What Is The Real Cause of Severe Weather?

Claims from the ‘Global Warming/Climate Changers’ side of the ‘debate’ about ‘Earth’s climate’ say that a warmer world has more severe weather. This is a misdirect, and is wholly untrue. The main cause of extreme and severe weather is an increased difference between warm regions and cold regions. When considering Earth’s overall climate(the Earth actually has many climates, but that is a different discussion), the warm regions are the Tropics, and the cold regions are the Poles.
It is the temperature gradient between these two regions that dictate the severity of weather in a given location.

Even during intense Glacial epochs, the Tropics remain relatively warm, simply because of their location close to the equator and the fact that they receive more sunlight and hence more warming than do the Arctic and Antarctic, but because of the tight temperature gradient, a cooling overall climate is more likely to have severe weather. In a world where warming was ubiquitous, there would be a decreased Pole to Tropic temperature gradient, and therefore less extreme weather occurrences. Perhaps that is what we have seen with the last few years of very low Hurricane activity especially noted in the Atlantic activity.

Severe weather is more likely to be seen during transitional Cooling periods, as well as transitional Warming periods, but not as likely during the stasis periods between.
Although severe weather can happen anytime conditions are right.

Dr. Tim Ball, Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), Queen Mary College, University of London (England), 1982, has written a concise article exploring the claim that ‘a warming world will have more severe weather,’ and the historical evidence that demolishes it.

Here are a few teasers, and below is the link to the article by Dr. Tim Ball:

“Every day we hear that storms of greater intensity than ever before are occurring, and it will get worse because of global warming. These claims contradict the current and historic evidence and the mechanisms of formation for mid-latitude…”

“There is no doubt the IPCC set climate research back almost 30 years. They became the central authority on climate change and directed all the focus of research to anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

“The IPCC anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis says the Polar air will warm more than the Tropical air resulting in increased storminess. In fact, this reduces the ZI and, therefore, the frequency and intensity of storms.”

“Their theory of future increased storminess contradicts the physics of the formation mechanism.”

 See more at: http://drtimball.com/2015/how-does-the-ipcc-explain-the-severe-storms-of-history/#sthash.VUZDG8ZQ.dpuf


Illinois’ Sudden Change of 1836

The following is an historical account of a severe change in the weather which occurred in Illinois and much of the midwest on December 20, 1836:

“In 1836 The State of Illinois was less than two decades old. A young Abraham Lincoln of New Salem had just been reelected to the state legislature and had recently obtained his law license. As the Winter Solstice approached in late December, so did a cold front, which local frontiersmen called a “sudden change” (the term cold front would not be coined for many decades). No ordinary cold front, for when it had passed, December 20, 1836 would go down in the memories of many Illinois residents as The Sudden Change Day, Cold Tuesday and The Cold Day in Illinois.

On that afternoon, an intense cold front swept across much of Illinois bringing a prodigious and rapid temperature drop. At 2 pm, the thermometer of Dr Samuel Mead of Augusta had recorded a drop from 40 oF to zero Fahrenheit in less than 8 hours. Many say that drop was nearly instantaneous.

Although actual weather data in the early nineteenth century is rather scarce across much of middle America, oral and written accounts of the event have been passed down in the reminiscences of those living in the state. We are fortunate that some weather observations were made: two individuals residing in Illinois had thermometers and recorded daily readings, and regular thrice-daily observations were taken at a series of US Army posts scattered across the Midwest.”


“Washington Crowder started a trip from Sugar Creek near Chatham to Springfield to obtain a marriage license. Riding horseback, he left in a steady rain. Midway through his journey, he noticed a dark cloud coming from the northwest toward him. Suddenly, a freezing cold wind gust struck him. By the time he was able to reach for his reins, the water soaking his clothes had…”

Read the entire fascinating account here.

In 1994 The NYT Knew The Real Truth About Californian Droughts

California may have some real tough times ahead.

“Dr. Stine, who reported his findings last month in the British journal Nature, says that California, like Tiwanaku, presents “a classic case of people building themselves beyond the carrying capacity of the land,” which is determined not by wet times but by dry ones. “What we’ve done in California is fail to recognize that there are lean times ahead,” said Dr. Stine, “and they are a lot leaner than anything we’ve come up against” in the modern era.”


By Paul Homewood

h/t Don B



There was a time when you could get proper journalism from the New York Times. This is what they reported in 1994:

BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.

The evidence for the big droughts comes from an analysis of the trunks of trees that grew in the dry beds of lakes, swamps and rivers in and adjacent to the Sierra Nevada, but died when…

View original post 842 more words

Smokey The Bear – You’re Fired (a reblog from Real Science)

Forest fires are a natural occurrence. Forest mismanagement and reckless land use such as developing houses on the fringes of National Forest land has led to disastrous consequences.

Real Science


Wildfires sweeping across California are threatening the US state’s famed Sequoia trees, with firefighters scrambling to protect the national treasures.

The so-called Rough Fire, the largest of more than a dozen burning across northern and central California, has edged closer to the giant trees in recent days with firefighters scrambling to protect them.

“The fire has moved into a number of Sequoia groves in King’s Canyon National Park and Sequoia National Forest and we are taking preventive measures to make sure nothing happens to them,” park spokesman Mike Theune told AFP.

Of particular concern is the General Grant tree, the second largest Sequoia in the world. It stands 268 feet (81.7 meters) tall.

Theune said firefighters are monitoring the tree round-the-clock, spraying water and clearing the area around Grant grove.

Wildfires threaten California’s treasured Sequoias – Yahoo News

Fire is an essential part of the Giant Sequoia life cycle.


View original post 166 more words

The Anti-science of Consensus: What Everyone Should Understand About the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [UNIPCC]

“We live in a world in which people are suspicious of politicians, but still respect scientists. Politicians are therefore eager to borrow the prestige of science, to camouflage their own agenda with a veneer of scientific authority.”

1. IPCC is Political, not Scientific.
Since it’s founding in 1945, the UN has been solely a political entity.
So it should be no surprise that the IPCC is not a scientific organization despite their claims that they are.

2. Scientists are not in charge.
“Now if scientists were in charge at the IPCC, at the end of the process these summaries would be written up by a small group, released into the world, and we’d all read these scientists’ unadorned words. But that’s not what happens.” Sure they take input and reports by scientists, but then subject those reports to marathon political sessions of highly detailed, paragraph by paragraph redaction, deletions, and insertions. During these Intergovernmental meetings, they tailor the reports created by scientists to suit the IPCC and by extension, the UN agenda.

3. The IPCC is a template that gets duplicated elsewhere.
The UN uses this same template to deal with other issues they deem globally significant.
“Between 2003 and 2008, the UN sponsored the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology (IAAST). Described as an “IPCC for agriculture,” this effort was led by Robert Watson – who had just wrapped up five years as IPCC chairman.”
“And then there’s the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – aka the IPBES. In the words of the Guardian newspaper, this is an “IPCC for nature.” Robert Watson is involved here, too. At the moment, he’s a Vice Chair. And, what do you, know? This IPCC clone is linked to yet another UN treaty called the Convention on Biological Diversity.”

One has to wonder about what gets ignored and left out of the scientific reports that the IPCC summaries are based upon. You can be sure it feeds the unscientific, so-called ‘climate consensus’ viewpoint.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” ― Michael Crichton

All quotes except Crichton, Donna Laframboise, Sep. 1, 2015
Donna is an investigative journalist who has spent the past 6 years examining the climate debate. Read her full presentation to the World Federation of Scientists, August 2015, Erice, Italy at the following link:

3 Things Scientists Need to Know About the IPCC

Our Robotic Future?

Here is a fascinating short segment from Nova on robots and their possible roles in the future. It brings up some good ethical questions. My favorite portions of the video are the sections that show an android version of the famous Sci-Fi author Philip K. Dick. His prolific writings brought us the movies ‘Minority Report,’ and ‘Blade Runner.’

The android Philip K. Dick is still in early stages of development, but still remarkable. It uses facial recognition algorithms and can learn to recognize individuals in a group setting. As the video suggests, it doesn’t take a lot to fool us into thinking ‘someone’ is there, when in fact there’s nobody home!

“I have, in some of my stories and novels, written about androids or robots or simulacra – the name doesn’t matter; what is meant is artificial constructs masquerading as humans. Usually with a sinister purpose in mind. I suppose I took it for granted that if such a construct, a robot, for example, had a benign or anyhow decent purpose in mind, it would not need to so disguise itself. The constructs do not mimic humans; they are, in many deep ways, actually human already.”
-Dick, Philip K. “The Android and the Human”. 1972.
from [http://www.egs.edu/library/philip-k-dick/quotes/]

Some Amusing Musings On Polar Bears And Other Natural Wonders

My WordPress friend Caleb writes a lot about Arctic Sea Ice at his blog https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com

Caleb likes to observe the Arctic ice from a layman’s point of view. Neither he nor I are scientists as such, but it’s a fair bet that we share an implicit understanding that Earth goes through natural cycles and that what man has come to know through the study of Geologic history and processes does shed some light on natural cycles big and small.

I like Caleb’s folksy style of writing, it’s like poking around in some farmer’s personal journal. He never attempts to go over your head, there’s no condescension. He just tells you what he observes, and posits thoughtful questions. His writing gets me to thinking. Good writers will do that. And sometimes that thinking is only indirectly related to his subject. My posts below about liquid CO2, and Arctic Methane are direct results of reading his works at Sunriseswansong. Cognitive stimulation is good for the mind.

Often, Caleb uses humor in a very friendly Easterner droll sense. I am going to share a couple of his musings here with you as you may not come across them any other way:

On Yellowstone

“I recall hearing a tale about Yellowstone, before it became a National Park. All sorts of fellows were roaming that landscape looking for gold and silver (thank heavens they didn’t find any) and they tended to get very dirty and stink, so they would take baths in the warm springs at one particular spot, so of course a saloon sprang up, and then a gentleman from China set up a laundry over a spring that was too hot to bathe in, and constructed a canvas roof to protect himself from the weather. But then it turned out there was a reason for that water being so hot. Once in a while that hot spring was a geyser.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On Polar Bears

“This morning I pointed out polar bears don’t care if scientists state there is no food out beyond the continental shelf, they go out there and get fat. In a way bears are smarter than scientists. And in a way I was nearly as smart as a bear, at age ten.

A half century ago my gang was faced with crossing thin ice, and many doubted the ice would support our weight. I was a ten-year-old leader, oldest and wisest. Somewhere I had learned ice can support more weight if you spread your weight out, so I lay down and slithered across the ice spreadeagled on my belly.  Flush with success, I turned, raised an index finger, and grandly pronounced, “This ice is safe!” I also was so filled with confidence that I stood up, and promptly plunged down waist-deep into ice-water, to the joy of the rest of the gang, who didn’t always approve of the egotism involved in my leadership.

Polar Bears may be worse egotists, for all I know, but they do not raise index fingers and make ridiculous pronouncements, most likely because they don’t have index fingers and can’t talk to the verbose degree we can. Scientists, on the other hand, do have index fingers, and make a lot of scientific pronouncements, and can be verbose.

After making careful measurements of the load-bearing ability of ice, and the weight of a polar bear’s massive paws, and consulting engineers who know far more about such stuff than they do, they pronounce ice cannot hold up a bear. (They are much like my gang once was.) The bear doesn’t care. Even though they often swim ice water that would freeze a man in 300 seconds, and have been known to cross hundreds of miles of open water, they apparently don’t always like to get wet, if they don’t have to. So, when they get to thin ice they do exactly what I did at age ten:

A polar bear slides across thin Arctic Ocean ice Aug. 21, 2009.
(Photo Credit: Patrick Kelly)

In short, some scientists need to get out more. They have no actual experience of the outdoors. They spend far to much time glued to computer screens, and despite the exactitude of their measurements, Polar Bears are smarter than they are.”

That last link is chock full of information, from polar weather maps over the last few days, to many fantastic Ocean Buoy pictures of sea ice in various stages of melt and freeze, Polar Bears(of course!), and even some Icebreakers. It’s truly fascinating stuff. My hat is off, Good job Caleb!