The Hot 1930’S Would Trigger Climate Alarmist Meltdown Today!


by Tony Heller

The US used to be extremely hot. These sort of historical temperatures don’t happen anymore.

Twenty-five states set their all-time record maximum temperature during the 1930s. The vast majority set their all-time record with CO2 below 350 PPM.

Wisconsin was 114 degrees in 1936. They haven’t reached 110 degrees since then.

The frequency of hot days has plummeted in Wisconsin over the past century.

The frequency of hot days has plummeted across the US during the past century.

If we had temperatures anywhere close to the 1930’s heat now, climate scientists would declare with 100% certainty that it was due to atmospheric CO2.

This would be based on nothing other than the usual fraud and lies – which is standard operating procedure among government-funded climate scientists.

Read more at Real Climate Science 


How global warming is drying up the North American monsoon – Or Not!!!

By Paul Homewood

Today’s junk science, courtesy of Princeton and NOAA:


In a report published Oct. 9 in the journal Nature Climate Change, a team of Princeton and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) researchers have applied a key factor in improving climate models — correcting for sea surface temperatures — to the monsoon.

The report’s authors include Salvatore Pascale, an associate research scholar in atmospheric and oceanic sciences (AOS); Tom Delworth, a lecturer in geosciences and AOS and research scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL); Sarah Kapnick, a 2004 Princeton alumna and former AOS postdoc who is currently a research physical scientist at GFDL; AOS associate research scholar Hiroyuki Murakami; and Gabriel Vecchi, a professor of geosciences and the Princeton Environmental Institute.

When they corrected for persistent sea-surface temperature (SST) biases and used higher-resolution data for the regional geography, the researchers created a model that accurately reflects current rainfall conditions and suggests that future changes could have significant consequences for regional water resources and hazards.

“This study represents fundamental science relating to the physics of the North American monsoon, but feeds back onto weather to climate predictions and building resiliency for our water supply and responses to hazards,” said Kapnick. “I am excited about this leap forward to improve our models and for the potential applications that they will provide in the future to society.”

Their results highlight the possibility of a strong precipitation reduction in the northern edge of the monsoon in response to warming, with consequences for regional water resources, agriculture and ecosystems.

“Monsoon rains are critical for the southwest U.S. and northwest Mexico, yet the fate of the North American monsoon is quite uncertain,” said Pascale, the lead author on the paper. “The future of the monsoon will have direct impacts on agriculture, on livelihoods.”

Previous general circulation models have suggested that the monsoons were simply shifting later, with decreased rains through July but increased precipitation in September and October.

“The consensus had been that global warming was delaying the monsoon … which is also what we found with the simulation if you didn’t correct the SST biases,” Pascale said. “Uncontrolled, the SST biases can considerably change the response. They can trick us, introducing artefacts that are not real.”

Once those biases were corrected for, the researchers discovered that the North American monsoon (NAM) is not simply delayed, but that the total precipitation is facing a dramatic reduction — up to 40 percent.

“Because much of the NAM region critically depends on summertime monsoonal rainfall, the results of [this research] underscore the necessity of planning future water resource management around the likelihood of reduced monsoonal rains,” said Benjamin Lintner, an associate professor of environmental sciences at Rutgers University, who was not involved in this study.

That has significant implications for regional policymakers, explained Kapnick. “Water infrastructure projects take years to a decade to plan and build and can last decades. They require knowledge of future climate … to ensure water supply in dry years. We had known previously that other broadly used global models didn’t have a proper North American monsoon. This study addresses this need and highlights what we need to do to improve models for the North American monsoon and understanding water in the southwest.”

Meanwhile, back in the real world:


And, for good measure, annual precipitation:


In any other walk of life, anybody who wrote such incompetent and dishonest work would be out of a job in 5 minutes flat.

Why Princeton University is allowing its prestigious name to be tarnished is a mystery.



More JUNK from the “Greens”

Claim: Climate Action Could Help Heal the Rift between North and South Korea

Acquired January 30, 2014. Flying over East Asia, astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS) took this night image of the Korean Peninsula

by Eric Worrall

What the starving, brutalised victims of the repulsive Kim regime need is more climate action, according to a Korean professor of sustainability.

Tackling climate change could bring North and South Korea closer and help stabilise the region

Hun Park
Research Professor, Sustainability, Yonsei University
October 13, 2017 6.18am AEDT

The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015 requires every country to make pledges to tackle climate change. North Korea is no exception.

Given that air pollution doesn’t recognise borders, there are already several emissions-reduction projects underway that will require cooperation between Asian nations.

To meet its obligations, South Korea has pledged to buy emissions credits on the international market, offsetting 11.3% of its business-as-usual emissions in 2030. That is 96.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions – already more than North Korea’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2013 (78 million tonnes).

Because North Korea has its own obligations now, foreign countries including South Korea can no longer earn carbon credits from their carbon-offsetting projects in the country.

But if South Korea provides technical assistance such as satellite monitoring of North Korea’s reforestation progression and then can obtain the country’s “informed consent”, a mutual effort to generate carbon credits could be discussed.

Read more:

North Korea doesn’t give a hoot about the environment. We’re talking about the country which last month announced their intention to detonate a nuclear bomb over a random location in the Pacific, to demonstrate their military virility.

I doubt North Korea will care if their test kills whoever is unlucky enough to be caught in the blast radius, or poisons anyone downwind of their primitive, high fallout bombs.

I’m horrified climate was ever used as an excuse to give money to North Korea. According to The Guardian, in Africa, paying governments to set aside forest reserves for carbon credits has led to the brutal deployment of armed soldiers to clear villagers from the new reserves.

Assuming North Korea pays any heed to international climate agreements, and creates or has already established similar forest reserves, does anyone think the Kim regime will be any kinder to North Korean people caught in the path of money grubbing international geopolitics? Does anyone seriously think the murderous Kim regime, whose brutal incompetence has already killed millions, would hesitate to kill more of their own people to secure millions of dollars of international climate cash?

I don’t know how to solve the North Korean situation. But giving the Kim regime millions of dollars to further mess up the lives of their victims in the name of climate action does not seem like a step in the right direction.





100% Data Tampering

What kind of a problem would need FAKE and manipulated documentation?

Look at all these “Climate Agreements.” We continue to lose money, prosperity and freedom while the CO2 level continue to increase, when do we say enough??