Climate : The Evidence-Free Science

In 2011, Texas A&M climate expert Andrew Dessler said Texas would be hot and dry for the rest of the century – like the very hot summer of 2011.

Texas is vulnerable to warming climate – Houston Chronicle

Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech repeated approximately the same thing in 2014, and said it depending on the world not using coal, gas and oil for energy.

18 May 2014, A14 – The Odessa American at Newspapers.com

There is no evidence to support any of their claims. The summer of 2011 was very hot, but was an outlier in a long term downwards trend in summer afternoon temperatures.

As far as precipitation goes, their forecasts are even worse.

Link

Texas government listened to these  hacks, and this is where it got them.

Link

But these academics never stop with their fearmongering.

Link

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Climate : The Evidence-Free Science

  1. Solar Mutant Ninjaneer says:

    Climate science needs to be added to the list of “occult sciences” such as alchemy, astrology, sorcery, and magic. It has all of the underlying principles going for it – and then some!
    Here’s a “trigger warning” for you. When you hear someone say: “follow the science” it is proof positive that they have absolutely no idea what science is.
    What other branch of science has a “narrative”; censors any dissent; bans the publication of anything that counters the “narrative”; blackballs anyone who disagrees with the “narrative”; falsifies (adjusts) data ; makes up data; and is based on a theory that violates the first law of thermodynamics? Even the traditional occult sciences aren’t that bad.

  2. Richard M says:

    Just recently I have discovered that greenhouse Earth has windows. Yup, and those windows open every night. As a result the warming from the greenhouse effect is lost.

    I love expanding the greenhouse metaphor this way. Anyone who has fallen for the climate scam based the greenhouse metaphor should easily be able to understand how it is circumvented.

    This feature of the climate system is due to the interaction of two seemingly unrelated items.
    1) The large difference in heat capacity between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere.
    2) The way moisture controls Earth’s surface cooling.

    The high heat capacity of the surface prevents redirected energy from significantly increasing its temperature. The surface has a heat capacity almost 1000 times greater than the atmosphere. As a result, the energy that could raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1 C will only raise the surface temperature by about 0.001 C even though the energy levels are equivalent.

    This small amount of temperature change prevents the air above the surface from warming and the humidity from increasing since those processes are based on temperature and not energy levels.

    At night when the sun’s energy is eliminated and the atmosphere quickly starts to cool. As it cools the difference in temperature between it and the surface increases and the redirected energy now stored in the surface along with the heat built up from daytime heating start to radiate away (into the atmosphere and then into space). The moisture level of the atmosphere (the dew point) controls how much cooling takes place. When the dew point and the surface temperature are the same, they both radiate energy at the same level. That keeps their temperatures the same.

    Since the atmosphere did not see any increase in temperature during the day from the redirected energy, the dew point is never changed. While it takes longer for the surface to lose its energy due to having significantly more energy than the atmosphere, all the excess energy still gets radiated away. The surface eventually reaches equilibrium with the atmosphere at the same temperature that would have existed without any redirected energy.

    That is the way the redirected energy is removed. The high heat capacity of the surface prevents the added energy from significantly increasing the surface temperature thus keeping the moisture content of the atmosphere fairly constant. Since it is this moisture content that determines the equilibrium temperature, the temperature ends up almost the same as it would have been if there was no redirected energy. That means all the redirected energy is lost. Right out the greenhouse window.

    The scenario described above works equally well for all greenhouse gases. This leads a rather interesting corollary. The Earth’s temperature is not raised 33 C by the greenhouse effect as has been assumed by almost everyone.

  3. Jeff says:

    At Midland International Airport days above 100 degrees…
    1931-1951 186
    2000-2020 413

  4. JAnthony says:

    Will part 2 to Go… Go Directly to the Gulag be posted here? Thanks!

  5. Robert L Gipson says:

    The putative association between the polar vortex and AGW is based largely on Michael Mann’s stellarly unscientific 2017 article that was somehow published in a “scientific” journal:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242

    The article combines a slew of wiggle words and supposition. Below I’ve excerpted only the first and last paragraphs of the article, in quotes; I have flagged wiggle words with **asterisks:

    “Persistent episodes of extreme weather in the Northern Hemisphere summer have been shown to be associated with the presence of high-amplitude quasi-stationary atmospheric Rossby waves within a particular wavelength range (zonal wavenumber 6–8). The underlying mechanistic relationship involves the phenomenon of quasi-resonant amplification (QRA) of synoptic-scale waves with that wavenumber range becoming trapped within an effective mid-latitude atmospheric waveguide. Recent work **suggests** an increase in recent decades in the occurrence of QRA-**favorable** conditions and associated extreme weather,**possibly** linked to amplified Arctic warming and thus a climate change influence.”

    ….

    “In summary, **our analysis** of both historical model **simulations** and observational surface temperature data, strongly suggests that anthropogenic warming is impacting the zonal mean temperature profile in a manner **conducive to** wave resonance and a consequent increase in persistent weather extremes in the boreal summer. Combined with other additional proposed mechanisms for climate change impacts on extreme weather, this **adds to the weight of evidence ** for a human influence on the occurrence of devastating events **such as** the 2003 European heat wave, the 2010 Pakistan flood and Russian heat wave, the 2011 Texas heat wave and recent floods in Europe.”

    (End of excerpts)

    The authors strive to convince us that liberal use of wiggle words and speculative models “…add to the weight of evidence.” In reality, the article provides no actual evidence of its conclusions; it is 100% supposition. A textbook example of spinning gold from straw. You know, it used to be that a major role of peer review for technical articles—such as this article masks itself as—is to weed out wiggle words and supposition before an article reaches publication. Which makes one wonder who the peer reviewers were, or where they went.

    Note particularly that, with apparent unintended honesty, the author admits that their conclusions are based on their analysis of their own simulations. I repeat… on their analysis of their own simulations.

    Err …ROTFLMFHO.

  6. Kevin Morin says:

    Texas gas industry uses relatively low hp compressors to move gas so the recip’s and turbines that used to move pipeline gas were (able to be) replaced with electric motors over the last couple decades. Also, the Fed Clean Air reg’s had/have TX gas powered/burning generator plants on limited production to keep within phony ’emissions’ standards, that both Tony and Steve Milloy have shown to be due to falsified EPA ‘studies’.

    Wellhead chokes are set to limit release/withdrawal of gas as it reaches the surface but as the draw becomes heavier – at greater flow rates during higher demand- the refrigeration effect of the DP over the chokes’s trim will lower gas temperature enough to freeze the ‘wet’ gas. In the Northern states these well houses are heated and insulated to avoid wet gas freeze up before the gas can be heated in a line heater- which are probably electric now ? !!

    These factors were main contributors to the perfect storm (no pun intended) that visited TX this past week. As the demand spiked the gas plants momentarily became net users electricity from an increased reliance on electric motors instead of historical fuel powered compressor drivers, causing an increase in the demand- not supply: but the gas plant operators couldn’t rely on their own fuel gas! Grass roots emergency generators will likely be retrofitted now that TX recognizes that ‘global warming’ has such a chilling impact on wet gas?

    Once again the Fed Reg’s were the impediment that caused/contributed to an energy problem not a solution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.