Category: Uncategorized

El Nino Struggles To Get Going

El Nino Struggles To Get Going

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Just when it looked like El Nino was getting ready to overspread the tropical Pacific Ocean with warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures something somewhat unexpected has taken place.

While still above normal, sea surface temperatures have actually dropped quite noticeably in recent days in the equatorial region of the Pacific Ocean near the west coast of South America.  Computer forecast models still are generally quite supportive of the idea of a strengthening El Nino going into the middle and latter parts of the year, but recent observations certainly have to raise some questions about those predictions.

Sea surface temperature changes over the past 7 days with noticeable cooling in El Nino region; map courtesy tropicaltidbits.com, NOAA

Sea surface temperature changes over the past 7 days with noticeable cooling in El Nino region; map courtesy tropicaltidbits.com, NOAA

SST changes

In the last 7 days, sea surface temperatures have actually dropped pretty noticeably just off the west coast of South America which is the same area where El Nino burst onto the scene earlier in the year.  This may just be a temporary blip or part of an important trend and will be closely monitored.   One of the reasons it is necessary to closely follow the changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean is the fact that it can have an important consequence on the rapidly approaching Atlantic Basin (i.e., Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico) tropical season.  In an El Nino year, for example, there is a tendency for a less active tropical season in the Atlantic Basin as wind shear is typically higher-than-normal and this tends to inhibit the growth of tropical storms.

Southern Oscillation Index (SOI)

In addition to the short term sea surface temperature changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean, the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) for the last 30 days is sending some unfavorable signals regarding the formation and intensification prospects for El Nino.  The SOI gives an indication of the development and intensity of El Niño or La Niña events in the Pacific Ocean. The SOI is calculated using the pressure differences between Tahiti and Darwin. Sustained negative values of the SOI lower than −7 often indicate El Niño episodes. These negative values are usually accompanied by sustained warming of the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, a decrease in the strength of the Pacific Trade Winds, and a reduction in winter and spring rainfall over much of eastern Australia and the Top End.

Sustained positive values of the SOI greater than +7 are typical of a La Niña episode. They are associated with stronger Pacific trade winds and warmer sea temperatures to the north of Australia. Waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean become cooler during this time. Together these give an increased probability that eastern and northern Australia will be wetter than normal.

In general, recent readings of the SOI do not support the idea for a strengthening El Nino in the tropical Pacific.  In fact, instead of sustained negative values which is indicative of El Nino episodes, the SOI has actually averaged +4.47 in the last 30 days and +1.05 in the last 90 days (data source).

Compilation of model forecast for ENSO; courtesy IRI/CPC

Compilation of model forecast for ENSO; courtesy IRI/CPC

Computer forecast models

The most recent forecasts made in Mid-March by a series of dynamical and statistical models for sea surface temperatures in the Nino 3.4 region continue to overwhelmingly support the idea of an increasingly strong El Nino throughout 2017.  Any positive value shown on the plot of model forecast sea surface temperature anomalies is indicating El Nino conditions for the tropical Pacific Ocean. The yellow line represents an average of all models which hovers around the 1°C temperature anomaly line though much of the second half of the year and this would result in a moderate strength El Nino.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

March 30, 2017 at 03:56AM

Trump To Announce More Big Global Warming Science Cuts

Trump To Announce More Big Global Warming Science Cuts

via Climate Change Dispatch
http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

President Donald Trump is looking to cut another $140 million in funding from government-funded global warming science programs, according to Space.com. Trump will ask Congress to cut $90 million in funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) weather satellite programs and another $50 million from NASA global warming science programs. The programs slashed include: NOAA’s […]

via Climate Change Dispatch http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

March 30, 2017 at 02:57AM

If Taxpayers Can’t Talk About Climate Change Policies, Neither Can Scientists

If Taxpayers Can’t Talk About Climate Change Policies, Neither Can Scientists

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

All taxpayers have an investment in climate change. We have the right to give an opinion on the subject — even if we don’t adhere to the prevailing orthodoxy.

After Tuesday’s announcement that President Trump will take steps to repeal the Clean Power Plan, and essentially put a stake through the heart of America’s climate change agenda, scientists and environmentalists have gone mad (again).

The climate group 350.org—led by activist Bill McKibben—tweeted that “Trump’s assault of the Clean Power Plan could cost us 1000s of lives and billions of $$.” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said Trump’s plan “will cost American lives. This will allow premature deaths to go up, heart attacks and asthma to go up, and sick days from work and school to go up.” California billionaire and Democratic puppetmaster Tom Steyer: “These actions are an assault on American values and they endanger the health, safety and prosperity of every American.”

So the climate science that has been “settled” and the conversation that has been stifled for the past decade are now open for debate. An entire generation that has been fed a steady climatarian diet (yes, it’s a thing) of how global warming is all our fault will now have a chance to hear another side. Scientists who have been excommunicated from the climate tribe after expressing their concerns about climate science’s shortfalls can come out of the shadows. Lawmakers, reporters, and opinion writers will need to know a lot more than just “hey, 97 percent of scientists agree” to justify their reflexive stance on climate change.

Who Is Allowed To Talk About Climate Change?

Which raises the question: who is allowed to talk about climate change? We hear lots of tsk-tsking from climate activists about how the Trump administration is anti-science and filled with non-scientists like Scott Pruitt, Rick Perry, and Ryan Zinke who will ultimately decide on federal science policy (not to mention the president himself). Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Science Committee, is routinely and harshly mocked by his detractors for not having a scientific background.

I, too, have been regularly scolded for writing and commenting about climate change since I do not have a science degree. Earlier this week, I was tagged in a tweet replying to The Federalist’s repost of Tom Nichol’s article, “The Death of Expertise”:

Screenshot 2017-03-30 15.48.04

The implication is that I, as a “layperson,” have no business writing about climate change. The fact that I worked in public policy for years is of no consequence. The fact that I have written about other scientific subjects like biotechnology and nutrition is irrelevant. The fact that I have immersed myself in the subject, studied climate reports, talked with people on all sides of the issue, and received positive feedback about my articles and interviews on the subject is immaterial.  I should stop discussing it because I do not have some academic degree proving my expertise in climate science.

‘I’m A Scientist, Who Are You?’

This is not the first time I have heard this; in fact, it is often the smug retort I get from scientists who want to discredit me. It’s also a reason why more people don’t write anything controversial about climate change—because the blowback from the self-righteous climate tribe is swift and harsh. Of course, the “I’m a scientist, who are you?” reply is one-part arrogance, one-part “STFU little lady.” After all, we’ve been taught to be intimidated by and obsequious to the intelligentsia, right?

Over the next four years, you’ll hear much more from the science community about who is—and isn’t—allowed to discuss climate policy. But if my climate science friends (I actually have a few) think only they can debate climate change, then here are some rules they have to play by, too.

If you are a climate scientist, you cannot discuss:

  • Tax policy, because you are not an accountant.
  • Law enforcement policy, because you are not a police officer.
  • Immigration policy, because you are not a lawyer.
  • Infrastructure policy, because you are not an engineer.
  • Health care policy, because you are not a doctor.
  • Economic policy, because you are not an economist.
  • Job growth, because you are not an MBA.
  • Agriculture policy, because you are not a farmer.
  • Education policy, because you are not a teacher.
For all you “laypersons” out there, feel free to crib from this when it comes in handy.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

March 30, 2017 at 02:56AM

Trump To Announce More Big Climate Science Cuts

Trump To Announce More Big Climate Science Cuts

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

President Donald Trump is looking to cut another $140 million in funding from government-funded global warming science programs, according to Space.com.

Trump will ask Congress to cut $90 million in funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) weather satellite programs and another $50 million from NASA global warming science programs.

The programs slashed include: NOAA’s Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite R (GOES-R), Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), and  Earth Observing Nanosatellite-Microwave (EON-MW). These programs all study earth’s climate and measure global warming.

NOAA spends more than $100 million on global warming while NASA’s budget includes more than $2 billion for global warming and earth science. This money is generally specifically allocated to improve climate modeling, measurement of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and weather prediction. In comparison, NASA’s other functions, such as astrophysics and space technology, are only getting a mere $781.5 and $826.7 million, respectively, in the 2017 budget proposal.

Federal agencies plan to spend $27 billion on global warming-related programs next year. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates the federal government spent $77 billion from 2008 to 2013 on climate programs.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

March 30, 2017 at 02:56AM