Friday, January 19, 2018



NYT’s botched ‘hidden climate change report’ story makes Trump’s top 10 “fake news” events of 2017

Donald Trump’s Fake News Awards List
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover.
2. ABC News’ Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral with false report.

Thursday, January 18, 2018

                     ALL  THE  NEWS  THAT  TRUMP  CAN'T  USE

The production and dissemination of fake news has a long history. Procopius, the Byzantine historian of the sixth century, churned out dubious histories, known as Anecdota, which he kept secret until his death in order to smear the reputation of Justinian after publicly lionizing the emperor. In 1588 the Fugger newsletter, often called the first global news service, mistakenly reported the victory of the Spanish Armada. In eighteenth-century France, the most popular genre published was the “canard,” a version of fake news hawked on the streets of Paris.
As Lewis H. Lapham writes in an introduction to this special issue, “All news is fake in the elementary sense of fabricated artifact, like Diet Pepsi and Ivory soap. Not what happened yesterday; a story about what happened yesterday.”
Lapham’s Quarterly special issue “Fake News” features thirty extracts guiding readers through this history, from Plato and Procopius to H.L. Mencken and Hannah Arendt.
The issue also features reproductions of paintings, sculpture, and photography; infographics; and essays by Amanda RobbCaroline AlexanderPaul Maliszewski, and Robert Darnton.

Monday, January 15, 2018

                  FOR  A  PRESIDENTIAL  PARDON  TODAY !

A lot of people I talk to assume you have to be incredibly intelligent in order to be highly successful. I’m living proof that you don’t.                                      --  DAN PENA

Sunday, January 14, 2018

                                  BARE  RUINED  CHOIRS


Historic German Church Demolished as Mosques Multiply Across the Country

The 19th century Church of St Lambertus in Immerath, Germany, has been torn down despite public protests, as mosques and Islamic centres multiply across the country.

The huge building, which was “notable for its double towers and neo-Romanesque design”, according to the Catholic Herald, was demolished by the RWE mining company to make way for an opencast lignite mine.
St Lambertus and the farming village surrounding it was bought out by RWE some years ago, with the church being formally deconsecrated in 2013.




Mike Rowe  schools  a  woman  who  labels  him  an "anti-education, science doubting ultra-right wing conservative"

Professional Lab Rat, 
occasional spokesman,
perpetual narrator,
frustrated writer,
erstwhile producer,
inveterate procrastinator,
bloody do-gooder.
Anthony Watts / 1 hour ago
This is great. Mike Rowe, of “Dirty Jobs” does a weekly podcast/Facebook posting called “How I Heard It”.  His “Off the Wall” segments are always enlightening, because, Rowe dishes out some of his characteristic common sense by answering a question or comment from a fan, or in some cases, someone who isn’t a fan at all. I get some of those same kinds of emails he does.
In his latest “Off the Wall” Facebook posting, Rowe replied to a comment made by a woman named “Rebecca Bright”. Bright says she is a fan of the show “How the Universe Works,” which Rowe does the voice over work for, but suggested Rowe to get fired from narrating the show because, according to her, he’s apparently one of those “science deniers” that we often hear about from the left. Although the show was about black holes and galaxies, Mike even managed to work in global warming as an example of why she’s wrong. Here’s the complaint and the response from his Facebook page:
Rebecca Bright writes…
“I love the show How the Universe Works, but I’m lost on how the producers and the Science Channel can allow anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative Mike Rowe to narrate the show. There are countless scientists that should be hired for that, or actors, if you must, that believe in education and science that would sound great narrating the show, example: Morgan Freeman. Cancel this fools contract and get any of your scientists so often on the show to narrate it.”
Well hi there, Rebecca. How’s it going?
First of all, I’m glad you like the show. “How the Universe Works” is a terrific documentary series that I’ve had the pleasure of narrating for the last six seasons. I thought this week’s premiere was especially good. It was called, “Are Black Holes Real?” If you didn’t see it, spoiler alert….no one knows!!!
It’s true. The existence of Black Holes has never been proven. Some cosmologists are now convinced they don’t exist at all, and the race to prove their actuality has become pretty intense... 


Papua Islanders flee worsening eruption

The remote island volcano of Kadovar spews ash into the sky in Papua New Guinea, January 6, 2018Image copyrightREUTERS
Image captionAbout 1,500 people are being evacuated from islands off Papua New Guinea, where a long-dormant volcano has started erupting, the Red Cross says.

Witnesses on Blup Blup, to the north of Kadovar island, reported a large explosion from the volcano on Friday and a fiery red glow coming from the summit. Scientists later detected large amounts of toxic sulphur dioxide emitting from the volcano.
PNG Red Cross Secretary General told Reuters news agency that funds had been made available to help evacuees move to the mainland.
"The people there, as the volcano erupted, they rushed immediately to escape. So they are in immediate need of food, water, shelter and clothing as well," he said.
A dome of lava could be seen on Kadovar, scientists at the Rabaul Volcanological Observatory said, adding that steam clouds were rising to 600m (1,969ft).
Volcanologists say there are no confirmed records of a previous large-scale eruption on Kadovar.

Saturday, January 13, 2018

                           WHAT  A  SWELL  PLANET  IT  IS !

Science 12 Jan 2018: Vol. 359, Issue 6372, pp. 199-201
Exposed subsurface ice sheets in the Martian mid-latitudes

Colin M. Dundas1,*, Ali M. Bramson2, Lujendra Ojha3, James J. Wray4, Michael T. Mellon5, Shane Byrne2, Alfred S. McEwen2, Nathaniel E. Putzig6, Donna Viola2,
Sarah Sutton2, Erin Clark2, John W. Holt7

Reading the Red Planet

By RUSSELL SEITZ       Updated March 11, 2005 12:01 a.m. ET

In 1880, a myopic Harvard graduate was almost killed galloping headlong into the captain of an opposing polo team. Given a telescope to gaze through as a convalescent pastime, Percival Lowell soon thought that he saw not just canals on Mars but greenery. He devoted himself to astronomy and founded an eponymous observatory in Flagstaff, Ariz.
But much of what he sketched of Mars others could neither see nor photograph. In 1976 NASA's Viking Lander revealed a panorama of desolation -- a world seemingly as dead as Lowell's reputation. Yet science often beggars fiction. A generation later, a whiff of embalming fluid may herald the discovery of life on Mars.
Ice Floes
Last year, a flood of purple prose about water as the cradle of life on the Red Planet flowed from the Opportunity probe's discovery that Mars's saline sands were once as damp as the underside of a walrus. This year, a satellite orbiting the planet has found evidence of an equator once carpeted by ice floes and a recently active geyser. Things have gotten a lot more colorful too. Beyond hematite blueberries and green vitriol on the surface, the spectrum of the Martian atmosphere shows inklings of organic complexity.
Earthbound telescopes have found more than inklings. There is, it now appears, formaldehyde along with methane -- i.e., coal gas -- in Mars's tenuous air. This is a big deal because they exist in equilibrium, a discovery rich with vital implications. Oxygen and sunlight turn methane into the deadly preservative, but because Mars lacks an ozone layer, the pungent formaldehyde molecules are soon zapped out of existence by ultraviolet rays. The solar wind is blasting methane off the top of the Martian stratosphere, too, so the megatons of formaldehyde in the Martian air imply a constant infusion of fresh methane.
So what? Some geophysicists insist that methane on Earth arises from inorganic sources (e.g., carbide minerals), not just from life (either end of a cow) and its decay (coal). But unlike the tectonically vigorous Earth, Mars's effete geology lacks a crustal conveyor belt to exhume gases from its depths. Absent such upheaval, Occam's razor cuts in: The alternative methane source is life.
Ah, life on Mars! We've heard that one before. Few other potential tourist destinations have offered so wide a range of speculation. Edgar Rice Burroughs, better known for Tarzan, tipped his hat to Trollope by portraying Mars as hunt country, where Confederate veteran John Carter encounters not little green men but 15-footers with four arms and an attitude. Before long he encounters red, white, and yellow Martians galloping astride eight-legged saber-toothed sloths, pursuing 10-legged foxes and maidens demurely attired in stainless-steel brassieres.
The high-water mark of Hollywood's Saturday serials was Flash Gordon's arrival on the Martian scene. Hot on the heels of Orson Welles's 1938 "War of the Worlds" broadcast came "Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars," whose hero kept fit by wrestling an octopus in the aquarium of Ming the Merciless, an art deco eco-terrorist who set the stage for Michael Crichton's latest technothriller by changing Earth's climate with a Nitron raygun. America loved it, and Cole Porter soon had Bing Crosby crooning: "Have you heard, it's in the stars, / Next July we collide with Mars?"
Porter was off by 35 years, but eventually collide we did -- more space probes have crashed on Mars than landed. NASA's past failures to fish up Martian life may be due to random bad luck with landing sites -- one mile off a Palm Springs fairway, after all, and the landscape seems as sterile as Death Valley. Magnification matters, too. It's hard to overlook a cavalry of giant sloth, but bacteria are seriously small and often tucked into unattractive places.
It makes one wonder what we may have missed. Bits of Mars are occasionally flung to Earth by impacting asteroids, ending up as the meteorites called shergottites. Reports of tiny fossils in one of them have not panned out, but the rocks match the isotopic composition of Mars so exactly that few doubt that they have been whacked into the inner solar system like golf balls of the gods. Plain-vanilla physics likewise dictates that bits of Earth have hit the Martian fairways over the eons too. One day, Earthmen on Mars may trip over alien-looking rocks from home.
This is less peculiar than it sounds. Deep space is a hostile place, but precisely because it's cold out there, cosmic rays and the solar wind can take a long time to sterilize things flying through it. What if a hypervelocity impact on Earth sent not bits of dead dinosaur but some mineral-encased spores clear to Mars?
If anything earthly got to Mars alive, it can have done only one of three things: lived long, prospered or died. If hardy critters from Earth's ecological skid row landed in Martian brine 10 or 10,000 eons ago -- bacteria that thrive in acid hot springs, for instance, or Antarctic frost heaves -- it's bad news for Carl Sagan fans today. What will become of funding for the SETI project -- searching for extraterrestrial intelligence -- if we meet the aliens and they is us? Or us is them?
It would be nice to have some evidence either way. A few strenuous years could see the dispatch of some purpose-built probes to solve the conundrum. Recent Mars-destined instruments have focused not on life but on rocks, and you can't do molecular biology with a geologist's pick. NASA needs money enough to send several robots (in case one crashes as usual) carrying not Viking's Edsel-vintage life detectors but 21st-century mass spectrometers, biochips and glimmerings of artificial intelligence to run them.
If this little fleet sniffs a shift in the light and heavy isotopes in the air, or notices DNA in whatever damp cavern it can drill into, it's even money that we will have to get used to having neighbors. But don't get your hopes up, B-movie fans. The odds against Martians sacking Grover's Mills, N.J. -- à la Orson Welles -- remain, well, astronomical. Think slime and you won't be disappointed.
Full Bandwidth, Please
In 1969, the Eagle landed on the moon in pathetic black and white after rising in thunder and flame like 9/11 run backward. Mars deserves better. This time, the taxpaying audience should demand NASA's full bandwidth and the eye-popping resolution of an IMAX camera. For if we encounter anything not of this Earth on Mars, its image will begin a new and endless iconic dynasty. You can only be alone in the same universe once

Thursday, January 11, 2018


While the creative souls at New Scientist prophesy 

a high-tech Apocalypse on the Plain of Armageddon: 

10 January 2018 

A  swarm of home-made drones has bombed a Russian airbase

An artist's rendition of a swarm of drones

An artist’s rendition of a swarm of drones

iStock/Getty Images Plus

On the night of 5 January and into the early hours of the next day, Russian forces in Syria came under attack by a “massive application of unmanned aerial vehicles”, says the Russian Ministry of Defence. It is the first announced use of a swarm of drones in a military action, but is unlikely to be the last.
According to reports, 13 small drones descended on Russian forces, but none did significant damage. Seven were destroyed by anti-aircraft defences and the others were brought down using electronic countermeasures to hijack or jam the drone’s controls and land them intact.
The captured aircraft seem crudely made, with a wooden undercarriage and plastic sheeting, powered by a small liquid-fuel engine. Under their wings, the drones carried several locally made bombs fitted with 3D printed plastic fins.

The Russians in Syria have been defining the threat the old fashioned way, 

by knocking it down & taking its rather disappointing picture:

Wednesday, January 10, 2018



Australia's Heat Wave

 Fries Bats' Brains,

 Hundreds Found Dead

VANESSA ROMO  January 10, 20186:07 PM ET

Hundreds of fur-covered flying fox bats, which lack sufficient canopy cover and shade in Australia's suburbs, died outside Sydney over the weekend as temperatures soared to 117 degrees F, the hottest it's been since 1939. 
The Camden Advertiser reports as of Monday, 204 dead bats — mostly babies — whose brains had boiled had been collected in Campbelltown. In addition to the bat pups found dead on the ground, several hundred more remained unreachable in the trees, according to Help Save the Wildlife and Bushlands in Campbelltown, the group that organized the rescue and body c0llection effort. 

"I don't know how many times I bent down and got on my knees to pick up a dead baby," Kate Ryan, identified as the colony manager, told the newspaper. Mrs Ryan said due to climate change, there was not much that could be done to prevent a similar incident ...

“The creek which runs through the colony is putrid so the bats don’t have anywhere to cool down and there is no ground cover. It (the site) needs a total regeneration.

“(Campbelltown) Council need the funds (for regeneration) but if the government don’t want to provide the funds, there is not much the council can do about it.”

There are four species of flying fox bats in Australia and all are susceptible to extreme heat. Although they've adapted to warm temperatures, the fruit-eating creatures have trouble regulating their body temperature when the weather goes above 104 degrees F. Baby bats are in even greater danger because they can't regulate their bodies as well as adults, and they often die of dehydration while adults find refuge on higher tree branches.

"They basically boil," Ryan explained. "It affects their brain — their brain just fries and they become incoherent." 

Tuesday, January 9, 2018


Jimmy Swaggart Ministries and the
SonLife Broadcasting Network, 
Global Warming 
When Global Warming is mentioned in a Drawbridge Blog, we mean it within the context of the following: 

The Earth's temperature is not subject to the activities on the surface of the globe. In other words, humans can do nothing to make Earth cooler or warmer. Global temperatures do fluctuate up and down but such changes are totally within God's hands and mere mortals can do nothing to effect Earth's temperature one way or the other.
The first four words in the Bible are In The Beginning God. So what God did in the beginning, He will continue to do according to His good pleasure. God created Earth for the benefit of humans. He placed animal life and plant life here for our sustenance and comfort.  
He designed humans and animals to breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Conversely, plant life breathes in carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen. 
This is God's master plan and nothing Al Gore and his kind do can change it one iota. Divine simpatico.  
The notion of selling or rationing carbon units is straight out of a con man's "a sucker is born every minute" play book. In other words, selling carbon units is nothing but a massive carnival hoax! 
Those who traffic in such drivel should be discredited and turned over to the justice system as soon as we get a real Attorney General.
Conservation, recycling, and striving for clean air and water are worthy goals and have no cause and effect relationship with global warming.

Clean [green] Energy 
There is no doubting the fact that our Sun is the most awesome source of power in our universe. The Sun has enough latent power to heat/cool every building on the globe, with enough power left over to power every passenger and freight conveyance.  
However, God is withholding that knowledge from us for the time being. He may have other uses for the Sun that go beyond human comprehension in this era.  
Meanwhile, we must be content to work with what we have and is within our practical reach. Of course, all efforts to use current sources of power must pass the test of cost/benefit analysis.  
Furthermore, everything must be driven by marketability and not fanatic ideology. 
Converting corn to ethanol is a classic example of failing to pass the cost/benefit test. It may be costing more fuel to convert corn to fuel than we gain in added fuel, while driving up food costs because we are burning so much corn.  
Making more solar panels than we can profitably sell is another example of failing the cost/benefit test.  
The technology doesn't now exist to enable us to get Air Force One off the ground with clean/green energy alone. It may never exist in our lifetime.  
In the meantime, we should content ourselves with carefully reaping the resources God has given us in our land: gas, oil, and coal, while keeping a research eye on such things as wind, tides, geothermal, and solar. 
G. Edwin Lint, BS, ThB, MA, -- Editor

Monday, January 8, 2018

                      PLEASE  DO  NOT  SHOOT  THE  SIDEBAR,
                                   IT'S  ONLY  DOING  ITS  JOB


Open Letter to President Donald Trump

Dear Mr. President:
I am writing you this open letter to ask you for your insights into the “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” agendas behind the international catastrophic human-induced global warming/climate change movement, as discussed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in her 2002 memoire Statecraft.
First, my background: I am a regular contributor to the “World’s most-viewed site on global warming and climate change”, a website called WattsUpWithThat. The topics I normally discuss in my articles include:
  • Climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate,
  • When presented appropriately, climate model outputs clearly show that the climate science community still cannot differentiate between human-induced and naturally occurring global warming, and
  • Since the early 1980s, surface temperature data clearly and strongly suggest that the surfaces of the global oceans warmed in response to naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes, not as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.
In my recently published short story Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier?: A Short Story That’s Right for The Times, I discussed those topics, and I also presented a topic that’s new to me: the politics behind the international global warming/climate change movement appear to be based on agendas that have no relationship to global warming or climate change.
For the political aspects of my short story, I relied on numerous lengthy quotes from Margaret Thatcher’s memoire Statecraft that were included under the heading of HOT AIR AND GLOBAL WARMING.
The following are two of those quotes from Thatcher’s Statecraft.
The first paragraph under the heading of HOT AIR AND GLOBAL WARMING reads (my boldface):
The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.

As one of the characters in my short story says in response to the highlighted last sentence, “‘Worldwide, supra-national socialism’? That would fly like a lead balloon here in the States.”
Also, next is a paragraph written by the Iron Lady in Statecraft that you may find interesting, in light of your withdrawal from the subsequent Paris Agreement (my boldface):
Actually, President Bush was quite right to reject the Kyoto protocol. His predecessor had supported it for international effect, while knowing its provisions made it a dead letter at home: the US Senate had voted unanimously on the matter. The protocol would have placed all the burden for reduction of CO2 on developed countries, while leaving the developing countries — including India and China — to keep producing it at a rapidly growing rate. America’s target for cuts was totally unrealistic — a 7 per cent reduction of overall emissions of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. And all this is before anyone considers the scientific arguments about why and to what extent global warming is occurring. Kyoto was an anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American project which no American leader alert to his country’s national interests could have supported.

If the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher believed the Kyoto Protocol was “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” and that President George W Bush was right to reject it, do you believe the esteemed Prime Minister would have had similar thoughts about the subsequent wealth-distributing Paris Agreement, and that you, Mr. President, were right to reject it, too?
That brings me to my subject question: Has the UN’s Human-Induced Global Warming/Climate Change Movement always been based on International “anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American” Agendas?
I am very interested your views on these matters.
In closing, I thought of you many times, Mr. President, while writing Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier?
Most Respectfully,


Open Letter to Jon Stewart – The Daily Show

Posted on January 17, 2014 by Bob Tisdale
Date: Friday January 17, 2014
Subject: “The Global Warming Hoax” and “War on Carbon” Clips
From: Bob Tisdale
To: Jon Stewart
Dear Jon:
I am an independent climate researcher and regular contributor at the award-winning science blog WattsUpWithThat. I am also the author of three ebooks on global warming, climate change and the poor performance of climate models. I am writing to you about your January 6, 2014 episode (full episode here) of The Daily Show. It began with “The Global Warming Hoax” and “War on Carbon” clips, which ran consecutively when aired.
First, let me say that I applaud you and your staff for making The Daily Show a massively entertaining political satire. I enjoy the show thoroughly.
During your January 6th episode, however, you expressed beliefs in climate models and in the climate science community…the human-induced global warming wing thereof. Unfortunately, the climate models used to hindcast past climate and to project future climate are so flawed that they are not fit for their intended purposes. And the climate science community under the direction of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has specialized in only one aspect of global warming, which is why the models perform so poorly. I’ll provide evidence for those statements in the following, including data and peer-reviewed scientific studies.
For most people, their understanding of climate science comes from the time around 2006-2007 when there was a lot of interest in global warming and climate change. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was getting press and the IPCC and Al Gore were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Things have changed drastically since then. Specialists in many fields of climate science are now writing papers about model failings, and they’re not small problems. They’re fatal flaws. Skeptics have become much better at presenting and illustrating those model failures, too, and describing why they’re important. And there has been a flood of peer-reviewed papers over the past two years, in which climate scientists are trying to explain the hiatus in global warming—with limited success and limited agreement; that is, there’s no consensus on the cause of the pause. Examples are discussed in the very recent Nature article Climate Change: The Case of the Missing Heat by Jeff Tollefson. Those scientists wouldn’t be writing those papers if the climate models had anticipated the current cessation of global surface temperature warming. Unfortunately, with the IPCC’s focus on manmade greenhouse gases, climate scientists still do not know how to model nature’s handiwork. More on this later.

You presented a clip of Dan Weiss of the Center for American Progress who said:
If 97 doctors told you that that lump on your lung was something to worry about, and 3 scientists — er, doctors — told you not to worry about it, are you going to listen to the 97, or the 3? Sounds like you might listen to the 3, which would be sad.
(Quotes from the DailyKos transcript here.)
That argument has been used a lot recently.
You were right to point out the error in the logic of the response to it, which was to the effect of climate scientists are paid to… But the reality of the situation is something altogether different.
The climate science community has specialized in only one aspect of global warming and climate change, and as a result, they have overlooked other major contributors.
I’ve addressed this problem previously in two open letters—one to George Clooney and your associate Lewis Black here, and one to the Executive Producers of the upcoming ShowTime series Years of Living Dangerously here. As I wrote to Black and Clooney:
The climate science community, under the direction of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), has only been tasked with determining whether manmade factors, primarily carbon dioxide, could be responsible for the recent bout of global warming, and what the future might bring if the real world responds to projected increases in manmade greenhouse gases in ways that are similar to climate models. They were not asked to determine if naturally caused, sunlight-fueled processes could have caused the global warming over the past 30 years, or to determine the contribution of those natural factors in the future—thus all of the scrambling by climate scientists who are now trying to explain the hiatus in global warming. Refer to the IPCC’s History webpage (my boldface):
Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation…”
It is not the IPCC’s role to understand the scientific basis for naturally caused climate change, which the Earth has experienced all along. As a result, even after decades of modeling efforts, climate models still cannot simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that contribute to global warming or stop it. So a “doctors” example falls flat because it relies on experts whose understandings of climate are extremely limited in scope.
The response to “97 doctors” argument should have been: “Would you see a podiatrist or proctologist for that lump on your lung?”
The climate science community now understands the problems caused by limiting their research to the increased emissions of manmade greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.
The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) is concerned about the IPCC’s focus. See their document titled Submission by The Netherlands on the future of the IPCC. Under the heading of “The IPCC needs to adjust its principles”, KNMI begins:
We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human-induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change.
This failure to properly account for natural factors also led a former lead author of IPCC reports (Kevin Trenberth of NCAR) to remark in David Appell’s 2013 article “W(h)ither global warming? Has global warming slowed down?
“One of the things emerging from several lines is that the IPCC has not paid enough attention to natural variability, on several time scales,” he [Dr. Trenberth] says, especially El Niños and La Niñas, the Pacific Ocean phenomena that are not yet captured by climate models, and the longer term Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which have cycle lengths of about 60 years.
To put that into more basic terms: There are naturally occurring multidecadal variations in surface temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere oceans (see the post here), and they were major contributors to the warming experienced since the mid-1970s. Climate models do not simulate those modes of natural variability. To compound the problems, the modelers had tuned their models during the naturally occurring upswings, failing to account for the peaking and downswings in cycles that would eventually occur (and are now occurring). I provided an overview of the potential impact of this in the post Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?
That article by David Appell is also noteworthy, because it provides another example of the lack of consensus on the cause of the cessation of global surface warming. If climate scientists can’t agree on an explanation for why Earth’s surface stopped warming, it casts a lot of doubt on their consensus on the cause of the warming we had experienced from the mid-1970s to about 2000.
You mentioned climate models and peer-reviewed science in your clip, Jon. It appears you may not beaware of this, but there are a number of peer-reviewed papers that are very critical of climate model performance. I presented some of them recently in the postQuestions Policymakers Should Be Asking Climate Scientists Who Receive Government Funding. Those papers served as references for the following questions, which all began with a common phrase:
After decades of climate modeling efforts…
  • …why does the current generation of climate models simulate global surface temperatures more poorly than the prior generation?
  • …why can’t climate models properly simulate sea ice losses in the Arctic Ocean or sea ice gains in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica?
  • …why can’t climate models properly simulate atmospheric responses to explosive volcanic eruptions?
  • …why do climate models continue to poorly simulate precipitation and drought?
  • …why can’t climate models simulate multidecadal variations in sea surface temperatures?
  • …why can’t climate models simulate the basic processes that drive El Niño and La Niña events?
In that post (linked again here), I quoted portions of the peer-reviewed papers that supported those questions and I translated the science-speak into language that is more readily understood by readers who aren’t intimate with climate science.
If you’re a visual person, Jon, over the past year I’ve presented a series of blog posts that illustrated and discussed many climate model failings, and for those posts, I’ve presented the average of all of the outputs of the current generation of climate models stored in an archive used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. Climate-related data and climate model outputs are available online to the public, in easy-to-use formats, through the web tool called Climate Explorer from KNMI (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute). I have also published posts that provide Step-By-Step Instructions for Creating a Climate-Related Model-Data Comparison Graph and a Very Basic Introduction To The KNMI Climate Explorer. It’s a relatively easy process. In fact, many middle school students could replicate my graphs. Some of the posts that illustrate the many flaws in climate models are linked below by subject. Basically, climate models do not properly simulate:
Those posts and other examples are collected in my ebook Climate Models Fail, which is available in pdf and Amazon Kindle editions. Refer to the introduction here.
Back to your January 6th episode. You played a clip of Fox News’s Eric Bolling stating:
I gotta tell you, I think these scientists are laughing from their lavish laboratories, and their vacations up at the Arctic, in their nice boats that are well-equipped.
While first showing a image of an ice field and then showing a photo of the Akademic Shokalskiy caught in sea ice (screen cap below), you replied:
This Arctic? This lavish boat?
Lavish Boat - The Daily ShowA minor problem: That “lavish boat” was not in the Arctic. The AkademicShokalskiy, one of the “Adventure Class” tour boats from Southern Explorations, was caught in the sea ice of the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica. And it was just after the start of the Southern Hemisphere summer a few weeks ago. Tours on that ship are not inexpensive. Rates range from “$5,720 to $21,590 per person”. The Mark Steyn: Global warming’s glorious ship of fools article at TheSpectator is a very humorous overview of the fiasco involving the Spirit of Mawson researchers, their families, tourists and reporters getting stuck in the sea ice…and the international rescue efforts. On the more technical side, Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit has documented the sea ice conditions leading to the debacle, including where the data contradicts the claims made by the lead researcher. See Steve’s post Ship of Fools. Recall also that climate models simulate that sea ice should be decreasing in the Southern Ocean, but it has increased in area since 1979.
Early in the show, Jon, you mentioned weather extremes (my boldface):
There you have it. War on Christmas is over, the War on Carbon begins. Global warming, just one more liberal conspiracy. Because even though there is a great deal of scientific data establishing climate trends, even though many of the models of global warming predict more extremes of weather — not just warming — apparently decades of peer-reviewed scientific study can be, like a ficus plant, destroyed in one cold weekend.
As presented earlier, climate models are flawed, likely to the point that they are not fit for purpose.
Data from the real world present an entirely different picture of extreme weather events. In my Open Letter to the Executive Producers of the Years of Living Dangerously, (also linked earlier) I included graphs of data from the testimony of Roger Pielke, Jr. at the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment held on December 11, 2013: A Factual Look at the Relationship Between Climate and Weather. So please click on the link above to Dr. Pielke Jr’s testimony for graphs of the data. The following are the take-home points from his testimony, points that are supported by data (my boldface):
  • Globally, weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%).
  • Insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.
  • Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900.
  • There are no significant trends (up or down) in global tropical cyclone landfalls since 1970 (when data allows for a comprehensive perspective), or in the overall number of tropical cyclones.
  • Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950.
  • Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.
  • Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.
  • Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.”
I also addressed sea levels and Hurricane Sandy in that Years of Living Dangerouslyarticle.
Let’s return to climate models: how poorly they simulate global surface temperatures. The following graphs are very easy to understand. They are model-data comparisons of global surface temperatures for the past 3+ decades. The start time is dictated by the use of satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data. The graph on the right compares global land air surface temperature data with climate model simulations of it. The models performed reasonably well on a global basis when simulating land surface air temperatures. Before we move to the graph on the left, you have to understand that the vast majority of the rise of land surface air temperatures in the real world is in response to the warming of the surfaces of the oceans. Land surface air temperatures mimic and exaggerate the variations in the surface temperatures of the oceans. Now, the graph on the left compares global sea surface temperature data with climate model simulations. The models doubled the rate of warming of the surface temperatures of the global oceans for the past 3+ decades. Doubled. That, in and of itself, is horrendous. Now consider that the modelers had to double the rate of warming of the surfaces of the oceans in order to get the land surface air temperatures near to where they needed to be.
(Click to enlarge.)
I’m sure you’ve heard of the global warming hiatus, the pause, etc. I presented the following in a post that I linked earlier, but it should be repeated. Recently, there have been two very enlightening peer-reviewed studies on the topic of the recent cessation of the warming of global surface temperatures. The first is Von Storch, et al. (2013) “Can Climate Models Explain the Recent Stagnation in Global Warming?” They stated:
However, for the 15-year trend interval corresponding to the latest observation period 1998-2012, only 2% of the 62 CMIP5 and less than 1% of the 189 CMIP3 trend computations are as low as or lower than the observed trend. Applying the standard 5% statistical critical value, we conclude that the model projections are inconsistent with the recent observed global warming over the period 1998- 2012.
According to Von Storch, et al. (2013), both recent generations of climate models (CMIP3 used by the IPCC for their 2007 4th Assessment Report, and CMIP5 used by the IPCC for their recent 5th Assessment Report) cannot explain the recent slowdown in global surface warming. The models show continued global surface warming, while observations do not.
The second paper is Fyfe et al. (2013) “Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.” Fyfe et al. (2013) write, requiring no translation from science-speak:
The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years.
Looking at this realistically, if the climate models cannot explain the current slowdown or halt in global surface warming, then they cannot be used to explain the warming that had occurred from the mid-1970s to the late-1990s. In turn, they have little value as tools for making predictions of future climate. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the sad reality of the state of climate science today.
In closing, Jon, when people imagine climate models, maybe it’s best to think of early generations of CGI (computer generated imagery). A decade or two ago, we’d go to the movies and be amazed at the images on the big screen. And we probably thought some of the video games at that time were also impressive. Looking back at them now, they look hokey.
Climate models used by the IPCC for hindcasting and projections of future climate are at the hokey-looking phase of development. And the more you investigate them, the hokier they look.
Jon, if you have any questions, please feel free to leave a comment on any thread at my blog Climate Observations.
Bob Tisdale
PS: If you should know of a comedian who’s tired of the tripe we’ve been seeing from the catastrophic manmade global warming wing of the climate science community, please let them know I’m looking for a co-author for my next book. Working title: The Oceans Ate My Global Warming. I’m looking for someone to help make it fun to read.