USGS report on history of walrus haulouts leaves out correlation with population size | polarbearscience


Dr Susan Crockford exposes the latest nonsense from the USGS about how global warming is supposedly putting walruses at risk:


researchers from the US Geological Survey have a new report on the history of walrus haulouts in the Chukchi and Bering Seas – yet their media efforts (via press release and interviews) fail to mention the relationship between fluctuating size of walrus haulouts and fluctuating walrus population size that is evident in that history. In fact, overall population size is not mentioned at all.
Two articles came out over the weekend that announced the results of this new joint US-Russian initiative [PBS, Walrus beaching in Alaska might not be as harmful as it looks. Here’s why – 31 July 2016 and ADN, Alaska and Russia join forces to create 160-year database of walrus haulouts – 31 July 2016]
But neither articles nor the new USGS paper they…

View original post 348 more words

IPCC has at least doubled true climate sensitivity: a demonstration

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Roger Taguchi, who often circulates fascinating emails on climatological physics, has sent me a beautifully simple and elegant demonstration that IPCC has at least doubled true climate sensitivity, turning a non-problem into a wolf-criers’ crisis. To assist in grasping the beauty of his brief but devastating argument, Fig. 1 shows the official climate-sensitivity equation:


Fig. 1 The official climate-sensitivity equation. Equilibrium or post-feedback sensitivity ΔTeq is the product of pre-feedback sensitivity ΔTand the post-feedback gain factor G.

Global temperature rose by 0.83 K from 1850-2016 (HadCRUT4: Fig. 2), while CO2 concentration rose from 280 to 400 ppmv. Officially-predicted pre-feedback sensitivity ΔT to this increase in CO2 concentration is thus 0.312 [5.35 ln (400/280)] = 0.60 K.

Even if CO2 were the sole cause of all the warming, the post-feedback gain factor G would be 0.83/0.60…

View original post 123 more words