Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #270

Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project

THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President

Biases in UAH Data? Repeated testing of assumptions, calculations, and models and publicly reporting the results are marks of a rigorous scientific program. The results of such testing are not found in the reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC). Yet, defenders of the IPCC process have criticized the efforts of the Earth Systems Science Center at the University of Alabama, in Huntsville (UAH) for continuing to test their products and publicly report the results.

Using a paper published by the American Meteorological Society (AMS), The Guardian newspaper launched into a criticism on the procedures used and reported by UAH, personally Roy Spencer and John Christy. Spencer and Christy have repeatedly demonstrated that the atmosphere is not warming as projected in the models used by the IPCC and the climate establishment. The greenhouse gas effect occurs in the atmosphere, not on the surface and in the oceans. The atmosphere where the greenhouse effect occurs can be defined as the troposphere, up to 50,000 feet. This is where we should see a greenhouse warming. Yet, the Guardian article avoids these details and states:

“To provide perspective, we know the Earth is warming because we can measure it. Most of the heat (93%) goes into the oceans and we have sensors measuring ocean temperatures that show this. We also know about warming because we have thermometers and other sensors all over the planet measuring the temperature at the surface or in the first few meters of air at the surface.”

The article, written by a professor of thermal sciences, ignores the central issues: based on the best measurements, the earth both warmed and cooled over the 20th century, what is the cause? Surface and ocean data of recent warming do not show cause.

Attempting to buttress his arguments, the writer for The Guardian, uses an article published in an AMS journal, which is paywalled. The abstract is vague. It bounces between stratospheric data and tropospheric data used by three groups: UAH, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), and NOAA’s Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) and concludes: “Any biases in the UAH, RSS, or STAR products would impact the trends calculated for these products and could explain the differences between these trends. Biases in the UAH series would also impact the UAH TLTv6 lower-troposphere product, which is a linear combination of the UAH TMT, tropopause temperature (TTP), and TLS series.”

The abstract implies biases, but does not provide evidence. Adjustments made two decades ago for orbital decay and for minor orbital drift are not relevant for criticism of today’s data. There is an ongoing controversy regarding stratospheric cooling, and its cause. Including the stratospheric data confuses the issue. This illustrates why it is important to define the data range below the stratosphere, say below 50,000 feet, which Christy did in his written testimony. (Some commentators may use below 10 km, (33,000 feet)).

To further buttress his arguments, The Guardian writer presents a graph showing UAH estimates of temperatures from 1995 to 2009. The graph is obsolete because the data now covers 1979 to 2016. The estimates published at the time increase some 0.2 degrees C. Not discussed, is that the early part of the record includes volcanic activity, which cause cooling. Further, no one denies the data shows warming and cooling over the entire record, with a net warming. Using a short part of the entire record is misleading.

Christy and Spencer do not hesitate to publish their findings, even though their findings have been attacked from many sides of the global warming controversy. Nothing can be considered cast in stone, especially the results of remote instrumentation. Instruments can make erroneous measurements, and the readings of instruments must to constantly tested and retested, particularly remote instruments.

For important data, such as comprehensive measurement of global temperatures, the public deserves to be informed. Now, the AMS publishes a paper that considers such rigorous procedures to be a fault? That following such procedures creates a bias? As the public becomes increasingly aware that the IPCC and its followers exaggerate human influence on climate, we can expect more of these attacks. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy.


Quote of the Week. “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” – Sir Fred Hoyle


Number of the Week: 100 times


Antarctic Melting? One vexing problem is explaining why sea level measurements taken by satellites are showing a greater rate of sea level rise than traditional tidal gages in tectonically stable areas. Some of the studies from NOAA and NASA have end of century rise reflecting a rate of rise many times that shown by local tidal gages. One possible explanation described by retired NASA meteorologist Tomas Wysmuller is that satellites have a difficult time calibrating when going from land to coastal waters. A paper published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters suggests another reason for erroneous calibration.

Written by geoscientists, the paper discusses findings from the southernmost Ellsworth Mountains, the highest mountains in Antarctica. The Ellsworth Mountains are west of the Transantarctic Mountains, which are a continental divide between East Antarctica (about two-thirds of the continent) and the smaller West Antarctica, which includes the Antarctic Peninsula. At the edge of the continent, near the start of the Antarctic Peninsula, the Ellsworth Mountains drain into the Weddell Sea and onto the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Particularly interesting to the geoscientists was the age of the rocks exposed above the trimline — a clear line formed on the side of a valley by a glacier and marking the most recent highest extent of the glacier.

The geoscientists reported: “Early estimates of ice mass loss in West Antarctica based on the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite data, assumed a LGM age for the trimline, and thus postulated high estimates of subsequent ice-mass loss over the Ellsworth Mountains (Ivins and James, 2005).” [LGM is Last Glacial Maximum (about 20,000 years ago)].

Yet, using isotopes of Beryllium, Aluminum, and Neon, the authors suggest that, at a minimum, the timline has been exposed for at least 2.1 to 2.6 million years. It may be far older. If the paper is correct, then those with NOAA and NASA who are projecting major sea level rise this century, much of it coming from West Antarctic melt, are simply wrong. Their models use incorrect data and greatly overestimate a sea level rise contribution from Antarctica. See links under Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice


Fred Singer’s Presentation: American Thinker published the summary by SEPP Chairman Fred Singer of his presentation at the Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-12), sponsored by The Heartland Institute. The presentation focused on the inconsistencies in the surface temperature record and the misuse of temperature data by the IPCC. It includes graphs that may be of interest to the readers of TWTW. The presentation was posted on Watts Up With That? See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy


Trump’s Dilemma: President Trump has postponed a decision on whether the US will stay in the Paris Agreement. Those who favor the agreement are using the arguments that staying in will honor international agreements, benefit international businesses, not binding in court, etc. Those opposed are using arguments of keeping campaign promises, it will be binding in court, damaging to the interests of US citizens, etc.

One interesting middle ground suggestion is by Representative Cramer (R. ND). He suggests staying in provided certain conditions are met immediately; if they are not met, then leave. Unfortunately, Cramer cites a memo by a Sierra Club lawyer claiming that any lawsuit arguing that the US was bound by its pledge, or the agreement itself, would not likely prevail court. This is hardly reassuring. Should the opportunity arise, the Sierra Club would be among the first to sue, insisting the pledge and / or agreement is binding.

Seldom discussed, is that the science behind the agreement is failing, that human emissions of CO2 are not causing dangerous global warming. Therefore, the rationale for the agreement is failing. Why build a massive fund to be administrated by the UN? The UN ran the IPCC and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which exaggerated human influence on climate, with projections of great calamities, and minimized natural variation?

Given the failing of the science, the arguments for remaining in the agreement may remind a student of World War I as arguments for European countries entering the war, which became a human tar pit for all sides. The ignorance of the leaders wasted the valor of the soldiers.

The US is a constitutional republic with an elegant solution for deciding Trump’s dilemma and the issues around it. Why treat the agreement as a back-room deal? Submit it to the Senate for approval with a recommendation and a time limit. This would eliminate countless hours of legal bills on whether it is binding. See Article # 1 and links under After Paris! After Paris – Favor Agreement, and After Paris – Oppose Agreement.


Fragile Coral Reefs? With each El Niño, the global warming chorus wails about the death of the coral reefs. These dire predictions are especially strong in Australia. The authors of “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts” demonstrate that “coral bleaching” is a part of the natural processes of coral life. When the water warms, the corals cast off certain algae, giving an appearance called coral bleaching. The corals quickly attract different algae, reestablishing a symbiotic relationship. Similarly, corals adapt when sea level rise or fall. Life adapts.

Writing in the Australian magazine Quadrant, David Mason-Jones challenges the notion that coral reefs are fragile. He brings out seldom recognized events. Eniwetok Atoll was subject to atomic bomb tests, one atoll had an H-bomb test. The corals in the area survived and thrived. Prior to the tests the US Geological Survey drilled into coral, and found remnants of coral as deep as 4550 feet (1380 meters). From the USGS publication at 4528-4553 feet: (Hole F-1):

“Core of limestone, moderately hard, porous, poorly sorted, coarse-grained; made up of Foraminifera and algal debris in a detrital matrix; underlain by limestone with varied assemblage of fossils; algae, Foraminifera, corals, mollusks (Area, Pecten, and molds of Cypraea and minute gastropods), echinoid spines, crustacean fragments; corals and most of mollusks as molds; X-ray analyses showed 100 percent calcite, but thin sections reveal scattered rhombs of dolomite.”

Corals have experienced extensive variations in climate and still find a way to survive. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


Energy Price Caps: Apparently, the government of the United Kingdom is considering a not very novel way of addressing the increasing electricity and energy prices – Energy Price Caps. Implemented by President Nixon and continued under Presidents Ford and Carter, energy price controls were a disaster in the US, and will be in the UK. They caused a sharp drop in production of oil and gas in the US, which helped convinced President Carter that the world would run out of oil by the end of last century, and the US would run out of natural gas. “State-of-the-art” models were built showing this exhaustion of resources.

For the UK, the effort is symbolic, perhaps disastrous, and does not address issue: Renewable energy policies are enormously expensive because politicians ignore the costs of providing the back-up needed for reliable electricity. The promised storage solutions are still “around the corner.” Apparently, the minds of politicians promoting alternative energy become frozen, when the scope of the storage needed is discussed. Fortunately, the US did not enact a bill similar to “The Climate Change Act of 2008”, overwhelmingly approved by Parliament. Perhaps this is what the promoters of the Paris Agreement have in mind. See links under Questioning European Green, Subsidies and Mandates Forever and Energy Issues – Non-US


Energy Game Changes: Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute Mark Mills concludes his three-part series on revolutions in energy. In the previous parts, he discussed the revolution in production from hydraulic fracturing of shale, which will continue to revolutionize the energy world with dramatic increases in productivity. On the consumption side, he discussed information technology, an industrial sector that consumes more energy than aviation and will grow faster than other sectors – including electric cars.

Now, he discusses what can be called “subsidy saturation.” The public is tired of financing, through subsides, alternative energy such as solar and wind which are hitting their technical limits of productivity. More spending will not accomplish major breakthroughs on these technologies. Subsidizing research on new technologies is one thing; but, subsidizing deploying old-technology hardware is something else. Further, the US taxing hydrocarbons will face strong public resistance. See links under Energy Issues – Non-US


Number of the Week: 100 times faster. If the article on the age of the trimline of the Ellsworth Mountains is correct, and the GRACE satellite was calibrated to the maximum extent of the last ice age, then those using the GRACE data may be estimating the melting of West Antarctica to be 100 times faster than what is occurring.




SEPP is conducting its annual vote for the recipient of the coveted trophy, The Jackson, a lump of coal. Readers are asked to nominate and vote for who they think is most deserving, following these criteria:

· The nominee has advanced, or proposes to advance, significant expansion of governmental power, regulation, or control over the public or significant sections of the general economy.

· The nominee does so by declaring such measures are necessary to protect public health, welfare, or the environment.

· The nominee declares that physical science supports such measures.

· The physical science supporting the measures is flimsy at best, and possibly non-existent.

The five past recipients, Lisa Jackson, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Ernest Moniz and John Holdren are not eligible. Generally, the committee that makes the selection prefers a candidate with a national or international presence. The voting will close on July 30. Please send your nominee and a brief reason why the person is qualified for the honor to Ken@SEPP.org. Thank you. The award will be presented at the annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness in August.




Science: Is the Sun Rising?

Link to climate forcing by the sun found by the SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction)

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, May 6, 2017


Link to paper: Climate responses to SATIRE and SIM-based spectral solar forcing in a 3D atmosphere-ocean coupled GCM

By Guoyong Wen, et al, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, Apr 19, 2017


[SEPP Comment: The paper shows different results depending on the model used.]

Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2013


Summary: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2014


Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, NIPCC, Nov 23, 2015


Download with no charge


Challenging the Orthodoxy

Dr. Fred Singer on ‘Global Warming Surprises’

Temp data in dispute can reverse conclusions about human influence on climate.

Guest essay by Dr. Fred Singer, WUWT, May 11, 2017


Why the UN Climate Models Are Inherently Unreliable, and Should Be Abandoned in Favor of More Top-Down Approaches

By Alan Carlin, Carlin Economics and Science, May 11, 2017


CEI and AEA Lead Coalition of Forty Four Free-Market Groups Urging Trump To Withdraw from Paris Climate Agreement

Press Release, CEI, May 6, 2017


Link to pdf of letter: Forty Four Free-Market Groups Urging Trump To Withdraw from Paris Climate Agreement


The Great Barrier Reef Isn’t ‘Fragile’

By David Mason-Jones, Quadrant, May 9, 2017


Link to paper: Drilling Operations on Eniwetok Atoll

By Harry Ladd and Symour Schlanger, Geological Survey Professional Paper 260-Y, US Government Printing Office, 1960


“Those who have made sound-byte alarmism a career-enhancing skill swear blindly that a ‘fragile’ Reef is on its last legs — a condition only lots of additional research grants can remedy. They should study Eniwetok Atoll, where the US tested its A-bombs and today’s coral couldn’t be healthier.”

Will Warming and “Acidification” Create Chaos in Coastal Ecosystems?

By Craig Idso and Patrick Michaels, CATO, May 9, 2017


[SEPP Comment: More evidence that US National Climate Assessments are faulty. The alarm being spread by it, NOAA, and NASA on ocean acidification has little empirical basis.]

Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy

We urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclear

By Matt Ridley, The Spectator, UK, May 13, 2017


Defending the Orthodoxy

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists’ temperature estimates

A new study suggests there are remaining biases in the oft-corrected University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric temperature estimates

By John Abraham, Guardian, UK, May 11, 2017


Link to paper: A Comparative Analysis of Data Derived from Orbiting MSU/AMSU Instruments

By R. Eric Swansona, AMS, Jan 16, 2017


IPCC special reports on land, oceans and ice

By Claire Fyson, Climate Analytics, May 7, 2017 [H/t Dennis Ambler]


“On top of AR6, the IPCC has three special reports to complete – the first on climate change and 1.5˚C warming, the second on climate change and land, and the third on climate change, oceans and the cryosphere.”

[SEPP Comment: Will the IPCC have a special report on the failure of the atmosphere to warm as predicted / projected by the IPCC and the global climate models?]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Confidential: How to Hide the Pause

Guest essay by Iain Aitken, WUWT, May 6, 2017


‘Outside the Green Box’ (new primer unmasks ‘sustainable development’ fallacies)

By Robert Bradley Jr. Master Resource, May 8, 2017


[SEPP Comment: A review of “Outside the Green Box: Rethinking sustainable Development by Steve Goreham.]

Incompetence or Fraud in Alaska?

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 9, 2017


“Demand Destruction”: How to destroy national economy

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 9, 2017


Germany’s DWD National Weather Service Slammed For “False Statements”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 7, 2017


After Paris!

The Paris Climate Treaty Is Weak, so Why Do Climate Activists Defend It?

How a climate change treaty was mis-sold to the green movement

By Matt Ridley, Rational Optimist, May 9, 2017


“Thus Paris embodies precisely what the green movement worried about after Copenhagen: that a weak and non-binding agreement would be worse than futile.”

[SEPP Comment: Meaningless for controlling temperature changes, but it creates a huge green slush fund.]

Trump Considers What Steps U.S. Should Take on Climate Change Accord

Factions in his administration will soon debate next steps on the Paris Agreement; Tuesday meeting postponed

By Eli Stokols, WSJ, Via GWPF, May 9, 2017


Trump’s Difficult Choice on Paris Climate Accord: QuickTake Q&A

By Jess Shankleman, Bloomberg, May 4, 2017 [H/t Timothy Wise]


[SEPP Comment: Reasonable, except the author considers life-giving CO2 a pollutant.]

After Paris – Favor Agreement

The Business Case for the Paris Climate Accord

By George Shultz and Ted Halsteadmay, NYT, May 9, 2017


“Our companies are best served by a stable and predictable international framework that commits all nations to climate-change mitigation.”

[SEPP Comment: If it is a bad deal for the US, “decades of diplomatic progress” are meaningless.]

Bannon is pulling one over on Trump. There is zero reason to exit the Paris climate accord.

Pulling out of Paris is reckless and would shoot the US in the foot.

By David Roberts, Vox, May 8, 2017


[SEPP Comment: Those who had to insist on last minute changes to make the agreement appear not to be a treaty, say that it is not binding? How does the US public know that? What guarantees does it have?]

Exiting Paris Climate Accords Would Exact a Steep Global Cost

The Trump administration may withdraw from the landmark deal, despite dangerous impact on allies, trading partners, and the climate.

By James Temple, MIT Technology Review, May 10, 2017


“The only apparent argument for exiting is a political one: throwing red meat to the nationalistic contingent of Trump supporters opposed to any international accords.”

[SEPP Comment: The treaty is based on decades of great exaggeration of the ability of global climate models do describe the future – and it is becoming apparent the models are failing.]

Trump anti-climate ghost hangs over UN meeting

By Mariette Le Roux, Paris (AFP), May 6, 2017


“195 countries gathered in the French capital to conclude the world’s first universal climate treaty, the Paris Agreement, aimed at preventing worst-case scenarios for global warming.

The Palestinian authorities have since also signed the pact, which has been officially ratified by 144 parties and entered into force in record time last November.”

After Paris – Oppose Agreement

Black chamber of commerce tells Trump to ditch Paris climate deal: Would ‘undermine’ the U.S. economy

By Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times, May 8, 2017


Link to letter: file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/JIXJDQCU/NBCC%20open%20letter%20to%20President%20on%20Paris.pdf

Science Unsettled: Why Trump Should Dump The Paris Climate Deal

Editorial, IBD, May 8, 2017


The Paris Climate Deal Must Go

Editorial, Institute for Energy Research, May 8, 2017


Dumping Paris agreement right decision for U.S. and the world

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin, WUWT, May 10, 2017


Killing The Paris Agreement Is Not Enough

By Tom Harris, Daily Caller, May 8, 2017


Change in US Administrations

Tillerson says U.S. won’t be rushed on climate change policies

By Mark Thiessen, AP, May 11, 2017 [H/t GWPF]


EPA dismisses half of key board’s scientific advisers; Interior suspends more than 200 advisory panels

By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis, The Washington Post, May 8, 2017


EPA Bureaucracy Strikes Back: The Case of the Board of Scientific Counselors

How will the struggle between the permanent bureaucracy and the EPA’s new leadership play out?

By Ronald Bailey, Reason.com, May 9, 2017


Social Benefits of Carbon

Found: ‘lost’ forests covering an area two-thirds the size of Australia

By Andrew Lowe and Ben Sparrow, The Conversation, May [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: For years CO2 Science President Craig Idso has been stating the benefits of added CO2 in the atmosphere, including using photos of wooded plants growing in once barren, arid areas.]

Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science

A Long-Term Record of Climate and Human Epidemics in China

Lee, H.F., Fei, J., Chan, C.Y.S., Pei, Q., Jia, X. and Yue, R.P.H. 2017. Climate change and epidemics in Chinese history: A multi-scalar analysis. Social Science & Medicine 174: 53-63. May 11, 2017


[SEPP Comment: The 500 plus year record from China directly contradicts Obama administration’s claims of disasters from global warming.]

Sea Ice Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere: Another Reason to Abandon Federal Global Warming Policy

Comiso, J.C., Gersten, R.A., Stock, L.V., Turner, J., Perez, G.J. and Cho, K. 2017. Positive trend in the Antarctic sea ice cover and associated changes in surface temperature. Journal of Climate 30: 2251-2267. May 11, 2017


Responses of Two Coral Species to Elevated CO2 and Temperature

Maor-Landaw, K., Ben-Asher, H.W., Karako-Lampert, S., Salmon-Divon, M., Prada, F., Caroselli, E., Goffredo, S., Falini, G., Dubinsky, Z. and Levy, O. 2017. Mediterranean versus Red Sea Corals facing climate change, a transcriptome analysis. Scientific Reports 7: 42405. May 10, 2017


“Consequently, the ten researchers conclude their report by suggesting that the corals they studied would appear to be capable of successfully meeting, and subsequently prevailing against, the challenges of (1) global warming, (2) atmospheric CO2 enrichment, and by (3) doing so at one and the same time.”

Models v. Observations

Leading Alarmist Climate Scientist Concedes NO Anthropogenic Signal Found In Tropical Pacific

Mojib Latif: Climate models fail to simulate tropical Pacific. No detectable anthropogenic signal By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 9, 2017


Measurement Issues — Surface

Defund Climate Change Research to Pay for Pre-Existing Conditions

By Staff Writers, ICECAP, May 8, 2017 [Humor]


Changing Weather

‘Climate Change’ Clobbers French Wine Crop

Walter Sobchak writes, WUWT, May 7, 2017


Unseasonable late April weather damaged vineyards in France and England

Northern Hemisphere Having a Tough Time Shaking Off Winter

By Paul Dorian, Vencore Weather, May 9, 2017 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Snow lingering in Alps, Canada, and Western US Mountains.]

Worldwide: Over 1,200 laws aim to change weather — need more to limit downpours, seas, storms

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May 10, 2017


“I’m with him. Why not speed limits for winds?”

Changing Climate

Study reveals climate shifts through the eons

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, May 11, 2017


Link to paper: Australian shelf sediments reveal shifts in Miocene Southern Hemisphere westerlies

By Jeroen Groeneveld, et al. Science Advances, May 10, 2017


Changing Seas

Dialing back the 10 foot hype – NOAA Tide Gauge Data shows no coastal sea level rise acceleration

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin, WUWT, May 2, 2017


Link to NOAA Data: Tide Currents


Sea level rise is on the rise

By Sarah DeWeerdt, Anthropocene, May 2, 2017 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Link to paper: New estimate of the current rate of sea level rise from a sea level budget approach

By H. B. Dieng, et al, Geophysical Research Letters, Apr 22, 2017


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Antarctic Ice Sheets Stable for Millions of Years, New Study Finds

By Staff Writers, Financial Express, May 7, 2017 [H/t GWPF]


Link to paper: The million-year evolution of the glacial trimline in the southernmost Ellsworth Mountains, Antarctica.

By David E. Sugden, et al. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, July 1, 2017


Global Science Report: Sea Ice Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere Is Real and Driven by Falling Temperatures

By Craig Idso and Patrick Michaels, CATO, May 11, 2017


Satellites track Antarctic ice loss over decades

By Staff Writers, Paris (ESA), May 04, 2017


Link to paper: Increased ice flow in Western Palmer Land linked to ocean melting

By Anna Hogg, Geophysical Research Letters, May 2, 2017


Finland Is Worried That It Is Nearly As Warm As 1939!

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Ma 12, 2017


“As we keep on finding around the Arctic, temperatures there were just as high in the 1930s as they are now.”

Scientists Found A ‘Totally Unexpected’ Source Of Climate Cooling

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, May 8, 2017


Link to paper: Enhanced CO2 uptake at a shallow Arctic Ocean seep field overwhelms the positive warming potential of emitted methane

By John Pohlman, et al. PNAS, May 8, 2017


Lowering Standards

‘Science’ Finally Retracts An Absolute Mess Of A Paper

By Julianna LeMieux, ACSH, May 5, 2017


[SEPP Comment: On plastics and young fish.]


Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

The Fake NOAA Time Of Observation Bias Adjustment

How NOAA Massively Adjusts Data

U-Tube by Tony Heller, Real Climate, May 10, 2017


Climate change, tornadoes and mobile homes: A dangerous mix

By Staff Writers, East Lansing MI (SPX), May 08, 2017


“If the climatologists are right about the continuing effects of climate change,” said Mark Skidmore, MSU economics professor and co-author of the study, “then people living in mobile homes could be particularly vulnerable to tornadoes in the years to come.”

[SEPP Comment: No evidence that the “climatologists” are right!]

Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda on Children

How College Students Are Being Misled About ‘Sustainable’ Agriculture

Sustainability is a reasonable goal, but organic agriculture is no way to achieve it

By Henry Miller, National Review, May 4, 2017


“In short, organic practices are to agriculture what cigarette smoking is to human health.”

Questioning European Green

Spirit of inquiry

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, May 9, 2017


Link to report: Leaving the EU: negotiation priorities for energy and climate change policy

By Staff Writers, Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, House of Commons, Apr 25, 2017


[SEPP Comment: Heavily influenced by former Greenpeace campaigners?]

The Energy Conundrum

By Martin Livermore, The Scientific Alliance, May 12, 2017


“It seems that more people are now beginning to realise that, to be a real game-changer rather than just an expensive and unreliable contributor to energy needs, solar, wind and other sources of renewable, ‘free’ energy have to be used in conjunction with energy storage on a massive scale.”

Funding Issues

Goldman Sachs — bigger than fossil fuel in the climate debate

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, May11, 2017


The Political Games Continue

Green Party Manifesto To Return Britain To The Middle Ages

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 12, 2017


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Climate Policies, Electricity Prices and the Energy Price Cap

By Staff Writers, GWPF, May 10, 2017


Price caps will almost certainly prove to be counterproductive, causing higher prices later in the cycle as the result of damage to investment signals. It would be both simpler and more effective, and much more beneficial to consumers, to abandon all extravagant and ineffective subsidy spending on renewable energy that is driving prices up for years to come.

EPA and other Regulators on the March

Call to Action: Let’s Fix EPA (comments due soon)

By John Droz Jr. Master Resource, May 12, 2017


Trump’s EPA revives controversial Alaska mining project

By Devin Henry, The Hill, May 12, 2017


[SEPP Comment: Controversy fueled by false claims.]

Energy Issues – Non-US

Energy Revolutions Hidden In Plain Sight: Part 3 of 3 – Policy

By Mark Mills, Real Clear Energy, May 11, 2017


Decoupling wealth creation, energy consumption and CO2 emissions

By Roger Andrews, Energy Matters, May 8, 2017


What does it take to substitute 4 GtC using low-C electricity?

By Euan Mearns, Energy Matters, May 11, 2017


[SEPP Comment: Will the public be willing to pay the real costs?]

How Venezuela Ruined Its Oil Industry

By Robert Rapier, Forbes, May 7, 2016 [H/t Cooler Heads]


Energy bills: £100 cap plan defended by Theresa May

By Staff Writers, BBC, May 9, 2017


May’s Energy Price Controls Savaged by Experts and Her Own Cabinet

By Guido Fawkes, Via GWPF, May 9, 2017


“Freezing energy prices was a very bad idea when Ed Miliband proposed it. Yet two years after the electorate rejected it Theresa May is putting forward the same idea and rebranding it a ‘cap’.”

Energy Issues — US

Renewable resources and the importance of generation diversity

By Planning Engineer, Climate Etc. May 9, 2017


[SEPP Comment: What level of wind and solar penetration makes practical sense – 5%, 10%, 15%?] The PJM analysis indicates less than 20%]

The Northeast Desperately Needs More Pipelines

Editorial, Institute foe Energy Research, May 4, 2017


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

US Shale Industry Roars Back to Life After Oil Slump

By Staff Writers, Financial Times Via GWPF, May 9, 2017


“Before the oil crash of 2014, Harold Hamm, the billionaire majority owner and chief executive of Continental Resources, used to say that prices below $70 per barrel could not be sustained for any length of time, because neither Saudi Arabia nor the US shale industry could bear it.

3 Reasons Natural Gas Is Heading A Lot Higher

By Martin Tiller, Oil Price.com, May 11, 2017


1) Supply & Demand; 2) International & National politics; and 3) a 12-month trend???

[SEPP Comment: What about productivity of wells, etc.?]

Return of King Coal?

As the World Cuts Back on Coal, a Growing Appetite in Africa

New coal plants in Africa are largely being paid for by China and developed countries that are turning away from the technology at home. Here’s why.

By Jonathan W. Rosen, National Geographic, May 10, 2017


According to a report published in March by CoalSwarm, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace, China’s cutback helped drive a near 50 percent reduction in the amount of coal power under development worldwide during 2016—a development, it argues, that has finally brought the international goal of holding global warming below 2° C from pre-industrial levels “within feasible reach.”

Nuclear Energy and Fears

Europe is Ignoring its Energy Reality

By Rauli Partanen, Energy Collective, May 8, 2017


Hanford emergency ends as collapsed tunnel sealed

By Staff Writers, WNN, May 11, 2017


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Europe’s Solar Industry Is Now Collapsing Due To Cut-Price Competition From China

By Kelley Walters, Belair Daily, May 11, 2017


German Solar Energy: From “Technology Of the Future ” To Extinction In Just 10 Years!

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, May 12, 2017


Large scale solar power grows rapidly

By Ryan Handy, Houston Chronicle, May 9, 2017


Solar Energy Jobs Are Economic Potemkin Villages

A productive sector has the fewest number of people producing the greatest number of things we need. Solar does the opposite.

By David Harsanyl, The Federalist, May 8, 2017


In 10 Years, Wind Energy May Be Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels

By Chelsea Gohd, Futurism, May 8, 2017


Dutch open ‘world’s largest offshore’ wind farm

By Staff Writers, Phys.org. May 8, 2017 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

Biomass powering U.S. military base

U.S. Energy Department says Fort Drum facility shows commercial potential.

By Daniel J. Graeber, UPI, May 9, 2017


[SEPP Comment: As forward thinking as the Civil War. Will buffalo chips (dried dung) be used at Fort Leavenworth?]

Trump’s agriculture secretary, Sonny Perdue, declares that ‘ethanol is here to stay’

By Philip Wegmann, Washington Examiner, May 8, 2015 [H/t Timothy Wise]


[SEPP Comment: No matter how costly, unneeded, and damaging.]

Iceland drills 4.7 km down into volcano to tap clean energy

By Jeremie Richard, Gaël Branchereau, Phys.org, May 5, 2017


“Iceland is currently the only country in the world with 100 percent renewable electricity. Geothermal accounts for 25 percent, while the rest comes from hydroelectric dams.”

[SEPP Comment: Iceland has so much electricity from hydropower that it has built several aluminum refineries to use the electricity. Iceland now supplies most of Europe’s aluminum. With a small population (300,000), Iceland has by far the world’s highest “per capita” use of electricity.]

Health, Energy, and Climate

Paul Reiter’s Damning Assessment Of The IPCC

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, May 8, 2017


[SEPP Comment: A repeat of 2005 assessment on IPCC’s malaria nonsense.]

Environmental Industry

Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom

Funding proposal for the Australian anti-coal movement

By John Hepburn (Greenpeace Australia Pacific), Bob Burton (Coalswarm), Sam Hardy (Graeme Wood Foundation), November 2011


[SEPP Comment: A campaign for continuing poverty in South Asia, costing $ 2.2 to 3.4 Million. “This proposal is based on extensive research into the Australian coal industry, made possible by the generous support of the Rockefeller Family Fund.”]

Bring Back Free Market Environmentalism

By Lindsay Marchello, Real Clear Policy, May 9, 2017


Other Scientific News

Senate passes space weather bill

By Jeff Foust, Space News, May 3, 2017 [H/t WUWT]


Other News that May Be of Interest

Are Microbiologists Climate-Denying Science Haters?

By Alex Berezow, ACSH, May 4, 2017


US Air Force Space Shuttle X-37B Finally Unmasked

By Morris Jones for Space Daily, Sydney, Australia (SPX), May 08, 2017


Wolves return to Denmark for first time in 200 years

By Staff Writers, Stockholm (AFP), May 4, 2017


[SEPP Comment: And the sheep are happy?]



Flashback 1978: Scientist Predicts 10°C Warming, 5 Meter Sea Level Rise, 660 ppm CO2…By 2028!

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, May 11, 2017


La Nina to double! [ With its cooling impact.]

By Staff Writers, Climate Change Predictions.org May 3, 2017


Extreme weather arising from a climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean will get much worse as the world warms, according to climate modelling.

The latest data – based on detailed climate modelling work – suggests extreme La Nina events in the Pacific Ocean will almost double with global warming, from one in 23 years to one in 13 years. Most will follow extreme El Nino events, meaning frequent swings between opposite extremes from one year to the next.

Prof Mat Collins, Joint Met Office Chair in Climate Change at Exeter University, UK, is a co-researcher on the study, which involved teams in Australia, China, the US, UK and Peru. He said scientists were getting a better idea of how El Nino and La Nina are affected by global warming.

“Our previous research showed a doubling in frequency of extreme El Nino events, and this new study shows a similar fate for the cold phase of the cycle,” he said. “It shows again how we are just beginning to understand the consequences of global warming.”

BBC News, 26 Jan 2015



1. Remake the Paris Climate Deal to Promote American Energy

A place at the table would let Trump counter Chinese predation and European unrealism.

By Kevin Cramer, WSJ, May 7, 2017


The US Representative from North Dakota writes:

“… I endorsed Mr. Trump last April because I believed in his America First agenda, and I advised him on energy policies during the campaign.


“I was wary of Paris and used to favor pulling out, but I’ve changed my mind for two reasons. First, in future climate talks the U.S. will benefit from having Mr. Trump, an experienced negotiator, at the table. Second, the Trump administration can legally scrap President Obama’s emission-reduction pledge without leaving the Paris agreement.


“It is abundantly clear that the agreement, which is and will remain legally nonbinding, does not prohibit lowering the American pledge. In a May 1 memo, Sierra Club lawyer Steve Herz wrote that “it would be extremely difficult to prevail” in any lawsuit arguing that the U.S. was bound by its pledge, or by the agreement itself.


“Thus, any renegotiation would be the easiest deal Mr. Trump has ever made: He would simply submit a new pledge. Then if somehow the U.S. was blocked from changing its commitment, Washington could simply leave the Paris agreement that same day.


“Regardless, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt would be able to rescind the woefully constructed Clean Power Plan and other harmful Obama-era regulations, since they all preceded the climate deal reached in Paris in December 2015. Those regulations and the Paris agreement are legally unrelated.


“There has been spirited debate among House Republicans on the best move to make. Several of my colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee—including conservatives from energy-rich states such as Oklahoma, Missouri and Pennsylvania—agree that the smart strategy is to try to work out a more beneficial deal for the U.S. under the Paris agreement rather than walk away and let China and others take over the discussions. Eight of my fellow Republicans joined me in signing a letter to President Trump laying out specific conditions that would turn Paris into a good deal:


“First, revise the U.S. pledge so it doesn’t harm the economy and comes to reflect America First energy policies.


“Second, cease Washington’s transfers to the Green Climate Fund, and ensure the existing money isn’t spent on wasteful projects.


“Third, negotiate through the Paris Agreement to defend American interests, particularly by advancing technology for clean coal and pushing for increased investment and a better regulatory environment—all of which will create more foreign markets for American clean coal technology.


“Mr. Obama’s Paris pledge was a bad deal, as Mr. Trump explained forcefully during the campaign. But the situation has changed. The new White House can replace those harmful policies with an America First energy vision, and a Paris pledge and negotiations that reflect it.


“What could Paris become with President Trump and his negotiators at the table? Energy Secretary Rick Perry has already aggressively touted the virtues of nuclear and clean coal at a recent Group of Seven energy meeting. That view faces stiff opposition from some of America’s allies in Europe, who will work hard to promote a radical and unrealistic all-renewables vision for global energy policy. The U.S. needs to take them on in every available forum, Paris included.


“Since Paris went into force, many nations in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean have built clean coal plans into their Paris pledges. The White House can build on these pragmatic approaches, using Paris to help the U.S. energy industry and American workers. If Washington were to up and leave, Beijing would fill the leadership vacuum. It isn’t wise to cede that ground.


“Neither America nor the world can afford a European energy future, with skyrocketing prices, or a Chinese energy future, with bureaucratic control and unfair dumping of state-subsidized resources.


“If Mr. Trump can fix Paris, it will be an example of the emerging Trump Doctrine. He would manage to get international credit for staying in the talks and ensuring they aren’t led by China, while at the same time protecting America’s economy.”


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Reverend Badger
May 15, 2017 11:53 am

Comment on Iceland and Geothermal energy.
Although the Icelandic 4.7km is supposed to be tapping the edge of a volcano its worth remembering that you can tap geothermal heat at any point on the globe. Even a 10-20C difference in temperature can be very useful in a heat pump. Ground source heat pumps in the UK are working on something like 8C in shallow trenches.
For large scale generation it is useful if you can go deep enough to inject water at one borehole and extract steam from the other. Geothermal generation like this is pretty inexhaustible if done well, the energy source never diminishes.

Reply to  The Reverend Badger
May 15, 2017 12:26 pm

Geothermal generation like this is pretty inexhaustible if done well, the energy source never diminishes.

on the contrary it diminishes rapidly.

Reply to  The Reverend Badger
May 17, 2017 2:00 pm

Yes it does diminish quickly. I’ve done the math on this. Unless you have a well or lake, you’re going to run into hard limitations due to the low thermal conductivity of the soil. It is better than using air, it’s true. However, it’s not worth the substantial investment in most areas.

May 15, 2017 12:22 pm

optimum upper limit to ‘renewables’ is zero.
divers lots of unreliables and expensives do not make a cheap reliable.

May 15, 2017 1:41 pm
May 15, 2017 2:46 pm

Regarding the UAH article and how the Guardian writer says all this extra heat is supposed to be going into the oceans. That’s fine if it is, but if the oceans are supposedly warming at a accelerating rate, why are the ocean levels not rising at an accelerating rate also?

May 15, 2017 11:24 pm

Read ‘about the authors’ to understand who the authors are, what their motivations are and how little they know about science.

Coach Sopringer
May 16, 2017 4:14 am

If a President does not believe an agreement is appropriate, then he should not present it for ratification. Nothing “back room deal” about that.

%d bloggers like this: