Category Archives: Climate Change

Tropical Storms: Strength and Frequency


Am currently having a conversation regarding the positions of our political candidates hold.  For example, Ben Carson questions evolution – a nuanced debate not meant for this post – and I countered that there are real live breathing human beings that believe tropical storms are increasing both in number and in strength.  The constraints of social media being what they are I am going to make my case here and then post there.

First, the question of frequency.  From the scientists:


Above is the frequency of All Hurricanes [top line] and then Major Hurricanes [bottom line].  It’s clear that the frequency of all hurricanes has been on a downward slope since 1997 or so.  And before that they were steady going back to 1986’ish.  While it’s true that the frequency did rise from the period 1973 through 1987, those years represented a diminished number from the recent high seen in 1971 or 1972.  And major hurricanes?  They too have seen a reduction in number from 2002 to present day.

As for force:


We’re near recent lows.  As recently as 2010 through 2013 we’ve been lower than any time since 1975.  True, there are high peaks as recent as 2006, but the most recent decadal trend is down.

Finally data on the frequency not just of hurricanes but  of all tropical storms:


Here any sense of trend vanishes – or rather, the trend is one of remarkable consistency.

In conclusion – there is absolutely no evidence to sustain the concept that tropical storms are increasing in numbers or power.

2015 Hurricane Season


President Obama has said that global warming is a threat:

“No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” said Obama in his State of the Union speech Tuesday.


So what do we have to worry about as the tropical storm season quickly approaches North Carolina?  After all, global warming causes bigger and more powerful storms:

The hard truth is carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now.  And even if we Americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for some time to come.  The seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more severe, based on the science.

Well, the predictions are in:

— The 2015 Atlantic hurricane season will be significantly less active than average, researchers at North Carolina State University said Monday.

Lian Xie, a professor of marine, earth and atmospheric sciences at N.C. State, forecasts four to six named storms forming in the Atlantic basin, which includes the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. The average number of named storms since 1950 has been about 11.

Of the 2015 named storms, one to three may grow strong enough to become hurricanes, and only one may become a major hurricane, Xie said.

Not exactly consistent with the good president’s words.

Ahh, but…Mr. Obama used the phrase ‘based on science’.  What has the science been on the power of storms recently?

ACE.2015.04Down.  Way down.

Global Warming Requires A Warming Globe

Global Warming

I am open to the fact that the world may be warming.  I would expect that spaceship earth experiences many climate  trends defined by a global cooling or a global warming.  Further, I’m sure that this has been the case since the dawn of earth’s existence.  We’ve seen ice ages and tropical conditions shape the globe for ages.

I’m sure that it’s possible the globe is warming over time.

However, it doesn’t seem to have been warming in the recent time measured by science:

Global Warming.NoneFrom ClimateDepot:

According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for April 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult too convince skeptics that man is significantly contributing to the changing climate.

Global Warming Truth

Global Warming

Global Warming – Climate Change And The Lie

Talk to liberal and let the topic move to global warming.  Or climate change.  Whatever, and then try to dispute their argument.  Immediately you’ll get hit with the fact that you don’t believe in science, that you’re a denier or a member of the flat earth society.


Try it.

But then ask them what they mean when they make claims of “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”.  More than likely you’ll be met by nothing but blank stares and no satisfying answer.

The Earth Is Warming And Other Facts

If you can  begin to deconstruct the argument or debate to facts, the lens clarifies to a degree:

  1. The earth is warming
  2. CO2 is being added to the atmosphere
  3. Humans contribute to that addition
  4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
  5. Greenhouse gases contribute to a warming planet

All this is true.  But so much is missing.  And so much of THAT is dismissed by alarmists.

Until now:

In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.

After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5oC. This compares with a low of about 12oC during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22oC during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5oC over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57oC during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2oC rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.

If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.


Global Warming And Forest Fires

Global Warming Polar Bear

Given the fact that we are experiencing Global Warming absent any warming in the last 15 years, it’s no surprise that “NPR Staff” totally missed this:

It has been a deadly year for the people who fight wildfires. In total, 32 people have lost their lives fighting fires in 2013; the highest number in nearly 20 years, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Just one incident accounts for most of those deaths, the Yarnell Hill fire in Arizona. In June, the blaze blasted through a firefighting crew known as the Granite Mountain Hotshots; .

As people move farther into wildland areas and climate change turns landscapes into tinder, experts say the wildfire danger around the country will likely only grow. But there may be a lesson to learn from how the U.S. stifled an earlier fire crisis in urban settings.

For the benefit of NPR Staff’s readers, here’s the stats:

Forest Fire Trend

Both the number of fires and of acres burnt are trending down.

You would think that information should have made it into the article.


Climate Modeling vs Climate Reality

Climate Model Predictions

The next time you are faced with a Global Warming Alarmist – dare I say I repeat myself- you may ask them if they have evidence that would suggest their models are accurately reflecting reality.

The chart above from Dr. Roy Spencer via CoyoteBlog suggests that the models are off.

As Coyote mentions:

The warming from manmade CO2 without positive feedbacks would be about 1.3C per doubling of CO2 concentrations, a fraction of the 3-10C predicted by these climate models.  If the climate, like most other long-term stable natural systems, is dominated by negative feedbacks, the sensitivity would be likely less than 1C.  Either way, the resulting predicted warming from manmade CO2 over the rest of this century would likely be less than 1 degree C.

Don’t fall for the trap the Left will try to spring on you – namely accusing you of denying climate change.  Certainly the climate is changing.  And certainly:

  1. Green house gases cause warming that might not otherwise have taken place
  2. CO2 is a green house gas
  3. Man has added to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
  4. It is reasonable to assume that man has warmed the earth to a level that it might not otherwise have been at

It’s not global warming that I deny, it’s the Alarmist nature of the disciples of the religion that I disagree with.

Introductions And Climate Change

Global Warming.Polar Bear

I have found a great new liberal voice, writer and thinker.  Further, he’s local.  Professor Steve Greene is a Political Science prof here at NC State University.  I firmly believe that the boys at PYM and the good Professor Scott Erb will find Steve’s insights, hopefully here, and at his own place, to be interesting and enjoyable.

I hope to see Steve here often.  Even if he’s wrong 😉

Anyway, while over at Steve’s place I saw one of his posts on climate change.  In it, I was reminded of a story that I’ve had in my stack for some time now.

Which is that global warming has stopped over the last 10-15 years:

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

Economist.climate change.1

I think it’s important to point out that this gets to the skeptic’s whole point.  That while the science that suggests higher levels of CO2 contribute to a warming planet, the positive feedback that is central to the alarmist’s argument is not at all understood or accepted.

The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.

I think that the jury is still out.  I don’t see indications of a catastrophic change that has or is going to occur.  Until then, I think that we need to continue to watch, to observe and accept the fact that perhaps humans only have so much influence on the climate of Mother Earth.


Why It’s Hard Admit To Global Warming

Global Warming.Polar Bear

It’s hard to debate Global Warming.  Or climate change.  Or whatever the word.

It’s hard because you can’t discuss the science any longer without also really find yourself talking about the alarmist’ “cure.”

You wanna talk about the fact that greenhouse gases can increase the temperature?

Wanna discuss the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?  Or that we’ve released more of it than would otherwise have been released?

How about positive feedback and the fact that assumptions regarding them are most likely overstated?

Let’s do that.

But instead we get this:

A Democratic video says 240 House members “voted in 2011 that climate change was a ‘hoax.’ ” Not exactly. The 2011 vote was ultimately a referendum on who should set climate change policy — the Environmental Protection Agency or Congress. It was not a vote on whether climate change is a “hoax.”

Organizing for Action, a nonprofit political group that advocates for President Obama’s policies, unveiled the climate change video on April 25. It is a compilation, for the most part, of Republicans talking dismissively about climate change. One clip shows Rep. John Boehner, who was minority leader at the time, downplaying the environmental harm caused by carbon dioxide — noting that it is emitted by humans exhaling and cows “doing what they do.” We corrected some of the misstatements Boehner made in that 2009 TV interview in a piece titled “Hot Air on ‘This Week.’ ”

But the Democratic video goes too far in its text and images when it says, “Number of House members who voted in 2011 that climate change was a ‘hoax’: 240.” That is immediately followed by a video clip of GOP Rep. Paul Broun calling climate change a “hoax” in a floor speech — which implies that Broun was speaking on the 2011 legislation mentioned in the video.

We asked OFA about that 2011 vote. We were referred to an April 6, 2011, vote on a Democratic amendment to a GOP-backed bill that would have prohibited the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. The amendment, which was defeated 184-240, did not use the word “hoax.” Broun did not speak on the amendment during the debate, and, in fact, none of the Republicans who spoke against it called climate change a “hoax.”

Also, not all of the 240 who voted against it were Republicans; three were Democrats.

The full text of the amendment, which was sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman of California, reads: “Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.”

We’re not going to have a serious debate on this topic anytime soon.  And we certainly aren’t going to see any meaningful legislation as long as this kinda nonsense continues to continue.

Global Warming: Heat Islands?

Global Warming.Polar Bear

One of the problems with the global warming argument is that the methods of measuring temperatures aren’t accurate; they fail to take into account non-green house gas types of warming.

For example blue bird filled meadow is much cooler than the parking lot that replaces it.  This is neatly demonstrated by a local Graduate student:

Raleigh, N.C. — Research by a North Carolina State University graduate student has pinpointed Raleigh’s hottest locations, and she says they could be problematic for some area trees.

Emily Meineke, who is studying entomology, is examining the effect of temperatures on scale insects, parasites that feed on trees and plants. She placed small thermometers in trees throughout Raleigh and used their readings to produce a map of so-called “heat islands,” areas that stayed warmer longer.

Meineke said roads, parking lots and buildings “trap heat during the day and release that heat during the night time,” producing the heat islands. The temperature differences can be huge, she said.

“In some places, the air temperature is about 10 degrees hotter,” she said.

Indeed.  Concrete runways are warmer than pastures.  Sadly, science fails our young heroine:

The problem could spread to trees in rural areas and forests as the overall climate warms, she said.

Totally disregarding her research that shows warming may not be due to green house gases at all…

Catastrophic Global Warming Summed Up

Global warming.  Which means not that the planet is warming, rather that we are facing catastrophic consequences unless we tax the buffalo on the nickel till it chokes.

Global warming.

The vehicle to bring us all sorts of “solutions” that have nothing to do with the end of days.

Global warming.

The cause of asteroids:

The stupid knows no bounds.