Michaelyya/contrarian-claims huggingface dataset:
Even when climate alarmists cheat by cherry-picking the data they use to show climate models are consistent with observed temperatures, their efforts fail.
Robert Pielke Jr (c/f wattsupwiththat) gives a more scientific (and thorough) debunking of the basis of the report, concluding This report is an embarrassment to the GHF and to those who have put their names on it as representing a scientifically robust analysis. It is not even close. Link broken (02/13) , but referred to by Delingpole in the Telegraph and Climate Depot
Solomon also checked on a science historian named Naomi Oreskes "who had arrived at an absurd findingthat no studies in a major scientific database questioned the UN view of climate change."
So when he says I merely insist that a scientific debate should take place in the scientific literature he is telling a massive lie. His own blog is testament to that. Along with every magazine article, interview and opinion piece.
So it would appear the temperatures that NOAA now declare for 1934 are no more than a theoretical reconstruction. But without the transparency to show how this has been done, how can we have any confidence that it has been done properly. There is a potential discrepancy of 0.6F in Virginia; if this is extended across the whole country, it would destroy the claim that this July was the hottest month on record as July 1936 was only 0.13F cooler on NOAAs record. Indeed this would only the 5th warmest July in the CONUS.
By oversimplifying the climate story, it appears that the IPCC's projections are just straightforward physics: The 2 C to 6 C projected rise in global average temperature is the direct, linear result of increasing CO2. But in reality, the IPCC claims that CO2, acting alone, will result in only a 1.2 C rise in temperature. The rest depends on whether the climate amplifies (positive feedback) or diminishes (negative feedback) CO2 forcing.
In addition to tweaking recent temperature readings to be higher, NOAA's revisions to earlier original data have consistently made past temperatures cooler.
The real wild card is in the behaviour of clouds, which have a number of strong effects (both on albedo and LW trapping) and could in theory cause a large further amplification or suppression of AGW-induced warming. High thin clouds trap a lot of LW (especially at night when their albedo has no effect) and low clouds increase albedo. We really dont know from first principles which effect is likely to dominate, we do know from first principles that these effects could be large, given our current state of knowledge. GCMs dont do clouds very well but they do mostly (all?) suggest some further amplification from these effects. Thats really all that can be done from first principles.
Skeptics assert that the influence of carbon dioxide on the earths temperatures and on climate is greatly overstated and the position of the advocates is unsupported by physical evidence.
Hes right that the consensus is real (among government funded climate scientists). But thats not evidence about the climate, its evidence about scientific processes, monopoly science, and university culture not the climate. The problem for Manne is that this assumes that 1/ science-the-human-practice is uncorruptible, and 2/ scientists are unaffected by human ambitions, money, fame, bias or ...uh... simple error. Can humans be human? We skeptics think so.
How do theyattributethe heatwave to global warming, if they dont even understand what caused it?
Lets take a look at how well the CMIP3 climate models simulated the lack of warming for the Indian & Pacific Oceans Plus sea surface temperature data over the last 19+ years. See Figure 4. The multi-model ensemble mean of the CMIP3-archived climate models simulate continued warming of that dataset during that period. The simulated sea surface temperatures marched happily on their way skyward. Why? Because theyre FORCED by greenhouse gases, while the sea surface temperatures of the global oceans are not. As noted on the graph, If The SST Anomalies Of The Indian & Pacific Oceans Plus Dataset Were Warmed By Greenhouse Gases They Would Have Warmed 0.31 Deg C.But they havent warmed.
The IPCC says in its latest report: "The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today's atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes. "(Ch.2, p.137) This position will be more closely considered. The change in the total solar radiation since 1750 is estimated by the IPCC to 0.12 (-0.06 / +0.18) W/m2 (Ch.2, Table 2.12). This value is of the order of the relative change per decade of satellite measurements. ACRIM has measured as for the cycles 21-23% or 0.5W/m2 0037. The absolute error is about the satellite but with 3W/m2. How could you determine, however, without satellites in the past such small changes is not explained. To a completely different result, however come Solanki and Fligge (CRL 26 (1999) 2465). Their reconstruction shows the next graphic: Both the absolute and the relative values are more than one order of magnitude larger than the values specified by the IPCC.
An example of how to scare people by cherry picking - the use of selected data - is shown in The Department of Infrastructures State of Australian Cities Report , which claimed that the ocean near Perth was rising at three times the global average. They did not use all the data available (from 1897), but from 1993, which happens to be the lowest level in local tide gauges since 1941. This is shown on Fig. 1, but it is clearer on Fig. 2 for Hillarys. If it had used 1999 instead of 1993, it would show that sea level was falling. By cherry picking suitable dates you can get any rate and outcome - you want.
UK "Scientific" Projections of Global Warming Impact Found To Be Entirely Without Merit & Misleading
It's not clear that we need any structure for limiting "greenhouse gases," so shaky is the science and so tenuous the relation between "global warming" and internationally enforceable emissions limits targeted against fossil fuels.
The hypothesis of damaging, man-made warming is a long way from being proven and, given the recent trend in the peer-reviewed literature, is well on the way to being disproven. Recent cooling of the planet further suggests that man-made warming is at best too weak to be detected in the noise of natural internal variability.
Many of us came to the conclusion that the case for the currently promoted anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is very weak. We also know that it is always wrong to pick a simple, attractive, perhaps appealing scientific hypothesis, especially when it is not sufficiently tested and non-contentiously pushed forward, and to base ambitious, radical and far-reaching policies on it ? without paying attention to all the arguments and to all the direct and indirect as well as opportunity costs associated with it. The feeling that this is exactly what we have been experiencing motivated me to write a book with the title Blue Planet in Green Shackles, which was published in May 2007 and in which I attempted to put the global warming debate into a broader perspective. A year after its publication, I was extremely pleased to get a book An Appeal to Reason, A Cool Look at Global Warming, in many respects similar to mine, written by Nigel Lawson.
The next graph overlays Hansens 1988 forecasts (blue) on his 1981 forecasts. Sometime between 1981 and 1998, he completely lost the plot.
Where does this leave us? In paleoclimate terms, using the adjustment for dissolution as calculated above, the temperature differences in the Pacific Warm Pool are less than one would expect. My guess is that the dissolution adjustment in glacial times will be less than in warm times ??? there??s substantial evidence at modern sites that dissolution is not as serious a problem at cooler sites. However, as long as one is speculating on the proportion of dissolution in the foraminifera, there are layers of uncertainties that are not even hinted at in Hansen et al 2006. We don??t know what the pre-dissolution values of Mg/Ca for the Holocene Optimum were and so comparing modern instrumental values to core top values is little more than speculation. Having said that, Mg/Ca levels in the Holocene Optimum were relatively warm within the Pleistocene ??? reinforcing the observation that the Holocene is a relatively mild period within the Pleistocene. Prior to the last few years, this was usually believed to be a ???good thing?? in human terms.
So, as of 2013, weve had in place a new technology for about a decade that promises to give us the data we need to begin to understand this largest component of the global water cycle. Now consider that there are known ocean processes that portray themselves in the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and that we have reasonably complete sea surface temperature records stretching back to the late 1800s. These ocean processes portray themselves as modes of natural variability with patterns in time (cycles) that last for 50 to 80 years. Can we hope now, with only 10 years of data, to understand how those multidecadal processes portray themselves below the surfaces of the oceans? The realistic answer is no.
A new pound of black asphalt was added to a U.S. weather station, making it darker and warmer? Has Anthony measured the climate sensitivity to be 50 degrees Celsius per doubling? Or does he have a proof that CO2 is cooling the planet?
We are told that it is only long term trends that matter, but it must be remembered that satellite monitoring of sea ice only began in 1979. Such a short period certainly is not long enough to establish long term trends, particularly when the big ocean oscillations work on 60 year cycles.
The authors also find major problems in the "reanalysis" data of downwelling summertime shortwave radiation and downwelling summertime longwave radiation in comparison to the actual satellite observations, finding,
1988 ??? Dr Fred Wood published in the Elsevier journal his critique of Jones et al 1986 ??? online with the tetchy Wigley & Jones team reply. Reading Wood and the team reply is a great way to build your understanding of the poor science prevailing around the birth of GW.
Just what have he and Catriona Hurd done? They have looked at published OA papers from 1993 to 2014 465 of them, which must have been an incredibly time consuming task mostly laboratory manipulation experiments (manipulating atmospheric CO 2 concentrations associated with ocean water tanks, usually with oceanic organisms, and pH manipulation of the same). They evaluated each one for inappropriate experimental design and/or analysis of results. The main issue and the major problem with the papers, though not the only one, dealt with the replication, or lack of, of experimental units.
If the UKMO states theres debate about to the impacts of anthropogenic aerosols on the AMO, and if the AMO is the most dominant mode of multidecadal variations in surface temperatures, then how can UKMO claim its well understood and thatthe 1940s-1970s pause in global warming islinked to a substantial increase in the amount of aerosol in the atmosphere?
We deniers, of course, do not have to explain weather events. All we need do is continue to point out that there is no scientific evidence that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide are causing harm.
We now show why the hundreds of rocket and atmospheric scientists, physicists, and aeronautical engineers who created the gold standard and final 1976 version of the US Standard Atmosphere Database (created during the ice age scare of the 1970's and just one decade prior to the global warming scare of the 1980's) in effect were "deniers" of any significant "radiative forcing," "heat trapping," or "radiative imbalance" from any greenhouse gases in their physical chemical calculations of the temperature profile of Earth's entire atmosphere from the surface all the way to the edge of space at ~100 kilometers altitude.
Paper 1 provides a good observational summary of observations of a range of climate variables over the past 2-5 decades. In looking at these plots, I was struck by the disagreement among the different measurements/estimates of the same variable, notably humidity/water vapor and cloudiness.
But today we are supposed to believe climate variability is due to humans and computer models can now forecast climate changes with amazing accuracy. These models and the alarmist scientists behind them say greenhouse gases will increasingly trigger more severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people, species and ecosystems, a recent UN report insists.
As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.
Over time, thermometers are added, and they slowly migrate south and to both the new, and old, worlds . Eventually, about 1900 A.D., there are sufficient thermometers on the globe to get a partial idea what is happening . But climate is subject to cyclical changes. Some, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, have about a 40 to 60 year full cycle length. Others, like solar cycles that run 178 years, and Bond Events a 1500 year cycle , are a bit longer. A 100 year record is inadequate to allow for these events.
Direct determination of changes in oceanic heat content over the last 20 years are not in conflict with estimates of the radiative forcing, but the uncertainties remain too large to rationalize e.g., the apparent pause in warming. Wunsch and Heimbach
"Professor Turney and his fellow evacuees must accept the embarrassing failure of their mission shows how uncertain the science of climate change really is. They cannot reasonably do otherwise." The Australian
No computer model has ever been validated. An early draft of Climate Change 95 had a Chapter titled Climate Models Validation as a response to my comment that no model has ever been validated. They changed the title to Climate Model Evaluation and changed the word validation in the text to evaluation no less than describing what might need to be done in order to validate a model.
Q 2: Why was the consensus wrong? Why do the models exaggerate? The climate-sensitivity equation says warming is the product of a forcing and a sensitivity parameter. Three problems: the modellers definition of forcing is illogical; their assumptions about the sensitivity parameter are not falsifiable; and their claims that their long-term predictions of doom are reliable are not only empirically disproven but theoretically insupportable.
This is a seasonal adjustment to compensate for meltwater on top of the ice, which would ordinarily be viewed as ???open water??. Right about now, the Arctic sea ice gets melt pools forming on the surface. If these are not compensated for, sea ice extent will read artificially low.
The reality is that, except in the most general terms, we are unable to satisfactorily explain past variations of climate. Over the recent 2 million years why did the primary mode of climate oscillation change from a 40,000 year (axial tilt) periodicity to one close to 100,000 years (linked to eccentricity)? And how do we explain the recent glacial cycles, given that annual solar insolation intercepted by the Earths disc changes little between near circular and more eccentric orbits? Even the relative regularity in value to which temperatures asymptote during each interglacial, as estimated from Antarctic ice cores, can hardly be attributed to chance yet does not have an explanation!
IRag= Certain gases will absorb different wavelengths of radiation (a characteristic of the light ) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR , there construction will not allow them to absorb the IR, they may absorb other forms of radiation but as was said above they still radiate IR. Many other materials including water will absorb IR. These should not be included in the term IRags. The words greenhouse gas effect has never been proven by creditable scientific experiments and therefore will only be used when absolutely necessary.
There isvery significant (and difficult)challenge of accurately representing the role of snow albedo effects on climate, as well as the role of human activity in altering this albedo over time and space.
So the next time anyone says the peer-review process ensures that only decent research gets published, you know how to respond.
???In the 1960s and 1970s, a growing scientific consensus held that the Earth was entering a period of global cooling akin to the Little Ice Age,?? says Solomon.
There are large uncertainties in underlying assumptions about population growth, economic development, life style choices, technological change, and energy alternatives. . . . Scenarios for future greenhouse gas amounts, especially for CO2 and CH4, are a major source of uncertainty for projections of future climate. . . . The period of record is now long enough to make it useful to compare recent trends with the scenarios. . . . The increase of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the past decade, averaging 0.6 percent per year, has fallen below the IPCC scenarios. The growth of atmospheric CH4 has fallen well below the IPCC scenarios. (emphasis added)
Since the complex models have failed in this respect, and since there are insufficient deep-ocean observations to provide reliable quantitative evidence of the putative heat accumulation below 2000 m, still less to determine the mechanism of the imagined heat transfer, still less again to apportion duly the respective contributions of anthropogenic, solar and subsea volcanic influences on the benthic heat accumulation, it is surely unreasonable for our simple model to be expected to do what the complex models have self-evidently failed to do and what cannot be done by any model, simple or complex, unless and until measurements of far higher resolution than is now to hand become available at all points of the oceanic column. For instance, the 3500 automated Argo bathythermograph buoys have a resolution equivalent to taking a single temperature and salinity profile in Lake Superior less than once a year: and before Argo came onstream in the middle of the last decade the resolution of oceanic temperature measurements was considerably poorer even than that, especially in the abyssal strata.
While examining tide gauge records from Atlantic City's Steel Pier , Mr. Galvin discovered a remarkable effect apparently caused by spectators who came to watch horse-diving between 1929 and 1978. From old photographs, it was estimated that there must have been about 4,000 spectators who would come to watch. Given that this crowd probably weighed about 150 tons, the pier was subject to significant loading and unloading cycles. The initial 1912-1928 data showed the sea level rising at a rate of 0.12 inches per year. The rate tripled around 1929 when the horses began diving. When the shows were suspended from 1945 to 1953, sea level fell at a rate of 0.06 inches per year. When the diving resumed, the sea level rose again at a rate of 0.16 inches per year.
ISCCP-FD and GEWEX-SRB radiation products, as they were available until about December 2005 (!) at TOA and at the surface, were simply compared. We found two major errors which need firstly to be removed completely:
While the fit is meaningless, I think that there is a decent possibliity that the Wahl and Ammann no-PC regression could become a statistical classic as one of the most remarkable examples of overfitting that I??ve encountered.
Petition to President Putin: Kyoto Not Based on Sound Science
To listen to the United States' primary agency responsible for monitoring the climate, one would think the end is near as global temperatures continue to rise at an alarming rate. However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ( NOAA ) own monitoring network specifically designed to monitor global warming contradicts these claims.
?There is no scientific consensus? on sea-level rise, say scientists
The textbooks in question dont deny human-caused global warming is happening; they just accurately report scientists are still debating the question. They present the evidence and ask the students to make up their own minds.
There isnt enough data to say with any certainty what will happen to sea levels around the world this century, and there is no scientific consensus to suggest that the rate of the seas rise will accelerate dangerously.
Steve my point is that the Cook et al. study is hopelessly confused as well as being largely irrelevant to the complex questions that are raised by the idea of (human-caused) climate change. As to being confused, in one place the paper claims to be exploring the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW and yet the headline conclusion is based on rating abstracts according to whether humans are causing global warming. These are two entirely different judgements . The irrelevance is because none of the most contentious policy responses to climate change are resolved *even if* we accept that 97.1% of climate scientists believe that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (which of course is not what the study has shown). And more broadly, the sprawling scientific knowledge about climate and its changes cannot helpfully be reduced to a single consensus statement, however carefully worded. The various studies such as Cook et al that try to enumerate the climate change consensus pretend it can and that is why I find them unhelpful and, in the sprit of this blog, I would suggest too that they are not helpful for our fellow citizens.
Hamilton dutifully says science is all about evidence , not opinions, but he bows to the fake UN Gods of climate, and doesnt seem to notice the irony that the evidence he cites is just a consensus of climate scientists. Somehow it escapes him that a consensus is made of ... opinions? Hamilton rages about the War on Science , but doesnt acknowledge that hes the one who wages it.
Mike Hulme: Nuccitelli "97% consensus article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed"
More up-to-date reconstructions such as "alarmist" Moberg et al. (up) and "skeptic" Loehle (down) don't look like hockey sticks and they don't show any statistically significant "unprecedented changes" in the industrial era.
According to real scientists, the graph also gave extreme weighting to datasets that showed unusual 20 th -century warming at the expense of those that did not. And the program that Mr Mann created to draw the graph would have shown the 20 th century as unusually warm even if random red noise rather than real-world data were fed in. There were numerous other statistical curiosities. Mr Manns graph is perhaps the most laughable and widely-discredited object in the history of bad science supporting worse politics.
This one is an absolute 100%, 24-carat gold-plated, gimme for Monckton. The UN Panel??s graph is the infamous ???Hockey stick??. Those that still try to defend it (apart from it??s creators) either haven??t acquainted themselves with the facts or simply don??t understand them. The hockey stick is a reconstruction based on tree ring data which claims to shows the climate history over the past several centuries. There are a number of things wrong with it, but the main case against it is that:-
Their non-dendro network uses some data with the axes upside down, e.g. Korttajarvi sediments, which are also compromised by agricultural impact (Tiljander, pers. comm.)