There are numerous stories in the media about “Declining Arctic Sea Ice Extent.” This post is the story of what I found when I started looking into the specifics cited in some of those stories.
With a background in geology and as an operational meteorologist with 30 years in research and development, at the outset I became suspicious when periods of record cited as ‘lines of evidence’ were well short of the characteristic 60-year time period of naturally occurring weather events which influence my locale, New Mexico. The 60-year weather cycles which dominate North America are the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation for temperatures, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation for rainfall, especially in the Mountain West of the USA, more of which is described here.
Suggestions from some CASF members to introduce visitors to the non-problem of catastrophic, human-caused, CO2-fueled “Global Warming” ( since the warming of the 1980s and 1990s stopped about 1998, the name needed to be changed to “Climate Change” ) have led us to a new feature, “New Visitors” short for, “New Visitors Start Here.”
The idea is to provide a short introductory paragraph (or two) and a series of links to take new visitors on a tour of many of the false claims of imminent climate catastrophe through links to short topics which demonstrate this folly. Our use of fossil fuels is causing an increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, CO2 for short, but an elementary knowledge of high school chemistry, biology, general science and mathematics shows that the Continue reading “Another Feature for CASF, “New Visitors.””
[Note: This post is based on a presentation by Bernie McCune given at the 16 March 2019 meeting of the Cruces Atmospheric Sciences Forum in Las Cruces, NM. Ed.]
It has been 40 years this year since the Charney Report was published with a number of proposals for what CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere from human sources would likely do to global surface temperatures or so-called anthropogenic global warming. Similarly, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed about that same time to determine the effects of human activity on global temperature.
Over the next few decades a large number of models (at least 73) were developed to show what these effects might be and terms for the models were devised.
Las Cruces is home to New Mexico State University, New Mexico’s Land-Grant college. When I attended my first of the NMSU Climate Change Education Seminar Series presentations, I found that it’s funded by Climate Alarmist Senator Tom Udall, (D-NM). A news release announced the 6 Feb 2019 lecture guest presenter was Katharine Hayhoe, from Texas Tech.
I had previously istened to Dr. Hayhoe on NPR’s broadcast of The Commonwealth Club, supposedly non-partisan, anything but, and
heavy into the gloom and doom climate alarmist narrative, as I previously noted here.
The topic for her 6 Feb 2019 lecture was, “Barriers to Public Acceptance of Climate Science, Impacts, and Solutions.”
Katharine Hayhoe presents an earnest, wholesome, almost rural and folksy image such as this one from the Guardian, showing smiling Katharine with the windmill in the background.
[Ed. Dr. Roy Spencer wrote a post (22 March 2018) disagreeing with Lord Monckton’s theory that climate scientists have over-estimated feedback by a factor of 2, because they have been using the feedback equations incorrectly. Dr. Spencer agrees with the factor of 2 error, but he disagrees with the reason given by Lord Monckton. In response, Lord Monckton has countered Dr. Spencer’s argument with a post of his own on Spencer’s blog. The original Spencer post can be found here with Lord Monckton’s counter argument here.]
A recent article by Lord Christopher Monckton over at WUWT argues that there has been an “elementary error of physics” that has led to climate sensitivity being overestimated by about a factor of 2.
I agree with the conclusion but not the reason why. It is already known from the work of Otto et al. (2013), Lewis & Curry (2015) and others that the climate system (including the deep oceans) has warmed by an amount that suggests a climate sensitivity only about half of what the models produce (AR5 models warm by an average of 3.4 deg. C in response to a doubling of CO2).
But the potential reasons why are many, and as far as I can tell not dependent upon Christopher’s arguments. For those who don’t know, Lord Monckton is a pretty talented mathematician. However, like others I have encountered over the years, I believe he errs in his assumptions about how the climate research community uses — and does or does not depend upon — the concept of feedback in climate modeling. Continue reading “Climate F-Words”