More evidence: What you are seeing does not match the conclusions you drew (because of ignorance), Drylands Dryness edition

https://www.engineering.columbia.edu/press-releases/gentine-drylands-not-getting-drier

tl;dr: There exists a previously-unknown negative feedback mechanism controlling climate on the Earth that was causing models to not match observations. Global warming climate models all fail at general predictions over the long term because they don’t match observations . . . because the scientists programming the models don’t know everything.

Forgive me for thinking we should not base global governance on half-baked science driven by agendas contrary to common sense.

Sincerely,

a climate heretic.

More evidence: What you are seeing does not match the conclusions you drew (because of ignorance)

RMIT University and the Australian National University, with the University of Sydney and USA’s Oak Ridge National Laboratories have proved that the planet is not 3.4 billion years old.

Hold on there.

Not quite. But they have proved that it doesn’t have to be, for there to be diamonds. These rocket surgeons have figured out how to make diamonds at room temperature by applying pressure and shear forces as has not previously been tried.

The current scientific paradigm (which, of course, eliminates all belief in Genesis chapter 1) says diamonds must have taken billions of years to form, under terrific pressures deep in the earth’s crust. The evolutionist has no problems saying “God made them LOL” but this is not acceptable to a scientist (as a person who relies on scientism). This new discovery does not explain how diamonds must have formed in nature. It tells us that “everybody knows” something which may be false, and the reality is actually compatible with young Earth history.

Juuuuust saying.

Friendly Reminder: Climate Science is In Its Infancy

…(compared to all that there is to know about weather and climate).

One of the main drivers of the greenhouse effect is supposed to be methane. Methane as it turns out is released abundantly by the ocean. The ocean’s release of methane is partially regulated by the moon. If, as alleged, methane makes the planet warm up causing higher sea levels, methane emissions will be reduced due to higher pressure on the ocean floor. Oh, and the arctic ocean where we aren’t looking is apparently contributing more to this emission than previously thought. From the journal Nature Communications

Another thing influencing weather and climate is atmospheric aerosols. Guess what we have only now discovered happens in quantity, naturally? Generation of aerosols by mountains. From Nature Geoscience

From the “Duh, me” category: Arctic sea ice vs. temperature, a sudden realization

People who are paying attention to Watts Up With That will perhaps have beaten me to this realization, but it just occurred to me and although it seems rather obvious in retrospect, I made a spiffy visualization that I felt like sharing.

Ok so we’re supposed to panic about the loss of area of arctic sea ice, right? The poor polar bears and their fraudulently-claimed-as-dying photographs, a dEaTH SpiRaL of shrinking summer ice extents, etc., right?  Except that the sea ice seems to have not got the memo, and it has pretty much stabilized for the last decade: 

ok, cool, but we’re still going to die from the global warming though right?

Yeah not so much on that, too.  The number to watch is the temperature anomaly reported by the University of Huntsville at Alabama.  The UAH temperature record is more-or-less a straight recording of the global temperature, without shenanigans like parking temperature monitoring stations at the end of a runway, or putting the thermometer in a box painted brown such as have been producing some of the recent RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE headlines.  UAH shows a gradual increase from the start of the record, a sharp increase during the El Nino event in 1998, and then it’s pretty much flat after that as well.  Dig it: 

I saw the NOAA sea ice chart and noticed there’s a knee right around 1998.  Then I remembered the super El Nino that seemingly shifted the temperature of the world right around the same time, and the hamsters got on the wheel and started running . . . and I decided to see for myself what these charts look like, overlaid.

So I flipped the Annual Sea Ice Extent chart, stretched it to overlay the scale of time, and stretched it again to overlay the extent with UAH’s global temperature anomaly.  I shouldn’t have been surprised that the match was pretty much bang-on, but I was a little.  Behold: UAH 6.0 temperature vs. NOAA Sea Ice Extent:

Maybe I stretched it a little too much vertically, but you get the idea: One might be forgiven for thinking that these numbers have something to do with each other!  Anyway, if my hunch plays out and we get some global cooling because of the low solar activity in the next (looks at wristwatch) year or three or ten, the Arctic sea ice should start to rebound nicely, and we’ll end up back in the gray area on this chart:

at which point, either we’ll be feasting on headlines about anything but this news of global significance, or if it is reported, the USA will be ignored as a world leader in the reduction of CO2 emissions on a fairly frequent basis (Paris Accord withdrawal notwithstanding) and the role of Sol in the temperature of the Earth will be staunchly ignored.

We’ll see, I guess.

VFD, how can you be a skeptic about man-caused global warming?

Simple: I look at the data instead of the political spin on the data, and then I think.  Watts Up With That is better than literally all mainstream press as a source of climate news.  It was there that I found a link to this .pdf book that you can read for yourself.  It’s free. You like things that are free, don’t you?  It’s not even a long book.  Check it out:

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

Aaaaand heeere weeee goooooO!!! . . . (?)

I’ve been expecting the global economy to crash and the USA economy to stagnate, beginning maybe the middle of last year to the end of this year. The systematic problems that caused the 2008/2009 crash were never properly fixed, and the bubbles are being blown up again.

Here is one bit of speculation that puts the decline start pretty soon: Mid-February 2018. If (big IF) BTC is actually a useful leading indicator, look for the amazingly-overvalued DJIA to plummet soon. If on the other hand BTC and all the other cryptos are just a flash in the pan that was going to fizzle anyway, maybe the ongoing bloodbath in cryptocurrency markets won’t mean anything at all:

So, we’ll see, I guess.

Bitcoin as a leading indicator? Michael Shedlock
Crypto bloodbath, Michael Shedlock

In related news (the relation being upward trends heading downward), depending heavily on whom you ask, we could start to see undeniable global cooling starting around the year 2020. This of course would be greeted with pats on the back from people who made lots of policies that changed nothing . . . but actually it would be related to a natural phenomenon known as the MDO of the GMT, which is predicted by some to begin cooling soon. We’ll see.

CO2 vs. GMT speculation from Girma Orssengo, PhD

Keep Guessing, Boys!

…hopefully you’ll get it right eventually.

New research suggests that maybe, just maybe, the science isn’t settled after all.  To put it mildly.  You could also say this is possibly a paradigm-shifting thing.  The Earth was apparently not formed according to the conventional theory, because the amounts and locations of metals in the crust are all wrong.  Maybe. In theory.

If these people would read their Bibles they would know that the Earth isn’t 4 billion or any billion years old, and that God made it right, first try, because he’s smart like that.

Since their worldview voluntarily prevents knowing that, they will forever be making new, puzzling discoveries and still not be able to figure it out.