Two articles on global warming computer models. The first is a lucid explaination of how the climate models work, and why it is impossible to verify the models.

The second one is on how the modelers themselves have it impossible for the models to be validated (a usually necessary step in determining how well models actually work).

Article #1: The Trouble with Global Climate Models

Article #2: Validation Of A Climate Model Is Mandatory: The Invaluable work of Dr. Vincent Gray

Fudging and Nudging
The climate models cannot be validated because they should be set up so that they accurately predict the past ("hindcasting"). However, the models cannot do so until the modelers have added a number of fudge factors that nudge the curves into the right shape BEFORE they run it. So, of course, it looks like the models are doing what they are supposed to.

To put this into computer programmer terms.

Imagine a computer programmer programming a computer that runs a robot that makes light bulbs or wraps candies (I know people who do that).

Evaluation of the model is like the programmer giving the program to a systems analyst to check the program. The analyst may run parts of it in a simulation, but does not actually use it run the robots.

Validation of the models is like the programmer running the program and seeing if the robots do what they are supposed to do. If the robots correctly wrap candies, the program is valid.

The programmers of the climate models have made it impossible to actually validate their models by throwing in enough "fudge factors" to make the model work on the past ("hindcasting") that the models cannot predict future ("forecasting"). The fudge factors push the models to predict things that are not happening.

Science Links: 8/1/2015

Article #1: How Far Can the Human Eye See a Candle Flame?

The brightest stars, such as Vega, have a [apparent] magnitude 0. At what distance would a candle flame be comparable to a star like Vega, they asked. 

Some straightforward nighttime experiments with a candle suggested that the distance was 338 meters. “To our eyes the candle flame and Vega appeared of comparable brightness,” they say.

This is apparent magnitude. So, at 338 meters (about 370 yards or 0.2 miles) Vegas and a candle would be equally bright.

They compared the magnitude of the dimmest stars we can see with how far away the candle had to be in order for it to have the same magnitude. That distance was about 1.6 miles

Article #2: Earth's 'magnetic personality' much older than previously thought

By measuring the magnetic field of magnetite from Australian zircons, researchers concluded that the magnetic field of earth was at least or 4.2 billion years old. Or it has existed for at least 80% of earth's history.

Article #3: California ‘rain debt’ equal to average full year of precipitation

California averages about 20 inches of rain a year, but the actual amount in any given year swings fairly wildly.

California regularly experiences drought years, but this is the third year running that there has been a rain debt and the total over the last 3 years equals 1 year.

California has had larger rain debt, for example, "a 27.5 inch deficit of rain and snow occurred in the state between 1986 and 1994."

That was less of a crisis than today because the population was smaller, less agriculture was irrigated, and less water was diverted for environmental purposes.

There is a good discussion of the mechanics of the flow of air which creates both drought and surplus conditions, along with a discussion of how El Nino plays into the atmospheric dynamics.

Article: Scientists warn an entire eco-system is under threat from climate change

I am not doubting the connection between craneflies, bogs and rare birds. And that they are all threatened by increasing droughts.

However, I ran across a comment a few weeks ago about the tentativeness of predictions involving the effects of global warming (and, no, I refuse to use "climate change.")

So here are the "tentative" words, and some comments.

Warn; threat; climate change (actually global warming); are being put at risk; climate change; warn; climate change; [predicted] rising temperatures; climate change; predicted; will cause; peatland model; climate change; predictions; could see; securing the future; peatland model; climate change; climate change; risk; climate change; big change; change; climate change; climate change. 

The body of the article has about 694 words (WordPerfect), 22 sentences, 26 "tentatives" and 10 uses of "climate change."

The peatland model is based on climate models and accepts them as accurate, even though all of the climate models in the IPCC reports have not been falsified.

Article: Hot and Bothered: Air conditioning isn’t bad for you or even (relatively) for the planet.

[T]he case against AC has always been more a moral judgment than a scientific one. Summer cooling is no more damaging to the climate than the heating that we do in winter. In fact, it’s substantially less so, since the United States burns more fuel on radiators than it does on air conditioners. According to the most recent stats available from the federal government (which cover 2010), the average American household puts 40.4 million British thermal units into home heating, and just 9.3 million BTUs into home cooling. As I’ve pointed out before, this explains why the long-term shift in population from our coldest, Northern states into the hot and humid South has in sum reduced the amount of fossil fuel we burn to keep our houses at a comfortable temperature. Simply put: It’s more efficient to air-condition homes in Florida than it is to warm the ones in Minnesota. 

Europeans have trouble understanding the US's fondness for AC. They assume that our climates are like theirs. However, the climates in our midwest and east coast are very different from theirs, being much hotter and more humid during the summer. Only our west coast climates, mostly cool and humid or warm and dry, are similar to theirs.

Article: Abrupt climate change may have doomed mammoths and other megafauna, scientists report

During the Late Pleistocene, over about 50,000 years, most megafauna outside of Africa went extinct.

Old hypotheis: megafauna went extinct due to rapid cooling events.
More recent hypothesis: megafauna went extinct due to human migration into the megafauna's ecosystems.
New hypothesis: megafauna went extinct due to rapid warming events.

The study, published in Science on Thursday, is the first to link specific climatic events to localized extinctions of megafauna. In this case, the events are called “interstadials,” or short warming periods that occurred throughout the era. The interstadials saw temperature increases anywhere from 4 to 16˚C, the study’s authors explain, and sometimes that warming occurred over just a few decades. Once warming occurred, the Earth would stay warm for hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years. 

[Alan Cooper of the University of Adelaide] Cooper’s model suggests that climate-driven extinction events happened in a pattern over time, closely tied to warming events that occurred through the era, going back until at least 50,000 years ago. Those patterns, Cooper said, weren’t always discernible from the fossil record. Instead, the team used a combination of DNA and radiocarbon dating to link localized megafauna extinctions to a series of rapid warming events over time.

The article ends with obligatory tie-in to global warming.

Article: Abrupt warming events drove Late Pleistocene Holarctic megafaunal turnover

The mechanisms of Late Pleistocene megafauna extinctions remain fiercely contested, with human impact or climate change cited as principal drivers. Here, we compare ancient DNA and radiocarbon data from 31 detailed time series of regional megafaunal extinctions/replacements over the past 56,000 years with standard and new combined records of Northern Hemisphere climate in the Late Pleistocene. Unexpectedly, rapid climate changes associated with interstadial warming events are strongly associated with the regional replacement/extinction of major genetic clades or species of megafauna. The presence of many cryptic biotic transitions prior to the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary revealed by ancient DNA confirms the importance of climate change in megafaunal population extinctions and suggests that metapopulation structures necessary to survive such repeated and rapid climatic shifts were susceptible to human impacts.

Morons and Global Warming

I like to look at the orign and uses of words, how their meanings change over time, and why they come into use and go out of use.

At the bottom of the post, I have listed a number of words that at one time had a specific, legitimate medical use which have since fallen out of favor: idiot, cretin, moron, retard, imbecile and lunatic. All are Greek or Latin derivities, transferred into English as medical terms. All of them have similar meanings to the English word "fool" which itself is derived from Latin.  All of them are "no longer in technical use; considered offensive."

So what do morons have to do with the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis?

I do not wish to imply that those accept or deny the hypothesis are morons. Rather I wish to illuminate something about the shift from using CAGW to using climate change.

Over the last 5 years or so, proponents have shifted away from using CAGW, or even just global warming (GW) to using climate change. Why?

The first reason I see is that CAGW and GW have become "considered offensive." That is, the shrillness and the extremism of CAGW proponents have become offensive to ordinary people and to some scientists.

The second reason is that the more extreme predictions (the "catastrophic" part) have already failed to pan out and climate warming is in a hiatus (only relieved by manipulating a single set of data). No one likes to be reminded of their failures.

The third reason is that "cimate change" is new, and there is no negative connotations.

The fourth reason is that it is a neutral phrase, not implying warming or cooling. It is a "safe" phrase. It is also cowardly because all climate phenomena can now be ascribed to "climate change:" warming or cooling, drought or floods, ice caps melting or increasing, increased storms or decreased storms.

Additionally, anyone who disagrees with CAGW can now be called a "climate change denier." This is a straw dog logical fallacy because no one denies that climate changes. The deniers can be dismissed as "anti-science."

In conclusion, the shift from CAGW and GW to climate change is an admission of failure on the part of advocates of the CAGW hypothesis.

Word study:
The definitions are word origins are from online resources include the online Webster Dictionary.

idiot

a stupid person.
synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton; More

MEDICINE archaic: a mentally handicapped person.

Psychology. (no longer in technical use; considered offensive) a person of the lowest order in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

Origin of idiot

1250-1300; Middle English < Latin idiōta < Greek idiṓtēs private person, layman, person lacking skill or expertise, equivalent to idiō- (lengthened variant of idio- idio-, perhaps by analogy with stratiōtēs professional soldier, derivative of stratiá army) + -tēs agent noun suffix

Moron
Psychology. (no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) a person of borderline intelligence in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

Origin of MORON

irregular from Greek mōros foolish, stupid
First Known Use: 1910

Feeble-minded.
Psychology. (no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) a person of borderline intelligence in a former and discarded classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

Mentally retarded. 

subaverage intellectual ability equivalent to or less than an IQ of 70 that is accompanied by significant deficits in abilities (as in communication or self-care) necessary for independent daily functioning, is present from birth or infancy, and is manifested especially by delayed or abnormal development, by learning difficulties, and by problems in social adjustment

In reference to low intellectual ability, the terms retarded, retardation, and mental retardation [and retard] are now usually perceived as insulting.

Lunatic

affected with lunacy :  insane

Middle English lunatik, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French lunatic, from Late Latin lunaticus, from Latin luna; from the belief that lunacy fluctuated with the phases of the moon
First Known Use: 14th century

Imbecile

Definition of IMBECILE

usually offensive :  a person affected with moderate mental retardation

The noun imbecile is used informally as an insult to mean "fool". Its origins are in the Latin word imbecille, "weak or feeble," and it was an official medical term for people with a specific (and low) I.Q. in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Patients who were classified as imbeciles were said to have no more intelligence than a seven year-old child.

Origin of IMBECILE

French imbécile, noun, from adjective, weak, weak-minded, from Latin imbecillus
First Known Use: 1802

Cretin

n. a person suffering from cretinism. Cretinism - a congenital disease due to absence or deficiency of normal thyroid secretion, characterized by physical deformity, dwarfism, and mental retardation, and often by goiter.

Word Origin and History for cretin
n. 1779, from French crétin (18c.), from Alpine dialect crestin, "a dwarfed and deformed idiot" of a type formerly found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, from Vulgar Latin *christianus "a Christian," a generic term for "anyone," but often with a sense of "poor fellow." Related: Cretinism (1801).

Article: Sun's activity controls Greenland temperatures

To summarize:

Increased solar activity cooled Greenland from the 1950's to the early 1990's due to a decreased Gulf Stream current.

Decreased solar activity warmed Greenland from the 1990's to the present due to an increased Gulf Stream current.

However, unstated, global warming was supposed to decrease the Gulf Stream current. We have been having global warming since 1950's. Therefore, we should be having cooling in Greenland and increased ice. Therefore, the warming of Greenland over the last 2 decades is actually evidence that global warming has not been happening.

However:

Another recent study by [Penn State Professor Michael] Mann and his colleagues proposed that trapped greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning caused warming across the Northern Hemisphere and triggered an increase in ice melt. This led to the slowdown in ocean circulation and a cooler Greenland.

So warming causes slowdown, but then so does decreased solar activity which causes cooling.

The increased flow of warm water and air to Greenland due to decreased solar activity will cause increase melting of Greenland's ice.

However, unstated, decreased solar activity is correlated with decreased world-wide temperatures, which should increase glacial ice in other places.

On the other hand, the Medieval warm period caused ice to melt in Greenland (which is why it is called "Greenland"). And the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850) caused Greenland to ice up again, driving the Vikings to abandon their settlements there.

The Little Ice Age is correlated with decreased solar activity, the Maunder Minimum.

So we have both cooling periods and warming periods correlated with both warming and cooling episodes in Greenland.

I would guess that there may actually be a way to reconcile all this, and the researchers do propose a test to see if their hypothesis works out.

Starting around 2025, temperatures in Greenland could increase more than anticipated and the island's ice sheet could melt faster than projected,  

Satellites: No global warming for 20 years.

Article: Satellites: Earth Is Nearly In Its 21st Year Without Global Warming

After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 21st year without statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data. 

Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there’s been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 21 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere. 

Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged “hiatus” in global warming. After November of this year, RSS data will be in its 21st year without warming.  Ironically, the so-called “hiatus” in warming started when then vice President Al Gore and environmental groups touted RSS satellite data as evidence a slight warming trend since 1979. 

[snip] 

But what Michaels and others say is more problematic is the growing divergence between NOAA’s new temperature data [because of a massive "adjustment" up of data since the 1990's] versus satellite data and records from the UK Met Office. NOAA’s data shows significantly more warming than Met Office or satellite records.

Water for the farmers of California.

Democrats are against it. For decades, Democrats in general and California Democrats in particular have fought dam and reservoirs.

Article: An Engineered Drought

We do know two things. First, [current California Governor Jerry] Brown and other Democratic leaders will never concede that their own opposition in the 1970s (when California had about half its present population) to the completion of state and federal water projects, along with their more recent allowance of massive water diversions for fish and river enhancement, left no margin for error in a state now home to 40 million people. 

Second, the mandated restrictions will bring home another truth as lawns die, pools empty, and boutique gardens shrivel in the coastal corridor from La Jolla to Berkeley: the very idea of a 20-million-person corridor along the narrow, scenic Pacific Ocean and adjoining foothills is just as unnatural as “big” agriculture’s Westside farming. 

Article: House passes another bill to bring more water to California farmers

The House on Thursday passed GOP-led legislation designed to bring more water to California's farm belt amid a severe and lengthy drought. 

Similar legislation has failed in the last two congressional sessions, and the White House and Democrats remain opposed. 

The 170-page bill also sets deadlines for the completion of feasibility studies to build or enlarge five dams in the state and ends efforts to build up salmon populations in the San Joaquin River.

Article: House Democrats float new California water bill

The Democrats’ proposal omits new water storage projects or changes that boost irrigation deliveries to San Joaquin Valley farms, which have anchored House Republican drought-fighting efforts. Instead, it includes an array of water recycling grants, watershed protection programs, groundwater cleanup assistance and desalination studies, among other efforts.

Article: California flexes muscles in water tussle with farmers

California water regulators flexed their muscles by ordering a group of farmers to stop pumping from a branch of the San Joaquin River amid an escalating battle over how much power the state has to protect waterways that are drying up in the drought.

As the rest of the article makes plain, the farmers have long-standing, legally-binding water rights that (Democrat run) California are trying to take away.

The Pope's Atheist

Article: The Scientific Pantheist Who Advises Pope Francis

The "scientific pantheist" is Hans Schellnhuber. He is actually an atheist (which raises questions about either his integrity, advising a Pope or the Pope's gullibility in chosing a sworn enemy as an advisor). His beliefs are sometimes called, "scientific pantheism," however.

The article mentions the Gaia Principle, or Gaia Hypothesis. The orginal Gaia Hypothesis held that, because earth's climate has been stable (swinging from cool to warm) over billions of year, it must have feedback loops maintaining the climate, just like a living organism has feedback loops maintaining a stable internal environment.

In other words, it was an analogy.

However, over time, the Gaia Principle, or "theory," became less of a scientific analogy and more of a mystic, "Gaia, the Mother Earth is a living thing" crackpot idea.

Schellnhuber is of the latter variety.

Read the article: the earth has a "geophysiology." The earth is "cognizant."

Twenty years ago, having a crackpot like Schellnhuber advise you would immediately revoke any and all credibility.

If you read his wikipedia page, he sounds legitimate.

It is as if a prominent Presidential candidate announces that he has Immanuel Velikovsky advising him on astronomy.

Article: Britain faces freezing winters as slump in solar activity threatens 'little Ice Age'

Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries". 

They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago. 

The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters. 

A spokesman said: "A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming. 

"Return of 'grand solar minimum' could affect European and eastern US winters."
Long episodes of low solar activity were seen during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and the 'Dalton Minimum' from 1790 to 1830.

Bonus reference to the Maunder Minimum!

The Astronomy of the Bible by E. Walter Maunder

Maunder was both a prominent astronomer a believing Christian who took the astronomy of the Bible seriously. I have read most of the book. It is will written and easy to read.

Lies, D**n lies, and Global Warming

Article: NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

So a scientist has a hypothesis. He loves his hypothesis. He has spent years of his career perfecting computer models that reflect his hypothesis. He and his co-workers repeatedly get large grants to keep working on the models and his hypothesis. He has repeatedly made big splashes in the media promoting his hypothesis. He has testified before Congress (or Parliment or where ever) about his hypothesis. Politicians, reporters, and pundits have heaped praises and prizes on him because of his hypothesis.

People, however, begin to notice that for years, almost 20 year in fact, his models do not reflect the real world data that everyone has access to. People can compare what he has said with reality and the reality is disagreeing with his beloved model.

What to do?

Admit he might be wrong, and lose all of his grant money, public acclaim, and self-respect?

Of course not. He changes the actual, real-world data to reflect his hypothesis!

Orginal article [summary only]: Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

The pathetic loser part of this is that the "readjustments" contradict the satellite data that show no warming over the oceans. It is obvious that it is a desperate and transparent lie to keep global warming, warming.

Long-term trend in US tempertures: Cooling?

NOAA, in response to criticism about the placement of weather stations, and the resulting "need" to "adjust" the data to compensate, installed over 100 new weather stations throughout the US. These sites were established in sites that were not only described as pristine, but also would not see any development for the next 50-100 years.

Article: America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend

NOAA'S online publication: National Temperature Index

Over a 10+ year period, a very slight cooling trend is in evidence. This contradicts other NOAA data sets for the US (ie, the ones that are being "adjusted".)

The "adjusted" data shows that 2014 was one of the hottest years, overall. I know is an "apple and oranges" comparision. Or maybe a "Red Delicious" and "Fuji" apple comparision. But if you go to a store and find all the Fuji apples are mislabeled and are actually Granny Smith's, you have a right to be suspicious of the Red Delicious apples.

Article: Climate denial is immoral, says head of US Episcopal church

The highest ranking woman in the Anglican communion has said climate denial is a “blind” and immoral position which rejects God’s gift of knowledge.

"Immoral." I don't think that word means what you think it means.

From the Wikipedia article on Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the US Episcopal church:

She caused schism in the church:

Jefferts Schori's tenure has been highly controversial and marked by nearly unprecedented schism, with four dioceses having broken off to become part of the Anglican Church in North America...

She is vindictive:

At her direction the national church has initiated lawsuits against departing dioceses and parishes, with some $22 million spent thus far. She also established a policy that church properties were not to be sold to departing congregations.

She is a supporter of sexual immorality and of government intrusion into church life:

Jefferts Schori is a supporter of same-sex relationships and of the blessing of same-sex unions and civil marriages.

She is a supporter of killing the pre-born:

Like her predecessor, she is a supporter of abortion rights, stating that "We say it is a moral tragedy but that it should not be the government's role to deny its availability." She also supported the HHS mandate on birth control.

Yes, of course

Article: Scientists: Orbital Variations Main Cause of Climate Change

Global warming theorists have taken yet another hit with a new study out of Denmark which demonstrates that variations in Earth's orbit are the primary causes of climate change, and have been for at least the last 1.4 billion years.

Milankovitch cycles have been know for decades, and have been known to be major drivers of climate change, including the cause of ice ages and their ends. 

The question has been, "Does CO2 overwhelm the cycles or not?" And the answer appears to be "not." 

More Global Warming Fraud

Article: Report: Temperature Data Being Faked to Show Global Warming

An accountant compared the raw data first from several stations in Paraguay, then elsewhere in South America. All the data was "adjusted" to show global warming, or at least more global warming than has actually occurred.

[Paul] Homewood checked the data on three weather stations in Paraguay and found that all three had their initial raw readings adjusted to show lower temperatures in the 1950s and higher temperatures today. 

And it is not just in South America.

Traust Jonsson, a longtime climate researcher in Iceland was surprised to see the revised data "disappears" Iceland’s "sea ice years" around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost wiped out Iceland's economy.

Article: Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America

This is the original article. It has flashing .gifs that show how the data was manipulated.

This report is consistent with reports from elsewhere, including Australia.

Feel-good article of the day

Article: Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science

Five major ways, and a host of minor ways, the left ignores science. And pushes an agenda behind that ignore-ance.

Article: Carbon dioxide satellite mission returns first global maps

The title summarizes the article well.

The graphic is interesting, and rich in information that is puzzling.

[graphic]

Note that the data is from late fall in the northern hemisphere and late spring in the southern hemisphere. Plant use of CO2 is lower in the fall than in the spring. Previous research shows that CO2 decreases in the atmosphere of the southern hemisphere and increases in the northern hemisphere at this time. The graphic generally shows the opposite of what might be expected.

There is a broad band with a higher concentration of CO2 in the southern tropics. The authors attribute this to "biomass burning." The northern tropics show a lower concentration in their "winter" than the "summer" southern tropics. However, why there would be such a larger amount of biomass burning in the southern tropics as compared to the northern ones is not clear. The difference between southern and northern Africa is especially dramatic.

The southern tropics also show areas with high levels in the open ocean, well away from any land. I would not put much credence on the "biomass burning" guess. It strikes me as a "climatically correct" guess pulled out of someone's **s.

England, and Europe in general, has a very low level of CO2 in their atmosphere. Given their reliance on fossil fuels, this is surprising. Germany is increasing its use of coal, and eastern Europe has always been more reliant on coal than the western part. [Note: of the fossil fuels, coal gives off the highest amount of CO2 per unit of energy. It is considered the most "polluting" of the fossil fuels.]

Oddly, too, the Pennsylvania/Ohio part of the eastern US has a lower level of CO2 than would expected given its reliance on fossil fuels in general and coal in particular. On the other hand, the southern US has a relatively high level.

China has very high levels of CO2, as to be expected given its very high reliance on coal.

There is also a large "spot" in the northern Pacific Ocean near the Arctic that has a high level of CO2. Perhaps it is to be expected that cold water would generate more CO2 than not, but does not explain why the southern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, near the Antarctic, have a low level of CO2 as that water is generally cool, as well.

Given the recent failures of multiple climate models, one wonders if actual data from satellite sensors will not cause of the overthrow of more models. The NASA satellites recording the actual temperatures of the earth are producing data that is at odds with data from other sources and with existing climate models.

Article: NASA study finds 1934 had worst North American drought of last thousand years

Summary:

A new study using a reconstruction of North American drought history over the last 1,000 years found that the drought of 1934 was the driest and most widespread of the last millennium. Using a tree-ring-based drought record from the years 1000 to 2005 and modern records, scientists found the 1934 drought was 30 percent more severe than the runner-up drought (in 1580) and extended across 71.6 percent of western North America.

The Dust Bowl, in the middle of the Great Depression, was a large human and ecological disaster. Large amounts of farm soil blew off the farms of the Midwest so that dust was falling in New York City.

Two sets of conditions led to the severity and extent of the 1934 drought. First, a high-pressure system in winter sat over the west coast of the United States and turned away wet weather -- a pattern similar to that which occurred in the winter of 2013-14. Second, the spring of 1934 saw dust storms, caused by poor land management practices, suppress rainfall. 

"In combination then, these two different phenomena managed to bring almost the entire nation into a drought at that time," said co-author Richard Seager….

Farms in the Midwest now practice a variety of conservation methods to reduce the chance of this happening again.

This type of high-pressure system is part of normal variation in the atmosphere, and whether or not it will appear in a given year is difficult to predict in computer models of the climate. 

These droughts, the recent California drought and the 1934 Dust Bowl are normal parts of the climate and weather of North America.

This will need to be repeated because activists will try to claim every burp and hiccup in the weather as PROOF of anthropogenic climate change.

Article: Climate change: Models 'underplay plant CO2 absorption

THE ERROR

Global climate models have underestimated the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plants, according to new research. 

Scientists say that between 1901 and 2010, living things absorbed 16% more of the gas than previously thought. 

The authors say it explains why models consistently overestimated the growth rate of carbon in the atmosphere.

Yet another major factor missed/overlooked/underestimated/overestimated by the researchers setting up the global warming computer models. [I have several links to other things below this one.]

If the models are underestimating the amount of CO2 begin added to the air, they are overestimating the amount of CO2 in the air, and therefore the models are overestimating the warming caused by the nonexistent CO2.

HOW SCIENCE WORKS
As I have noted before, the errors, failings, and missed factors that are now coming out about the models are not really a problem. This is how science progresses. Propose a hypothesis, check it out in an experiment, and then modify or discard the hypothesis as needed.

The models inadequately modeled reality. Fix them and move on.

PROBLEM #1
But the models, and their makers, have proven to be untrustworthy. Weather data is routinely "normalized" (adjusted) to higher temperatures for recent data and to lower temperatures for older data. Some researchers are fighting charges of fraud. Others have admitted to hiding results that contradict their conclusions.

A number of factors have not been taken into effect that lower predicted temperatures when taken into account.

PROBLEM #2
However, activists routinely have made hysterical demands that the most extreme predictions of the models must be taken as proven. The activists then demand that the only possible response to these prediction is more government: higher taxes, more regulation, and more subsidies for favored technologies.

These in turn mean higher prices for energy, causing what is called "energy poverty" among the poor.

Routinely crying "Wolf!" damages the reputation of science in general. It also makes us distrust the predictions that are made, even after the models are corrected.

A SOLUTION
Be modest; be accurate; be willing to admit mistakes, even failures. And stop feeding hysterical activists.