Trump, the National Climate Assessment report, and fake news

The New York Times recently obtained a draft of the up-coming National Climate Assessment report. NYT is worried that the Trump administration will suppress the report. However, according to scientists who worked on the report, it has been available online since last January. (See Daily Caller story) You can download the 545-page 3rd draft report here, but don’t bother.

Besides the “fake news” story in the New York Times, we have a “fake news” story from the Associated Press printed by the Arizona Daily Star. Within that story is this sentence: Contradicting Trump’s claims that climate change is a “hoax,” the draft report representing the consensus of 13 federal agencies concludes that the evidence global warming is being driven by human activities is “unambiguous.”

Definition of unambiguous: “Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion.”

Because of that statement and this one: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” — Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC, I downloaded the report to see just how unambiguous the evidence is. Here is what I found.

1) All their evidence consists of computer modeling. There is no physical evidence. That’s just like the previous National Climate Assessment report. They are, in essence, claiming that evidence of warming is evidence of the cause of warming.

2) On page 139, they discuss how they attribute causes:

Detection and attribution of climate change involves assessing the causes of observed changes in the climate system through systematic comparison of climate models and observations using various statistical methods. An attributable change refers to a change in which the relative contribution of causal factors has been evaluated along with an assignment of statistical confidence.

3) Beginning on page 144, they discuss “major uncertainties.” Oops, not so “unambiguous.”

The transient climate response (TCR) is defined as the global mean surface temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling in a 1%/year CO2 transient increase experiment. The TCR of the climate system to greenhouse gas increases remains uncertain, with ranges of 0.9° to 2.0°C (1.6° to 3.6°F) and 0.9° to 2.5°C (1.6° to 4.5°F) in two recent assessments. The climate system response to aerosol forcing (direct and indirect effects combined) remains highly uncertain, because although more of the relevant processes are being in included in models, confidence in these representations remains low. Therefore, there is considerable uncertainty in quantifying the attributable warming contributions of greenhouse gases and aerosols separately. There is uncertainty in the possible levels of internal climate variability, but current estimates likely  range of +/- 0.1°C, or 0.2°F, over 60 years) would have to be too low by more than a factor or two or three for the observed trend to be explainable by internal variability.

Does that sound like the evidence is unambiguous?

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” – Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi

UPDATE: The material above refers to the third draft of the report. The fifth draft has just become available. One analyst noticed “that the latest draft climate report, published in June, had seemingly left out a rather embarrassing table from the Executive Summary, one that had previously been written into the Third Draft, published last December.” What has been omitted is the fact “that the hottest temperatures, (averaged over the US), were not only much, much higher in the 1930s. They were also higher during the 1920s. Indeed there have been many other years with higher temperatures than most of the recent ones.” (Source)

I would not call it a hoax as does President Trump; I’d call it a scam. The National Climate Assessment itself is fake news; a political, rather than a scientific document.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair.

Additional reading:

Alan Carlin, a former senior EPA analyst, says computer models fail because: The bottom-up GCM was a bad approach from the start and should never have been paid for by the taxpayers. All that we have are computer models that were designed and then tuned to lead to the IPCC’s desired answers and have had a difficult time even doing that.

So not only are the results claiming that global temperatures are largely determined by atmospheric CO2 wrong, but the basic methodology is useless. Climate is a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and the IPCC agrees that this is the case. It cannot be usefully modeled by using necessarily limited models which assume the opposite. Read more

Dr. Tim Ball: Uncovered: decades-old government report showing climate data was bad, unfit for purpose. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences, the research arm of the National Research Council, released a study expressing concern about the accuracy of the data used in the debate over climate change. They said there are,

“Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and continuity of the records,” that “place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results.”

See also:

A Simple Question for Climate Alarmists – where is the physical evidence

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

My comments on the previous National Climate Assessment:



Site Investigation of Tributary Drainages to the San Pedro River, Arizona

The Arizona Geological Survey has just released a new paper: Site Investigation of Tributary Drainages to the San Pedro River, Arizona (Open-file Report OFR-15-02) which is available for free download at:

The paper begins:

In late 2013 the Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS) partnered with the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to investigate sedimentary relationships at numerous sites along the San Pedro River in southeastern Arizona. This project supplemented previous work along the San Pedro River. In 2007, AZGS conducted surficial geologic mapping along the San Pedro River, Aravaipa Creek, and the Babocomari River. These maps and a report are available in AZGS DM-RM-1.2. The goal of the 2013 project was to conduct site investigations along the San Pedro River to determine whether sedimentary relationships between San Pedro River and tributary alluvium are accurately represented by their mapped location on the surface. This document includes a brief summary and description of sites along the San Pedro River visited by AZGS geologists in late 2013 and early 2014.

The report describes the geology of 39 sites with text, photos, and maps.


San Pedro River Geology – Implications for water law

The Tiny Common Ground-Dove


The Common Ground-Dove (Columbina passerina) is about the size of a sparrow with a body length of six to seven inches and a wingspan of 10 inches. It is the smallest dove in the U.S.

This dove occurs along the southern border of the U.S. from California to Florida. Its range includes Mexico, parts of Central America, Caribbean islands, and northern South America.

“Common Ground-Doves are sandy brown overall, with large, dark spots on the wing coverts. In flight the wings show rich rufous patches. Males have a pinkish wash on the head, neck, and chest, and bluish crowns; females are duller. Both sexes have fine, dark scaling on the neck and chest, and pinkish-red bills with a dark tip. Common Ground-Doves live in open or shrubby areas with tall grasses or groves of trees, including riparian corridors and open savannas. They also live in towns and suburbs, where they frequent yards and hedges.” (Cornell) The male is pictured above. See more photos here.

Ground-Doves eat primarily seeds from grasses and weeds. They may eat as many as 2,500 seeds every day. They also eat berries, insects, and snail shells (for the calcium to produce “crop milk” for nestlings).

Both male and female build the nest, usually a depression in the ground lined with grasses. They also nest in shrubs and trees. The male and female share incubation duty (12-14 days) and both feed the nestlings until they fledge (11-14 days). Normal clutch size is one to three eggs.

According to Cornell, “During the day Common Ground-Doves spend time on the ground searching for seeds and roosting. They may also roost in trees or shrubs at any hour of the day or night. They nod their heads as they walk, often holding their tails slightly elevated, and they usually make short, low, and direct flights. When startled they can quickly burst into nearby cover, but they are not a very anxious bird—allowing humans to get very close without appearing bothered.” Listen to their cooing sound here.

See also:

White-winged Doves

Mourning Doves

Inca Doves – small and surprising

Eurasian Collared-Doves


Pima County Az tilting at climate change

In the novel “The Ingenious Nobleman Mister Quixote of La Mancha” by Miguel de Cervantes, first published in 1605, the protagonist, Don Quixote, imagines that windmills are giants to be destroyed. Don Quixote attacks the windmills with his lance, an action called “tilting,” all to no avail. From this story comes the idiom “tilting at windmills” which means confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived, or courses of action are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications. We can add the motivation of political correctness to the Pima County, Arizona, plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Since President Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, Pima County Supervisors have approved their own version of the Paris Accord and pledge to reduce the County’s carbon dioxide emissions.

In a previous article, “Impact of Paris climate accord and why Trump was right to dump it” I show that if all countries fully comply with their promises under the Paris Accord, it would make a difference of only 0.17°C by the year 2100.

According to an article in the Arizona Daily Star, Pima County government will attempt to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 42 percent from current levels by 2025, mainly by using more solar energy. The county government will attempt to get 40 percent of its electricity from very unreliable solar generation. The county will also buy 20 new electric-powered sedans for its vehicle fleet a year, at $30,000 to $40,000 apiece.

These electric vehicles are much more expensive than gasolene-powered versions of the same model. According to a new paper published in the journal Issues in Science and Technology entitled Electric Vehicles: Climate Saviors, Or Not?, driving an electric vehicle rather than a conventional petroleum-powered vehicle effectively does nothing to reduce global-scale CO2 emissions. The net carbon dioxide emissions depend greatly on how the electricity for recharge is generated.

The Star story also notes that the county government’s share of regional greenhouse gas emissions is minuscule. It generated less than 0.1 percent of all emissions produced in eastern Pima County in 2014.

In my opinion, Pima County’s action with regard to reducing carbon dioxide emissions is simply a quixotic exercise in political correctness that will have absolutely no effect on global temperature nor on Tucson temperature. The action also diverts taxpayer money from projects that would actually benefit county citizens, such as repairing roads.

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” — Final chapter, Third Assessment Report, IPCC.

See also:

A Simple Question for Climate Alarmists which asks: “What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?” Expert climate scientists can’t cite any such evidence.

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

US Summers Are Getting Much Cooler

Reblogged from Tony Hellers RealClimate Science:

Every single metric shows that summer maximum temperatures are cooling in the US, and that heatwaves are becoming shorter, less intense and covering a smaller area.

Climate scientists say the exact opposite of the data, because they are consultants being paid to push the global warming scam.

West Antarctica ice-sheet calving due mainly to geology

Sometime between Monday 10th July and Wednesday 12th July, a 2,239 square mile section of Larsen C ice sheet finally broke away. As the media put it, that’s about the size of the State of Delaware. The Larsen C ice sheet is located in the Weddell Sea near the tip of the West Antarctica peninsula. The resulting iceberg has been designated Larson A68. Some of the media claimed this calving was due to human-induced global warming and portends a scary future. (See LA TimesNew York Times , and CNN stories. CNN headline: “That huge iceberg should freak you out” )

The LA Times story does note that in the year 2000, a 4,200 square mile chuck of ice calved from the Ross Sea ice shelf.

A scientist from Project MIDAS, a UK-based Antarctic research project investigating the effects of a warming climate on the Larsen C ice shelf in West Antarctica, said that they were “not aware of any link to human-induced climate change…” (Source)

The geology of West Antarctica is discussed in a long post by geologist James Kamis (read full post).

As shown on Kamis’ figure 2 above, West Antarctica is within a major rift zone which is pulling the continent apart. There are also 61 recognized volcanos on the surface, on the sea bed, and under the ice, all of which provide heat and tectonic instability. Kamis contends that the geology is driving ice shelf calving.

Calving of giant ice bergs is not a new phenomenon. A 1956 newspaper story found by Tony Heller of documents two large icebergs. One, spotted by a Navy icebreaker was 208 miles long and 60 miles wide (12,480 square miles, about the size of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined). During the same year another iceberg measuring 200 miles long and 10 miles wide calved from the Ross Ice Shelf. The same story notes that the Navy Hydrographic Office reports a 100 mile by 100 mile iceberg (10,000 square miles) spotted by a whaling ship in 1927. (Source) Remember that good coverage of ice shelf calving is made possible by satellite observation which began in 1979. Before that, it was by chance observation from ships.

See also:

The “Unstoppable Collapse” of the West Antarctic ice sheet

Geology is responsible for some phenomena blamed on global warming

A Simple Question for Climate Alarmists

A Simple Question for Climate Alarmists

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

(Remember back in the 1970s, climate scientists and media were predicting a return to an “ice age.”)

I have posed that question to five “climate scientist” professors at the University of Arizona who claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are the principal cause of dangerous global warming. Yet, when asked the question, none could cite any supporting physical evidence.

Some of the professors would claim that computer models, when corrected for natural variation, required carbon dioxide emissions to correlate with observed warming of the late 20th Century. But computer modeling is not physical evidence; it is mere speculation. And correlation does not prove causation. One could easily substitute any increasing time series of data to produce similar results. In fact, an Australian group did a tongue-in-cheek exercise of comparing the historic price rise of a first class U.S. postage stamp with temperature. Results are shown on the graph below. The rise in the price of a stamp shows a remarkable correlation with the rise of global temperature.

In seeking an answer to the initial question, I also read the many reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The reports provide no physical evidence, only various scenarios generated by computers. The outputs from computer models diverge widely from observational evidence because the models attribute too much warming influence to carbon dioxide emissions and too little to natural variation. (See Why Climate Models Run Hot by Rud Istvan.)

It appears that there is no physical evidence showing that carbon dioxide emissions have a significant effect on global temperature. There is, however, physical evidence showing that our carbon dioxide emissions are not having any significant effect, see my article Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect for details. That article examines four predictions made by climate alarmists of what we should see as atmospheric carbon dioxide content rises. In each case, what really happened was the opposite of what was predicted.

The benighted, eco-faddish, Tucson City council wants to reduce the City’s carbon footprint by installing 100 percent renewable energy for all city government operations so Tucson will not get as hot as Phoenix. (Source) If they do that, they really will be in the dark. In another article, Impact of Paris climate accord and why Trump was right to dump it, I present research which shows that even if all countries fulfilled their pledges to reduce carbon dioxide emissions made in the Paris Climate Accord, it would make a difference of only 0.17°C by the year 2100.

Can anyone provide an answer to the initial question?

Note: evidence of warming is not evidence of the cause of warming.

One other complication, Fake warming: A new peer-reviewed study finds that nearly all reported warming in the 20th century is a result of historic adjustments made to the original data. The study concludes: “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets [ Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY] are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.” Read the study

Bottom line: Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have little, if any, effect on global temperature. Such efforts are therefore a waste of money and other resources.

See also:

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?

Satellite data show that CO2 has almost no effect on global warming

Geology is responsible for some phenomena blamed on global warming

The past is getting cooler – an example of fake warming



Out of the wildfire and into the flood – Arizona Summer 2017

After several quiet years, Arizona has had a very active wildfire season. Halfway through 2017, just over 352,000 acres have been burned in Arizona by wildfires of >100 acres in size (Inciweb for Arizona: This was the worst fire season since the record burns of 2011, and is almost 4 times as many acres burned than in 2013 (Table 1; Southwest Coordination Center:, accessed July 12, 2017). While the worst part of the fire season is likely behind us, based on recent years we can expect to see more wildfires in the fall. Most of the 2017 burned acreage has been on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), followed by Arizona State lands (AZFD), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

As the monsoon season ramps up, it is time to be cognizant of potential post-fire flooding and debris flows. Both floods and debris flows pose significant hazards to human health, property and infrastructure, and both carry a significant amount of sediment, woody material and rocks. Debris flows can be more dangerous, however, as they resemble slurries of dense, fast-moving concrete that carry more sediment and woody debris and larger caliber rocks (maybe up to basketball sized rocks in floods and car or truck sized boulders in debris flows).

Wildfires significantly impact watershed hydrology, causing much more runoff to occur and frequently triggering post-fire floods and debris flows. In the absence of wildfire, unburned vegetation intercepts raindrops, mitigating the impacts of high-velocity drops on soils. Depending on the burn severity of the wildfire, interception of rainfall by plants can be severely reduced or completely eliminated. At the same time, infiltration of water into the soil is impeded by the presence of ash and fire-related changes to soils (e.g. hyper-dry soils, hydrophobicity, and the destruction of organic matter). These changes result in increased runoff volumes and velocities such that smaller, short-lived monsoon storms can generate tremendous runoff, flooding, and debris flows, and do a huge amount of geomorphic work (i.e. erosion and transportation of sediment) in a very short period of time.

Post by Ann Youberg

Read more at:

Inca Doves – small and surprising

The Inca Dove (Columbina inca) is a small dove with a body length of about 8 inches. It is smaller than a Mourning dove and the White-winged dove. The Inca Dove’s color is light brownish gray and has a scaled appearance on its back. The tail is slender and has white sides. At rest, this dove is very dull looking. That changes in flight or when the dove is displaying. Then the bright rufus-colored primaries on the underside of the wings are visible. Male doves use the display of raising one wing over their backs to defend their territory against other males.

During courtship, the male bobs its head, raises its tail high over back and spreads it widely to show off black and white markings.

Inca doves occur in the southwestern U.S. and most of Mexico. They are found around human settlements throughout much of the Sonoran Desert region. They seem to prefer open areas with sparse shrub cover and scattered trees such as palo verde and oak.

They are seed and fruit eaters. Doves grind seeds in their muscular stomachs (or gizzards) using sand or gravel much like internal teeth.

According to the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, “The Inca Dove has the longest breeding season of any Arizona bird: January to November. That fact, plus its preference for grass and weed seeds, have made the Inca Dove the most abundant bird in southwestern urban areas, after the house sparrow.”

According to Audubon, Nest sites vary, usually in trees or shrubs 5-20 feet above ground, sometimes as high as 50 feet. Nests (built by female, with material gathered by male) are a small platform of twigs, stems, leaves, sometimes lined with grass.

Both parents incubate the eggs for about two weeks. Upon hatching, the chicks are fed “pigeon milk” produced by both parents. “Both males and females produce this substance in their crops (the pouch just above the stomach that birds use to store food). The walls of the crop swell with fat and proteins until the cells in the crop wall begin shedding, producing a nutritious, milky-colored secretion. Despite its appearance, it’s not related to the milk produced by mammals.” – (Cornell)

The chicks fledge within two weeks of hatching and may be tended by the parents for another week or two.

Inca doves have a distinct sound. Listen here. Do you recognize it?

See also:

White-winged Doves

Mourning Doves

Eurasian Collared-Doves