Skip to content

Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips

October 29, 2014

jim:

Key quote:
“I feel your pain. Circa 2007 I felt the same way you did, and ran around turning off lights and unplugging things, feeling really uncomfortable about the carbon footprint of myself and my surroundings. But then I woke up as a scientist and realized that my belief in dangerous anthropogenic climate change was second order belief – based on the IPCC consensus. That is, I believed in the consensus without having done a real detailed assessment of my own. Then when climategate triggered me to closely examine everything, notably the IPCC’s attribution argument, I realized that the fingerprints were ‘muddy’, the climate models are running too hot, the forcing data is uncertain, no account is made for multidecadal and longer internal variability, and they have no explanation for the warming 1910-1940, the cooling 1940-1976, and the hiatus since 1998. Once you raise questions about 20th century attribution, then your angst about impacts that you think are attributable to AGW becomes much less justified.”

Originally posted on Climate Etc.:

by Judith Curry

Climate depression is real.  Just ask a scientist. – Madeleine Thomas

View original 1,258 more words

Another Year, Another Nail in the CAGW Coffin (Now Includes December Data)

October 28, 2014

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

Image Credit: WoodForTrees.org

Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts

CAGW refers to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Few people doubt that humans have some influence on climate, however the big debate is whether or not we are causing enough warming to have catastrophic consequences decades from now. The best evidence thus far is that climate goes in numerous different cycles and that whatever influence humans have, is minimal. Certainly, what happened, and what did not happen, in 2013, does not justify any alarm.

The above graph illustrates the change over the past year for the length of the period of no warming for RSS. At the end of 2012, the Pause was for a period of 194 months. By the end of 2013, this Pause had increased by 14 months to 208 months, namely the…

View original 2,902 more words

Where Was Climate Research Before Computer Models?

October 22, 2014

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

I think, Essex and McKitrick’s Chapter, Climate Theory Versus Models and Metaphors, in their book Taken By Storm, is a very good analysis of the challenges facing climatology. They ask,

Do we have any clues at all on how to start the climb toward the summit of Mount Climate Theory? For a while in the 20th Century, it was looking good. Computers were appearing on the scene, and data were more systematically collected. Many scientists believed that putting in every more copious detail might pull off the climb. Sure, there would always be something missing, but with the aid of more data and the growing computational power, perhaps it wouldn’t matter. It didn’t before. What ultimately did happen in science surprised everyone, and it all had to do with turbulence.”

They raise the internal issue of turbulence, which is legitimate, if you assume…

View original 1,594 more words

Quote of the week – massive climate FAIL by Mashable’s Andrew Freedman

October 22, 2014
Featured Image -- 1043

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Wow, this is even dumber than Freedman’s story (complete with photoshopped images of airplanes in rising sea water) Quite possibly the dumbest example of ‘Tabloid Climatology’ ever from Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman a couple of years ago, which we rightfully trounced on WUWT for the sheer stupidity of the imagery that somehow, airplanes at LaGuardia would not be able to get out of the way of rising sea levels.

Get a load of this tweet from him today, replete with “conspiracy theory”:

Freedman_FAILGosh, “giant conspiracy”.

Um, Andrew, they all use the same base surface data. The Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) from NOAA’s NCDC.

For example:  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

NASA_GHCNOr how about: http://www.climate.gov/daily-observational-data-ghcn-daily-summary-%E2%80%93-gis-data-locator-0

NOAA_GHCN

And, http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/climatview/outline.html

JMA_GHCN

They all agree because they only have one data source. Therefore, they are NOT independent as you claim.

Andrew, you really need to pull your head out of your ass and stop talking about conspiracy theory…

View original 12 more words

Germany’s Unsustainable “Green” Jobs “Miracle” Collapses

October 17, 2014
Featured Image -- 1039

Originally posted on STOP THESE THINGS:

angry german kid

The Germans went into wind power harder and faster than anyone else – and the cost of doing so is catching up with a vengeance. The subsidies have been colossal, the impacts on the electricity market chaotic and – contrary to the purpose of the policy – CO2 emissions are rising fast (see our post here).

Some 800,000 German homes have been disconnected from the grid – victims of what is euphemistically called “fuel poverty”. In response, Germans have picked up their axes and have headed to their forests in order to improve their sense of energy security – although foresters apparently take the view that this self-help measure is nothing more than blatant timber theft (see our post here).

One justification put up by the wind industry for the social and economic chaos caused by spiralling power costs was the claim that investment in wind power would…

View original 1,455 more words

The Seductiveness of Models.

October 16, 2014
Featured Image -- 1037

Originally posted on Pointman's:

When it comes to Global Warming (GW), great emphasis is put on what the computer models predict will happen, so let’s get some idea of what exactly a model is. We’ll do a thought experiment. This is a complex area but no maths, I promise, and I’ll pick a really really simple problem.

Imagine we’re going to build a model of the game of Snooker (or Pool) and we’ll keep it even simpler by only considering the cue ball which is hit towards one object ball. We want to be able to predict where both balls will come to rest after the impact. The physics of the situation are well understood. If the cue ball hits the object ball in the centre then the object ball will roll straight on. If the cue ball hits the object ball to the left of centre, then the object ball will deflect to…

View original 1,439 more words

Another IPCC modeling failure – so THAT’s where the atmospheric methane went

October 15, 2014
Featured Image -- 1034

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

IPCC_AR5_draft_fig1-7_methane

IPCC models for each assessment report vs. reality.

From Oregon State University – Scientists discover carbonate rocks are unrecognized methane sink

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Since the first undersea methane seep was discovered 30 years ago, scientists have meticulously analyzed and measured how microbes in the seafloor sediments consume the greenhouse gas methane as part of understanding how the Earth works.

The sediment-based microbes form an important methane “sink,” preventing much of the chemical from reaching the atmosphere and contributing to greenhouse gas accumulation. As a byproduct of this process, the microbes create a type of rock known as authigenic carbonate, which while interesting to scientists was not thought to be involved in the processing of methane.

That is no longer the case. A team of scientists has discovered that these authigenic carbonate rocks also contain vast amounts of active microbes that take up methane. The results of their study, which…

View original 516 more words

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.