Tuesday, June 02, 2020

NASA climate scientist: ‘Race justice & climate justice are one & the same: Oppressive extractive plutocracies that colonize & kill black bodies & colonize & kill our planet are one & the same’

A genuine nut.  The very sweeping linking of disparate phenomena is very similar to schizophrenic thought-disorder.  What he is talking about seems identifiable but only by way of an interpretive act on the part of the readrer.  What, for instance, are "oppressive extractive plutocracies"?  It is not a normal category of some subset of reality but, if anything, it probably means mining companies.  And it is true that mining does occasionally lead to deaths.  

But how are mining companies "Killing" the planet?  They do not do that so once again we have to add our own meaning to make any sense of it.  His writing is just about as alien from normal scientific discourse as one could imagine. There are no defined entities.  All one can get from it is an impressions of diffuse anger

A NASA Jet Propulsion Lab climate scientist has linked race and climate issues during the racial protests sweeping the nation. NASA’s Peter Kalmus wrote:

“Here’s why race justice and climate justice are one & the same: The oppressive extractive plutocracies that colonize and kill black bodies and colonize and kill our planet are one and the same.”

Kalmus (peter.m.kalmus@jpl.nasa.gov) was responding to the protests and riots springing up across the country in the wake of allegations of racism in law enforcement. Kalmus added: “They’d literally rather have a race war than charge even one cop for murdering an innocent black man.”

Kalmus website describes himself as “a climate scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab. I use satellite data and models to study the rapidly changing Earth, focusing on boundary layer clouds and ecological forecasting.”

“My awareness of climate breakdown reached the point where I had no choice but to respond in some meaningful way,” Kalmus writes at his website. “Global warming is happening with a rapidity that leaves me speechless,” he explained. Kalmus’ claims he “uses about 1/10th the fossil fuels of the American average.” Kalmus is a member of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union.

In his 2018 article, “Thoughts on Climate Action From a Scientist Who Gave Up Flying,” Kalmus wrote of how “tears poured down” when he thought about the calamity of man-made climate change.

“In order to embrace what’s coming next, I had to let go of what went before. My grief was like the leap of a trapeze artist, letting go of one trapeze, flying through space, and catching the next one. There were times when tears poured down. I mourned the world I’d known my whole life. I mourned my children’s future. I mourned how avoidable this all was. I mourned the strange and hard reality, and I mourned waking up. I mourned every blow struck in anger, and I mourned every bullet fired. I mourned all the species that are leaving us, never to return. I mourned this whole beautiful Earth. But then, through these tears, I accepted reality as it is. Somehow, on the far side of the tears, I found the strength to go forward.”

Kalmus envisioned a climate-friendly world where “there is no war, no crime, hatred, or negativity.” [Yeah, right!]


Alarmist queen Hayhoe takedown by Friends of Science

If Greta Thunberg is an alarmist princess then Katherine Hayhoe is the queen of climate alarmism, at least in the U.S. and Canada. She was the de facto spokesperson for the atrocious third National Climate Assessment. After that she started doing bogus “Here’s what is going to happen to you” climate studies for various states and cities. Making big bucks scaring people.

Last year Hayhoe delivered a doomsday forecast to the Province of Alberta, Canada, and here our story begins. Alberta is home to the Friends of Science Society (FOSS), one of Canada’s top skeptical organizations. FOSS has now produced a 77 page takedown report, shredding Hayhoe’s so-called study in detail. It is an elegant critical work, with implications far beyond Canada.

The topic is technical but it is written for policy makers. The plain English table of contents gives the flavor and shows the scope, with 37 succinct chapters. There are even chapters titled “What is “Climate Change”?” and “What is a Climate Model?” In the same vein Hayhoe’s report is arrogantly titled “Alberta’s Climate Future” so the FOSS takedown is “Facts versus Fortune Telling”.

There are lots of data issues, especially since the Hayhoe report uses truncated trends. The FOSS rebuttal does a lot of longer term analysis.

Another big issue is that the Hayhoe report is based on so-called “downscaling” of hot climate models. This means taking huge crude regional results and interpolating questionable local details. Hayhoe bills herself as an “atmospheric scientist” but her Ph.D. work was on downscaling, which is just computer science. It is fitting that she is now in a university Political Science department, as her work is certainly political.

What Hayhoe ignores is the fact that different global climate models give wildly different regional projections. I recall when the first U.S. National Climate Assessment came out; it used two major models, the Canadian and the British Hadley. For the North Central region one projected a 160% increase in rainfall, while the other gave a 60% decrease. Swamp or desert! Obviously this junk is no good for policy making.

Here is the Friends of Science condensed summary:

“This review shows how Hayhoe & Stoner misinform, how they did not use all available information, how they cultivate alarm regarding Black Swan events, while ignoring counter trends and evidence of cycles. Their report style demonstrates a false, absolute certainty, of knowledge, where due qualification of assumptions and other influences can alter results as reported. Facts and evidence, not fortune-telling, should guide public policy on climate and energy.”

Here are some more specific and telling FOSS findings:

“Hayhoe & Stoner’s “Alberta’s Climate Future” report fails in a number of ways. The report ignores climate cycles and instead forecasts continuing linear temperature increases based on global climate models, even when local trends may be quite different. The report only addresses trends from 1950, ignoring much warmer conditions in the past in the Province.”

“More concerning, “Alberta’s Climate Future” is based on the use of unreasonably unlikely scenarios, such as Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5. This computer simulation is a very extreme projection of the future where the world goes back to using more than five times the coal than is used today. Most mainstream scientists believe the RCP8.5 scenario to be a critically flawed benchmark for forecasting future climate.”

“Hayhoe & Stoner make bold and unverified statements such as: “extreme high and low temperatures are projected to increase exponentially” without justification. The report creates alarm with discredited references to natural “Black Swan” events, ascribing human caused climate change as the driver of floods and fires.”

There is a great deal more criticism, which is worth looking at. FOSS really does a job on Queen Hayhoe’s so-called research.

The Friends of Science takedown is a model for critical analysis of alarmist pseudoscientific hype. The deeply flawed Hayhoe report is not unusual. On the contrary it is typical of climate alarmism — computer based, on selected data, presenting speculative scary conclusions as facts.


No, Climate Change Is NOT Making Trees Shorter

Among the top Google News results this morning for “climate change” is a National Public Radio (NPR) article with the headline, “Climate Change and Deforestation Mean Earth’s Trees Are Younger and Shorter.” The article’s title and desired message to casual Internet surfers is that warmer temperatures stunt tree height and make trees shorter. In reality, the article merely (mis)reports on a study asserting that deforestation is resulting in younger forests with trees that have yet to reach their full height. Fashion NPR’s fake tree-height scare as click-bait misrepresenting sound science.

As scientists have repeatedly documented, more atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming are assisting trees grow taller and more rapidly. NPR references an article in Science finding that a variety of factors are putting pressure on old-growth forests worldwide. These factors include logging, clear-cutting, and land-use changes. After deforestation removes disproportionately old-growth forests, the remaining trees and forests tend to be younger. Younger forests don’t have as many very tall trees as older forests. Thus, the authors of the Science article claimed deforestation leads to younger forests, in which tree size will be shorter than fully mature trees in older forests.

The authors of the Science study noted this, while asserting that climate change may be causing an increase in forest fires. Drought is the climate factor that would impact forest fires, yet objective data and even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report there is no documented evidence that climate change in increasing the frequency or severity of drought. In fact, as documented in Climate at a Glance: Drought, objective data show a decline in drought as our planet modestly warms.

Accordingly, the only asserted link between climate change and forest fires – drought – does not exist. Even if such a link did exist, the result would be that climate change hypothetically causes more forest fires, not that climate change is making trees shorter.

Shame on you, NPR, for deliberately misrepresenting scientific facts.


The Reassuring Facts About The Climate In 2019

2019 saw the continuation of many climate trends, most of them unalarming and even reassuring. That’s the conclusion of a new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

According to the author, Professor Ole Humlum, although there has been a gentle warming in the last 40 years, storm activity is unchanged and snow cover remains stable. And while sea ice has declined, much of this may be natural variation.

“This report focuses on empirical observations and not on climate modelling speculations, says Professor Humlum. “We should therefore be greatly reassured by what these data are telling us”.

Professor Humlum also points out that new data on rising ocean temperatures raise interesting questions about the source of the heat.

“We can detect a great deal of heat rising from the bottom of the oceans. This obviously cannot be anything to do with human activity. So although people say the oceans are warming, in reality there is still much to learn.”

And Professor Humlum points out that where there is ignorance, it is always wise to be cautious.

“We have learned in recent months about the potentially high cost of leaping to conclusions. We must take more care in our response to small changes in the climate.”


No comments: