Climate change

Experts Warn We Have Only 12 Years Left Until They Change The Timeline On Global Warming Again

Heller smites the alarmists in their tracks, yet again—they just can't stop cherry-picking.



Nice little comparison to Bambi at the end, too; alarmists are raised on fictional biology, not factual. If more and more commoners actually knew about the world around them and life on Earth itself; the food chain, climate variability, and so forth, then they would not buy this dastardly scam in the slightest.

Tony Heller has recently uploaded a very detailed video regarding the US climate datasets:



This is, by leagues, amongst Heller's best materials to date; i.e. strong accentuation on the mathematical formula(s) of the datasets, likewise revealing the blatant contradictions of which NOAA and NASA have made over time since 1999—a long video, but extremely detailed and on-point, comprising the Time of Observation Bias (TOB) adjustments as well.

Especially for AJ1013 and trolik AKA our resident Dust Bowl Deniers and/or Historical Climate Deniers.

Courtesy of Joanne Nova; joannenova.com.au/2019/08/how-many-silent-skeptics-are-there-at-noaa-dr-rex-fleming-speaks-out-after-years-of-working-there/

How many silent skeptics are there at NOAA? Dr. Rex Fleming speaks out after years of working there

Dr. Rex Fleming has a PhD in Meteorology and spent years at NOAA, as he said involved with climate research from the beginning, and responsible for funding scientists who “pushed” the theory of man-made global warming. He’s written a book called The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change (2019) and has just done a podcast with James Delingpole.

When David Evans first spoke out as a skeptic we were contacted by someone inside NOAA who said there were many skeptics there, but none of them could speak. We know there are others out there, still silent.

h.t Climate Depot

My rough notes: Dr Fleming did a PhD in uncertainty in climate and was involved in something called “The weather experiment in 1979.”. He talks about “people who fiddled with the data — ocean data, atmospheric data..”, and about how they “won’t admit they put their temperature sensors too close to cities.”

James Delingpole asks what motivates these researchers and Fleming replies along the lines of soft corruption, how people just want to keep the funds coming in. That people are just not willing to fight it. He repeats that Under Obama they would get sacked. So people don’t speak up until the retire. (@ 7 minutes)

A large part of the problem are the science organisations. Fleming talks about how there are three scientific organisations in the USA which will not allow discussion from any skeptical point of view and he points the finger at: American Meteorology Society (AMS), American Geophysical Union — AGU, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science — AAAS (which publishes “Science” supposedly one of the prestigious science journals in the world).

They will not support a “denier”, I could not get published.

Fleming talks about the missing hot spot (which I do harp on about). Obviously he also recognizes the key importance of that model failure.

I was a bit surprised he seems to think that most of the recent changes in the climate are due to the solar magnetic field changes and cosmic rays. 13 mins (Svensmark). While I think that is a real effect I just don’t see how it is the major or sole driver from the Sun. I thought he would mention the solar wind, or spectral changes, or at least leave the door open to other solar drivers. During the last magnetic field reversal on Earth there is some hint that cosmic rays increased and the world cooled, but it was only by 2 – 3 degrees. The solar effect is much more complex than just the cosmic ray theory, if it were that simple, it would be obvious in the data from the last 100 years.

Fleming talks about the history of the rise of the climate scare and how Margaret Thatcher played a role (17 mins) picked up on this theory because– she had her reasons — to work against the fossil fuel industry. (Coal miners, obviously).

Tom Nelson@tan123
Ex-NOAA bigwig Fleming: “the ‘deniers’ have so much evidence..[the warmists] bring nothing to the table of scientific proof. All they have is hearsay. All they have is media coverage. All they have is government people saying it’s true”. #ClimateBrawl 37:20 …

The book: The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change (2019)

Just another crackpot denier, eh?
Dr. Rex J. Fleming is a mathematician with a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from the U. of Michigan. He has over 50 years of experience as a scientist and manager in weather and climate research. He has published peer reviewed scientific papers from 1971 to 2018. He has represented the Unites States of America at several international science meetings, including as the Chief Delegate at the First United States Ocean Climate Delegation to the People’s Republic of China in 1982. He was awarded the Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award (1980) for outstanding achievement in directing the U.S. role in the Global Weather Experiment (FGGE). He was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (1982) for contributions to atmospheric science. From his retired position as a consultant in the aerospace business he has used his own funds to carry out research on climate issues. He has an important paper on the chaos associated with the large scale instability of the atmosphere and a book on combining the Stochastic Dynamic Equations with the Monte Carlo approach to investigate nonlinear systems in more detail.

HONORS
The Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award (1980) for outstanding achievement in directing U.S. role in Global Weather Experiment (FGGE)
Elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (1982) for contributions to atmospheric science
Elected as a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award (2019)

From the AccuWeather Founder & CEO:

REAL IMPACT OF WEATHER
Throwing cold water on extreme heat hype
By Dr. Joel N. Myers, AccuWeather Founder and CEO
B.S. M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology

8/07/2019, 3:33:39 PM

A story came to my attention recently that merited comment. It appeared in London’s The Telegraph, and was headlined, “Give heat waves names so people take them more seriously, say experts, as Britain braces for hottest day.”

The story’s leaping-off point was a press release from the London School of Economics (LSE), which noted, “A failure by the media to convey the severity of the health risks from heat waves, which are becoming more frequent due to climate change, could undermine efforts to save lives this week as temperatures climb to dangerous levels.”

It added, “So how can the media be persuaded to take the risks of heat waves more seriously? Perhaps it is time ... to give heat waves names [as is done] for winter storms.”

We disagree with some of the points being made.

First, and most important, we warn people all the time in plain language on our apps and on AccuWeather.com about the dangers of extreme heat, as well as all hazards. Furthermore, that is the reason we developed and patented the AccuWeather RealFeel® Temperature and our recently expanded AccuWeather RealFeel® Temperature Guide, to help people maximize their health, safety and comfort when outdoors and prepare and protect themselves from weather extremes. The AccuWeather RealFeel Temperature Guide is the only tool that properly takes into account all atmospheric conditions and translates them into actionable behavior choices for people.

Second, although average temperatures have been higher in recent years, there is no evidence so far that extreme heat waves are becoming more common because of climate change, especially when you consider how many heat waves occurred historically compared to recent history.

New York City has not had a daily high temperature above 100 degrees since 2012, and it has had only five such days since 2002. However, in a previous 18-year span from 1984 through 2001, New York City had nine days at 100 degrees or higher. When the power went out in New York City earlier this month, the temperature didn’t even get to 100 degrees – it was 95, which is not extreme. For comparison, there were 12 days at 95 degrees or higher in 1999 alone.

Kansas City, Missouri, for example, experienced an average of 18.7 days a year at 100 degrees or higher during the 1930s, compared to just 5.5 a year over the last 10 years. And over the last 30 years, Kansas City has averaged only 4.8 days a year at 100 degrees or higher, which is only one-quarter of the frequency of days at 100 degrees or higher in the 1930s.

Here is a fact rarely, if ever, mentioned: 26 of the 50 states set their all-time high temperature records during the 1930s that still stand (some have since been tied). And an additional 11 state all-time high temperature records were set before 1930 and only two states have all-time record high temperatures that were set in the 21st century (South Dakota and South Carolina).

So 37 of the 50 states have an all-time high temperature record not exceeded for more than 75 years. Given these numbers and the decreased frequency of days of 100 degrees or higher, it cannot be said that either the frequency or magnitude of heat waves is more common today.

Not quite scientific but somewhat related anyway...

www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-49295800/we-moved-to-the-forest-to-fight-climate-change

I think they're doing it for good, personal reasons (healthier, less wasteful, and simple rural life) but BBC makes it about fighting climate change when these honest-to-Perkele Finns probably don't quite see it exactly like that. I mean, the guy says switching to solar/wind energy isn't a solution.

nei Sorrowfully wrong; in Australia, too, those bygone eras were much hotter than now—and when I say much, I really do mean it! >50° C readings in the Outback and >45° C readings on the elevated Western Slopes of NSW were not unheard-of, as well as much hotter summer averages and annual mean temperatures at every single inland Australian station with records extending before the 1930's.

And please don't try to discard those old records, because as you should well-know by now, Stevenson Screens were standard in many of the Australian stations c.a. 1887 onwards.

The United States yields the world's most adequate historical temperature record (i.e. rural temperatures), followed by Australia, and they both show drastic cooling; much of the "warming" is at European UHI sites, estimated African regions by which do not even yield data in the first place, entirely computer-modelled ocean temperatures in certain areas (particularly for the Southern Ocean, by which there exists no data)—and if the old record were so "questionable", then why does the IPCC claim "in the past 200 years, around the time of the Industrial Revolution, the global temperature was 1.5° C lower than now"? If even the 1860's-1900's in Australia and the US were "unreliable" accordingly by you lot, then why do you accept the IPCC's estimated, adjusted, fantasy figures? You tell me.

Meanwhile the university heads dine on filet mignon at home. Rest assured.

I would absolutely love for some crushingly devastating storms (hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones) to hit vulnerable areas this season. More damage needs to be created. In fact, I'd love for my area to get blitzed by multi-500mm months, wind storms, and heavy snowfalls, so it's not just me hating on shitty areas like the Philippines or Florida.

Entropy is God.