Climate Science : The Fact, Data and Integrity Free Science

One of the favorite lies of climate scientists is that snow cover is declining, and that it is having a “profound” effect on ecosystems.

Warming Signs: How Diminished Snow Cover Puts Species in Peril – Yale E360

In fact, snow cover has increased sharply over the past 30 years, since CO2 reached 350 PPM.  Northern Hemisphere snow cover has been above long-term mean for most of the last 25 years.

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

Climate science is a “profoundly” fraudulent venture.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Climate Science : The Fact, Data and Integrity Free Science

  1. Andy DC says:

    It is now settled science that CO2 can sometimes cause less snow cover and at other times cause more snow cover. Either way, it puts species in peril and it’s all Trumps fault!!

  2. Johansen says:

    “Disrupting adaptive advantages” of existing species should bring about *new* species, according to modern thinking. Environmental pressure is the *engine* of speciation. This should be heralded as good news, not bad.

    • arn says:

      Well-only the strongest/fittest survive they say.
      Though i think in 99% of all cases it is more “the weekest get killed”
      as only the too old and too sick get sorted out
      and even the remaining 1% it is mostly that the smartest and most efficient survive.
      The fat guy with 100 pounds too much and slow metabolism will
      survive a bad year with little food while the skinny superfit guy with sub 7% bodyfat will die within 2 month as he has no reserves.

      • Johansen says:

        According to the modern synthesis, the fittest must survive TO BREED. The “fittest” have to REPRODUCE more often/faster for speciation to proceed, otherwise there’s no point in being “more fit”. Yes, in your example above, the guy with the “overweight gene” might be screwing all day long, while the uberfit guy is too busy looking in the mirror. I’m just pointing out the inconsistencies of the Yale article above….

        • just a thought says:

          Yes. And then the uberfit guys unite and decide to sterilize the “undesirables,” because …they might outbreed the “desireables.”

          ….riiiight!

  3. MG says:

    Speaking of misleading people, What is with Drudge Report these days? This time the headline link says, Temp Could Hit 117 degrees in San Diego! Then when you click on the link, it actually talks about the desert East of the city in San Diego county…Anza Borrego, Ocotillo Wells, etc… Wow, it’s going to be hot in the desert in July. I’m very disappointed in Drudge.

  4. Pathway says:

    Use whatfinger for news accumulation. Drudge is old school.

  5. garyh845 says:

    Looking at the 1967-2017 chart of monthly mean SCE departures. Quite a shift from about 1985 to 1988 +/-. I’d assume that this would be related to a shift of phase in one of the ocean oscillation cycles – or, a combo of more than one?

  6. John F. Hultquist says:

    If it seems warm or cold on a given day, I look at these charts:
    for Yakima WA.

    Currently 90, expecting 92. Warm, but not close to a record.
    Summer. It’s warm. Who knew?

  7. terak says:

    Where are the studies on snow-cover from “skeptics”? Oh they do not exist? Denialists do not science much..

    • Gator says:

      All science comes from skeptics, anything else is religion Ms Terak.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Still waiting sweetie!

    • dennisambler says:

      You should perhaps have a regular look at NoTricksZone, where there is constant reporting of science that disagrees with the agenda: http://notrickszone.com

    • spike55 says:

      Speaking of integrity-free…….. here’s terak !!

    • tonyheller says:

      Good scientists look at data for themselves, rather than relying on group think to form their opinions.

      • terak says:

        tohy how come you publish nothing?

        • spike55 says:

          He does.

          His blog sees FAR more than some backyard AGW-cult journal might see. Open to everybody, accessible to everybody.

          Isn’t that why you are here, trying to disrupt the message? ;-)

          • spike55 says:

            Probably the most PATHETIC effort I have EVER seen from any AGW-cult troll.

            But you who you are, a mindless NON-ENTITY.

        • Gator says:

          Me Terak, where is your bibliography? Apparently none of your work is able to…

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on loud mouthed knuckle dragging know nothing natural climate change deniers like yourself.

  8. dennisambler says:

    It is now becoming clear that snow is being stolen by Israel, particularly in Iran:

    https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2018/07/02/1766272/general-sees-foreign-plots-in-iran-climate-change

    “Joint teams from Israel and one of the neighboring countries make the clouds entering into Iran barren. Moreover, we are faced with the cases of cloud theft and snow theft,” ISNA quoted the general as saying in the conference.”

    If that were not enough, the United Arab Emirates want to steal what few icebergs remain in Antarctica to water the desert:

    https://www.cntraveller.in/story/uae-plans-tow-icebergs-antarctica-middle-east/

    “In an effort to tackle the growing water crisis in the region, the National Advisor Bureau Limited, a private company based in Abu Dhabi, has proposed a plan to tow icebergs from Antarctica to the Middle East. The estimated cost of the project is $50-60 million, and it will kick off its pilot phase in the latter half of 2019.

    As per the National Advisor Bureau Limited’s plan, icebergs will be selected using satellite imagery. The chosen iceberg will then be covered in an insulated material to prevent it from melting and transported via ice barges to the coast of Fujairah. Here is where the iceberg will be crushed into smaller pieces and stored in water tanks to be filtered and used as drinking water.”

    • spike55 says:

      “In an effort to tackle the growing water crisis in the region”

      FFS, they have masses of oil, just build some desalination plants and run them using oil source energy. Like Israel does.

      And what will the environMENTALists think of them intentionally taking ice from the Antarctic. !

      • Gator says:

        It would be the first time they could actually claim that man is causing ice loss at either pole. I’m kind of surprised that the anti-human ice lovers haven’t tried sneaking ice out in their pockets already.

      • RAH says:

        The “climate Refugees” of Antarctica should rebel! Oh, I forgot; There aren’t any!

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          RAH,

          don’t you know about the baby Emilio experiment and the Lovelockian breeding pairs in Antarctica?

          Now Argentina has to build climate refugee camps in Ushuaia or start regular flights to Antarctica to relieve the crush of desperate migrants.

          This is a disaster of planetary proportions. Just ask Tony’s resident scientist Ms Terak.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Climate migrant Victor Eekhof has “balls of steel” and his dreams came true in Antarctica.

          • spike55 says:

            Ushuaia is for wimps, its only at latitude 54.8º,

            Places like Reykjavik, Nuuk (64º latitude)

            Hammerfest, 71º, Longyearbyen, 78º are much further from the equator.

        • RAH says:

          “Colorado Wellington says:
          July 6, 2018 at 2:08 pm
          RAH,
          don’t you know about the baby Emilio experiment and the Lovelockian breeding pairs in Antarctica?
          Now Argentina has to build climate refugee camps in Ushuaia or start regular flights to Antarctica to relieve the crush of desperate migrants.
          This is a disaster of planetary proportions. Just ask Tony’s resident scientist Ms Terak.”

          Well they couldn’t take the Falklands and their sheep so they have to send them somewhere!

      • dennisambler says:

        They might discover this and start a law suit…
        https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1440&context=mjil

        1997
        A Right to Ice?: The Application of International and National Water Laws to the Acquisition of Iceberg Rights

    • arn says:

      Considering that the tip of the iceberg is just 10% and the shape and depth below are unpredictible in shape and vertical/horizontal dimensions i can not imagine how it could be possible to navigate
      this through waters with low depth and how to built a ‘harbour’ to put those icebergs in where the water can melt.
      As icebergs are very robust(there is no easy way cutting them into the needed shape,especially not under water) i do not see this succeeding.

      • Johansen says:

        And aren’t they splattered everywhere with penguin excrement and polar bear filth? Yuck!

      • dennisambler says:

        This from 2011, traces the history of towing icebergs:

        https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/the-many-failures-and-few-successes-of-zany-iceberg-towing-schemes/243364/

        “Long-distance iceberg towing is one of those ideas that will not die but never really springs to life either. It exists in a kind of technological purgatory, dressed up in whatever technology is fashionable during an epoch and resold to a happily gullible media.

        1825: Tucked in among various environmental schemes including one plan for “conveying by means of pipes and air-pumps, the sea breeze to London,” we find this early 19th century author deriding “the old project of towing icebergs into the southern ocean, for the purpose of equalising the temperature of the earth.” Now, that’s some ambition. Where’s that spirit gone in modern times? “

        • Johansen says:

          Towing icebergs for fresh water:
          1. Use nuclear propulsion. Can operate under water, no combustion air required, plenty of cooling available
          2. Don’t bother bringing them close to shore. Attach a processing plant to them as they approach their destination, and bust them up while still offshore. Then transport the chunks onshore. Either that, or just wrap them and catch the meltwater which you pump onshore
          3. Modern desalination in Middle East is not a panacea. If you use membranes, the membranes foul and lots more pressure is needed, which increases energy and costs. If you use Multistage Flash, or Multiple Effect Distillation, the heat requirements are high, and you need a dedicated steam plant just to operate. Also, the materials must be copper-nickel or other suitable (expensive) material. Picture: this is what a big desal plant looks like. Very expensive to build AND operate

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.