Daily Archives: September 8, 2011

Silly sinking island claims recycled

Have no illusions, islands can and do go under but “climate change” is not at fault here. While a common cause in the Pacific “ring of fire” is volcanism and tectonic movement that isn’t Kiribati’s problem either – theirs come from erosion due to destruction of surrounding coral reefs (harvested for building and road material) and excessive groundwater extraction.

Sinking Pacific island considers moving to a man-made alternative
By Kathy Marks

The future for Kiribati, one of the low-lying Pacific nations threatened by rising seas, is so dire that the government is contemplating relocating the entire population to man-made islands resembling giant oil rigs.

“We’re considering everything… because we are running out of options,” the President of Kiribati, Anote Tong, said yesterday in Auckland, where he is attending the Pacific Islands Forum. He said that his small, impoverished country – where the highest land is no more than two metres above sea level – urgently needed the world to take action on climate change. (Independent)

Rapid Sea Level Rise? To the Contrary, Nature Says
Continue reading

Roger Pielke Sr. on what frankly appears a dodgy Santer effort

Comments On The New Paper “Separating Signal And Noise In Atmospheric Temperature Changes: The Importance Of Timescale” By Santer Et Al 2011

There is a new paper that compares multi-decadal global model predictions with observed temperature data. It is

Santer, B. D., et al. (2011), Separating Signal and Noise in Atmospheric Temperature Changes: The Importance of Timescale, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2011JD016263, in press. (Roger Pielke Sr.)

Head-in-the-clouds claims and confusion

Research skewers claim that clouds cause climate change

Taking on controversial claims that clouds are a main driver of temperature changes across the globe, a Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist finds evidence of cherry picking and errors. (Douglas Fischer, Daily Climate editor)

Resignations And Cloud Confusion
Wednesday, 07 September 2011 12:51 Dr. David Whitehouse

The recent debate about the resignation of the editor of the journal Remote Sensing because of his allowing the publication of a controversial paper on cloud influences on climate by Spencer and Bracewell has been a widespread talking point in the past week or so. So has the swiftly accepted rebuttal by Dessler published in a different journal. (GWPF)

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study
September 7th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer

While we have had only one day to examine Andy Dessler’s new paper in GRL, I do have some initial reaction and calculations to share. At this point, it looks quite likely we will be responding to it with our own journal submission… although I doubt we will get the fast-track, red carpet treatment he got. (Roy W. Spencer)

Quick roundup from C3 headlines

Spencer Cloud Research Uses IPCC Gold-Standard HadCRUT Data, But New Dessler Study Avoids Gold-Standard Benchmark

Read here. New research published today by Andy Dessler, an IPCC Climategate scientist, appears to have major shortcomings. His new study was greased, like goose leavings, through the peer reviewed process in just a few weeks, which may have contributed to the work’s shoddiness. (C3H)

New Santer et al. Paper Totally Discredited – Santer Ignores Prior, Pivotal Peer Reviewed Research

Read here. The violence-prone and globally discredited Ben Santer has Climategate friends (Kevin Trenberth and Andy Dessler) who recently claimed that the Spencer and Braswell 2011 study is invalid because it did not include prior research to their liking. (C3H)

Stunning Revelation From Santer et al. Study: Confirms Insignificant & Immaterial Warming By Year 2100

Read here. Santer et al. 2011 research supposedly determines that at least 17-years of data is required to “measure” humans’ impact on the climate. Not 15-years, not 16, not 18, not 19, not 20, but most assuredly, their cherry-picked 17-year span is the new gold-standard. (C3H)

Tom Nelson: Warmist survey confirms what you should already know

Warmist survey confirms what you should already know: People in the US are just not that into the global warming hoax

Politics and Global Warming: Democrats, Republicans, Independents and the Tea Party |  Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

A special report, Politics & Global Warming: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and the Tea Party reports how the members of each political party respond to the issue of global warming.

Some of my notes on this survey:

–page 8: Assuming global warming is happening, only 46% of those surveyed (and only 43% of Independents) said it is mostly caused by human activities

–page 10: Only 9% of those surveyed (and only 7% of Independents) said they were “very worried” about global warming.

–page 12: 8% of Democrats consider themselves “very well informed” on global warming; 30% of Tea Party people felt that way.

–page 13: 8% of those surveyed felt that the issue of global warming is “very important” to them.

–page 22: 4% of those surveyed “strongly trust” the mainstream news media as a source of global warming information.

–page 24: 16% of Democrats (and 45% of Tea Party people) have heard anything about “Climategate”

–page 30: 24% of those surveyed “strongly agree” that human beings, as we know them today, evolved from earlier species of animals. (Tom Nelson)