Michaelyya/contrarian-claims huggingface dataset:
Further, because climate models cant simulate where, when, why and how the ocean surfaces warm and cool around the globe, they cant properly simulate land surface temperatures or precipitation. And if they cant simulate land surface temperatures or precipitation, what value do they have? Quick answer: No value. Climate models are not yet fit for their intended purposes.
Once again, these problems with regional impacts studies are just the tip of the iceberg. Climate modelers admit privately that global climate models are not capable of providing accurate predictions of regional climate.
comprehensive comparison of characteristics of the planetary albedo () in data from two satellite measurement campaigns (ERBE and CERES) and output from 20 GCMs, simulating the 20th-century climate, is performed. Discrepancies between different data sets and models exist; thus, it is clear that conclusions about absolute magnitude and accuracy of albedo should be drawn with caution. Yet, given the present calibrations, a bias is found between different estimates of , with modelled global albedos being systematically higher than the observed. The difference between models and observations is larger for the more recent CERES measurements than the older ERBE measurements. Through the study of seasonal anomalies and space and time distribution of correaltions between models and observations, specific regions with large discrepancies can be identified. It is hereby found that models appear to over-estimate the albedo during boreal summer and under-estimate it during austral summer. Furthermore, the seasonal variations of albedo in subtropical areas dominated by low stratiform clouds, as well as in dry desert regions in the subtropics, seem to be poorly simulated by the models.
This piece is typical of thousands of other news stories about calamities in the Amazon that are immediately blamed on global warming. Other headlines quickly found include Ocean Warming - Not El Nio - Drove Severe Amazon Drought in 2005 or Amazon Droughts Will Accelerate Global Warming or Amazon Could Shrink by 85% due to Climate Change, Scientists Say. Notice that climate change can cause droughts and floods in the Amazon PLUS droughts in the Amazon can cause global warming (by eliminating trees that could uptake atmospheric carbon dioxide). Throughout many of these stories, the words delicate and irreversible are used over and over.
Many of these myths were created by proponents of manmade global warming who have no understanding of the coupled ocean-air processes that result in El Nio and La Nia events. Those persons look at an El Nio-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index and wrongly assume the index represents all of the processes of ENSOwhen, in reality, the index simply shows the impact of El Nio and La Nia events on the variable being measured for that index. ENSO indices (like NINO3.4 region sea surface temperature anomalies presented in the post) do not capture in recharge aspects of La Nia events that are evident in the ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific and they do not capture the impacts of the discharge and redistribution processes of major El Nio events that are plainly visible in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific Oceans(90S-90N, 80W-180) .
Well, Greenland is a regional phenomenon, the alarmists may claim. We have to look at the entire Northern hemisphere.
Read here , here and here . The alarmist AGW hypothesis calls for an increase of atmospheric CO2 to increase atmospheric warming; that will then warm the surface causing increased water evaporation; that will then increase the amount of atmospheric water vapor (the largest greenhouse gas); that will then increase atmospheric warming; that will then warm the Earth's surface; and, etc., in a repeat-the-above scenario of a never-ending positive feedback loop finally leading to the mythical, catastrophic climate tipping points.
The IPCC forecast declining winter snow cover and depth due to global warming, once again showing that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Nearly every significant statement Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or just plain wrong. The present OnPoint summarizes my findings.
Back in early March, we wrote about how this years cherry blossom peak was predicted to occur a bit later than in 2012March 26-30 instead of March 20-23. While recognizing that later peak blooms in a single year dont prove anything either way about global warming, we still raised the question of press reactionor rather the lack of it. Since the early peak dates in the last three years caused quite a bit of climate alarmism, the same should, theoretically, happen when the peak date is overdue.
PHOENIX (Feb. 3, 2010) -- Climate scientist William Sprigg delivered a bold challenge to his fellow climate scientists in a blockbuster address to EUEC 2010 in Phoenix, Arizona on February 2.Sprigg, an adjunct research professor in the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona, led the technical review of the first global warming report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990.In his address to the Thirteenth Annual Energy and Environment Expo, Sprigg took on the ClimateGate scandal and called for "serious reforms" of the global scientific community. He warned of a growing perception that "the IPCC is biased, conflicted, pushing political agendas."Sprigg called for a new climate research agency supported not entirely by the government, but in conjunction with the private sector."We need to stick to our scientific principles," Sprigg said, referring at least in part to the critical importance of sharing data with other scientists so that hypotheses and methodologies can be checked and double-checked. "We need to improve our peer preview process, and expand the stakeholders' role to keep us all honest."Sprigg's remarks were videotaped by Heartland Institute Research Fellow James G. Lakely, attending the conference not generally friendly to skeptics of predictions of catastrophic, man-made global warming.Heartland Senior Fellow James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, also attended the event, and during the Q&A; following Sprigg's presentation asked the scientist what he thinks the future holds for the IPCC.Sprigg nodded as Taylor referred to "mounting scandals" at the IPCC and then responded, "There will be some reform. I think there's going to be big changes in the peer review process for the IPCC. There will be--there are--calls for the head of Pachauri. Some of my colleagues have written letters saying that he needs to be taken off the job ..."The video is available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeEIl0-0EOA and also on the Web sites of Environment & Climate News, The Heartland Institute, and Global Warming Facts.
There is global climate science and then there is the Global Warming Movement. The movement hijacked the science a long time ago, and it has had its share of setbacks lately. Its leaders have tried to stiff-arm their way past errors, lies, fraud, pointless tax increase proposals and some really peculiar posing in Copenhagen.
Johnston cross examines and juxtaposes conclusions from numerous scientists to reveal "a rhetoric of persuasion, of advocacy that prevails throughout establishment climate science"(9). Complexities and uncertainties that might shake the confidence of policymakers are often concealed. For example, there is no mention of water vapor feedbacks in the IPCC AR4 "Climate Science" documents intended to influence the public and the media the Policymaker Summary and Technical Summary (24).
Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.
How often do we see this happena press release about a scientific study states or suggests that global warming was the cause of a factor being studied, when the paper itself doesnt come to that conclusionand/or the data contradict it?
I first became interested in the topic of Global Warming, as it was known then, almost 6 years ago. The trigger for me was watching Al Gores Inconvenient Truth, and realising that the film was a very powerful narrative which lacked proper balance and was all about advocacy, with references to underlying theory frustratingly vague and infrequent. The cherry-picker scene was kinda sciencey, yet somehow even that aroused questions rather than convincing me. I had no means to evaluate the science aspects back then, so resolved to look into them (wow, armed only with a long-ago physics degree did that take years longer than I thought!) But in fact my chief interest was not the climate science.
In the case of the IPCC, they published a flat-out fear-mongering sensitivity that in computer simulations would produce a temperature increase of +6.4 C (pink line) by 2100AD, if CO2 emissions were not stabilized. This incredibly high computer output was designed to scare policymakers and the mainstream media into action.
Now they call it change for the IPCC and the warmer fanatics so they can cover all forms of panic about the weather, but we all know its about carbon dioxide as a scary air pollutant that will kill us all.
I should make it clear that Im not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science. What I am saying is that Mr. Gores Climate Reality Project did a poor job of demonstrating an experiment, so poor in fact that they had to fabricate portions of the presentation, and that the experiment itself (if they actually did it, we cant tell) would show a completely different physical mechanism than what actually occurs in our atmosphere.
This is a point that is very hard to explain to climate zealots lets call them climate hawks who are reluctant to admit criticism to the debate. Murry sets out his case
In recent years, environmentalism seems to have taken a prominent place on the political scene. Many who champion this new "ism" sadly allege that Man is destructive, unnatural, and guilty of destroying the entire planet. The "proofs" used in this respect are based on selected portions of science which, in many cases, are not based on the objectivity of the scientific method of natural sciences (Sanford, 1992).
CO2-hysteric Pachauri now has a blog--with a comment section
Whatever the reason, it is indeed vastly more difficult to publish results in climate research journals if they run against the tide of politically correct opinion. Which is why most of the sceptic literature on the subject has been forced onto the web, and particularly onto web-logs devoted to the sceptic view of things. Which, in turn, is why the more fanatical of the believers in anthropogenic global warming insist that only peer-reviewed literature should be accepted as an indication of the real state of affairs. They argue that the sceptic web-logs should never be taken seriously by real scientists, and certainly should never be quoted. Which is a great pity. Some of the sceptics are extremely productive as far as critical analysis of climate science is concerned. Names like Judith Curry (chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta), Steve McIntyre (a Canadian geologist-statistician) and blogger Willis Eschenbach come to mind. These three in particular provide a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players in the global warming movement to shame, and as a consequence their outreach to the scientifically inclined general public is highly effective. Their output, together with that of other sceptics on the web, is fast becoming a practical and stringent substitute for peer review.
Because global warming advocates are much more comfortable arguing #1 than #2, they like to paint skeptics as all denying #1. This makes for a great straw man that is easy to beat, and is aided by the fact that there is a true minority who doesn't believe #1 (and who, despite everything that is written, have every right to continue to express that opinion without fear of reprisal). Actually, even better, they like to avoid defending their position at all and just argue that all skeptics are funded by Exxon.
IT used to be common for global warming activists to claim that anyone who disagrees with them must be in the pay of big oil remember Al Gore said this in his documentary An Inconvenient Truth. More recently the accusation has been that anyone who disagrees with them doesnt understand the science and therefore does not have an informed opinion.
My diagram above was published on the 8 th February, and counted 29 stations. Paul Homewoods original article on the Arctic of 4 th February lists 19 adjusted sites. If RealClimate had actually read the cited article, they would have known that quotation was false in connection to the Arctic. Any undergraduate who made this mistake in an essay would be failed.
The official propaganda mantra at the conference, first suggested by a UK pressure-group last year and now enthusiastically adopted by the UN, was that The Science Is Settled. The zombies, led by the outgoing and incoming conference chairmen, recited this mantra with glazed but increasingly desperate pietism.
We can learn from experts like Dr. Griffin how to approach those paradigmatics and wishful thinkers who cling to the GHE. Griffin and his ilk advise we pose mostly open-ended questions and encourage others to face that up to the enduring truth that reality will never precisely be what we think it is; none of us are above false beliefs. Plus, our pride is a basic human flaw that obstructs such open inquiry.
The prescriptions put forward by the degrowth crowd, says Bryce, are familiar. Nuclear energy is bad. Genetically modified foods are bad. Coal isnt just bad, its awful. Oil is bad. Natural gasand the process often used to produce it, hydraulic fracturing is bad. And it is no surprise that the Environmental Protection Agencythe most anti-growth governmental agencyhas just announced steps to require the disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, a technology that has been in use for more than a half century and one that has unlocked access to vast reserves of natural gas and oil.
Alarmists evaluate the health of Arctic ice, bythe minimum extent of the year. They go ballistic if you try to use any other measure. They demand that you dont average over the entire year.
Global warming hysteria and the concept of the carbon footprint, in particular, have been debunked many times in this column already. Suffice to say, the ClimateCounts survey commands no credibility here, and consumers who shop based on the survey's recommendations may as well consult with an astrologist to guide their purchasing decisions.
As Dr. David Wojick noted in his analysis, The UN IPCC's Artful Bias, "It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles." In our last issue of Cooler Heads we quoted Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Moerner, a professor at Stockholm University and president of the INQUA (International Union of Quaternary Research) Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, who said of the report, "It is absolutely remarkable how inferior and one-sided this report is." That is the product of advocacy, not science.
Gillard used the terms denier or denial 11 times , pointed words because they carry the connotation of Holocaust denial. The last time that tactic was used in the national debate, after the release of the Bringing Them Home report, it exploded on those who used it.
So Gore and company present an interesting new environmental ethic. It's okay, as long as you're "environmentally correct," to burn up tons of fuel jetting off to concerts around the world. But it's a sin to even present the exploration for this oil in a positive light. Talk about an "offset" in priorities.
In the introduction of his most recent book, Lawson discusses the peculiar atmosphere of our time, of a time of threat to reason, if not of a time of unreason, when he tells us that, despite the fact that his previous three books didn?t have the slightest problem in finding a publisher (they even had one before they were written), this book was rejected by every British publisher it was offered to. The issue was finally resolved by Peter Mayer, the owner of The Overlook Press in New York who also owns Duckworth Publishers in London, who had the courage to publish the book. Lawson makes an additional important remark (p. 105) when he says that the situation was so bad that ? I quote ? ?I was able to write this book only because my own career is behind me.? (By the way, also the quite youthful and ?fresh? professor Kut lek is already 81 years old.) In the currently prevailing atmosphere, Nigel Lawson sees in the global warming hysteria ?the most oppressive and intolerant form of political correctness in the western world today.?
This weekend, rock stars will jet around the world, cars and buses will clog traffic, and elaborate sound stages will be set up to burn massive amounts of fuel to send the message to fans at home that they better conserve their energy or face the allegedly dire threat of global warming.
Pissed old hacks have to compete to find the news and interpret it in order to fit with their conflicting world views (or those of their proprietors). Sober environmental journalists all digest the same press handouts. The ony competition is to find new synonyms for catastrophic.
A week ago, it emerged that the Oscar-winning film director had put his money where his mouth is by donating $1m of his personal fortune to opponents of Proposition 23, a ballot measure facing voters in California at the coming mid-term elections which would suspend the state's landmark law combating climate change. Supporters of the proposition weren't going to take that lying down, though. On Thursday, they returned fire by releasing a short film that claims to highlight a Titanic-sized gulf between Mr Cameron's somewhat magisterial proclamations regarding the importance of combating climate change, and his actual lifestyle.
Belief systems are embraced with no logical basis. For example, environmentalists almost universally believe in the dangers of global warming but also reject the best solution to the problem, which is nuclear power. These two beliefs co-exist based on faith, not reason.
Many of these evangelists attempt, not to explain the science, but to scare the population into believing, through dire warnings that we face some kind climatic Judgement Day. Indeed if they are to be believed then we are already seeing signs of judgement because of the sin of burning fossil fuels.
Yeah. Right. How about Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says . Its vintage NYT from 1947. And Glaciers give hints of weather change . Its NYT again, 1955 (article reports of five decades of retreating glaciers, no less). And heres the link to a 1978 NYT article blaming melting glaciers for beach-side troubles in Rhode Island. Looks like there havent been many decades without a Fear the Glaciers! article on the New York Alarmist Times. And all we get is a its different this time around. Not serious, indeed
In its August 13 issue, the New York Times has continued its tradition of peddling bogus global warming scare stories during the late summer silly season. This time the threat isn't anything dramatic like the North Pole melting. "Heat waves come on subtly, raising summer temperatures just a little higher than normal and then receding," opined the Times. "But they kill more people in the United States than all other natural disasters combined."
With these words last December 14 , the New Zealand Herald editorial writer signalled his slant. Its a bias towards the official line on global warming. The Herald joins the chorus of activists baying for Western compensation for the third world to answer the allegations of injury by climate.
Even the Wall Street Journal breathlessly reported Polar Ice Melt Is Accelerating: Shrinking in Greenland, Antarctica Has Sent Ocean Levels Higher, Study Says. This aint just your typical run-of-the-mill, left of almost everywhere, New York Times or Washington Post global warming alarmist stuff. So it must be true right?
Shame on the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the Daily Herald for not even including a short blurb in their newspapers about Heartland's outstanding Fourth International Conference on Climate Change with its distinguished world-wide list of speakers. Sadly the media has taken the politically approved stance that global warming is man-made. As such the media is not about to inform its readers of the thousands of leading scientists around the world who reject global warming. Is it any wonder that newspapers are losing subscribers, when they only tell one side of the story? Kudos to Pajama Media for filming the entire conference!
The NY Times text the overall measure of cyclone activity, whether through more intense storms or more frequent storms, had doubled with a one-quarter-degree increase in average global temperature is even more scientifically flawed. Hurricanes respond to the SST conditions in their vicinity, not to a global average metric!
So unusual is this attempt actually to meet us in argument, and so venomously ad hominem are Abrahams artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face he looks like an overcooked prawn) , that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.
The Fourth Report (2007) took special precautions to ensure that no true statement about the climate like this one could ever appear again. Chapter 1 was now entitled Historical Overview of Climate Change Science which dealt exclusively with the FCCC definition of Climate Science. It omitted all mention of conventional meteorology and concealed all the many measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide carried out between 1850 and 1975.
White House turns up heat on climate alarm
Annan also said: Since IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported this is what we think, because we asked our pals having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing la la la I cant hear you.
Based on the IPCCs simulations of 21 st century climate, it seems that rainfall will increase overall in the region (including wintertime snowfall in Tibet), and the IPCC AR4 WGII does not discuss the impact of temperature and evapotranspiration on fresh water resources in this region. The importance of these omissions, inconsistencies or mistakes by the IPCC is amplified by the potential of riparian warfare in this region that supports half of the worlds population.
The IPCC, you will recall, is Al Gores co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. And the host over the years of numerous scandals involving fudged and twisted data, cut-and-pastes from student theses, popular magazine articles and green-group press releases and of course the infamous hide the decline in temperatures. This is not just one more scandal, however.
I didnt feel very inspired today until I ran across an article on the violence of earths history. I want to write about that now. For those who read my blog regularly, you know that I feel it is clear that the world governments are the primary drivers behind the global warming rhetoric and science. Some day I will post on how the governments are using the scientists but that is a different subject.