate Silver.

The Boulder Daily Camera has a very good series of articles about the revelation that there was an organized political effort against me. 
  • CAP denies campaign against Pielke, laughably
The multi-year campaign against me by CAP was partially funded by billionaire Tom Steyer, and involved 7 writers at CAP who collectively wrote more than 160 articles about me, trashing my work and my reputation. Over the years, several of those writers moved on to new venues, including The Guardian, Vox and ClimateTruth.org where they continued their campaign focused on creating an evil, cartoon version of me and my research.

Collectively, they were quite successful. The campaign ultimately led to me being investigated by a member of Congress and pushed out of the field.

Motivated by the leaked email, I counted the articles that CAP wrote about me over the years, shown below. To illustrate how significant a figure CAP thought I was — and how absolutely unhinged their campaign was against me — CAP wrote less the 200 articles over the same time period about George W. Bush, president of the United States. I was apparently viewed to be a pretty important guy to warrant all that negative attention!


cap-rp

One example of CAP’s campaign involved a series of over-the-top protestations against a paper that I wrote in 2008 with climate scientist Tom Wigley and economist Chris Green. In it, we argued that the IPCC had baked in too much assumed decarbonization in its scenarios of future emissions and policies.
 
CAP responded with multiple posts, such as the unhinged, “Why did Nature run Pielke’s pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense?” There were many more.
 
Full post

The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.

No comments: