Category Archives: Climate

As Groundwater Dwindles, a Global Food Shock Looms

Rising temperatures and growing demands for thirsty grains like rice and wheat could drain much of the world’s groundwater in the next few decades, new research warns.

Nearly half of our food comes from the warm, dry parts of the planet, where excessive groundwater pumping to irrigate crops is rapidly shrinking the porous underground reservoirs called aquifers. Vast swaths of India, Pakistan, southern Europe, and the western United States could face depleted aquifers by midcentury, a recent study finds — taking a bite out of the food supply and leaving as many as 1.8 billion people without access to this crucial source of fresh water.

Sponsored Ads

As Groundwater Dwindles, a Global Food Shock Looms

My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic – WSJ

“My research was attacked by thought police in journalism, activist groups funded by billionaires and even the White House.”

Or look at the journalists who helped push me out of FiveThirtyEight. My first article there, in 2014, was based on the consensus of the IPCC and peer-reviewed research. I pointed out that the global cost of disasters was increasing at a rate slower than GDP growth, which is very good news. Disasters still occur, but their economic and human effect is smaller than in the past. It’s not terribly complicated.

That article prompted an intense media campaign to have me fired. Writers at Slate, Salon, the New Republic, the New York Times, the Guardian and others piled on.

In March of 2014, FiveThirtyEight editor Mike Wilson demoted me from staff writer to freelancer. A few months later I chose to leave the site after it became clear it wouldn’t publish me. The mob celebrated. ClimateTruth.org, founded by former Center for American Progress staffer Brad Johnson, and advised by Penn State’s Michael Mann, called my departure a “victory for climate truth.” The Center for American Progress promised its donor Mr. Steyer more of the same.

My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic – WSJ

Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case – YouTube

Published on Feb 20, 2013

By Dr. David M.W. Evans

“We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention…”

https://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skep…

Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web – http://www.freedomainradio.com

Donations gratefully accepted at http://www.fdrurl.com/donate

Dr. David M.W. Evans consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case – YouTube

Deep-sixing another useless climate myth | Watts Up With That?

The vaunted “97% consensus” on dangerous manmade global warming is just more malarkey

by Dr. David R. Legates

By now, virtually everyone has heard that “97% of scientists agree: Climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.” Even if you weren’t one of his 31 million followers who received this tweet from President Obama, you most assuredly have seen it repeated everywhere as scientific fact.

The correct representation is “yes,” “some,” and “no.” Yes, climate change is real. There has never been a period in Earth’s history when the climate has not changed somewhere, in one way or another.

People can and do have some influence on our climate. For example, downtown areas are warmer than the surrounding countryside, and large-scale human development can affect air and moisture flow. But humans are by no means the only source of climate change. The Pleistocene ice ages, Little Ice Age and monster hurricanes throughout history underscore our trivial influence compared to natural forces.

As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact. Mile-high rivers of ice burying half of North America and Europe were disastrous for everything in their path, as they would be today. Likewise for the plummeting global temperatures that accompanied them. An era of more frequent and intense hurricanes would also be calamitous; but actual weather records do not show this.

It would be far more deadly to implement restrictive energy policies that condemn billions to continued life without affordable electricity – or to lower living standards in developed countries – in a vain attempt to control the world’s climate. ..

Deep-sixing another useless climate myth | Watts Up With That?

The Left Is Embracing Orwellian Policies to Go After ‘Climate Deniers’

Just when we thought liberalism can’t get any more authoritarian, the Obama administration reminds us that it can.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently confirmed that she had “referred” the “matter” of whether climate change “deniers” should be brought to court on racketeering charges to the FBI.

Yes, that’s right. If you happen to disagree with the administration’s views of global warming, you could face a civil suit accusing you of fraud and corruption.

This represents a breathtaking corruption of the law. Laws designed to catch mafia figures on corruption charges could be twisted to punish Americans whose only crime is to contest the Obama administration’s view of climate change.

The Left Is Embracing Orwellian Policies to Go After ‘Climate Deniers’

Does anybody deny the climate? No, there is no one who denies there is climate or that climate changes. The only thing being denied is that people are the primary cause of global warming. And by extension there is no man-made solution to the global warming problem.

What are the climate Flat-Earthers doing to save the planet and to lead us all into the promised land? Are they cutting their energy usage by significantly downsizing? Did they get rid of their cars and are now biking to work? Did they lose the jet? Did they jettison the mansion? No, they did not. They are just sitting around complaining while doing nothing personally to lead the way. The climate Flat-Earthers are hypocrites at best.

The goal of the climate Flat-Earthers is to sit around complaining until they can get other people’s money to redistribute to third world countries.

Increasingly, the left will slowly squeeze all the citizens of the US until there is only one way to think. It’s not that the right is wrong. It’s that the right is evil and stupid. The right is a plague across the land. The right must be crushed with all means available. If you want to know the future then just look at US universities today. Freedom is already being crushed at most universities in the US.

BBC News – Geo-engineering: Climate fixes ‘could harm billions’

Schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for billions of people, but might be required for the good of the planet, scientists say. That is the conclusion of a new set of studies into what’s become known as geo-engineering. This is the so far unproven science of intervening in the climate to bring down temperatures. These projects work by, for example, shading the Earth from the Sun or soaking up carbon dioxide.

BBC News – Geo-engineering: Climate fixes ‘could harm billions’

For those that recommend these kind of cockamamie schemes, there never seems to be a price for failure. Perhaps a firing squad should be the price here.

Scientists stunned to find Antarctica sea ice much thicker than thought | Science Recorder

Findings of thicker sea ice near Antarctica are causing scientists to scratch their heads.

The ice paradox has already been a puzzling one for researchers who believe global warming risks melting sea ice and causing water levels to rise worldwide. Sea ice has been growing each year, bucking conventional wisdom, but now there’s even more confusing results: an underwater robot has found that sea ice is also much thicker than previously though, according to Discovery News.

Climate models suggests that sea ice should actually be shrinking due to a rise in global temperatures, largely believed to be due to humanity’s output of carbon dioxide particularly in the last century.

However, satellites observations show that the ice is actually expanding, setting new records the last three years. Antarctica’s land-based ice sheet, meanwhile, is melting.

Climate scientists hope to use measurements of sea ice thickness to help explain why the sea ice is growing. They want to know if the thickening is happening underwater as well.

Scientists stunned to find Antarctica sea ice much thicker than thought | Science Recorder

The climate models got it wrong again. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Come From? | The Daily Caller

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

Queensland’s legal fight with Schollenberger comes while UK news outlets are reporting that one of the world’s top scientific journals rejected a study from five climate scientists for political reasons.

The UK Times reported that a reviewer with the journal Environmental Research Letters rejected the study because it was “harmful” to the climate cause because it “opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate skeptics media side.”

Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Come From? | The Daily Caller

Scientists Label White House Climate Report ‘Pseudoscience’ | The Daily Caller

Climate scientists have said the White House’s National Climate Assessment (NCA) resembles pseudoscience more than actual science.

The National Climate Data Center released its third NCA on Tuesday, which warns of an ever-worsening environment and extreme temperature rises due to man-made carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. But it has been panned in some quarters.

Michaels and Knappenberger also pointed out that the measure of climate sensitivity used by the report is 40 percent higher than what more recent scientific literature points to. Climate sensitivity is the measure of how much warming would occur if carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were doubled. The current literature puts that number at about 1.5 degrees Celsius, but the government used estimates from the United Nations’ 2007 climate report putting climate sensitivity at 2 degrees Celsius to 3.3 degrees Celsius.

“It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Pielke said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”
 

Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong | The Daily Caller

Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong | The Daily Caller

As a modeler myself, I know that when you take a model outside of its calibration zone, then you are asking for trouble. Generally, the problem is one of crudely modeling the basic process and using modeling parameters to compensate. This works well within a range, but breaks outside of that range. Any competent modeler would warn about this danger. Apparently, climate modelers have not warned about this problem.