Since you've heard this from me many times, I decided to link to two other experts: Dr. Cliff Mass  has a PhD in meteorology and is a professor of meteorology at the University of Washington. Cliff walks his readers through the meteorology, here .  Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.  is a policy expert in Colorado.  He works on the meteorology with his father, the distinguished Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. His piece on the incredible hype surrounding heat is here .  Addition:  July 23. Dr. Ryan Maue has plotted (above) the daily high temperatures from 2014 to 2022 in black with 2023 in red. As you can see, there is nothing especially unusual about this year.  It is all hype. 

Almost from day one (1988) in the global warming era, climate scientists advocates have wanted to be able to say, "massive hurricanes are the new normal" or something similar. About every 3-5 years, they trot out a new computer modeling study and Big Climate rolls out its PR apparatus. It is unfortunate that ABC News bit -- again.  They loved (the rest of us hated) Hurricane Katrina and we were deluged with stories using the focus-grouped term, "new normal." The story below is from 2020 --  they were still milking Katrina 15 years later! The ABC News story foolishly says, Well, yeah, there are some isolated papers that say that. But, here is what the "gold standard" IPCC says, Via Roger Pielke, Jr.'s Substack In other words: there is no conclusive science hurricanes are getting worse nor is there any real evidence that humans are causing any changes.  Unfortunately for Big Climate (fortunately for the rest of us), Mother Nature rarely cooperates with...

With the recent release of the UN's IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" (a political, not scientific,  document), the amount of garbage info about a warmer climate has mushroomed like toadstools.  WoodforTree's blend of the four most widely used earth temperature metrics. Woodfortrees.org Their claim that world temperatures have never been higher in modern history is just wrong. The peak was in 2016. Temperatures have dropped since. That is almost certainly due to the La Nina (cold water in the Pacific). That drop is likely inconsequential as temperatures will probably begin rising again with the El Nino forming in the Pacific. But, the position we are at a record is simply bad science. The item below is just silly. This gradual temperature rise was one of the greatest things to ever happen to humanity! In 2018 (pre-COVID), a World Bank study showed, The rate of extreme poverty was the lowest in the history of the world. Plentiful food. Highest food production in wo...

On August 24 , I discussed the fact that neither the 2022 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report  -- the gold standard of climate information -- nor the United States' annual climate assessment say that flooding has increased in the United States because of global warming. I also presented information showing the impact of flooding in the USA is a mere fraction of what it was 70 years ago. What I did not know until yesterday is that the IPCC forecasts that flooding in most of the United States will decrease  with global warming. Courtesy of Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr ., here is what they say: Increases in flood frequency or magnitude are identified for south-eastern and northern Asia and India (high agreement across studies), eastern and tropical Africa, and the high latitudes of North America (medium agreement), while decreasing frequency or magnitude [of flooding] is found for central and eastern Europe and the Mediterranean (high confidence), and parts of South A...

Suppose you were in this crash... And, while the paramedics were putting the seriously injured you into the ambulance, an attorney ran up and tried to shove a business card into your (broken) hand and started to explain all the grounds you had for a lawsuit: improperly maintained road, poorly designed air bags, et cetera. Would you appreciate the attorney's actions? Now, let's assume that, instead of an attorney, it was a meteorologist who ran up to you on your gurney and told you all of the ways that climate change contributed to the accident. Do you think he would win any friends? Or, would it be better to wait until the crisis was over? During yesterday's fatal flash flood in Dallas, a number of meteorologists began tweeting about the alleged relationship between global warming and the flash flood -- even as, simultaneously, news reports were explaining that people were being pulled out of cars.  To me, these are mildly unseemly, not because of their message, but becaus...

Unexploded Russian bomb at children's playground in Ukraine While I am not a foreign policy expert by any means, I think some thoughts are worth passing along: This brief essay, What If Russia Loses? , is well worth your time. An assessment of the current military situation is here .  It is highly encouraging to me that the West and freedom-loving nations all over the world have clamped tough sanctions on Russia even without a strong American president. I'm pretty confident that Putin did not anticipate that reaction and it is why we need to make sure that Putin has a face-saving way out so that he can declare 'victory,' get out as quickly as possible with as little damage to Ukraine as possible, and let back to normal or, better still, be overthrown in a coup.  There are three winners, maybe: Taiwan. I fully expected China to make a move on Taiwan, maybe very soon. Given the world's reaction to Russia's attack on Taiwan, I think the Chinese will reconsider. If ...

Please allow me to begin by confessing that I have skimmed only a portion of the new IPCC report. I will read the entire report but was put off by the very first figure (below, left). It is a variant of Michael Mann's infamous, and at best, misleading, "hockey stick." As the Climategate emails revealed, when Mann's data showed temperatures cooling when he thought they should be rising, he used a " trick " to splice instrumental records.  Engineer Stephen McIntyre, has done a dogged job of documenting the misdeeds of climate 'science.' He reviews the evidence that Mann's tree bark reconstruction was wrong -- in addition to the fudging -- here .  If the IPCC was as dedicated to the highest quality of science as its public relations people portray, it would never  have lead with that figure as it is the epitome of what's wrong with climate science. 

Below, I have a posting that links to a Scientific American  piece that calls the debate between the pro- and anti-GW forces 'war.' I agree. One side is fighting with science and the other is faking documents , fighting freedom of information act requests tooth and nail in court (wasting taxpayer funds on documents clearly in the public domain), the EPA's  "scrubbing" its database of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it gave to Fakegate's protagonist (Peter Gleick), Climategates 1 and 2, etc., etc. The question some of my correspondents are asking is "why?" Here is my theory as to why so much unscientific and unethical behavior is now occurring so frequently: The Wall Street Journal  just ran a second piece written by scientists like me that are skeptical of the Gore/IPCC theory of catastrophic global warming. It is the same piece I linked to yesterday. The piece includes this graph that shows the IPCC's various forecasts (dotted lines) com...

I also don’t see why I should help people I don’t want to work with and who spend most of their time critisising me. Thus wrote Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit of the UK in 2005 in one of the Climategate emails. Dr. Jones is one of the most prominent pro-catastrophic global warning researchers in the world. He also is quoted as saying : “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Here is why: In order for a hypothesis to be "scientific," it -- by definition -- must be reproducible by others, preferably those who are skeptical of your work and not members of your clique. Jones data was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy which put it into the public domain and subject to U.S. Freedom of Information laws. In most of science (climate science being the only major exception), skeptics who advance the science by falsifying incorrect hypothesis get as much -- and, often more -- glory than those who...

Published in Canada yesterday, please read the whole piece : F or many years, attempts to encourage debate on global warming science or policy have run into the obstacle that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued definitive statements, and therefore—the reasoning goes—the era of debate is over. The IPCC is made up of thousands of the world’s top scientists, it has one of the most rigorous and exhaustive review processes in the history of science, and the oversight by 195 member governments ensures balance, transparency and accountability. Or so we are told. These claims about the IPCC are not true, but until relatively recently few were willing to question what they were told. Things began to change in 2009 with the leak of the Climategate emails, which prompted some observers to begin questioning their assumptions about the IPCC. Then this fall, Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise released her book  The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mi...

On a number of occasions, I have talked about how global temperatures peaked in 1998 and have failed to rise since, in spite of ever-rising concentrations of CO2, falsifying the predictions of the United Nation's IPCC (the Al Gore case for global warming). Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. is both a real meteorologist and a real climatologist. He has a cogent and succinct summary of where we are in   this post . I encourage anyone concerned about 'global warming' to read it. I particularly like this comment: The risk is that if the IPCC forecasts do not occur as projected, then the credibility of the climate science community will be lost for a long time. This would be tragic as we need an effective climate policy to deal with the threats that climate variability and change pose to society. As I have said many times, if you are worried about global warming, you are worried about the wrong thing. Neither I, nor anyone else, knows whether the earth will be cooler, the same, or warme...

You'll recall the International Panel on Climate Change was created to be an independent body to assess the effects of 'climate change.' Note: Climate change is assumed in their charter. They never question that global warming is real and a problem. The job of the IPCC is to cull the scientific literature to explain global warming and its effects.  Except when its not. You may recall reading on this blog (Jan. 23, 2010) the story of how the IPCC cut and pasted a ridiculous claim that the ice would melt in the Himalayas by 2035 from a fundraising document from the World Wildlife Federation.  One would think they would have been more careful in the future. Except they have done it again. The IPCC's recent claim that, by 2050, 80% of the world's energy could be provided by renewables ( not  including nuclear) came straight from Greenpeace. As usual, the mainstream media printed the IPCC's claim without question (an excellent essay on that topic here ). It to...

I was asked yesterday why I had not posted "Think Progress'" (a liberal, pro-global warming group) unscientific attempt to tie Wednesday's tragedy to 'global warming' on this blog. I replied that I was so disgusted by it that I didn't want to give them the publicity. This morning, I heard from Al Gore in the form of this ad in my email: Without reproducing the whole thing, there is the clear implication that global warming causes worse storms. So, while I'm at it, here is Think Progress' vile pitch: Aside from being in horrible taste, is there any substance to their contention that global warming caused these storms?  No. Scroll down three postings and you will find a graph I created (using data from the pro- global warming British Climate Research Unit or CRU) that compares global temperatures during the previous worst two tornado outbreaks in the South and the similar "Superoutbreak" of tornadoes in 1974 that affected the South a...

An insightful review of the recently ended climate meeting in South Africa and its impact on the IPCC. After the U.N. packed up yet another global climate conference earlier this month, the perpetual state of fearful climate science came to mind. The fear this time is based on the current talking points from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that human-induced climate change is manifested in "extreme weather events." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is already exploiting this alarming message in a creative way. The EPA is preparing guidelines on reducing indoor air pollutants because people are expected to spend more time indoors due to the increased amount of severe weather resulting from climate change. The pushing of this atmospheric angst is like operating a shady business or practicing an earth-first religion. An "authoritative" consortium such as the U.N.'s IPCC identifies an urgent condition (severe weather is caus...

I have previously referred to Dr. Judith Curry as a "rock star" of climate science. Her superb qualifications include IPCC authorship. Today she has posted another essay on her web site explaining how we got into the global warming mess, i.e., the overselling of what we know about about the climate and its future state. I refer to the situation as a "mess" because so many in the media and politics approach the subject, about which there are huge uncertainties, with near-religious zeal. While I strongly recommend reading the entire piece, here are some highlights... Nevertheless, the policy cart was put before the scientific horse, justified by the precautionary principle.  Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy.  …at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC.  These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal ...

For those interested in a largely non-technical discussion about why changes in sunspot may bring major cooling over the next 20 years, go here . I believe the IPCC has not given solar changes sufficient weight in their predictions of future temperatures.

As Meteorological Musings readers know, I am not a fan of the IPCC. It has functioned too much like a high school clique where only scientists with the "right" views (i.e., pro- catastrophic manmade global warming) need apply. The group investigating the IPCC process has released its report and, if this story in The Wall Street Journal  is correct, the next round of the IPCC's work could be considerably more valuable than previous efforts.  Among other things, the story states... The investigation by the InterAcademy Council, a consortium of national academies of science, said the IPCC has been "successful overall" but called for the widely watched organization to enforce its existing procedures more, and to ensure that "genuine controversies" about climate science are reflected in the IPCC reports. The reforms would aid in seeing that "due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views," according to a news release a...

UPDATE: August 2nd:  This burst of publicity just before an apparent cooling has prompted a posting at WattsUpWithThat . If you have been reading the popular media the last few days you have seen a burst of 'hot' news from NASA... from treehugger.com ...and from NOAA. Other than the obvious question ("since they only have six months of 2010 data, how can they know it is the 'hottest ever'?"), what might account for this sudden burst of publicity? Here's an idea:  Temperatures are headed down. As I explain in the "Wisdom of Inaction" post below, solar and oceanic temperature influences seem to be converging to cause a period, perhaps an extended period, of significant cooling. There is the possibility that these influences will falsify the IPCC's hypothesis that CO2 is the driving force in climate. Lower atmosphere temperatures as sensed by satellite indicate atmospheric cooling is occurring at the present time.  Courtesy, Universit...

Since presenting a class on 'global warming' at Wichita State last week, I was challenged then and have since received emails questioning whether the Arctic ice is really recovering.  The answer is an emphatic yes  as these graphs (from two different scientific sources) valid March 31, 2010 demonstrate. Click on graphic to enlarge, click on the colored link to see the raw data. From the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration : From the Japanese satellite visualization center : Contrary to popular impression, the ice cover is growing (back to normal*) at the present time. The ice has shrunk in summer primarily because of unusual wind currents (2007) and because of soot from Asia's industrialization being carried into the Arctic and darkening the snow and ice which causes it to melt much more quickly.  The ice recovers in winter (when it is dark 24 hours a day) because the soot factor doesn't apply in darkness. It is possible that the weakening wo...