New book: ‘Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming ‘

Watts Up With That?

By Dr. Roy Spencer.

Partly in response to the crazy claims of the usual global warming experts (Stevie Wonder, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lawrence, Mark Ruffalo, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pope Francis), I decided to write another Kindle e-book. This one is entitled, Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming.

In it I review the many fascinating examples of major hurricane landfalls in the United States, even going back to colonial times.

For example, two major hurricane strikes endured by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1635 and in 1675, have yet to be rivaled in more modern times. Major hurricane Maria, now approaching Dominica and Guadeloupe, is probably no match for the Great Hurricane of 1780 in the Caribbean, which had estimated winds of 200 mph and killed 20,000 people.

I also address the reasons why Hurricane Harvey and its flooding cannot be blamed…

View original post 515 more words

Advertisements

Climate scientists admit they were wrong on climate change effects

Our efforts to forestall a global climate change catastrophe have been successful. Let’s celebrate!

Watts Up With That?

WE WERE WRONG, CLIMATE SCIENTISTS CONCEDE

  • Ben Webster, The Times

Catastrophic impacts of climate change can still be avoided, according to scientists who have admitted they were too pessimistic about the chances of limiting global warming.

The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found.

New forecasts suggest that the world has a better chance than claimed of meeting the goal set by the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

The study, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience, makes clear that rapid reductions in emissions will still be required but suggests that the world has more time to make the necessary changes.

Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the…

View original post 462 more words

The Meteorological Reasons Why There Have Been So Many Hurricanes This Year

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

While Hurricane Maria continues this year’s run of hurricanes, it is worth reading this Telegraph article from Sep 8th. It certainly makes a refreshing change from the wearying drivel written by Jillian Ambrose and co:

image

The destruction left by hurricanes Irma and Harvey has left many wondering why this year has been particularly bad for disastrous weather.

Harvey pummeled Texas, while Irma has been barrelling through the Carribbean and Bahamas, hurtling towards Florida.

Many thousands of homes have been destroyed and lives have been lost after the worst hurricanes seen for some years came in from the Atlantic Ocean.

The US expects hurricanes – they have a season of them every year – but not of this magnitude.

So why is it so bad? And can we expect more in the future? We asked scientists and other experts to explain.

What is causing these large hurricanes?

View original post 308 more words

Study: plants are globally getting more efficient thanks to rising carbon dioxide

Watts Up With That?

Rising CO2 leading to changes in land plant photosynthesis
Suggests that plants have achieved an optimum response to rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere

From the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – SAN DIEGO

Researchers led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego have determined that major changes in plant behavior have occurred over the past 40 years, using measurements of subtle changes in the carbon dioxide (CO2) currently found in the atmosphere.

The two main isotopes, or atomic forms, of carbon are carbon-12 (12C) and carbon-13 (13C). As CO2 has risen since the late 19th century, the ratio of 13C to 12C in atmospheric CO2 has decreased. That’s in part because the CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels has a low 13C/12C ratio. There are other factors in nature as well, however, that have influenced the rate of decrease in the isotopic ratio. The…

View original post 824 more words

Irma Only A Top 25 US Storm

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

As Florida clears up after Hurricane Irma, how does it rank with other major US landfalling hurricanes?

When Irma made landfall on the Keys, it was estimated to have had sustained wind speeds of 115 kt , about 132 mph. (It actually hit the Florida coast as a Cat 3, with winds of 115 mph, but the Florida Keys count as the first landfall).

Since 1851, there have been 14 stronger hurricanes at landfall, and Irma ties with 10 others. In other words, Irma is one of 25 hurricanes as strong or stronger.

View original post 238 more words

Imagine Escaping a Hurricane in a Tesla

Watts Up With That?

Image from Tesla’s website

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

First I want to make it clear that I think Tesla responded to Hurricane Irma with exemplary good faith, sacrificing their future profits to send drivers of cheaper Tesla models a free range upgrade, to help them escape Hurricane Irma. But the urgent Florida hurricane evacuation may have inadvertently highlighted an unexpected and potentially catastrophic risk associated with government policies which seek to switch drivers to electric vehicles.

How did Tesla make some of its cars travel further during Hurricane Irma?

The electric-car giant gave customers a lifeline by remotely boosting their vehicles’ battery capacity. But this act of kindness also highlighted that it had been selling identical cars at different prices

Tesla drivers who fled Hurricane Irma last weekend received an unexpected lesson in modern consumer economics along the way. As they sat on choked highways, some of the electric-car…

View original post 393 more words

Save Lives – Raise the Temperature

sunshine hours

The concept of “Excess Winter Deaths” is straightforward. Winter kills.

You could save 3 people a day from dying in the winter by raising temps 5C.

If the temperature went up 5C in Ontario, it would kill 4 people a day in summer.

If the temperature went up 5C in Ontario, it would save 7 people a day in winter.

In warm seasons, each 5°C increase in daily mean temperature was associated with a 2.5% increase in nonaccidental deaths (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3% to 3.8%) on the day of exposure (lag 0). In cold seasons, each 5°C decrease in daily temperature was associated with a 3.0% (95% CI 1.8% to 4.2%) increase in nonaccidental deaths, which persisted over 7 days (lag 0-6). The cold-related effects (lag 0-6) were stronger for cardiovascular-related deaths (any cardiovascular death: 4.1%, 95% CI 2.3% to 5.9%; ischemic heart disease: 5.8%, 95% CI…

View original post 100 more words

No, Hurricanes Aren’t More Frequent Or Severe

PA Pundits - International

By Larry Bell ~

Right off the bat, let’s understand that no one, much less those of us who live in Houston and other areas along the Texas coast along with my numerous friends in the entire state of Florida, need to be reminded of widespread terror and tragedy which can be wrought by a single tropical storm or hurricane event. At the same time, let’s also realize that such occurrences have been experienced with far greater frequency and fatal consequences by generations who preceded ours.

A review of North Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane patterns fails to reveal any worsening trend over more than a century. The recent Hurricane/Tropical Storm Harvey and Hurricane Irma actually ended an almost 12-year-long drought of U.S. landfall Category 3-5 hurricanes since Wilma in 2005, whereas 14 even stronger Category 4-5 monsters occurred between 1926 and 1969.

Harvey lost its Category 4 status shortly…

View original post 720 more words

Follow The Money

Watts Up With That?

By Dr. Duane Thresher.

From Real Climatologists.

September 18, 2017

Abstract: The wasted and misspent money at NASA GISS and all climate research institutions is staggering. So, as they said in Watergate, follow the money.
Like all global warming skeptic climate scientists we are accused of taking money from oil companies and conservative organizations. We don’t. None has ever even been offered. (C’mon! Why not? Pay us! Calm down. That’s a joke.) And you’ll note RealClimatologists.org has no place to make donations, although some of you have kindly offered.

In fact, RealClimatologists.org costs significant time, and thus money, from my (Dr. Duane Thresher) IT business providing “secure custom information technology services and consulting for select clients” (if only Hillary had had the brains to hire deplorable me, she would have been elected).

Supposedly taking money from oil companies and conservative organizations should immediately discredit global warming skeptic scientists…

View original post 1,154 more words

Bridenstine, Climate Scientists Are Not Noble, Stop Paying Them

Bridenstine, Climate Scientists Are Not Noble, Stop Paying Them

September 8, 2017

[In a case of synchronicity, I wrote this article on September 1 in preparation for publication after I came back from a week of no-climate-news vacation. The article calls for the defunding of the climate change institute NASA GISS where I was a climate scientist for 7 years. Back yesterday, I was reading climate news and saw the nomination by President Trump on September 1 of Jim Bridenstine to be Administrator of NASA. Bridenstine is a global warming skeptic who wants to cut global warming research funding. Go Jim and if you need help let me know. In particular, I instigated a NASA OIG investigation of Gavin Schmidt, current head of NASA GISS anointed by previous head James Hansen, for violation of the Federal Records Act and the Hatch Act.]

Everyone assumes climate scientists are noble. Fighting to save the planet. What nonsense. Not even close.

Me included. I (Dr. Duane Thresher) am a climate scientist too. As I have said I went into climate science so I could study what I wanted, get paid, and be left alone, and that is one of the better reasons to go into climate science.

Even the ones (see ahead for the others) who, like myself, honestly put in the years of courses and research necessary to be a real climate scientist are often twisted by it, made much less than noble. They put in a lot and give up a lot. And then nobody takes them seriously, not even other scientists.

Men climate scientists for instance. I’m tempted to name names and tell tales out of school here. But for now let’s just say a lot of men climate scientists missed out on dating as graduate students and are determined to make up for it when they become senior scientists. And a lot of young women grad students are recruited by them into climate science these days. And as we learned from Hurricane Harvey, correlation is causation. Nah, I’m sure it’s just because those men climate scientists think women are smarter than men so will be better scientists.

Climate scientists are academics. Academics living in ivory towers — elites living a privileged life away from the harsh practicalities of the real world — is a common expression because it is so true. They often have never had any other jobs except at universities, which take very good care of them (best health insurance I ever had). Academics live in their heads (and it’s often not pretty in there!) not in the real world.

Climate scientists are so thrilled with having any power, they don’t even think about the billions of poor who will suffer based merely on their opinion that carbon emissions should be drastically cut. Duh, who do they think is going to suffer the most if carbon emissions are cut? The poor. Yeah right, they are going to carbon tax the rich and give it to the poor to make up for their losses. Grow up. Robin Hood is a myth. That money will end up back in the pockets of the rich and the poor’s quality of life will get worse. Real heroes those climate scientists.

And then there are the not qualified who become climate scientists. When the science bureaucrats (if you can’t do real science be a science bureaucrat) decided global warming was the next big thing, there was a huge influx of money, which meant a huge influx of unqualified into climate science since there just weren’t enough qualified and the money HAD to be used. Enter opportunists, carpetbaggers, the corrupt, the ignoble. Physicists and mathematicians who couldn’t make it in their own fields, like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (who actually told me one reason he became a climate scientist was because he couldn’t make it in his degree field of mathematics). People who just wanted instant success as fake heroes or showmen rather than doing years of hard slow obscure real science.

Given the save-the-planet nature of the field, the unqualified included herds of do-gooders, particularly women. (Note: Dr. Claudia Kubatzki agrees with this assessment.) They love committees. Protection by the herd. Power without sticking your neck out.

Science by committee. The IPCC for example. Yeah, that’s going to work. Particularly when you have unqualified people on the committee to begin with. Scientific committees spend their time compromising to get — God save us — scientific consensus. 32 (ft/sec/sec) for gravitational acceleration is hard to remember, 100 would be better but all, except for the deplorable deniers, agree to compromise on 50. Now demand that be implemented in NASA’s programs since it is by scientific consensus (and the committee was diverse). What did happen to the Mars Climate Orbiter? (Yes, I know, it was a mix-up of English and metric units but that could have been caused by the committee to force Americans to adopt the metric system. I like rocket units with pounds in it; so much more descriptive than newtons. And remember, I worked for NASA so I am a rocket scientist.)

This influx into climate science of unqualified also meant they threw out good scientific practices, like not pretending climate models can actually predict climate when they were just invented to study it by experimentation. That inconvenient truth was such a hassle for the fake heroes and showmen of climate science. Things really didn’t start taking off until they got rid of that. And then when failing celebrities started to help, oh my!

What to do?

Stop paying climate scientists. The good ones are so into their science they will work for food, maybe less, maybe even pay to do it. French President Macron has invited the rest to move to France so they will be fine. He’ll probably even provide free burqas for the women climate scientists. Oh, wait, the women won’t be allowed to work.

(Anybody ever notice how the leaders destroying Europe don’t have any of their biologically-own kids so no real reason to care about the future but they are always accusing Holocaust deniers, I mean climate change deniers, that if they don’t believe in global warming they don’t care about their kids?)

Then let climate scientists make some clear predictions for 5 years into the future, not 50 when they won’t be around any more to take responsibility. When they are wrong they have to give back their taxpayer-provided salaries, with interest, and quit climate science.

Or go to prison, like the seismologists in Italy. There — actually like seismologists everywhere — they wrote their funding proposals stressing the (impossible) prediction aspect way too much. Then an unpredicted earthquake, as they all are (forever), hit with a major loss of life. It had to be somebody’s fault. A cautionary tale for California seismologists. When San Francisco is leveled it’s going to be your fault. Join the “Admit You Can’t Predict” movement before you go to prison!

Start with defunding NASA GISS where this whole global warming nonsense started. It was started by James Hansen, formerly head of NASA GISS and considered the father of global warming. It was continued by Gavin Schmidt, current head of NASA GISS, anointed by Hansen, and leading climate change warrior scientist/spokesperson.

I know from working there for 7 years that NASA GISS has almost been defunded several times in its life anyway. It’s a small group over a restaurant (Tom’s Restaurant from the TV comedy Seinfeld!) in New York City, nowhere near any other major NASA facility. Just the dedicated data link to the nearest NASA facility, GSFC in Maryland, is a big expense. GISS is the Goddard Institute for SPACE Studies. If you don’t need a rocket to get to it, it’s not space.

Besides, NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down. Take the money and buy a rocket.

P.S. NASA GISS is paid for with your money. If you have not been cowed into silence, email NASA and demand they defund NASA GISS: robert.m.lightfoot@nasa.gov, lesa.b.roe@nasa.gov, cscolese@nasa.gov, thelylesgroup@earthlink.net, diane.rausch@nasa.gov, paul.k.martin@nasa.gov, sumara.m.thompson-king@nasa.gov, rebecca.l.lee@nasa.gov, tom.cremins-1@nasa.gov

http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimatologists/Articles/2017/09/08/Bridenstine_Climate_Scientists_Are_Not_Noble_Stop_Paying_Them/index.html