Month: August 2018

Tim Ball: Canada Must Get Out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

dr-tim-ball-icTim Ball, head of CLEXIT Canada writes:

 I am proud to be the Canadian representative for the climate exit (CLEXIT) movement. Canada has more culpability than any other nation in creating and perpetuating the deception. It is not hyperbole to say that Canada was central to creating and mobilizing the false claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The idea that humans were causing runaway global warming originated with the Club of Rome. Formed in 1968 by David Rockefeller, it expanded on the Malthusian idea that the population would outgrow the food supply. The expansion was that world population would outgrow all resources. They made three major assumptions.

  • The demand for resources would increase every year because the population is increasing every year.
  • Developed nations increase the demand by using resources at a much greater rate than developing nations.
  • More nations are changing from developing to developed and accelerating demand.

They produced a few books and reports to substantiate the claims about population and demand. Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 The Population Bomb garnered enormous attention. Less well read but still influential was the 1972 book Limits to Growth by Meadows et al. It used a very primitive computer program that started with two components. The known volume of a resource and the current rate of use. Then, using a simple linear trend, it projected the point at which the resource would run out. It also projected the point at which the volume of the resource use peaked. Another book published in 1977, Ecoscience, Population, Resources, and Environment, influenced policy for a long time because of Paul Ehrlich’s co-author John Holdren. He later became Science Advisor in the Obama White House.

All of this activity developed around an important paradigm shift. These are major changes that occur when a society completely reconsiders the way they see the world and themselves.  The two most important in the latter half of the 20th century were feminism and environmentalism. Both were necessary changes, and both went through the same sequence as all shifts. This point is important because anyone who dared to question the deception that humans were causing global warming was accused of not caring about the environment.

A paradigm shift begins, like all things, with an idea.  You can call it a hypothesis, a speculation, a ‘what if,’ but it is an idea that asks people to think differently. They don’t occur very often partly because, as philosopher A.N. Whitehead said,

“It takes a very unusual mind to undertake analysis of the obvious.”

Many ideas are proposed, but few catch on because people are generally afraid of change. They know change occurs, but they also know there are always winners and losers. Since every idea is new, they lack the information and ability to decide. It is simpler to assume they will lose, and it is safer to maintain the status quo.

However, certain ideas are attractive to people who see the potential for power and wealth or both. This was the case with environmentalism. A small group seized the idea of environmentalism and immediately took the moral high ground. Only they care about the Earth, the children, and their future. Most people realized it made sense not to soil your nest but were afraid of the change. How far would or should we go? Since they knew little, it was easy for the power group to marginalize any who dared to question. I recall questions from the media prefaced with the idea that I was “giving comfort” to the polluters. This troubled me until I realized that giving false information and misleading the people was more problematic. Once the public learned that they suffered for change and made sacrifices on false information, it would give greater comfort to polluters.

If the idea has basic merit, as was the case with environmentalism, a majority of the people will adjust and accommodate. They are still unclear about the limits to the idea and its application. Those are identified by the people who started the idea and their disciples. When negative impacts, such as loss of jobs or economic downturn, appear their reaction will define the limit. They either acknowledge that it is a limit, or they become more strident and unreasonable. That is the stage we are at with environmentalism.

The claim that the world was overpopulated was false but was now established as a threat. It fits into the environmentalist paradigm shift because more people could do more damage. The question was what to do about it. There were a very strong anti-capitalism and anti-development agenda behind the idea and therefore the responses.

The overarching environmental theme provided a background to the ideas about overpopulation and exhaustion of resources of the Club of Rome (COR) and culminated in what they called The First Global Revolution set out in a book of the same name. Published in 1991, it was a follow-up and expansion on The Limits to Growth. Here is a quote that typifies the approach and the sentiment.

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself. 

At this point, the challenge is to convert ideas to action. It is where most ideas founder. The AGW idea didn’t founder because, unfortunately, a Canadian and member of COR, Maurice Strong, became the pivotal person with the skills to make it happen.

In 2001, Neil Hrab, a Canadian who spent much time monitoring and reporting on Strong wrote,  Mainly using his (Strong) prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups…

It began in the 1977 at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm Conference. Hrab quotes from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

The three specific goals set out by the Secretary General of the Conference, Maurice F. Strong, at its first plenary session—a Declaration on the human environment, an Action Plan, and an organizational structure supported by a World Environment Fund—were all adopted by the Conference.

He also noted:

What’s truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual record. Strong’s persistent calls for an international mobilization to combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have set the world’s environmental agenda. We know how Strong, as a member of the COR, took the ideas and translated them into policy. Elaine Dewar, an investigative journalist, and another Canadian planned to write a book praising Canadian environmentalists. Her research showed that all the people on the list were more corrupt than the people they were attacking. Dewar wrote a book titled Cloak of Green with at least 20 % on Strong that included details on five days with him at UN headquarters.

After those days with Strong at the UN Dewar concluded,

“Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.” 

The overall aim was exploitation of environmentalism, using the secondary issue of global warming. Strong knew that the best way to achieve his goal was through the bureaucrats at the UN and the bureaucrats at every National Weather Office in every UN member nation. He knew what US social commentator Mary McCarthy warned.

Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, is becoming the modern form of despotism.

To McCarthy it was a threat, to Strong it was the potential for total, unaccountable control.  He set up the entire COR objective under the organization he created called the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The overall control of politics and science is shown in Figure 1.


Figure 1

The IPCC was critical to creating the science needed to ‘prove’ human CO2 was causing global warming. It was easily achieved by the definition given it by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that limited them to only human causes of climate change. It was at this juncture another Canadian became directly involved. The founding meeting of the IPCC occurred in Villach Austria in 1985 and was chaired by Canadian scientists Gordon McBean. Later McBean became an Assistant Deputy Minister at Environment Canada (EC). In that role, he supervised and directed the department to convince politicians of the legitimacy and accuracy of the IPCC science.

Under McBean, EC became increasingly committed to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) of the IPCC sending large delegations to their meetings and assigning increasing funding to climate change research. They did this at the expense of maintaining legislated services. Budget overruns drew the attention of the Canadian Auditor General (AG) and activities to increase other sources of funding all drew public attention. For example, from 1997 to 2005 the AG reported EC spent $6.8 billion on climate change, with no results. To pay for this, they diverted funds from other legislated activities. They closed stations and replaced many with Automatic Weather Observing Stations (AWOS). These were so bad that NavCanada, an agency set up to run the airports including the weather stations refused to accept them. It triggered an inquiry by BC Senator Pat Carney that confirmed the problem.

Much of the money EC wasted was on computer models studying AGW that produced terrible results. The EC computer model was one of dozens used in the ensemble of models that the IPCC used to make their projections. Ken Gregory of the Friends of Science group showed that the Canadian model produced the most inaccurate projections of all the models in the ensemble (Figure 2).


Figure 2.

The result of all this waste and misdirection is that Canada has fewer weather stations than it did in the 1960s. The weather forecast accuracy has not noticeably improved, especially for severe weather. They continue to waste money on propaganda and attendance at the IPCC meetings – they invariably have the largest delegations at the annual Conference of the Parties meetings (Figure 1). It is time to severely limit all national weather agencies, including EC, to only data collection agencies. All weather forecasting should be done by private agencies, so they will only succeed based on the quality and accuracy of their work. No government agency should be involved in research because the potential for political bias or influence is very high.

The program to create and push the deception that human CO2 was causing global warming was primarily the brainchild and successful because of Canadian Maurice Strong. He applied it in complete form when, in 1992 he became Chairman of Ontario Hydro, the government agency that controlled all energy production in the Province. It destroyed the economy of Ontario taking it from the best performer of all Canadian provinces to one of the poorest.

People are still paying for the damage he did and will for years to come. Fortunately, Ontario voters became additionally angry about this when the Federal government of Justin Trudeau proposed a carbon tax. Now there is open revolt against the carbon tax from major Provincial governments.

In addition to Alberta, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario in mid-July announced an alliance against the carbon tax, which they believe is harmful to the economy. Ontario — Canada’s richest and most populous province — elected a climate-sceptic prime minister in June, who is working to dismantle climate change policies.

Ontario elected a new government and among the first actions Premier Doug Ford took was to seek retirement of the Chairman of the Board of Hydro One (the new name for Ontario Hydro) and ask for the resignations of all Board members. It is a step in the right direction.

Politicians still lack the knowledge about the bad science created principally by Canadians to deceive the world on AGW. They, like the US Senate who rejected voting on the original Kyoto Protocol 95-0 because it damaged the economy and would make virtually no change to global temperatures, are comfortable with the economic argument. Even if you accept the bad science, the cost of reducing global temperature by controlling CO2 is not tenable.  They are still afraid of attacks from the eco-bullies. However, a majority are prepared to take an economic stand.

Bjorn Lomborg puts in even more stark terms.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100. (His emphasis).

Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030 and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100. 

The bureaucrats at Environment Canada became a major force nationally and internationally in promoting and perpetuating the deception. The government of Canada must use them to take the lead in a return to sanity. It is time to shut them down and CLEXIT from the fiasco, deception, and devastating costs in lost opportunities. It is guaranteed to create bad science when you have scientific bureaucrats. If the evidence shows what thy told politicians were the case, they are not going to risk their job by admitting they got it wrong. As Upton Sinclair said,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

The only role of EC should involve as much data collection as possible made available to anybody who needs it.


via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

August 31, 2018 at 03:09PM

You’ve heard of “the third degree”? Now you can have “the Mann degree”

From the “I’m going to need a barf bag” department. Dr. Michael Mann comes up with his own degree program.

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Climate science is a field devoted to the study of Earth’s climate in the past, present and future. Understanding the Earth’s future climate is vital, and in response Penn State has established a new dual-title doctoral program in climate science.

“In the past, climate science was often viewed as this niche field, but it’s starting to become integrated with everything else because climate impacts are pervasive,” said Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science and program coordinator. “Climate change is affecting our food and water supplies, coastal management and national security, and every other facet of our built and natural environment.”

Expertise in climate science is relevant across many disciplines, and Mann said this program was developed to meet the increasing demand for climate information.

“Having a degree in climate science is germane to so many fields now; it’s important in private industry or in fields focused on risk management like insurance and reinsurance,” said Mann. “Having a background in climate science is a real plus, and it will make our graduates more attractive for jobs in industry, as well as positions in academia, government and nongovernmental organizations.”

Administered by the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences’ Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, a particular focus of the program is on understanding the impact of human activities on climate and understanding and predicting natural climate variation.

The program will provide a rich curriculum in climate dynamics and observations, numerical and statistical methods, the physical climate system, biogeochemistry, and human dimensions of climate change to ensure that all students have a broad and deep understanding of the science and its application to society.

“Not only will graduates have expanded employment opportunities, they will be the new generation of leaders trained to help society prepare for and adapt to the Earth’s changing climate,” said David Stensrud, head and professor of meteorology and atmospheric science.

There are more than 40 faculty from five colleges associated with the climate science program.

“We’ve had an increasingly strong presence in the Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science and elsewhere around Penn State in climate science. We literally have hundreds of researchers across the University working on various aspects of climate science,” said Mann.

Students electing this degree program will earn a doctorate with a dual-title in the participating program and in climate science. The graduate program in meteorology and atmospheric sciences currently offers the program but additional graduate programs are expected to offer the dual-title program in the future.

“This new program addresses what is arguably the greatest challenge we face today — the challenge of mitigating and adapting to climate change,” said Mann.

For more information about the program visit and

via Watts Up With That?

August 31, 2018 at 02:00PM

Underwater drones kill crown-of-thorns starfish to protect Great Barrier Reef

Feeding scars of white coral skeleton [image credit: JSLUCAS75 @ Wikipedia]

‘An individual starfish can consume up to 6 square metres (65 sq ft) of living coral reef per year’ – Wikipedia. Over-population in some areas has damaged the local reef.

Robot drones are set to be tested underwater to protect the Great Barrier Reef from crown-of-thorns starfish, reports

The autonomous RangerBot is able to spot the coral-eating starfish with 99.4% accuracy and kill them using a fatal injection.

Researchers at Queensland University of Technology have been working with Google and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation on the technology for around two years, in a bid to monitor a range of issues facing coral reefs including coral bleaching, water quality, pest species and pollution.

“RangerBot is the world’s first underwater robotic system designed specifically for coral reef environments, using only robot-vision for real-time navigation, obstacle avoidance and complex science missions,” said Professor Dunbabin.

“We’ve ‘trained’ RangerBot to detect crown-of-thorns starfish – and only these coral-destroying starfish – in much the same way as people learn to differentiate between various forms of sea life.”

The drone is not only autonomous, but can also stay underwater almost three times longer than a human diver, as well as operating at any time of day and under any conditions.

Continued here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

August 31, 2018 at 01:09PM

August Arctic Ice Results

Arctic ice August07to18

There are two more days to complete August, but these provisional results show what has happened.  July was a surprise with both MASIE and SII showing a monthly surplus to the 11-year average. August ice decline in MASIE was large with 2018 coming in 400k km2 below 11 year average. Meanwhile SII which most years was lower than MASIE (note 2012) this year shows a greater extent and matches SII 11 year average. Note also that both indices are close to 2007 monthly ice extent. (MASIE is described in more detail below; SII refers to NOAA’s Sea Ice Index)



The image above shows end of August ice charts from AARI (St. Petersburg, Russia) from 2009 to 2018.  The legend identifies the thicker, multi-year ice in brown, and extents less than 6/10 in green.  2018 compares to other recent years as showing less ice on the European side, a surplus in East Siberian basin, and thick ice on the CanAm side. Some alarmists pointed to a bit of green showing at the northern tip of Greenland, but that also appeared in 2011.

Interesting September outlook from AER

Dr. Judah Cohen published his Arctic Oscillation and Polar Vortex Analysis and Forecast as of August 27, 2018. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Looking at the 500 mb geopotential height pattern of this summer in Figure i, reveals a fairly striking pattern – an anulus of high anomalous geopotential heights encircling the midlatitudes and low anomalous heights centered on the Canadian side of the Arctic. The name of this blog is the Arctic Oscillation (and Polar Vortex) and the AO is also known as the northern annular mode (NAM). I don’t often use the term annular mode because at least in the troposphere you don’t usually observe an annular or donut like anomaly pattern, at least in my opinion. But this summer is an exception and that tropospheric height pattern looks remarkably annular, a phenomenon usually reserved for the stratosphere where topography and land-ocean contrasts are absent.

Figure i. Observed 500 mb geopotentail heights (contours) and anomalies (shading) for June 1 – August 23, 2018. Data is from NCEP/NCAR reanalysis NCEP-NCAR data.

Such an annular pattern favors above normal temperatures to be omnipresent across the mid-latitudes as the Jet Stream is forced to retreat poleward and allowing subtropical heat to overspread the mid-latitudes. This is not meant to be a discussion on climate change but I will just note that the poleward retreat of the Jet Stream, the northward expansion of the subtropical ridging into the mid-latitudes accompanied by heat and drought are projected to be consequences of climate change.

But the mid-latitudes gain was the Arctic’s loss in that though the pattern pumped heat across the mid-latitudes the annular structure in the geopotential heights protected the Arctic ocean from incursions of warm, moist air masses from the south and insulated the Arctic ocean and sea ice from excessive melt. This included Greenland, where melting was close to average. So even though sea ice extent was at record lows this past winter a new Arctic sea ice minimum will very likely not be achieved this September. The Arctic sea ice is on pace to be close to last year and above those minima observed in 2015 and 2016. The record Arctic sea ice minima was observed in 2012.

I don’t expect any notable deviation from the recent decadal fall temperature trends. One region that has experienced a cooling trend in contrast to the nearly universal warming is Siberia. I believe this in part due to the increasing trend in October snow cover extent across Eurasia. It will be interesting to see if this trend pattern repeats in 2018. And as I am sure many of you know this will be the focus of my attention in the coming weeks. Finally as the atmosphere cools more rapidly than the ocean I do expect to the heat transfer in the Arctic to reverse from into the ocean to out of the ocean. This could finally end the near perfect annular pattern of the Northern Hemisphere.


Footnote on MASIE Data Sources:

MASIE reports are based on data primarily from NIC’s Interactive Multisensor Snow and Ice Mapping System (IMS). From the documentation, the multiple sources feeding IMS are:



Summary: IMS Daily Northern Hemisphere Snow and Ice Analysis

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration / National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NOAA/NESDIS) has an extensive history of monitoring snow and ice coverage.Accurate monitoring of global snow/ice cover is a key component in the study of climate and global change as well as daily weather forecasting.

The Polar and Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite programs (POES/GOES) operated by NESDIS provide invaluable visible and infrared spectral data in support of these efforts. Clear-sky imagery from both the POES and the GOES sensors show snow/ice boundaries very well; however, the visible and infrared techniques may suffer from persistent cloud cover near the snowline, making observations difficult (Ramsay, 1995). The microwave products (DMSP and AMSR-E) are unobstructed by clouds and thus can be used as another observational platform in most regions. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery also provides all-weather, near daily capacities to discriminate sea and lake ice. With several other derived snow/ice products of varying accuracy, such as those from NCEP and the NWS NOHRSC, it is highly desirable for analysts to be able to interactively compare and contrast the products so that a more accurate composite map can be produced.

The Satellite Analysis Branch (SAB) of NESDIS first began generating Northern Hemisphere Weekly Snow and Ice Cover analysis charts derived from the visible satellite imagery in November, 1966. The spatial and temporal resolutions of the analysis (190 km and 7 days, respectively) remained unchanged for the product’s 33-year lifespan.

As a result of increasing customer needs and expectations, it was decided that an efficient, interactive workstation application should be constructed which would enable SAB to produce snow/ice analyses at a higher resolution and on a daily basis (~25 km / 1024 x 1024 grid and once per day) using a consolidated array of new as well as existing satellite and surface imagery products. The Daily Northern Hemisphere Snow and Ice Cover chart has been produced since February, 1997 by SAB meteorologists on the IMS.

Another large resolution improvement began in early 2004, when improved technology allowed the SAB to begin creation of a daily ~4 km (6144×6144) grid. At this time, both the ~4 km and ~24 km products are available from NSIDC with a slight delay. Near real-time gridded data is available in ASCII format by request.

In March 2008, the product was migrated from SAB to the National Ice Center (NIC) of NESDIS. The production system and methodology was preserved during the migration. Improved access to DMSP, SAR, and modeled data sources is expected as a short-term from the migration, with longer term plans of twice daily production, GRIB2 output format, a Southern Hemisphere analysis, and an expanded suite of integrated snow and ice variable on horizon. Source:  Interactive Multisensor Snow and Ice Mapping System (IMS)





via Science Matters

August 31, 2018 at 01:02PM