Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jul 2, 2016, 05:31 PM
Number of posts: 20,699

Journal Archives

Lawmaker Slams EPA Chief For Not Knowing CO2s Percentage Of The Atmosphere

In a rather testy exchange during a House hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher tore into Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy for not knowing what percentage of the atmosphere was made up of carbon dioxide.
“What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?” the California Republican asked during a Thursday hearing.
“I don’t have that calculation for you, sir,” McCarthy replied. “I don’t make those guesses, sir.”
“You’re head of the EPA and you did not know,” Rohrabacher shot back in astonishment, “and now you are basing policies that impact dramatically on the American people and you didn’t know what the content of CO2 in the atmosphere was… the justification for the very policies you’re talking about.”
“If you’re asking me how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, not a percentage but how much, we have just reached levels of 400 parts per million,” McCarthy said, looking slightly annoyed with the lawmaker’s response.
“I think I was very clear on what I was asking,” Rohrabacher retorted. “I think it was very clear you didn’t know.”
Rohrabacher said carbon dioxide only makes up “one-half of one-tenth of one percent of the atmosphere,” adding that mankind only contributed to about 10 percent of the total amount of CO2.
“And you believe that this minimal, tiny element, and by the way only ten percent of that from what I understand is actually man-made… will have an impact on the weather to the point it that it will actually impact people’s health,” Rohrabacher said, before running out of time during the hearing.
The Earth’s atmosphere is 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen and 1 percent other gases, including about 0.04 percent carbon dioxide. And yes, Earth’s CO2 concentration stood at 400 parts per million in May 2015.
Earth’s CO2 levels have been increasing in recent decades due to human activities and also natural factors, and some estimates say as little as 3 or 4 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to humans. Scientists, however, tend to argue that even though humans only contribute a tiny amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, it can’t all be absorbed by natural cycles.
This is not the first time a Republican lawmaker has tried to trip up McCarthy for not knowing some specifics about global warming. In March, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions criticized McCarthy for not knowing if predictions about extreme weather were right or wrong.
“This is a stunning development, that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency — who should know more than anybody else in the world, who is imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to prevent this climate temperature increase — doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong,” Sessions said after McCarthy said she didn’t know the specifics about hurricane data.

Big Carbon

Global Warming has become an industry unto itself

Global Warming Hoax, Best Document Ever

100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

Posted on December 28, 2016 by tonyheller

Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.

The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.

They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows.
The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century.

The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article.

The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)

The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.

When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.
1. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.
2. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.

Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data.

Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is a real problem, but is very small. TOBS is based on the idea that if you reset a min/max thermometer too close to the afternoon maximum, you will double count warm temperatures (and vice-versa if thermometer is reset in the morning.) Their claim is that during the hot 1930’s most stations reset their thermometers in the afternoon.

This is easy to test by using only the stations which did not reset their thermometers in the afternoon during the 1930’s. The pattern is almost identical to that of all stations. No warming over the past century. Note that the graph below tends to show too much warming due to morning TOBS.

NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990.

Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming pause

Former federal climatologist John Bates blasts 2015 NOAA study as other scientists defend its conclusions
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, February 5, 2017

The climate change debate went nuclear Sunday over a whistleblower’s explosive allegation that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association manipulated data to advance a political agenda by hiding the global warming “pause.”
In an article on the Climate Etc. blog, John Bates, who retired last year as principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center, accused the lead author of the 2015 NOAA “pausebuster” report of trying to “discredit” the hiatus through “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards.”

In addition, Mr. Bates told the Daily Mail that the report’s author, former NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information director Thomas Karl, did so by “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.”
“Gradually, in the months after came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’ — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy,” Mr. Bates said Saturday on Climate Etc.
The June 2015 report, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” which updated the ocean temperature record, was published six months before the U.N.’s Paris summit........

.........Another prominent climate scientist, the University of Colorado’s Roger A. Pielke Sr., said Mr. Bates‘ experience was “consistent with my experiences” with Mr. Karl on the Climate Change Science Program in 2005.

“What John Bates has done is to expose this culture based not on robust science, but on promoting an agenda,” Mr. Pielke said in a comment on Climate Etc. “Regardless of one’s views on policies, the scientific method should not be hijacked as they have done.”

I trust a liberal to tell me if the earth is warming like I trust a puppy dog to watch my food.

Makes sense

Did somebody mention Hitler Youth?

I'm impressed with all the new Jeff Sessions supporters around

And also with all the anxious Lefties that are getting nervous about repealing Obamacare.

Trump is allowing ICE to go after known MS13 gang members for deportation

More swamp draining

"“We are not asking the state of local institutions to do anything besides give us access and transfer that individual to our custody at the completion of their criminal process so we …remove them from the country or prosecute them,” declared Matthew Albence, the executive associate director for Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, during a Senate panel hearing.

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled, “The MS-13 Problem: Investigating Gang Membership, its Nexus to Illegal Immigration, and Federal Efforts to End the Threat.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asked the witnesses, which included officials from various law enforcement segments of the federal government, about the role “so-called sanctuary cities” play in the problem.

Albence identified Chicago, New York, and San Francisco as being part of an extensive list of sanctuary cities that ignore federal immigration laws and are a contributing “factor” to the deadly MS-13 problem facing the United States.

“I think there are some major cities in this country where…I can’t even send my officers to go into the jail to interview someone who has been arrested for a gang activity or is a known gang member. And we can’t go in there and identify that person and take an enforcement action against him. Certainly, that’s a problem,” responded the high-ranking agent from ICE, a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)."

Obama should have allowed ICE to do their job for the last eight years. SO much crime could have been avoided. SO many US citizens would still be here.

Will O.J. Simpson get in trouble with the Law again?

Warming in the Tropics? Even the New RSS Satellite Dataset Says the Models are Wrong

From recent media reports (e.g. the WaPo’s Capital Weather Gang) you would think that the new RSS satellite dataset for the lower troposphere (LT) has resolved the discrepancy between climate models and observations.
But the new LT dataset (Version 4, compared to Version 3.3) didn’t really change in the tropics. This can be seen in the following plot of a variety of observational datasets and the average of 102 CMIP5 climate model simulations.

It’s pretty clear that the models are producing too much atmospheric warming compared to satellites, radiosondes (weather balloons), and multi-observational atmospheric reanalyses. (And remember, the observations have a record warm El Nino at the end of the time series, which the model average does not. Without that, the discrepancy would be even larger).
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »