[_ Old Earth _] Climate change

[brewmama]

The worst level of denying is least seen by the public. It is the adjustment of data and records to ensure the deception continues. We knew about the adjustment of the New Zealand record by NIWA (Figure 2) and the claims against the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) by Jennifer Marohasy and others (Figure 3).







As Chris Booker points out, few exposed the extent of the manipulation, especially in the US, better than Stephen Goddard through his web site Real Science. In an article titled “Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor” Goddard asks, “Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS.” Figure 4 illustrates what Goddard describes as

“…Hansen’s remarkable changes to the pre-1975 temperature data. He simply removed that pesky warm period from 1890 to 1940.”





The most recent and egregious adjustments to data are those of Thomas Karl at the United States Historical Climate Network (USHCN) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Karl has a long history of adjusting records as Steve McIntyre identified in 2007. In an open letter to Karl,Bob Tisdale questioned the method and the objective of the most recent adjustments. The phrase “cherry-picking” is all too familiar to those following the history of the real deniers. However, Judith Curry found it appropriate to describe what Karl did.

This new paper is especially interesting in context of the Karl et al paper, that ‘disappears’ the hiatus. I suspect that the main take home message for the public (those paying attention, anyways) is that the data is really uncertain and there is plenty of opportunity for scientists to ‘cherry pick’ methods to get desired results.

Apparently in a determination to say 2014 and 2015 are the warmest years on record and prove the hiatus Lord Monckton identifies didn’t exist he created a more than questionable method.

In the case of the real climate deniers, they ignore the demonstrable facts and compound their denial by changing the record.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/06/an-update-on-the-real-deniers/

 

[brewmama]

I mentioned this already, but it was ignored, so I'll bring it up again:

Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models.
Looks like another GISS miss, more than a few people are getting fed up with Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and their climate shenanigans. Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04...emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

 

[reba]

some interesting stuff

 

[Barbarian]

The point is, which you haven't denied, is that there is neither settled science nor consensus.

"Settled Science" is merely a denier phrase which means nothing at all. There is never any "settle science." Even the most secure theory (which as you know, if you've been paying attention, means "an idea or group of ideas that has been verified by evidence") is always provisional in science, depending on future evidence.

On the other hand, as you learned, even in the 1970s, there was a consensus among climate scientists that warming was coming. Note that "consensus" means:

a : general agreement : the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

Open letter signed by various scientists to Canadian PM:

That's nice. Here's what Canada's climate scientists say:
Statement of the Canadian Meterological and Oceanographic Society:
Climate change is happening now, both in Canada, and around the world. Most of this change is attributable to human activities that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The effect of these additional greenhouse gases, is clearly detectable on continental and global scales.


Canada’s North is experiencing particularly rapid and widespread climate warming. This warming will have significant impact and will accelerate climate change globally.


We call on all levels of government to take immediate action. We must both reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and prepare for climate change.
http://www.cmos.ca/document/1045/pressrelease1June2006.pdf

So, not so good for your politicians and anonymous "scientists", we are told don't accept climate change.

 

[Barbarian]

Apparently in a determination to say 2014 and 2015 are the warmest years on record and prove the hiatus Lord Monckton identifies didn’t exist he created a more than questionable method.

So at the end, as the data comes in, all the deniers have left is "they are lying, all of them!"

But even many deniers now admit that warming is a fact. They can hardly do otherwise, since the data is available to anyone who wants to see it.

And those liberal petunias keep blooming sooner and sooner in the spring.

Washington DC's famous cherry trees?
Peak bloom date for the cherry trees is occurring earlier than it did in the past. Since 1921, peak bloom dates have shifted earlier by approximately five days.
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ecosystems/cherry-blossoms.html

I guess being in Washington, you could expect the trees to be liberals, um?

 

[Barbarian]

And it turns out, one of the corporations funding deniers with millions of dollars, was making corporate decisions, based on the knowledge that warming was a fact:

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.


The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.


“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,” or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

 

[Barbarian]

While Exxon Mobil did not sign the letter, its stance has also evolved. For years, the company poured millions of dollars into organizations promoting climate change denial. However, in a report to shareholders last year, an Exxon Mobil vice president said , “The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action.” To that end, Exxon Mobil has expressed support for a carbon tax.


In fact, Exxon Mobil has already responded to the likelihood of international climate action by applying “shadow” carbon prices to its international operations, based on the likelihood that a given country will restrict emissions. As the Nation’s environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard pointed out in Businessweek, the company actually revised its U.S. carbon price in the wake of last fall’s “People’s Climate March” in New York. “We look at all kinds of things that affect government policies, and that many people marching is clearly going to put pressure on government to do something,” a spokesman said...
These developments are a reflection of broader shifts in public opinion, as evidenced by multiple polls finding that climate change denial is increasingly unpopular outside of Washington. For instance, a Yale University survey conducted by Gallup found that 71 percent of Americans say global warming is real; 69 percent believe that human activity is contributing to the problem; and 62 percent agree that “global warming is an urgent threat requiring immediate and drastic action.” Moreover, while Republicans are split on the question of climate change, a Yale-George Mason University poll found that “half of all Republicans (56%) support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, including conservatives (54%).”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...0e42b4-137a-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html

 

[brewmama]

Polls can pretty much say what you want...

Polls have consistently shown global warming never ranks high on the American public’s radar. A CNN poll from January 2015 found that 57 percent of Americans did not expect global warming to threaten their way of life.

“Meanwhile, only 50 percent of Americans believe global warming is caused by man-made emissions, while 23 percent say it’s caused by natural changes and 26 percent say it isn’t a proven fact,” CNN reported.

A Gallup poll from March 2015 found Americans’ concern about global warming fell to the same level it was in 1989. Global warming ranked at the bottom of a list of Americans’ environmental concerns— only 32 percent said they worried about it a “great deal.”

“Importantly, even as global warming has received greater attention as an environmental problem from politicians and the media in recent years, Americans’ worry about it is no higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1989,” Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones wrote.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/p...t-worried-about-global-warming/#ixzz481P8nK9H

 

[brewmama]

"Settled Science" is merely a denier phrase which means nothing at all. There is never any "settle science." Even the most secure theory (which as you know, if you've been paying attention, means "an idea or group of ideas that has been verified by evidence") is always provisional in science, depending on future evidence.
So, not so good for your politicians and anonymous "scientists", we are told don't accept climate change.

LOL! "Settled science" is YOUR side's phrase!

None of my scientists are anonymous, you just don't bother to read any of the links, articles, etc.

 

[brewmama]

double post

 

[brewmama]

That's nice. Here's what Canada's climate scientists say:
Statement of the Canadian Meterological and Oceanographic Society:
Climate change is happening now, both in Canada, and around the world. Most of this change is attributable to human activities that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The effect of these additional greenhouse gases, is clearly detectable on continental and global scales.
Canada’s North is experiencing particularly rapid and widespread climate warming. This warming will have significant impact and will accelerate climate change globally.
We call on all levels of government to take immediate action. We must both reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and prepare for climate change.
http://www.cmos.ca/document/1045/pressrelease1June2006.pdf
So, not so good for your politicians and anonymous "scientists", we are told don't accept climate change.

That's nice. It's well known that science organization leadership often does not reflect the views of their members.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#88aa4dd171b7

 

[brewmama]

 

[brewmama]

Even though warmists say they don't believe in the pause, and try to come up with scary scary "hottest year ever!" scenarios (which are statistically insignificant and well within the margin of error), they do try and come up with excuses for the pause:

1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability[debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific
[paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]

 

[brewmama]

31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]
39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”
40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”
41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate]

42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:
“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]

43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]
“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the “pause”] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]

44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis]

 

[brewmama]

45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:
“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the ‘pause’] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]

46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:
“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]

47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]

48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]

49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:
” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]

50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]
“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”

51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]
[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability]

52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend

 

[Barbarian]

LOL! "Settled science" is YOUR side's phrase!

A quick google search shows that the first page is all denier sites. Reality isn't what you say it is.

None of my scientists are anonymous, you just don't bother to read any of the links, articles, etc.

Sorry, if you think any of them have enough credibility to present them here, feel free to do it. Otherwise...

 

[Barbarian]

Do you even read the stuff you cut and past? Shotgunning usually leads to some embarrassing errors. The first thing on your list:

1) Low solar activity

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01...ed-in-journal-atmospheric-and-climate-scienc/

We are in the midst of a profound low in solar activity. The last time this happened, we had a "little ice age." Instead, we just went through the two hottest years on record. If you thought about it, that alone invalidates denial.

So to avoid boring the onlookers, pick one of the many stories you posted, that you think is particularly convincing, and we'll look that one over. Otherwise, you're just doing the denier version of the "Gish Gallop."


Gish Gallop
Noun
(uncountable)

1. A rhetorical technique in which a dishonest speaker lists a string of falsehoods or misleading items so that their opponent will be unable to counter each one and still be able to make their own counterpoints

 

[Barbarian]

Do you even read the stuff you cut and past? Shotgunning usually leads to some embarrassing errors. The first thing on your list:

1) Low solar activity

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01...ed-in-journal-atmospheric-and-climate-scienc/

We are in the midst of a profound low in solar activity. The last time this happened, we had a "little ice age." Instead, we just went through the two hottest years on record. If you thought about it, that alone invalidates denial.

So to avoid boring the onlookers, pick one of the many stories you posted, that you think is particularly convincing, and we'll look that one over. Otherwise, you're just pasting someone else's denier version of the "Gish Gallop."


Gish Gallop
Noun
(uncountable)

1. A rhetorical technique in which a dishonest speaker lists a string of falsehoods or misleading items so that their opponent will be unable to counter each one and still be able to make their own counterpoints

 

[brewmama]

Do you even read the stuff you cut and past? Shotgunning usually leads to some embarrassing errors. The first thing on your list:
We are in the midst of a profound low in solar activity. The last time this happened, we had a "little ice age." Instead, we just went through the two hottest years on record. If you thought about it, that alone invalidates denial.
So to avoid boring the onlookers, pick one of the many stories you posted, that you think is particularly convincing, and we'll look that one over. Otherwise, you're just doing the denier version of the "Gish Gallop."

Gish Gallop
Noun
(uncountable)

1. A rhetorical technique in which a dishonest speaker lists a string of falsehoods or misleading items so that their opponent will be unable to counter each one and still be able to make their own counterpoints

Not unexpectedly, you miss the point that this was one of the explanations for the pause,

Study's conclusion: 'The decaying solar activity makes the recently recorded global temperatures flatten out and thus disguises the real climate development. With a steady level of cycle-average solar activity the global temperatures would have shown a steady rise from 1980 to present (2013) in agreement with the increasing atmospheric concentrations of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [16], and not the levelling-off actually observed since 2001.'

 

[brewmama]

Since you like to bring up "we just went through the two hottest years on record" so often, let's look at it.

As suggested monthly by the mainstream media since April 2015, NOAA and NASA officially declared that 2015 surpassed the 2014 record to become the new hottest year on record and that 2016 could be hotter than 2015! The average global temperatures calculated by NOAA and NASA, however, appear to be inaccurate and unreliable for the following reasons:

• According to data on the NOAA website, 1997 was truly the hottest year on record at 62.45 oF. The average global temperature in 2015 was 58.62 oF or 3.83 oF below the 1997 temperature.
• According to data on the NOAA website, the temperatures such as the 20th century average temperature and annual temperature anomalies, which must be fixed, have different values in the annual global analyses.
• NOAA and NASA corrected historical temperature data and fabricated temperature data in areas without temperature record systematically, widely, and uni-directionally to “cool” the past in an attempt to prove the soaring temperature trend.
• NOAA and NASA made efforts to discredit their own satellite data – which is consistent with the balloon data – because it suggests a global warming hiatus since 1998 contradicting with the NOAA and NASA preferred narrative.
• NOAA and NASA refused to give data and information requested by the US House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology committee. There is no reason for them to withhold the data and information, which are public domain, unless they have something to hide...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02...than-2014-and-2016-could-be-hotter-than-2015/