More failed prophecy. BOM bombs out again
The BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) is Australia's great temple of the global warming faith
Climate is the sum of weather so big failures to predict the weather cast great doubt on predictions about the climate. The forecast for Eastern Australia below issued last Friday is a case in point. It was headed:
"Antarctic blast begins to bite: Heavy snow falls in southern states, 90km/h blizzards set to batter NSW and drivers urged to stay off the roads as temperatures plummet to lowest in 15 YEARS"
In fact: At mid-afternoon in Brisbane on Saturday it was 22 degrees Celsius (70F)! And late on Sunday afternoon it was 20 degrees Celsius. Some people call 70F the ideal temperature.
And the "soaking" predicted for Brisbane did not happen either. There were a few light showers on Saturday and a fine day on Sunday
It appears that there was some unusual cold weather in some parts of the Southeast but if a comprehensive forecast can not be made for just the Southeast of Australia, how likely is a forecast for the whole planet to be accurate?
Emergency services are on high alert as the Antarctic blast is beginning to hit the southern and eastern coast of Australia and people have been warned to batten down the hatches ahead of the worst of the storms overnight and into Sunday.
Damaging 'blizzard intensity' winds of 90km/h in NSW are causing havoc across NSW, and snow is also falling in South Australia and Victoria as conditions worsen.
NSW Police has appealed for all drivers to take extra care on the roads, as thousands of families return home after the school holidays. The warning calls for people to avoid 'risky behaviour'.
A State Emergency Service spokeswoman told Daily Mail Australia people should avoid travel all together if possible, as roads become potentially deadly in 'icy conditions'.
It also advised people to move cars undercover, put away or secure loose items at home and be aware of falling trees and power lines.
The freezing front began to roll across the country on Friday afternoon, delivering conditions not seen in 15 years, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
Temperatures are expected to fall to zero or below across large parts of Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania, with bitterly cold winds and hail also forecast. Snow is predicted to reach as far north as Queensland, after already falling across Victoria, South Australia and NSW.
The snow spread is forecast to reach further north than it has since 2000.
Sydney and Melbourne can expect average low temperatures of 8 degrees for the weekend, while Canberra will be hit with a freezing 4 - but it could feel as cold as -1 due to the wind chill.
Brisbane will likely end the weekend soaked, with heavy rain predicted across most of the state, in addition to potential snow in areas of higher-elevation.
Leftist site praises global warming memo from the Nixon era
A combination of deception and false prophecy: Quintessential Green/Leftism
Are the Global Warming hoaxers so desperate they’re pushing stuff that actually discredits their movement? That’s the only rationale I could find for the morons at Talking Points Memo pushing this comical and stupid memo from 1969 to Richard Nixon:
They prattle on and on about what “could have been” if only Nixon had listened to the memo:
Moynihan, then, wrote to Ehrlichman as an ally rather than an opponent.
Acknowledging that there was as yet no accurate way to measure carbon in the atmosphere, Moynihan nevertheless suggested: “this very clearly is a problem…one that can seize the imagination of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change.” Ever the technocrat, Moynihan then explained how carbon dioxide could change the climate, warning that, if left unchecked, it might “raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye to New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.” He suggested that “fairly mammoth man-made efforts” could “countervail the CO2 rise. (E.g., stop burning fossil fuels.)”
Here’s what they cut out – this was the prediction for 2000 – FIFTEEN YEARS AGO!
Ohhhh you conveniently skipped that part didn’t you TPM? LOL!
What a bunch of maroons!
‘Climate scientists’ are psychologically fragile
That’s not me saying that. It’s New York Magazine:
"Every year brings a new batch of data regarding the progression and likely effects of climate change, and the results are almost always worse than previous models had predicted. In fact, they’re frankly terrifying: rapid and accelerating deterioration of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets that will yield massive sea-level rise and submerge coastal cities; paralyzing drought on continental interiors that will lead to Dust Bowl–style famine; and incredibly powerful floods and storms that happen more frequently — five times as often now, in fact, as in the 1970s.
Most of the worst predicted outcomes will occur down the road. In the meantime, though, the people making these predictions — climate scientists — are dealing with a heavy psychological toll, as a piece in Esquire by John H. Richardson points out. They are living, as Richardson puts it, a “surreal existence.”
One psychologist who works with climate scientists told Richardson they suffer from “pre-traumatic stress,” the overwhelming sense of anger, panic, and “obsessive-intrusive thoughts” that results when your work every day is to chart a planetary future that looks increasingly apocalyptic. Some climatologists merely report depression and feelings of hopelessness. Others, resigned to our shared fate, have written what amount to survival guides for a sort of Mad Max dystopian future where civilization has broken down under the pressures of resource scarcity and habitat erosion"
The article goes on to quote some notable “climate scientists” and the meany pants treatment they have received in their roles as latter day Jeremiahs and Cassandras.
Michael Mann, renowned as the Jerry Sandusky of Climate Change, snivels about alleged mean words directed at him. Never mind that he conspired to foist of fraudulent data on the world in order to destroy peoples lives and livelihoods for no greater reason than masturbatory release for the amusement of his colleagues. Some chick named after a cheese, Camille Parmesan, whined that Rick Perry removed her analysis of Galveston Bay from a report throwing her into ‘professional depression.’
There are two reasons that they are depressed. It isn’t Weltanschauung or Weltschmerz or one of those other cool German words we associate with really smart people or mental illness. The sociopaths among them see the government grant dollars gravy train drying up as it becomes increasingly obvious that your pet cockatoo tossing heads-or-tails is at least as accurate as any climate model currently in existence.
“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.”
Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990
“We have 500 days – not a day more – to avoid a climate disaster. We must face up to climate disruption, climate chaos. The scientists, several of whom are present here, have said it: ‘you’d have to be blind not to see it’”
M. Laurent Fabius, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development, 14 May 2014 about France hosting the major climate conference in December 2015.
On July 5, 1989, Noel Brown, then the director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming — “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”
as reported in The Washington Times, 21 Apr 2014
The planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist. Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint. Australians – among the world’s biggest producers of carbon dioxide – were “better placed than others to do something about it”, she said.
The professor said even if all the world stopped producing carbon dioxide immediately, temperature increases of 1.3C were unavoidable. If the earth’s temperature rose 2C, she warned, there would be risks that were “difficult and dangerous”.
Herald Sun, December 04, 2009
You get the drift.
The handful of normal people involved in ‘climate change’ research are right to have anxiety. The have a conscience. They know what they are doing is wrong. They know they are running a scam. The made a Faustian bargain in order to advance their careers and now they see that their 10-year career plan includes a stint a Arby’s.
Amusing! "New Scientist" has given up on scientists. Says artists are more authoritative on global warming
THIS may not be popular. At least not in a magazine like this. But here goes: scientists should take a back seat from now on in public discussions on climate change.
It's not that the science doesn't matter. But the heavy lifting has been done. The Nobel prize has been won. We know enough to act. And those who persist in believing that global warming is a myth are unlikely to be convinced by another dose of data.
What we need are other ways of thinking about our climate future that do not have science centre-stage. Too often, the issue gets pigeon-holed as something for researchers to sort out, with everyone else marginalised. To change that, we need to hear a lot more from artists and lawyers, priests and playwrights, economists and engineers, moralists and financiers, and a lot less from the lab.
Two recent interventions have shown the power of broadening the canvas. The pope's encyclical on climate change on 18 June didn't say anything new scientifically. But it used a different language. It raised the ethical stakes, and challenged the often-conservative religious world to step up as stewards of the planet. And for that reason it made headlines worldwide.
A week later, a court in the Netherlands broke new ground by ordering the Dutch government to do more to fight climate change – rising seas pose a particular threat to this low-lying country. The legal challenge had been brought on behalf of 900 citizens. Courts in other countries will hear similar class actions from those whose lives are blighted by climate change.
The divestment movement is gaining strength. It empowers ordinary citizens, who have little say on global greenhouse gas emissions. It gives us a realistic prospect of forcing our university, pension fund or bank to ditch coal or oil investments. The movement works because it shifts the focus away from complex issues and towards simple moral and financial choices.
But we need to hear more from non-scientists. We await the great play, movie or novel on climate change. Something to stir the soul, like John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath did during the US Dust Bowl era. The right artistic contribution could be much more powerful than another report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Of course, climate science must continue. But in public, the dominance of scientists on almost every platform where our climatic future is discussed has become an impediment to progress – stifling rather than encouraging debate.
Scientists have long been told to engage with the public on the great issues of the day. But maybe on this issue, it is time to shut up and let others take the floor.
Research & Commentary: EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Report
The combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, commonly known collectively as “fracking,” has transformed the energy outlook of the United States by unlocking vast oil and natural gas resources from source rocks that were previously uneconomic to develop. Fracking has made the United States the largest producer of natural gas in the world, and crude oil production has increased by 80 percent, nearly doubling, since 2008. Growing oil and natural gas development has helped spark an economic boom in oil- and gas- rich regions of the United States.
Environmental activists, including Josh Fox, director of the movie Gasland, nevertheless continue to assert fracking has contaminated drinking water resources. An exhaustive report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found these claims are not supported by the scientific evidence.
EPA’s report, which took more than five years to complete and is widely considered to be the most exhaustive research to date on the subject of hydraulic fracturing, found no evidence that horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, or other activities related to oil and natural gas development have had any systemic effect on drinking water resources in the United States.
EPA concluded the number of identified cases where drinking water resources were affected is very small considering the number of hydraulically fractured wells. Moreover, current standards and regulations mitigate the risk of environmental damage while maximizing the economic and national security benefits of dramatically increasing domestic energy production.
Policymakers at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels, industry representatives, and the public can use this report to understand and address any vulnerability of drinking water resources to hydraulic fracturing. The report’s conclusions demonstrate state regulatory bodies across the nation have enacted sufficiently protective standards to ensure responsible energy development while protecting the environment. The study also demonstrates the ban enacted by New York state is unnecessary, overly restrictive, and not based on the best-available scientific evidence.
Joe Bastardi: An Open Question to Our Universities on AGW: What if You Are Wrong?
No climate program in the nation that I can find is teaching anything but the "party line" on global warming. Perhaps they are right, though if the forecasts made by computer modeling (as shown below) were graded like any college exam (if you said one thing was the answer and it turned out it was wrong), then I would expect the professor to grade it as being wrong. I assume college courses are still graded based on correct answers.
In my world it comes down to this: The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) take the global temperatures with the most accurate information available and the finest gridding every 6 hours. The trends can easily be seen — the warming that was shown *by all* measuring tools through the late '90s and the recent downturn or even slight cooling over the past 10 years.
Of particular interest are the past two El Niños, which had “spikes” in '07 and '10. But the downturns that followed wound up lower than before the spike. Also of interest is this question: Why would the NCEP come up with a global temperature that does not support the idea that the earth is still currently warming as a recent NOAA press release implied? Here is why the coming five years are huge: If, as I believe, the coming El Niño spike is followed by a bigger downturn, will the universities, lined up solidly in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) camp, admit there is a problem? The current El Niño excitement is similar to the that of the great El Niño of 1997-1998. Many on the AGW side are opining this will lead to a “step up” to a new plateau. And they certainly have a point here, in my opinion. If there is a “readjustment” up — and the chart below shows this nicely — then it will silence me for one.
But I am curious, given the constant drumbeat that comes from government, media, academia and, most recently, papal authority and immense investments: Is there any way out for the other side that will not ruin them completely? I asked this question in my article, “Can an AGW Climatologist Be Truly Objective?”
There is so much behind this movement, I really can’t see any way the people driving it can possibly back away. As for me, it’s simple. This El Niño and the three years that follow with objective global temperature recordings will answer it for me.
In a world spinning out of control, we are asked to believe that global warming is the biggest threat to mankind. I ask people of goodwill that don’t see things my way to ask themselves this question: What would it take for you to at least have doubt (that should be natural in any future event) and to change your position? I even wrote on that: “Is There Anything in the Global Warming Debate That Would Convince Me I’m Wrong?”
Perhaps there is hope. Dr. Ivar Giaever, a real Nobel Prize-winning physicist and former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (and also a supporter of President Obama), said this: “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.” He added, “I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.” You can listen to the speech here.
To know for certain one is right, one has to also know for certain what would prove one wrong. Only by that kind of open-mindedness can one really search for the truth.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here