WUWT
From the “the hornier they are the harder they fall” department: The
head of the United Nations climate change panel (IPCC), Rajendra
Pachauri, has stepped down amid sexual harassment allegations."
Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Friday, 20 February 2015
Rising sea hype
JunkScience
It appears that when the Navy built the Norfolk base during WWII, they failed to consider sea level rise. And now 70+ years later we have a problem. Neither article makes much, if any, mention of subsidence from filling in swamps or that area falling into a meteor crater. The sea level rise as the total problem has been debunked on Junkscience, WUWT and by Charles Battig. No one seems to mention the greatly increased population in the Hampton Roads area over the past 75 years as a contributing factor to flooding.
No one is denying that we have a long-term problem, but stopping the seas from rising won’t stop the area from sinking."
It appears that when the Navy built the Norfolk base during WWII, they failed to consider sea level rise. And now 70+ years later we have a problem. Neither article makes much, if any, mention of subsidence from filling in swamps or that area falling into a meteor crater. The sea level rise as the total problem has been debunked on Junkscience, WUWT and by Charles Battig. No one seems to mention the greatly increased population in the Hampton Roads area over the past 75 years as a contributing factor to flooding.
No one is denying that we have a long-term problem, but stopping the seas from rising won’t stop the area from sinking."
German Analysis: “97 Percent Consensus” Does Not Exist … Demands To End Debate Are “Way Off Sides”
NoTricksZone
Result:
The ominous and often cited 97% consensus for the acceptance of the AGW theory in climate science does not exist. Thus the scientifically hostile demand for “an end to the climate discussion” is morally and computationally way offsides. In the Cook et al. study it is clearly shown that the protagonists of the climate catastrophe bring their social-political positions in scientific papers. Finally, in the given study a comparison is made between diametrically opposed socio-political positions using a subjectively selected sampling amount as a yardstick for a supposed consensus in the entire climate sciences.
The one positive result the study yields is that it allows us to determine that in climate science there is still a “silent” two thirds majority who choose to refrain from the socio-political discussion in their scientific publications. In the end, however, in the public depiction of climate science, the socio-political opinion of a one third minority is being sold as scientific 97% majority consensus."
Result:
The ominous and often cited 97% consensus for the acceptance of the AGW theory in climate science does not exist. Thus the scientifically hostile demand for “an end to the climate discussion” is morally and computationally way offsides. In the Cook et al. study it is clearly shown that the protagonists of the climate catastrophe bring their social-political positions in scientific papers. Finally, in the given study a comparison is made between diametrically opposed socio-political positions using a subjectively selected sampling amount as a yardstick for a supposed consensus in the entire climate sciences.
The one positive result the study yields is that it allows us to determine that in climate science there is still a “silent” two thirds majority who choose to refrain from the socio-political discussion in their scientific publications. In the end, however, in the public depiction of climate science, the socio-political opinion of a one third minority is being sold as scientific 97% majority consensus."
Believing In Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast, And Climate Models
WUWT
Has the scientific problem of climate been solved in terms of basic physics and mathematics? No, but you will be forgiven if you thought otherwise. For decades, the most rigorous treatments of climate have been done through climate models. The clever model pioneers understood many of their inherent limitations, but tried to persevere nonetheless. Today, few academics are even aware of what the pioneers understood, let alone what has been learned since about the full depth of modelling difficulties.
Meanwhile popular expressions of the scientific technicalities are largely superficial, defective, comically nonsensical, and virtually uncorrectable. All of the best physics and all of the best computer models cannot put this Humpty Dumpty together, because we face some of the most fundamental problems of modern science in climate, but hardly know it. If you think you want to have a go at those problems, there are at least a couple million dollars in prizes in it, not to mention a Fields Medal or two."
Has the scientific problem of climate been solved in terms of basic physics and mathematics? No, but you will be forgiven if you thought otherwise. For decades, the most rigorous treatments of climate have been done through climate models. The clever model pioneers understood many of their inherent limitations, but tried to persevere nonetheless. Today, few academics are even aware of what the pioneers understood, let alone what has been learned since about the full depth of modelling difficulties.
Meanwhile popular expressions of the scientific technicalities are largely superficial, defective, comically nonsensical, and virtually uncorrectable. All of the best physics and all of the best computer models cannot put this Humpty Dumpty together, because we face some of the most fundamental problems of modern science in climate, but hardly know it. If you think you want to have a go at those problems, there are at least a couple million dollars in prizes in it, not to mention a Fields Medal or two."
Ipsos MORI: No One Cares About DECC Climate Change Campaign
Guido Fawkes
The Department of Energy & Climate Change are probably wishing they hadn’t commissioned a “Social Listening Evaluation” in an attempt to justify a “Tweetathon” they held last year. The 45 page report published today comes to a shocking conclusion. No one was really bothered. "
From the comments:
"The reason nobody cares much is because most people realise that having a "Department for Climate Change" is about as sensible as having a "Department for the Sky". They regard it as just Civil Servants talking to each other, thinking up yet more stupid ways to waste our money, whilst real people actually get on with life, dealing with whatever comes their way - come hail, rain or shine."
The Department of Energy & Climate Change are probably wishing they hadn’t commissioned a “Social Listening Evaluation” in an attempt to justify a “Tweetathon” they held last year. The 45 page report published today comes to a shocking conclusion. No one was really bothered. "
From the comments:
"The reason nobody cares much is because most people realise that having a "Department for Climate Change" is about as sensible as having a "Department for the Sky". They regard it as just Civil Servants talking to each other, thinking up yet more stupid ways to waste our money, whilst real people actually get on with life, dealing with whatever comes their way - come hail, rain or shine."
Monday, 16 February 2015
The Oz guide to climate change
Bishop Hill
I love the way they present pure hypothesis as settled scientific fact. This technique really is such a giveaway that the document is propaganda rather than education."
I love the way they present pure hypothesis as settled scientific fact. This technique really is such a giveaway that the document is propaganda rather than education."
The quickening for Paris has started: gravy-train begins PR avalanche
JoNova (Australia)
What’s ultimately up for grabs in Paris is a global bureaucracy that can control carbon emissions (meaning energy) worldwide. It is one of the largest and most ambitious political and scientific ambit claims ever, and it is hidden in plain view (but don’t hold your breathe waiting for the media to point it out)."
What’s ultimately up for grabs in Paris is a global bureaucracy that can control carbon emissions (meaning energy) worldwide. It is one of the largest and most ambitious political and scientific ambit claims ever, and it is hidden in plain view (but don’t hold your breathe waiting for the media to point it out)."
Climate Propaganda from the Australian Academy of Science
WUWT
The Australia Academy of Science has recently published a Q&A about human-induced global warming titled The science of climate change. Their press release is here. Examples from around the blogosphere:
“Correctly replicate”? Apparently the Australia Academy of Science has a very low threshold for their use of the word “correctly”. We illustrated and discussed how poorly CMIP5-archived climate models simulate surface temperatures in the posts:
The Australia Academy of Science has recently published a Q&A about human-induced global warming titled The science of climate change. Their press release is here. Examples from around the blogosphere:
- Andrew Montford discussed it briefly in his post The Oz guide to climate change at BishopHill.
- The Australian published the article Academy warns of climate risks to Australia.
- Jo Nova briefly mentioned it in her post The quickening for Paris has started: gravy train begins PR avalanche.
“Correctly replicate”? Apparently the Australia Academy of Science has a very low threshold for their use of the word “correctly”. We illustrated and discussed how poorly CMIP5-archived climate models simulate surface temperatures in the posts:
- Model-Data Comparison with Trend Maps: CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models vs New GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index
- Model-Data Difference – Global Surface Temperature Anomalies – GISS, HADCRUT4 & NCDC
- On the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Surface Temperature – A Model-Data Comparison
Sunday, 15 February 2015
Joe Bastardi Schools Dr. Michael Mann On How To Read A Weather Chart … Heavy Snow “Is Because It’s Cold”
NoTricksZone
The Northeast USA is being socked by frightful cold and massive snow. The brutal New England winters are back and now we are witnessing last ditch efforts by disgraced climate scientists to blame the brutally cold winters on a warming planet (which in reality has not warmed in 18 years)."
The Northeast USA is being socked by frightful cold and massive snow. The brutal New England winters are back and now we are witnessing last ditch efforts by disgraced climate scientists to blame the brutally cold winters on a warming planet (which in reality has not warmed in 18 years)."
NASA Has Doubled 1880-1980 Warming Through Successive Data Alterations
Real Science
NASA has repeatedly altered global temperature data, causing a net doubling of 1880-1980 global warming since their 1981 version. Pre-1965 years keep getting colder, and post-1965 years keep getting warmer. (Note that prior to 2003, NASA did not even pretend to know pre-1950 ocean temperatures.) This is on top of the changes Hansen had already made by 1981, erasing half of the 1940-1970 cooling. Since 1981 they have erased the rest of the 1940-1970 cooling. One thing driving this is the disappearance of truly rural stations, which is causing more and more UHI damage to the temperature record."
NASA has repeatedly altered global temperature data, causing a net doubling of 1880-1980 global warming since their 1981 version. Pre-1965 years keep getting colder, and post-1965 years keep getting warmer. (Note that prior to 2003, NASA did not even pretend to know pre-1950 ocean temperatures.) This is on top of the changes Hansen had already made by 1981, erasing half of the 1940-1970 cooling. Since 1981 they have erased the rest of the 1940-1970 cooling. One thing driving this is the disappearance of truly rural stations, which is causing more and more UHI damage to the temperature record."
A Case for the Statistics Squad
Quadrant Online (Australia)
It might be possible to view the ever-rising slope of BoM temperature charts and conclude that the world really is melting down, but only if you regard "adjusted" records as more accurate than actual ones. Now, for the first time, independent statisticians will analyse those methods "
It might be possible to view the ever-rising slope of BoM temperature charts and conclude that the world really is melting down, but only if you regard "adjusted" records as more accurate than actual ones. Now, for the first time, independent statisticians will analyse those methods "
Monday, 9 February 2015
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
Christopher Booker, Telegraph
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”. Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.........
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time."
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”. Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.........
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time."
Friday, 6 February 2015
German Analysis: “Current Warm Period Is No Anthropogenic Product” – Major Natural Cycles Show No Signs Of Warming!
NoTricksZone
The current warm period is no “anthropogenic product”, rather it is the natural result of a repeating 1000-year cycle that goes back far into the past. Today’s warm period does not even reach the temperatures seen in the past warm periods, which at times were 1 to 2°C higher. Moreover it is important to note that during both of the past temperature maxima of 1000 and 2000 years ago, the CO2 values were at 280 ppm while today they are at 400 ppm. This indicates that the earlier warmer periods likely were related to natural solar activity and not to a rise in CO2 because there was no CO2 rise during those warm phases."
The current warm period is no “anthropogenic product”, rather it is the natural result of a repeating 1000-year cycle that goes back far into the past. Today’s warm period does not even reach the temperatures seen in the past warm periods, which at times were 1 to 2°C higher. Moreover it is important to note that during both of the past temperature maxima of 1000 and 2000 years ago, the CO2 values were at 280 ppm while today they are at 400 ppm. This indicates that the earlier warmer periods likely were related to natural solar activity and not to a rise in CO2 because there was no CO2 rise during those warm phases."
Monday, 2 February 2015
About the Claims That Northeast U.S. Blizzards Have Been Amplified by Human-Induced Global Warming
WUWT
The media has been abuzz with claims that the January 2015 New England Blizzard was worsened by human-induced global warming. One of the outspoken activist members of the climate science community who has been quoted often on the storm is NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth. An example of Trenberth’s interviews can be found in the ClimateNexus post Blizzard of 2015: Normal Winter Weather, Amplified by Climate Change. The subtitle is actually quite funny, bringing back the old “consistent with climate models” nonsense: “Above average sea surface temperatures increase snowfall, consistent with model projections.” ...........The models are in no way “consistent with” reality. ..........Apparently, alarmist climate-change advocates are still willing to furnish misinformation to the public about the contribution of human-induced global warming to weather events. Somehow, I don’t think many readers will find that surprising. It’s been the norm for many years. "
The media has been abuzz with claims that the January 2015 New England Blizzard was worsened by human-induced global warming. One of the outspoken activist members of the climate science community who has been quoted often on the storm is NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth. An example of Trenberth’s interviews can be found in the ClimateNexus post Blizzard of 2015: Normal Winter Weather, Amplified by Climate Change. The subtitle is actually quite funny, bringing back the old “consistent with climate models” nonsense: “Above average sea surface temperatures increase snowfall, consistent with model projections.” ...........The models are in no way “consistent with” reality. ..........Apparently, alarmist climate-change advocates are still willing to furnish misinformation to the public about the contribution of human-induced global warming to weather events. Somehow, I don’t think many readers will find that surprising. It’s been the norm for many years. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)