edberry.com

this is the tagline

Data contradict government Climate Claims

by John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville, February 2, 2016 

Testimony to U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology

I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as Lead Author, Contributing Author and Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

It is a privilege for me to offer my analysis of the current situation regarding (1) the temperature datasets used to study climate, (2) our basic understanding of climate change and (3) the effect that regulations, such as the Paris agreement, might have on climate. I have also attached an extract from my Senate Testimony last December in which I address (1) the popular notion that extreme climate events are increasing due to human- induced climate change (they are not), and (2) the unfortunate direction research in this area has taken.

My research area might be best described as building datasets from scratch to advance our understanding of what the climate is doing and why – an activity I began as a teenager over 50 years ago. I have used traditional surface observations as well as measurements from balloons and satellites to document the climate story. Many of our UAH datasets are used to test hypotheses of climate variability and change. [Read more…]

Feynman: The Key to Science (1964)

“Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process.

“First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply.

“Then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science.

“It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, or who made the guess, or what his name is…

“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. That’s all there is to it.”

Climate models disagree with experiment, therefore they are wrong. Therefore, the hypothesis that our CO2 emissions cause significant global warming is wrong.

Sun not CO2 causes climate change

First published on Sep 29, 2015. I changed this date so more readers can find Soon’s publication.  – Ed

by Dr. Ed Berry (Ph.D., Atmospheric Physics)

A new, peer-reviewed professional paper shows our sun, not our carbon dioxide, causes climate change. It also shows atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are an insignificant player, and possibly a non-player, in climate change.

The authors, Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly, and Michael Connolly received no government, corporate, or any outside funding for their work on their paper.

You can read their whole 49-page paper (like I did) if you want all the scientific details. The authors have provided their data files.

Here, I will make their conclusions very simple for you to understand.

They used northern hemisphere data from 1880 to 2014. They used data, not theories, to make their case. [Read more…]

Why Eric Grimsrud is wrong about climate

by Dr. Ed Berry

Last week, I published my article “Democrats keep lying about global warming” about Dr. Steve Running of the University of Montana and his unethical claim to have a Nobel Peace Prize.

Seems Dr. Eric Grimsrud has a problem with my article. He added two comments so far. Here I reply to his comments. My reply is of necessity too long for a comment. So I publish my reply as this new post.

Dear Eric,

You believe human carbon dioxide emissions will destroy planet Earth. Yet your quest to “prove” your case continues to fail. Here’s why.

You believe your key to proof is to personally denigrate all who claim your scientific conclusion is wrong.

Back in Climate Clash, you claimed Richard Lindzen was a pseudo scientist because you could not prove his published papers on climate were wrong.

You are preoccupied with the question of “Who is the smartest?” You believe the answer to this question determines who is correct about climate. It doesn’t.

You brag about your scientific papers because you believe the number of your published papers proves you are correct about climate. It doesn’t.

All your published papers were about a relatively narrow subject in chemistry. You have no demonstrated expertise outside this narrow field. You have no expertise in numerical models, meteorology or climate physics.

You brag about the subjects you studied. You believe this proves you are correct about climate. It doesn’t.

Your list shows you missed the most important course: the philosophy of science. [Read more…]

Democrats keep lying about global warming

by Dr. Ed Berry

The University of Montana continues to lie about Global Warming and Steve Running.

Today, the University of Montana Flathead Lake Biological Station announced it will host a presentation on July 5 titled, “What’s New in the Global Warming World?” Their announcements reads:

Join the Bio Station and the Flathead Lakers to hear Dr. Steve Running, University of Montana Regents Professor of Global Ecology speak about the current state of climate change science.  He is an internationally renowned climate scientist, participating in the US National Climate Assessment, the NASA Science Advisory Council, and the 4th Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Their announcement is fraudulent.

Running is not a climate scientist. He was a “Professor of Forest Ecology.” Now he is a “Professor of Global Ecology.” Note the new reference to globalism. Steve Running is a globalist who promotes the globalist myth of global warming. He does a disservice to all Montanans.

Dr. Steve Running masquerades as something he is not. Climate is a subject of physics, not ecology. Physics and ecology are entirely different disciplines. The Democrats support his fraud. They might as well claim a law degree makes one a brain surgeon and a medical degree makes one a trial lawyer.

Steve Running does NOT share a the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

The University of Montana Flathead Lake Biological Station announcement claims Running shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Facts show Running’s claim to a Nobel Peace Prize is a baldfaced lie. Given he lies about who he is, how can you believe his claims about climate?

In addition, a Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with science. The Flathead Biological Station commits fraud when it suggests a Nobel Peace Prize relates to accuracy in science.

The Democrats’ worst failure is their lie about global warming. They do not understand the scientific method. Democrats are mentally incapable of scientific debate. They just assume they are correct and denigrate anyone who disagrees with them.

They think science is about cherry-picking data that seems to support their preconceived hypothesis. Steve Running and the Democrats do not understand that science is just the opposite. Science is about rejecting hypotheses that make wrong predictions.

The Key to Science

The Key to Science is if any prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Their global warming hypothesis makes many wrong predictions. Therefore, their hypothesis is wrong. Human CO2 does not cause climate change. Something else does.

The Democrats and Steve Running and the University of Montana claim our CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming when CO2 data do not even correlate with global temperature. How dumb can you get?

Should I Worry?

Dr. Nebert is a physician-scientist with 50 years of work in basic and clinical research. He has over 500 publications. His public-oriented articles, like this one, are about busting myths. He uses scientific facts to counter publicly accepted hype and hysteria. The Cincinnati Enquirer published this article in May 2015. – Ed

by Dr. Daniel W Nebert, Professor Emeritus, University of Cincinnati Medical Center

The media constantly strives to increase newspaper and magazine circulation; also the number of radio listeners and television, online and podcast viewers. One effective way to achieve this goal is to exploit the theme: “Should I worry?”

For example, after World War II was the “flying saucer scare”. Worry about an invasion from outer space certainly sold more newspapers and magazines and increased television news-watching. This concern also led to the government-funded program, Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). [Read more…]

A Warming Arctic Would Not Cause Increased Severe Weather or Temperature Extremes

by Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist, Weatherwise, Inc.

This paper is a critique Francis and Vavrus (2012), hereinafter FV (2012), by atmospheric scientists Jennifer Francis from Rutgers University and Steve Vavrus of the University of Wisconsin. Their paper can be downloaded here: 

http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/Francis_Vavrus_2012GL051000_pub.pdf

and an updated version here:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014005/pdf

FV (2012) claims a measured decrease in the zonal or west to east wind component due to “arctic amplification” (AA) would increase jet stream meandering, increase the amplitude or “waviness” of the flow, and increase persistent long wave blocking patterns around the northern hemisphere. This, in turn, would increase severe weather, droughts, floods and temperature extremes.

To quote the authors directly:

 “Two effects are identified that each contribute to a slower eastward progression of Rossby waves in the upper-level flow: 1) weakened zonal winds, and 2) increased wave amplitude. These effects are particularly evident in autumn and winter consistent with sea-ice loss, but are also apparent in summer, possibly related to earlier snow melt on high-latitude land. Slower progression of upper-level waves would cause associated weather patterns in mid-latitudes to be more persistent, which may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.”

To quote the authors again, the effects described above are the result of arctic amplification, a term defined by the authors as:

“Arctic amplification (AA) – the observed enhanced warming in high northern latitudes relative to the northern hemisphere”

This definition seems to fit the claims made by NASA GISS and NOAA that temperature measurements of the arctic are warming at a much greater rate than anywhere else in the northern hemisphere. [Read more…]