Moose and Morons in Minnesota

“(Reuters) – The population of moose in northeastern Minnesota dropped by 35 percent since last year, prompting state officials to cancel this year’s fall hunt and conservationists to blame warming temperatures for the massive creature’s decline.”

“Doug Inkley, a wildlife biologist and senior scientist at the National Wildlife Federation, said climate change is a factor.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/09/us-climate-moose-idUSBRE91806Y20130209

“MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Scientists are trying to figure out why the moose population in Minnesota has gone down as much as 65 percent.

The answers aren’t good news.

The Minnesota DNR captured 49 moose calves and fitted them with GPS transmitter collars. Days after finishing their work, 22 of the newborn moose had already died.

The DNR said most were killed by bears and wolves.”

Scientists Find Out Why Moose Population’s Slipping

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions – License To Kill Condors

There is an old saying: The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

Good Intention: Wind Turbines

Road To Hell: Slaughtering Condors

“The California condor’s slow 20-year climb back from the brink of extinction has long been a fragile not-quite-success story in the conservation world. So when the news came on Friday that developers of a wind-energy project near the Mojave Desert would not face criminal charges if the blades killed a single condor, environmental groups expressed grave concern.”

(Note the sick pun)

(h/t) Tom Nelson

HADCRUT4 4.2.0.0 versus HADCRUT4 4.0.0.0 Global

HADCRUT4 is now at its 3rd iteration. It started with version 4.0.0.0 and then version 4.1.1.0 come out. As of the latest data it is at 4.2.0.0.

I thought I would compare them. Here is the difference between them ( 4.2.0.0 monthly anomaly minus 4.0.0.0 monthly anomaly).

If the bar is red, the newest HADCRUT4 is warmer. If blue, then the newest data is cooler.

This is the data from 1950 on. Note that the values are pretty low and relatively evenly divided between blue and red.

Until 1997. Then the values are a little larger (still relatively small).  And almost all red.

They are warming the most recent temperatures again! Give them a few years and the pause will disappear.

Click to make bigger.

HADCRUT4 4.2.0.0 minus HADCRUT4 4.0.0.0 Global

 

USA NOAA March 2013 State Temperatures – Florida and South Carolina 5th coldest out of 119 – 114 Were Warmer.

Florida and South Carolina was coldest state by ranking. 5th coldest out of 119 for March 2013. 114 were warmer.

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama were amazingly cold at 6th/7th coldest out of 119.

In fact the list of really cold states was very long. Twelve states had an average temperature below freezing!

31 of the lower 48 states were ranked less than 60 out of 119, which is pretty cold.

The warmest state in terms of ranking was California at 111, still colder than 8 March’s.

The biggest difference between March 2013 and the warmest March was North Dakota, 23F colder than 2012.

No state broke a warm record. No sign of “global warming” in March 2013 in the USA.

State Mar_2013 Current Rank Warmest Year Warmest Temp Difference From Warmest
Florida 59 5 1997 70.6 11.6
South Carolina 48.2 5 1945 63.1 14.9
Kentucky 38.9 6 1945 55.6 16.7
Mississippi 50.2 6 1907 65.1 14.9
North Carolina 44.1 6 2012 58.7 14.6
Tennessee 42.6 6 1921 58.6 16
Georgia 50.3 7 1921 64.6 14.3
Alabama 49.9 8 2012 64.3 14.4
Virginia 40.3 10 1921 55 14.7
Illinois 34 11 1946 51.6 17.6
Arkansas 46.2 12 1907 61.2 15
West Virginia 36.3 13 1921 51.6 15.3
Iowa 28.7 14 1910 47.7 19
Missouri 38.2 14 1910 55 16.8
Indiana 35 15 1946 52.1 17.1
Louisiana 55.2 16 1921 67.6 12.4
North Dakota 17.3 16 2012 40.3 23
Wisconsin 23.8 17 1910 40.7 16.9
Minnesota 20.7 22 1910 40.6 19.9
Ohio 35 23 1946 49.5 14.5
Maryland 39 25 2012 52.3 13.3
Kansas 40 34 1910 54.7 14.7
Pennsylvania 34.3 35 1945 47.2 12.9
South Dakota 28.3 35 1910 46.3 18
Nebraska 34 37 1910 50 16
Oklahoma 47.3 38 2007 58.3 11
Delaware 41.2 40 1945 52.6 11.4
Michigan 27.9 42 1945 41.2 13.3
New Jersey 38.8 47 1945 49.5 10.7
Texas 57 53 1904 63.7 6.7
New York 30.6 57 1946 42 11.4
Massachusetts 34.7 60 2012 43.8 9.1
Montana 31.1 60 1910 41.4 10.3
Connecticut 36 63 1946 44 8
Colorado 34.6 66 2012 42 7.4
Rhode Island 37.6 67 1946 44 6.4
Wyoming 31.7 77 1986 39.8 8.1
Oregon 41.7 79 1986 46.2 4.5
Vermont 30.3 83 1946 38.9 8.6
Idaho 36.3 85 1992 42.8 6.5
Washington 42 87 1934 46.2 4.2
New Hampshire 31.8 88 1946 39.4 7.6
New Mexico 46.5 95 2004 49.7 3.2
Utah 41 95 1986 45.6 4.6
Maine 30.7 99 1903 34.5 3.8
Arizona 55.1 110 1895 57.1 2
Nevada 44.6 110 2004 47.8 3.2
California 55.2 111 2004 58.5 3.3

Arctic Sea Ice 2013 is only 4th lowest so far

Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2013 is only 4th lowest so far using the mean up to this day in each year.

And the anomaly is half the 2006 anomaly.

We are saved!

Year Anomaly (sq km)
2006 -916,781
2005 -744,955
2007 -743,831
2013 -484,217
2010 -446,517
2012 -445,151
2009 -401,894
2004 -347,932
2008 -307,371
1996 -212,097
2000 -121,103
2002 -54,227
2001 -16,150
2003 14,480
1995 17,785
1991 52,640
1999 66,556
1997 96,180
1984 139,216
1992 184,595
1989 256,508
1994 271,011
1998 344,667
1981 375,843
1985 380,320
1990 399,046
1993 467,706
1988 479,840
1986 513,926
1987 598,476
1980 644,064
1983 693,561
1982 744,653
1979 950,301

(daily data from here)

Arctic_Sea_Ice_Extent_Zoomed_2013_Day_102_1981-2010

Climate Science: The Constructing Explanations Phase

I was reading a transcript of an interview with Hans von Storch on P Gosselin’s blog today.

In terms of my understanding of what is going on in climate “science”, he really hit the nail on the head.

Q: Can the cause of the cold winters be identified?

HvS: One has to ask why are such explanations first found after the event appears.It indeed would have been much nicer if someone had said already in the year 2000: By the way, you have to expect harder winters in Europe because the Arctic ice is retreating in the summer. This claim today then would have been far more convincing. But it was the other way around: We noticed that something strange had happened, and then an explanation was constructed. Other explanations would also be possible.”

Bingo!!!

Climate Science in the 1980s and 1990s and 2000s made all kinds of predictions about coming doom and gloom. To use one example they predicted less sea ice at both poles. The problem for climate science is that Antarctic Sea  Ice grew! So what happened? Someone wrote a paper with a constructed explanation for why it happened (based on a joke of a climate model usually). There are dozens of other “explanations” that have come out recently to explain why there is more snow or less snow or more rain or less rain depending on which previous prediction existed.

What is really happening is that climate scientists are just making these explanations up because us “deniers” have been mocking them and making them look really really stupid. So scientists being well funded by the AGW industry have started constructing explanations to attack the deniers attacks on the old stupid obviously wrong predictions climate scientists made in the past.

So … we are now in the Constructing Explanations Phase of climate science. In essence they are trying to cover up their horrible predictions with bogus excuses.

 

 

 

 

 

The Big Green Insane Con – Half Of European “Renewables” is filthy, smoky, high CO2 Wood!

The big green con continues in Europe. While the USA is burning more and more clean natural gas, Europe is burning more wood!

“Which source of renewable energy is most important to the European Union?
Solar power, perhaps? (Europe has three-quarters of the world’s total installed capacity of solar photovoltaic energy.)
Or wind? (Germany trebled its wind-power capacity in the past decade.) The answer is neither.

By far the largest so-called renewable fuel used in Europe is wood.

In its various forms, from sticks to pellets to sawdust, wood (or to use its fashionable name, biomass)
accounts for about half of Europe’s renewable-energy consumption.

In some countries, such as Poland and Finland, wood meets more than 80% of renewable-energy demand.

Even in Germany, home of the Energiewende (energy transformation) which has poured huge subsidies
into wind and solar power, 38% of non-fossil fuel consumption comes from the stuff.”

http://www.thegwpf.org/environmental-lunacy-europe-wood-craze/

Climatologists Are No Einsteins

Understatement of the Decade.

Freeman Dyson:

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”

William Happer:

“There are people who just need a cause that’s bigger than themselves,” said Happer. “Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous.”

That reminds of the joke Judith Curry deleted from her blog the other day:

Q: Why did god invent phrenologists?

A: So climate scientists would have a profession to look down upon.