Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #300

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


THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Fears of Global Warming: Last week’s TWTW brought up the well tested fact that all gases absorb radiant energy in certain bands of the electromagnet spectrum, including nitrogen, N2, which accounts for more than 77% of the atmosphere. Some gases absorb more energy than other gases, and in different bands. If adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere causes significant warming of the surface, it would be by a warming of the atmosphere from CO2 absorbing significant energy in the long-wave, infrared portion of the electromagnet spectrum, which is the range of electromagnet energy reflected by the earth into space.

The same concept applies to water vapor, the dominant so-called greenhouse gas. According to the 1979 Charney Report, published by the National Academy of Sciences, it is a further increase in warming by an increase in water vapor that provides the bulk of the increase in temperatures of the surface that has provoked fear of carbon dioxide-caused warming. This week’s TWTW will focus on two alternative explanations on why the fear of CO2-caused warming is poorly substantiated. One paper is by Howard Hayden, emeritus Professor of Physics, and the second by the late William Gray, the pioneer of hurricane forecasting, as finished by some of his many students. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

Quote of the Week. See that the imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man – Richard Feynman

Number of the Week: Minus 88℉ (minus 67℃)

Energy Dissipation: In his monthly newsletter, The Energy Advocate, Professor Hayden devotes the January issue to Power Dissipation, an electrical engineering concept, and then applies the concept of dissipation to energy (heat) involved by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In so doing, he addresses the widely accepted, but erroneous, concept that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will add about 4 watts of power to every square meter of the surface of the earth, thereby making the surface warmer. Unfortunately, this concept is promoted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its followers such as the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Hayden was prompted to write this essay by a debate he had with Scott Denning, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, at the University. Denning is to be thanked for his willingness to debate the topic, which few advocates are willing to do.

Hayden’s main points include that CO2 is not a source of energy, but merely a possible means of delaying the dissipation of solar energy absorbed by the globe, including the atmosphere and the earth, back into space. To understand the dissipation, one must understand the absorption. Incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and by the surface, then dissipated back into space. Part of the dissipation is delayed, making the global inhabitable because it keeps the temperature range very limited.

A key issue is that the atmosphere partially absorbs the flow of energy, both incoming from the sun, and outgoing from the earth. The greenhouse effect, by all gases, occurs in the atmosphere. As Hayden states, most of it occurs at an elevation above one kilometer (3300 feet), recognizing that surface temperatures do not reflect greenhouse effect. Thus, almost all of the greenhouse effect can be measured by bulk atmospheric temperatures measurements, between the surface and 15 km (50,000 ft.), as done by John Christy of UAH).

[Editorial Comment: Increasing surface temperatures may be an indirect indication of a greenhouse effect, but are not a solid measurement of the greenhouse effect. Attempting to eliminate other influences, both human and natural, is extremely difficult, and has not been accomplished. Tuning global climate models to surface temperatures is an erroneous exercise, if the purpose is to estimate the greenhouse effect.

Atmospheric temperatures have issues regarding natural variation as well, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic activity. But these are much simpler to eliminate, as John Christy and others have done. As data continues to be compiled such elimination becomes more practicable. Recognizing that the greenhouse effect is in the atmosphere, not on the surface, renders frivolous the claim that the “missing heat” is in the ocean.]

Hayden focuses on the absorption of outgoing infrared radiation (IR) by greenhouse gases by pointing out four important variables in determining the extent of the absorption:

Hayden focuses on the absorption of outgoing infrared radiation (IR) by greenhouse gases by pointing four important variables in determining the extent of the absorption:

1) the intensity of the IR;

2) the wavelength of the IR;

3) the cross-sectional area of the molecules for absorbing that wavelength; and

4) the number of molecules per unit volume.

With the last variable, atmospheric pressure is important. Thus, calculations made based on pressure at the surface do not apply for higher elevations. As Hayden states, there is a great difference in calculating an effect at the sea level as compared with one at the elevation of Mount Everest.

In closing, Hayden addresses the small corrections to atmospheric temperature data produced by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), made in response to small errors in calculations of satellite orbits. Then, he compares these corrections with what NASA-GISS [Goddard Institute for Space Studies] has done since 2001 to historic surface data. NASA-GISS has warmed all surface data since 1970 by up to 0.2℃ and cooled all surface data prior to 1970, cooling the data prior to 1900 by as much as 0.4℃. These changes give a false net warming trend of 0.6℃. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


Honoring William Gray: Before he died in 2016, hurricane prediction pioneer William Gray asked a few of his students to complete his working paper on “Flaws in Applying Greenhouse Warming to Climate Variability.” The students have done so, and Anthony Watts posted a summary on his web site, WUWT, with a link to the full paper. The few excerpts given below illustrate the value of this work: [See the paper for the figures]

“What is in dispute is whether these periods of warming are the result of changes to the earth’s energy balance due to a) human addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, b) natural variability of the climate system, or c) a combination of both factors.”

“The idea that the earth’s climate can be altered by addition of greenhouse gases is known as the greenhouse theory and is depicted in Fig. 1. Of most concern is the addition of

carbon dioxide (CO2) to the earth’s atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. This theory has been the subject of debate since its introduction by Joseph Fourier in 1824.”

“Climate sensitivity is complex and involves much more than the state of radiation balance and greenhouse gases. The globe’s climate system is in a close state of energy balance. A global radiative average imbalance of 1 Wm-2 (or 0.3%) of the difference between the continuous solar radiation impinging on the earth and infrared energy being fluxed to space can bring about significant climate changes if this small energy imbalance were to persist over a period from a few months to a year or two. The critical argument that is made by many in the Global Climate Modeling (GCM) community is that an increase in CO2 warming leads to an increase in atmospheric water vapor resulting in more warming from the absorption of outgoing infrared radiation (IR) by the water vapor. Water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas present in the atmosphere in large quantities. Its variability (i.e., global cloudiness) is not handled adequately in GCMs in my view.”

“…it is my hypothesis that there is a negative feedback between CO2 warming and water vapor. CO2 warming ultimately results in less water vapor (not more) in the upper troposphere. The GCMs therefore predict unrealistic warming of global temperature. I hypothesize that the earth’s energy balance is regulated by precipitation (primarily via deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convection) and that this precipitation counteracts warming due to CO2.” [Boldface added]

“4. GCM water vapor feedback and projected warming


“A major premise of the GCMs has been their application of the National Academy of Science (NAS) 1979 study – often referred to as the Charney Report (Charney et al. 1979)–which hypothesized that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would bring about a general warming of the globe’s mean temperature of between 1.5 – 4.5°C (or an average of ~ 3.0°C). These large warming values were based on the report’s assumption that the relative humidity (RH) of the atmosphere remains quasi-constant as the globe’s temperature increases. This assumption was made without any type of cumulus convective cloud model and was based solely on the Clausius-Clapeyron (CC) equation and the assumption that the RH of the air will remain constant during any future CO2 -induced temperature changes. If RH remains constant as atmospheric temperature increases, then the water vapor content in the atmosphere must rise exponentially. With constant RH, the water vapor content of the atmosphere rises by about 50% if atmospheric temperature is increased by 5°C with RH held constant. Upper tropospheric water vapor increases act to raise the atmosphere’s radiation emission level to a higher and thus colder level. This reduces the amount of outgoing IR energy which can escape to space by decreasing σT [to the fourth power].


“Many climate models, such as the early NASA-GISS (Hansen 1988) model, have even gone further than what the CC equation would specify for water vapor feedback. Hansen’s early GISS model assumed that for increases of CO2 , upper tropospheric RH would not stay constant but actually increase. The upper tropospheric water vapor which Hansen’s model assumed for a doubling of CO2 in his early model led to a predicted increase water vapor in the upper troposphere of nearly 50 percent. This caused his model to specify a tropical upper tropospheric atmospheric warming for a doubling of CO​2 of as much as 7°C (Figs 4-5).


“Not only were Hansen’s unrealistically large values of upper tropospheric moisture and temperature increases (for a doubling of CO2 ) not challenged by his fellow modelers at the time, but they were instead closely emulated by several other prominent GCMs including NOAA-GFDL (Fig. 6). These model predictions of large upper-level tropospheric moisture increases have persisted in the current generation of GCM forecasts from the recently-released Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5). These models significantly overestimate globally-averaged tropospheric and lower stratospheric (0-50000 feet) temperature trends since 1979 (Fig. 7). “

Gray’s Figure 5 is important in understanding a bit of political history:

“Fig 5. North-South vertical cross-section showing Hansen’s early GCM’s change in temperature (°C) that would accompany a doubling of CO2.”

This figure is very similar to what Benjamin Santer and the IPCC called the “distinct human fingerprint.”

Gray addresses the issue which many have claimed: If it is not CO2, what is it? Gray states that oceans hold the key to understanding climate variability. He asserts:

It is my hypothesis that it is variations in the global ocean’s Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) (Delworth et al. 2007) that are the primary driver of climate change over the last few thousand years. These changes are manifested in alterations of the rate of deep water formation of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) (Grossmann and Klotzbach 2009) and the Surrounding Antarctica Subsidence (SAS) regions. Figure 11 shows how the MOC is a combination of the high latitude deep water formation of the Atlantic THC and the Antarctic SAS region. These changes in rates of deep water formation are driven by upper ocean salinity variations on various multi-decadal to multi-century time scales. Figure 12 shows typical Atlantic Ocean current differences when the Atlantic THC is strong (on average greater rate of deep water formation) and when it is weak (on average lower rate of deep water formation). The sea surface temperature realization of THC fluctuations is frequently referred to as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (Goldenberg et al. 2001).” [Boldface added]

For those who are interested in details of natural variability and how adding CO2 may influence climate, Bill Gray’s essay is well worth the time. His discussion of an increase in the water cycle resulting in an increase in outgoing radiation from the upper atmosphere is important. As he realized, part of the essay is based on speculation because necessary evidence is not available. However, Gray gives evidence supporting his hypotheses, something CO2-caused global warming theorists often fail to do.

Others skeptical of CO2-caused dire warming may disagree with various points. Gray asserts:

“Solar variations, sunspots, volcanic eruptions and cosmic ray changes are energy-wise too small to play a significant role in the large energy changes that occur during important multi-decadal and multi-century temperature changes. It is the earth’s internal fluctuations which are the most important cause of climate and temperature change. These internal fluctuations are driven primarily by deep multi-decadal and multi-century ocean circulation changes of which naturally varying upper-ocean salinity content is hypothesized to be the primary driving mechanism.

See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


Surface Temperatures, Again? NOAA and NASA-GISS made a joint announcement that 2017 was the second warmest year for the globe since 1880 (or third, based on slightly different calculations). How they calculate global temperatures for the 19th century when there were few instruments measuring temperature outside of the US and Western Europe remains a mystery. Yet, these organizations provide a dramatic video of changing regional temperatures covering the globe since 1880, including Africa and Antarctica.

As linked in the January 6 TWTW, using satellite measurements of the atmosphere, UAH calculated that 2017 was the third warmest year, after 2016 and 1998 – there was no statistical difference between 2016 and 1998.

The NASA web site claims: “NASA uses the unique vantage point of space to better understand Earth as an interconnected system.” If so, why does it rely on surface temperature measurements that are far from comprehensive and have known biases? See links under Defending the Orthodoxy and Measurement Issues – Surface.


NYC Defending the Climate: The City of New York has filed litigation against various oil companies for Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, and Trespass. The Public Nuisance is for their … “production, marketing, and sale of massive quantities of fossil fuels, and promotion of pervasive use of these fossil fuels, have caused, created, assisted in the creation of, maintained, and/or contributed to the current and threatened climate change impacts…”

The Private Nuisance is for the “Defendants’ production, marketing, and sale of massive quantities of fossil fuels, and their promotion of pervasive use of these fossil fuels, have caused, created, assisted in the creation of, maintained, and/or contributed to the current and threatened climate change impacts on the City described above. These impacts are indivisible injuries, and include harms to City property from sea level rise, increased flooding, higher temperatures, increased costs to protect the City’s water supply, and increases in the frequency and intensity of precipitation.”

The Trespass is for the defendant’s conduct, which “… was substantially certain to result in the invasion of property owned by the City, without permission or right of entry, by way of increased heat, sea level rise, storm surge flooding, and flooding from increased intensity and frequency of precipitation.”

As Russell Cook notified SEPP, in its arguments the City stated:

“Between 1998 and 2014, Exxon paid millions of dollars to organizations to promote disinformation on climate change. During the early- to mid-1990s, Exxon directed some of this funding to Dr. Fred Seitz, Dr. Fred Singer, and/or Seitz and Singer’s Science and Environmental Policy Project (“SEPP”) in order to launch repeated attacks on mainstream climate science and IPCC conclusions, even as Exxon scientists participated in the IPCC process. Dr. Seitz and Dr. Singer were not climate scientists. Dr. Seitz, Dr. Singer, and SEPP had previously been paid by the tobacco industry to create doubt in the public mind about the hazards of smoking.

“An Exxon-funded scientist, Dr. Fred Seitz, who formerly had worked for R.J. Reynolds and founded organizations to deny tobacco science, published a Wall Street Journal op-ed that falsely claimed that Dr. Santer had violated IPCC protocol in changing a draft version of the report—a claim subsequently refuted by the IPCC chairman. Nonetheless, Dr. Seitz and another scientist funded by Exxon, Dr. Fred Singer (who also had been a tobacco denier, infamous for attacking EPA’s draft secondhand smoke rule as “junk science”), launched a dizzying array of attacks on Dr. Santer that to this day remain alive and well on the web.”

“Senior Fraser Institute Fellow Dr. Ross McKitrick and a co-author then published a supposed refutation of Dr. Mann’s “hockey stick” graph. Dr. McKitrick was an economist, not a scientist, and his co-author was a mining company executive. In 2003, the McIntyre and McKitrick paper was rushed into print, without peer review and, in a departure from the standard scientific practice, without offering Dr. Mann and his co-authors an opportunity to respond prior to publication. The McIntyre and McKitrick paper was subsequently debunked, but the smear of Dr. Mann’s work remains available on the web today and continues to be cited by climate deniers. Exxon’s promotion by deception thus lives on.

“One of Defendants’ most frequently used denialists has been an aerospace engineer named Dr. Wei Hock Soon. Between 2001 and 2012, various fossil fuel interests, including Exxon and the API, paid Dr. Soon over $1.2 million. Dr. Soon was the lead author of a 2003 article that argued that the climate had not changed significantly.

Of course, the statements regarding payments to SEPP, Chairman Emeritus Fred Singer, and the late Fredrick Seitz are unsubstantiated. Payments by tobacco companies are myth, never been established.

Accusations are not evidence, but all too popular by those trying to smother disagreement with their views. To them, facts are not important, only shrillness.

Ross McKitrick responded to these false claims. Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins summed up key parts. Among other issues, most of the world’s oil is controlled by governments or government controlled companies. Continuing his argument, what is the next step – sue Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, Venezuela? Sue all fossil fuel companies and users, especially those producing reliable electricity? Sue the sun and the orbit of the planet for causing 120 meters (400 feet) of sea level rise over the past 18,000 years, thus causing trespass onto NYC? See Article # 1 and links under Defending the Orthodoxy and Litigation Issues.


Number of the Week: Minus 88℉ (minus 67℃). According to Accuweather, the temperature around Yakutia, the capital city of the Sakha Republic, Russia, in eastern Siberia, population of 270,000, about 450 kilometers (280 mi) south of the Arctic Circle went to Minus 88°F (minus 67°C) this week. Apparently, schools were cancelled. No mention if CO2-caused climate change was blamed. See links under Changing Weather.



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


Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008


Challenging the Orthodoxy

Evidence Supporting No Dose Response of Mortality to Air Quality

By Stanley Young, Letter, Dose-Response, Jan-Mar 2018


Challenging the Orthodoxy

Power Dissipation

By Howard Hayden, The Energy Advocate, January 2018


‘Flaws in Applying Greenhouse Warming to Climate Variability’, a post-mortem paper by Dr. Bill Gray

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 18, 2018


Link to paper: Flaws in Applying Greenhouse Warming to Climate Variability By Bill Gray (Professor Emeritus, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University)

Edited by Barry Schwatz, Phil Klotzbach and Sara Gray, 2018


Roy Spencer on the Unsettled Science of Climate Change: A Primer

By Robert Bradley, Master Resource, Jan 17, 2018


“Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on average…but the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.”

A Climate History Lesson: Extremism of Stories Like ‘Bomb Cyclone’ is a Good Thing

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball, WUWT, Jan 13, 2018


Global Temperature in 2017: Not a Resurgence of Global Warming

By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Jan 17, 2018


“We know little about El Niño events concerning their timing and intensity. Scientists classify El Niños into Eastern-Pacific and Central-Pacific types based on the peak region of sea temperatures. Thus the 1982-1983 and 1997-1998 events were strongly of the Eastern Pacific type. All La Niñas and moderate El Niños tend to be classified as Central Pacific events. The 2015-2016 El Niño seems to have been a mixture of the two.”

[SEPP Comment: The inability of predicting an El Niño or La Niña is a major weather prediction problem.]

Why Climate Alarmism Is Mad

By Alan Carlin, Carlin Economics and Science, Jan 19, 2018


[SEPP Comment: An index with links to prior posts.]

Defending the Orthodoxy

NASA, NOAA to Announce 2017 Global Temperatures, Climate Conditions

Presenters: Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and Deke Arndt, chief of the global monitoring branch of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville, North Carolina


Long-Term Warming Trend Continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA

Earth’s global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.

Press Release, NASA, Jan 18, 2018


City of New York against BP P.L.C., et al, Case No. 18 cv 182

US District Court, Southern District of New York, Filed 1/09/18


Study: White House abandoning science advice at unprecedented levels

By Miranda Green, The Hill, Jan 18, 2018


Link to report: Abandoning Science Advice: One Year in, the Trump Administration Is Sidelining Science Advisory Committees

By Staff Writers, Union of Concerned Scientists, Jan 2018


From the political advocacy group called the Union of Concerned Scientists. No word if Anthony Watts’s dog, accepted as a member, participated in the report.

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Benny Peiser & Matt Ridley: Bad Weather Is No reason for Climate Alarm

By Benny Peiser & Matt Ridley, WSJ, Via GWPF, Jan 13, 2018


Climate Science And The Process Of Orthodoxy Enforcement

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Jan 14, 2018


Dominic Lawson: The ‘Population Bomb’ Is a Dud

Eco-doomsayers want fewer children in the world, but not in their own families

By Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, Jan 14, 2018


“Attenborough was echoing what British administrators said during the Irish famine of the 1840s. In reality Ireland’s problem was not its own population but the way its land was used and controlled by English owners: in 1846 about half a million tons of grain was exported to Great Britain from Ireland.”

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Australian Bushfires Have Become LESS FREQUENT Over The Past 15 Years

Australian Bushfires Have Become Less Frequent Over The Past 15 Years

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (German text translated/edited by P Gosselin), No Tricks Zone, Jan 17, 2018


Why the “Population Bomb” Never Exploded

By Nicholas Vardy, Investment U, Jan 4, 2018 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Few prophets recognize the possibility of substitutes for critical commodities. Ehrlich failed to see that in the 1960s as population and prosperity increased fertility rates of women would fall.]

After Paris!

Warming set to breach Paris accord’s toughest limit by mid century: draft

By Alister Doyle, Reuters, Jan 11, 2018


Problems in the Orthodoxy

The Climate-Change Doomsday Just Got Canceled

Editorial, IBD, Jan 19, 2018


Link to paper: Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability

By Cox, Huntingford, & Williamson, Nature, Jan 17, 2018


Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: Study

By Staff Writers, AFP, Straits Times, Jan 18, 2018


“The collapse of the gulf stream, the thawing of carbon-rich permafrost, or the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica – any of these could quickly change the equation, and not in the Earth’s favour.”

[SEPP Comment: Does the above comment give the species extension people a life-line?]

Seeking a Common Ground

Sea level rise acceleration (or not): Part I – Introduction

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jan 16, 2018 [H/t John Droz]

Sea level rise acceleration (or not): Part I – Introduction

The Geological Society of London’s Statement on Climate Change

By Euan Mearns, Energy Matters, Jan 15, 2018


“Since our original 2010 statement, new climate data from the geological record have arisen which strengthen the statement’s original conclusion that CO2 is a major modifier of the climate system, and that human activities are responsible for recent warming.”

Consensus polar bear experts dealt with criticism differently in 2007

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Jan 12, 2018


Fantastic plastic

By Martin Livermore, The Scientific Alliance, Jan 19, 2018


Science, optimism, and the resilience of polar bears in an ever-changing Arctic

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Jan 15, 2018


“Maybe it’s time to turn to pure scientific research to help us understand how polar bears adapt so well to change. Maybe it would be better if we removed the need to justify Arctic science with conservation and managment objectives, including counting bears (an endeavour fraught with potential inaccuracies and wide margins of error anyway), and accept that polar bears can take care of themselves as long as hunting regulations are in place and enforced.”

Measurement Issues — Surface

Rare Weather Station: Unchanged Over 138 Years, Data Show No CO2 Impact On Temperature!

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jan 19, 2018


How The US Temperature Record Has Changed

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 18, 2018


More Data Fiddling—Is Another Warming “Pause” About to Start?

By Patrick Michaels, CATO, Jan 19, 2018


Link to report: Global Temperature in 2017

By James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy. Gavin A. Schmidt, Ken Lob, & Avi Persin, NASA-GISS & Columbia U. release, Jan 18, 2018


NASA Scientists Suggest Future Temps Will Create The ‘Impression Of A Global Warming Hiatus’

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Jan 18, 2018 [H/t Cooler Heads]


Researchers use ‘global thermometer’ to track temperature extremes, droughts and melting ice

Press Release By Staff Writers, Oregon State University, Jan 3, 2018


“An analysis of records from NASA’s Aqua satellite between 2003 and 2014 shows that spikes in maximum surface temperatures occurred in the tropical forests of Africa and South America and across much of Europe and Asia in 2010 and in Greenland in 2012.”

[SEPP Comment: A warming of the ground that is independent of a warming of the atmosphere? If so, greenhouse gases are not responsible.]

Temperature Adjustments In Alabama

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 16, 2018


Warmest Year Evah (Except For The Others!)

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Jan 19, 2018


Changing Weather

New York’s silly climate suit

By Steve Goreham, Washington Times, Jan 14, 2018 [H/t ICECAP]


Fatally flawed paper: trees are proxies for the jet stream – and they say ‘now we have more extreme weather’

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 13, 2018


Jet stream changes since 1960s linked to more extreme weather

By Staff Writers, Univ of Arizona, Jan 12, 2018 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Link to paper: Recent enhanced high-summer North Atlantic Jet variability emerges from three-century context

By V. Trouet, F. Babst & M. Meko, Nature Communications, Jan 12, 2018


Big Waves Hit the Northwest Coast from an Immense Storm Offshore

By Cliff Mass, Weather and Climate Blog, Jan 18, 2018


Weekly wrap-up: Temperatures plunge to minus 88 F in remote Russia; Winter storm kills 15 in southern US

By Katy Galimberti, AccuWeather, Jan 19, 2018


Changing Climate

Ph.D. Climate Scientist: Modern Warming Natural…CO2 Changes Affect Climate ‘Weakly At Most’

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Jan 15, 2018


Link to paper: The Antarctic Centennial Oscillation: A Natural Paleoclimate Cycle in the Southern Hemisphere That Influences Global Temperature

By W. Jackson Davis, Peter J. Taylor, and W. Barton Davis, Climate, Jan 8, 2018


[SEPP Comment: Relating Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) oscillations recorded in Greenland ice cores with an Antarctic Centennial Oscillation. No doubt, will be subject to intense examination.]

Changing Seas

New Study Shows Past Research On Rising Ocean Temps Built On Faulty Science

By Chris White, Daily Caller, Jan 5, 2018 [H/t GWPF]


Link to paper: Mean global ocean temperatures during the last glacial transition

By Bereiter, Shackleton, Baggenstos, Kawamura & Severinghaus, Nature, Jan 3, 2018


Design competition tackles sites around Bay Area to address rising waters

By John King, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan 12, 2018


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Study: Weather anomalies accelerate the melting of sea ice

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 16, 2018


Link to paper: Role of polar anticyclones and mid-latitude cyclones for Arctic summertime sea-ice melting

By Heini Wernli & Lukas Papritz, Nature Geoscience, Jan 15, 2018


“From the abstract: Sea-ice reduction is systematically enhanced during the transient episodes with Arctic anticyclones and the seasonal reduction of sea-ice volume correlates with the area-averaged frequency of Arctic anticyclones poleward of 70° N (correlation coefficient of 0.57).” [Boldface added]

Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine

Common pesticides jeopardize salmon, orcas — NOAA

By Rob Hotakainen, E&E News, Jan 12, 2018


Is Global Warming Making Us Hungrier?

By Bjørn Lomborg, Project Syndicate, Jan 17, 2018


Lowering Standards

National Academy of Sciences: So Wrong on Energy (Bailey on 1980 report)

By Robert Bradley, Master Resource, Jan 19, 2018


Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

CLIMATE FICTION: Some Weather Writers Are Now In The Storytelling Business

By Anthony Sadar, Daily Caller, Jan 14, 2018


Claim: Aboriginals Torched the Australian Landscape Because of Sea Level Rise

Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Jan 16, 2018


Link to paper: Sea-level change and demography during the last glacial termination and early Holocene across the Australian continent

By Williams, Ulmc, Sapienza, Lewise, and Turney, Quaternary Science Reviews, Feb 15, 2018


[SEPP Comment: The paper links to AR5 with its questionable statements on sea level rise.]

Fubar Science from @UCDavis – Coping with climate stress in Antarctica

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 16, 2018


Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda on Children

The Children’s Climate Lawsuit Against The Children

By Benjamin Zycher, IBD, Jan 12, 2018


Expanding the Orthodoxy

The climate is America’s most pressing national security threat

By James Stavridis, Bloomberg View, Bangor Daily News, Jan 13, 2018


“While debate is always valid for any issue of such great policy importance, we must hedge against the extremely high probability that we have a serious challenge and address it with concrete steps — reducing carbon emissions, investing in renewables, and searching for technologies to reverse damage that has already occurred.”

[SEPP Comment: Disagree with the assertion by Admiral Stavrdis (retired) of extremely high probability that CO2-caused climate change is a serious challenge. Climate change is no greater danger to national security than it was 200 years ago, in the days of wooden ships and iron men.]

Questioning European Green

The EU’s bioenergy policy isn’t just damaging the climate and forests, it’s killing people

DISCLAIMER: All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of EURACTIV.com PLC.

By Linde Zuidema, Euractiv, Jan 8, 2018 [H/t GWPF]


Link to paper: Health impacts of anthropogenic biomass burning in the developed world

By Torben Sigsgaard, et al. European Respiratory Journal, 2015


[SEPP Comment: Depending on the same questionable methodology as the EPA PM2.5 modeling and regulations.]

19th Century cathedral is razed to the ground by energy company as it begins demolition of an entire German village to make way for coal mining

By Khaleda Rahman, Daily Mail, Jan 12, 2018 [H/t Paul Homewood]


[SEPP Comment: The building was a village church.]

Questioning Green Elsewhere

FERC Ruling and German Grid Stability

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Jan 19, 2018


Funding Issues

Questionable Climate Financing in Washington Gov. Inslee’s Office

By Christopher Horner, CEI, Jan 16, 2018


[SEPP Comment: Do such actions create “green jobs?”]

The Political Games Continue

Bill would take Ariz. tracts out of any president’s hands

By Kellie Lunney, E&E News, Jan 18, 2018


[SEPP Comment: And give power to Congress, stopping the abuse of power by the Chief Executive.]

Litigation Issues

De Blasio’s Global Warming Lawsuit Is Riddled With Factual Errors

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Jan 16, 2018


Link to statement By Ross McKitrick

In regards to: New York City vs. BP P.L.C., et al, Jan 15 2018


Link to NYC Complaint: City of New York against BP P.L.C., et al, Case No. 18 cv 182

US District Court, Southern District of New York, Filed 1/09/18


Climate Lawsuits Piling Up

Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Jan 15, 2018


New York unveils plans for fossil fuel divestment

By Jennie Matthew, New York (AFP) Jan 10, 2018 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes

Chamber of Commerce to call for gas tax hike to pay for infrastructure

By Mallory Shelbourne, The Hill, Jan 16, 2018


[SEPP Comment: What happened to the highway trust fund and the hundreds of billions in the stimulus bill?]

Subsidies and Mandates Forever

UK green energy investment halves after policy changes

Investment in green energy fell 56% in UK in 2017 – biggest fall of any country – after ‘stop-start’ support from government

By Adam Vaughan, The Guardian, UK, Jan 16, 2018 [H/t GWPF]


Energy Issues – Non-US

Trudeau government explains how it will make polluters pay

By Carl Meyer, National Observer, Jan 15, 2018 [H/t Dennis Ambler]


Link to document: Legislative and Regulatory Proposals Relating to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and Explanatory Notes

By Minister of Environment and Climate Change & Minister of Finance, Department of Finance, Canada, Jan 2018


Energy Issues – Australia

Peak heat: Electricity prices lifting off; industry shutting off in Australia. Hospitals switching off lights, “Code Yellow Alert”

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jan 19, 2018


Summer heat — electricity prices hit cap of $14 per KWhr in SA, almost there in Victoria [Peak]

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jan 18, 2018


[SEPP Comment: The real-time data are interesting. Balancing the load must be difficult.]

Energy Issues – US

Twisting Facts to Favor Wind and Solar

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Jan 16, 2018


About half of new U.S. power came from renewables last year

Renewable power in the United States setting records, though reliability issues surfaced last year during the August solar eclipse.

By Daniel Graeber, UPI, Jan 10, 2018


Frigid cold is why we need dependable energy

By Tom Harris, WUWT, Jan 16, 2018


Displacing coal with wood for power generation will worsen climate change say MIT, UMass Lowell and Climate Interactive researchers

Press Release, PR Newswire, Jan 16, 2018


“However, new research from researchers at MIT, Climate Interactive, and UMass Lowell reveals that displacing coal with wood for power generation can make climate change worse for many decades or more.”

“Climate Interactive is a US-based not-for-profit think tank that helps people see what works to address the biggest challenges facing our lives on Earth.”

New Englanders Have Only Themselves to Blame for Energy Price Spikes

By William Murry, Real Clear Energy, Jan 17, 2018 [H/t Cooler Heads]


Washington’s Control of Energy

‘Drill, baby, drill’ is back in Trump era

By Myron Ebell, The Hill, Jan 10, 2018


Keystone XL has sufficient customer demand to build, developer says

By Miranda Green, The Hill, Jan 18, 2018


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

U.S. oil industry set to break record, upend global trade

By Liz Hampton, Reuters, Jan 16, 2018 [H/t GWPF]


Lancashire shale tests reveal ‘excellent’ fracking conditions

By Jillian Ambrose, Telegraph, UK, Jan 12, 2018


Splish Splash – Streamlining Permian Water Delivery And Produced Water Takeaway, Part 2

By Housley Carr, RBN Energy, Jan 11, 2018


[SEPP Comment: Building water-related infrastructure for hydraulic fracturing and for taking away wastewater.]

Texas researchers dig into quake data

By Nathanial Gronewold, E&E News, Jan 18, 2018


Nuclear Energy and Fears

The Devil Is In the Diablo

By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Jan 15, 2018


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Another German Offshore Wind Park Loses Millions As Installation Costs Soar, Wind Forecast Overestimated

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jan 16, 2018


Runaway 53GW Solar Boom in China Pushed Global Clean Energy Investment Ahead in 2017

By Staff Writers, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Jan 16, 2018


“Overall, Chinese investment in all the clean energy technologies was $132.6 billion, up 24% setting a new record. The next biggest investing country was the U.S., at $56.9 billion, up 1% on 2016 despite the less friendly tone towards renewables adopted by the Trump administration.”

California Dreaming

Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

By Kerry Jackson, LA Times, Jan 14, 2018


Link to Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2015

By Trudi Renwick and Liana Fax, US Census Bureau, Sep 2016


Estimates of percentage of those in poverty using the Supplemental Poverty Measure: DC, 22.2%; Cal, 20.6%; Fla, 19; NY, 17.9; LA 17.9; MS 17; NJ & MA 15.1;

How California’s electricity sector can go 100% renewable

By Roger Andrews, Energy Matters, Jan 17, 2018


[SEPP Comment: Interesting speculation. Would Mexico object?]

How Regulations Made California’s Fires Worse

By Richard Zuber, American Thinker, Jan 18, 2018


Health, Energy, and Climate

New Paper: Public Health Commission Is “Sacrificing the Poor”

By Staff Writers, GWPF, Jan 18, 2018


Link to report: Sacrificing the Poor: The Lancet on ‘pollution’

By Mikko Paunio, GWPF, 2018


Lord Donoughue: Everyone Should Read Prof Paunio’s Hard-hitting Paper on the Lancet Commission,

By Bernard Donoughue, GWPF, Jan 18, 2018


[SEPP Comment: See link immediately above.]

Environmental Industry

We Will Make You Green

Review of “Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex,” by Rupert Darwall

By Tony Thomas, Quadrant, Jan 20, 2018


Other Scientific News

Newest Cloud Types Seen in the Pacific Northwest

By Cliff Mass, Weather and Climate Blog, Jan 20, 2018


Other News that May Be of Interest

Putin Is Mounting Sly, Self-Serving Attacks on American Science

By Henry Miller, Newsweek, Jan 11, 2018 [H/t GWPF]


Nature’s Climate Article Excels in Acronyms

By Renee Hannon, WUWT, Jan 12, 2018



It’s a bird eat bird world

By Staff Writers, Climate Change Predictions.org, Jan 15, 2018


“Jim Hayward, a seabird biologist based on Protection Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, is making his evening rounds through the largest gull nesting colony in the Puget Sound region.

“He’s been monitoring this site since 1987, so he’s used to the shrieking, the divebombing, the frequent splatterings of gull poop, and the pecking at his head, hands and feet.

“What he’s not accustomed to is the cannibalism. Over the last decade, the gulls have shown a growing taste for their neighbors’ eggs and chicks. The trend appears linked to climate change.

“’It doesn’t seem like a lot, but a one-tenth of a degree change in seawater temperature correlates to a 10 percent increase in (the odds of) cannibalism,’ said Hayward, a professor at Andrews University in Michigan.”

KitsapSun, 23 Jul 2016

[SEPP Comment: Eating the eggs of others in the flock has been long noted among a number of bird species. The calculation of 10% increase with one-tenth an increase in temperature seems absurd.]



1. Climate Change Is the Liberal Non-Agenda

For New York’s Bill de Blasio, suing big oil is a placeholder for the purpose he hasn’t found.

By Holman Jenkins, WSJ, Jan 19, 2018


SUMMARY: Prior to concluding that the action is little more than “smoke and mirrors, the Columnist writes:

“Fulfilling every stereotype of the phoney-baloney politician, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio last week sued the oil industry.

“His argument, that oil companies cause a public nuisance in the form of greenhouse gases, has already been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. The five companies he wishes to blame for rising seas and unpleasant storms account for a tiny share of global CO2 output. Most of the world’s energy reserves are government-owned. The oil performed exactly as advertised. The public got exactly the benefit it expected. Where is the fraud?

“’The City . . . does not seek to restrain Defendants from engaging in their business operations,’ the lawsuit says. The city isn’t trying to stop climate change but to share in the booty. If New York and other locales that have launched or contemplated such lawsuits want to tax energy, why don’t they just tax energy?

“Never mind. Not 10 members of Congress or most other elected officials could, within an order of magnitude, describe the CO2 component of the atmosphere. They couldn’t explain the misnamed greenhouse effect or what climate sensitivity is.

“And for good reason: Learning anything about the subject would be a waste of their time when their positions were long ago pre-determined by which party they belong to and who their constituents are.

“Those who find the Donald Trump Show some awful tragedy rather than a satirical extravaganza perhaps suffer a mistaken belief that he interrupted a political discourse that was operating on a high level.

“Mr. de Blasio is an unusually lanky case in point. “It’s up to the fossil fuel companies whose greed put us in this position to shoulder the cost of making New York safer and more resilient,” he explained. So residents can go on enjoying their energy-rich, fossil fuel-enabled lifestyles, he didn’t add.

“As a New York Times headline put it, ‘Battling Climate Change from the Back Seat of an S.U.V.’

“The Sierra Club’s Michael Brune, with unintended irony, said, ‘This is what climate leadership looks like.’

“Uh huh. This is exactly what climate leadership looks like nowadays. Under a whole range of likely future climate scenarios, the cost-benefit trade-off of meaningful action has become an impossible sell to voters and even in terms of payoff for distant generations.

“But a meme is a terrible thing to waste. Keep the climate panic fluffed in the minds of receptive voters to promote careers like Mr. de Blasio’s, or to extract political rents for the green-energy impresarios who increasingly nestle in both parties.

“Why don’t people like Mr. de Blasio put their effort into building support for something useful like a carbon tax, which could be sanely applied whatever the truth of climate change?

“Because there is no upside for anybody—I mean anybody. For one thing, a carbon tax that set off a genuine competition for low-carbon solutions would not necessarily benefit today’s promoters of electric cars, wind farms, solar power or carbon sequestration. Better to get subsidies directly from politicians for their activities than take the chance that these solutions fail in the marketplace as efficient ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 22, 2018 12:50 am

so: hopefully this is my last post here…

since Anthony went on sabbatical it has become very dull and 90% of this I can read on Breitbart, if I am that perverse: leftists = bad, Trump = good… and if I want to be called names and a liar, well what else are ex wives for?

Thanks David M: I learned some stuff and liked the jokes. Really, give the new Star Trek a go!

Anthony: hope you continue to thrive. You know, this doesn’t have to have multiple posts a day – scale it back so its mostly you, even if that’s twice a week and the quality will go up. Try not to be so paranoid about who is posting on your site…!

If Anthony/mods you could do me one favour – please block me so I am not tempted thru boredom to come back and post!


Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Griff
January 22, 2018 2:08 pm

The spring on the door is strong. Don’t let it hit you your way out.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Griff
January 25, 2018 5:54 pm

I regret that you have been “called names and a liar” on this site. You are much less objectionable than other warmists who have been regular posters here for a period. And this site needs a “foil” to present claims that are currently popular with our opponents, in order to post our rebuttals for the public to see.

There has been a nastier tone and more focus on the person than on his/her arguments, among WUWT-ers in the past three years or so, and looser moderation. In 2009, when I started observing and then commenting here, and for several years thereafter, comments were not posted until they had been read by a moderater, who snipped or toned down insults. Too-aggressive commenters were warned or suspended for some period.

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 22, 2018 2:32 am

For a city founded on Enlightment values the current crop of ‘leaders’ appear to have remarkably strayed off that path. I wonder what the mayor would do if the oil companies he wants to prosecute just told him that they would stop all fuel deliveries at noon tomorrow. Or, no, I actually know exactly what he would do: he would grovel. Just like the fine hypocrite St Augustin, who implored the Lord to make him ‘chaste, but not just yet’.

January 22, 2018 2:59 am

California Dreaming

California’s economy is large and doesn’t seem to be faltering.

If the state were considered separately, it would rank as the sixth largest economy in the world, behind rest of the United States, China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that California’s GDP was $2.5 trillion in 2015, up 4.1 percent from a year earlier.

In spite of the above, we hear a constant stream of doom and gloom coming from the state. In fact, most of the state (geographically) wants to split itself off from the rest of the state. link

It’s not uncommon for a prosperous region of a country to want to improve its condition by splitting from the rest. As far as I can tell, that’s not the case with California separatism. It seems as if some of the poorer areas of the state think they are being dragged down by the rich areas.

If a petition gets around 366,000 signatures, a vote to split the state can go on the 2018 ballot. link

I wonder how much of the discontent is being driven by Governor Moonbeam’s climate and energy policies.

Phillip Bratby
January 22, 2018 3:32 am

Does anybody know a “climate denier” or a “tobacco denier”?

January 22, 2018 3:56 am

Those that claim the surface is warming in the absence of increased solar radiation forget the most important law of radiation:
The total amount of radiation of all frequencies increases steeply as the temperature rises; it grows as T4, where T is the absolute temperature of the body. An object at the temperature of a kitchen oven, about twice the room temperature on the absolute temperature scale (600 K vs. 300 K) radiates 16 times as much power per unit area.
So IF the surface temperature were to try to increase, the RATE of radiation would instantly increase, which would lead to a cooling of the surface. Basically, it is more like a thermostat, where any increased thermal energy at the surface would instantly be radiated away as ADDITIONAL radiation. You can see this daily. If you track the surface temperature at night, it is warmest, and radiates the most just after sunset. By morning, the rate of radiation has dropped significantly, and the coolest part of the day occurs. That is because the rate of radiation decreases with decreasing temperature.
Gases cannot warm the surface. The surface is FAR better at radiating thermal energy than all the gases combined, and will instantly radiate away any absorbed ‘additional’ thermal energy. And, as the ‘additional’ thermal energy is radiated away, the surface will cool accordingly. The surface is thus at a temperature governed by the solar radiation absorbed by earth and its atmosphere, and as long as the solar radiation does not change, the earth’s average temperature will not change.
And lets not forget the ideal gas laws – there is no distinction for various types of gas – they all follow the same laws. Temperature, pressure and volume are proportional, regardless of gas. So, picking CO2 to warm the surface simply shows ignorance of thermal laws, ideal gas laws, and thus the hypothesis of ‘greenhouse gas heating of earth’ has no legs to start with. You can’t break physical laws to propose hypotheses…

January 22, 2018 7:48 am

Last week TWTW, under the heading “Fears of global warming” mentioned above, the statement: “———it is further increase in warming by an increase in water vapour that provides the bulk of the increase————-“ (see above)

A look at http://www.atmos-chem-phy.net/8/491/2008 reveals that over the 1995 to 2008 period the water vapour trend has been +0.19%+/- 0.07% which in my book is remarkably stable.

This may be explained simply by observing that the steam Rankine Cycle as used in the closed systems for power generation increase power in/output at constant temperature without additional use of water.
The climate hydro cycle works on the same Rankine principles and may be considered a closed system.
Hence any additional energy input to it will merely accelerate the cycle without change of water quantity or temperature which is determined by pressure as a result of gravity.

The above “bulk of the increase——-etc.” statement therefore has no validity.

I can only surmise upon the slight increase observed; but suggest it could well be due to volcanic outgassing and/or biological factors.

This article will keep me busy for some time. My gratitude.

Walter Sobchak
January 22, 2018 2:03 pm

“Recognizing that the greenhouse effect is in the atmosphere, not on the surface, renders frivolous the claim that the “missing heat” is in the ocean.”

Actually. The amount of heat energy held by the oceans is 1000× the amount held by the atmosphere and 2,500,000× the amount held by the CO2 in the atmosphere. The oceans are the dog, the atmosphere is its tail.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 22, 2018 4:56 pm

I just calculated the length of the tail: 3.5 mm + or – about 10 mm

January 23, 2018 3:15 am

On the subject of fracking I note that the alarming paper about fracking in Marcellus Shale region of the eastern United States said to be leaking enough methane to power a city twice the size of Washington, D.C. has been retracted
see http://retractionwatch.com/2018/01/22/fracking-paper-overstated-size-methane-leak-marcellus-shale-earning-retraction/ where they say —

…The reason: Further analysis revealed a mistake in a key measurement that, once corrected, shows the leakage to be roughly half as large as they initially calculated.

And that means one of the paper’s main conclusions — that fracking was worse for climate change in the region than using coal — is more than likely wrong.

%d bloggers like this: