[_ Old Earth _] Climate change

[brewmama]

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

So any evidence given by someone who doesn't buy the cagwista bill of goods, is by definition (not agreeing with the elite cabal) not to be listened to? And you seriously think you are presenting science? Actually, you are admitting that you are presenting politics, not science.

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

I certainly have. You can lead a horse to water...

 

[brewmama]

There are two stories floating around about the state of the earth’s atmosphere. Both are believed true by government-funded scientists and the environmentally minded. The situation is curious because the stories don’t mesh. Yet, as I said, both are believed. Worse, neither is true.

Story number one is that this year will be the hottest ever. And number two is that the reason it is not hot is because “natural variation” has masked or stalled man-caused global warming.

Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter.

The first claim is not only false, it is ludicrously false. It’s not even close to being true. There have been times in the history of the earth when it was much hotter. Here is a link to one estimate of the earth’s mean temperature over time.

But haven’t atmospheric carbon dioxide levels risen over the past few decades? Yes, but here is another link with carbon dioxide levels plotted alongside temperature (see the second graph down at the link) showing how the two do not track each other and at times have even moved in opposite directions...

Claim Number Two: Natural Variation Caused A “Pause”
The American Meteorological Society is, or rather was, the preeminent organization for those who study weather and climate. Its official organ is known as BAMS, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. BAMS is used to impart news items of interest and the like, but it also publishes review articles on the state of science.

Now the AMS has, like nearly all other government-money-dependent scientific organizations, given up all pretense of physics and has instead embraced politics as its raison d’etre. So far removed from its original mission is the AMS that they are publishing a BAMS review article by two non-scientist ideologues and one scientist who writes mostly about politics. The title is “The ‘Pause’ in Global Warming: Turning a Routine Fluctuation into a Problem for Science.”

The authors are Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist who specializes in gimmicked surveys, Naomi Oreskes, a historian who believes in a vast right-wing conspiracy, and James Risbey, a real climatologist who spends much of his time wondering why everybody doesn’t agree with him (he has more than one paper with Lewandowsky and Oreskes on this theme).

The point of this new paper is the same as all of Lewandowsky’s works. He wants to paint detractors of The Consensus as crazy or oil-industry stooges. For these authors, and for many, the mere fact that government-funded scientists have said a problem with the atmosphere exists and that only government can solve it is more than sufficient proof of the contention. Any who disagree must be doing so out of ignorance, insanity or evil intent. That their position on the science might be wrong never occurs to them.

And they are wrong. Their claim is that the (satellite) observed non-increase in global temperatures over the past two decades was caused by any or some combination of these: “natural variations,” El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, “random” or “routine fluctuations” and the like. They say that if these “causes” did not exist, the temperatures would have increased just as they were predicted to under the theory of enhanced-feedback carbon-oxide-driven (EFCOD) global warming.

Do you see the fallacy? They use the absence of predicted increases as proof the increases were really there, but in masked or modified form! To them, the repeated, consistent and egregiously mistaken predictions made by climate models are true no matter what because EFCOD global warming is true no matter what. It used to be in science that when a theory made predictions even as fractionally lousy as EFCOD global warming, it was quietly removed from service. But global warming can’t be dropped. There is too much riding on it remaining in force...
https://stream.org/climate-change-spin-hot-hottest-year-ever-inside-global-warming-pause/

 

[brewmama]

Never mind!
UK Met Office says 2014 was NOT the hottest year ever due to ‘uncertainty ranges’ of the data

Quoting the temperature to one hundredth of a degree and the error on that measurement to a tenth of a degree is not normal scientific practice. It is against normal scientific practice to have an error of the measurement larger than the precision of that measurement. This means that most scientists would have rounded the data so that it was 0.6 +/- 0.1 °C. If this is done to the HadCRUT4 dataset it is even more obvious that there has been a warming “pause” for the past 18 years.

2014 fits in perfectly with the suggestion that for the past 18 years HadCRUT4 is best represented by a constant temperature.

In general the Met Office and before them the Berkerley Earth project were reasonable about the data in pointing out that a new record was not established unequivocally because of the large error bars that encompass 2014 and many other recent years. This is in contrast to the stance taken by NASA who proclaimed without doubt, and without even quoting the temperature and any error information, that 2014 was the warmest year ever.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01...r-ever-due-to-uncertainty-ranges-of-the-data/

 

[Barbarian]

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

There is no pause. We are deep into the solar minimum, and instead of a cold spell, we have the two hottest years on record. C'mon. You can't really miss what that says. Did you really not realize it?

No one denies that such an event won't make things cooler than they would otherwise be. The point is, even with that event, it got warmer.

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.

Well, let's take a look...

Last year was the Earth's warmest since record-keeping began in 1880, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA said Wednesday.
It's been clear for quite some time that 2015 would steal the distinction of the hottest year from 2014, with 10 out of the 12 months last year being the warmest respective months on record -- and those records go back 136 years.
While it wasn't necessarily a surprise that 2015 finished in first place, its margin of victory was startling -- it lapped the field, with the average temperature across the entire planet 1.62˚F (0.90˚C) above the 20th century average, more than 20% higher than the previous highest departure from average.
This was aided by a December that looked and felt more like a March or April for much of the Northern Hemisphere, where traditional winter holidays had weather that was neither traditional nor winter-like.
In fact, December became the first month to ever reach 2 degrees Fahrenheit above normal for the globe. In the United States, December was both the warmest and the wettest on record -- no other month has ever held both distinctions for the country.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/us/noaa-2015-warmest-year/

NOAA scientists confirmed today that 2015 set a new record for warmest average surface temperature on planet Earth. According to the press release:

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all years in the 1880-2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C). This is also the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken. Ten months had record high temperatures for their respective months during the year. The five highest monthly departures from average for any month on record all occurred during 2015. Since 1997, which at the time was the warmest year on record, 16 of the subsequent 18 years have been warmer than that year.
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...prise-2015-sets-new-global-temperature-record

Surprised that Watt would lie to you? Get used to it.

 

[Barbarian]

UK Met Office says 2014 was NOT the hottest year ever due to ‘uncertainty ranges’ of the data

It was the hottest on NOAA and NASA data, significantly so. It was also hottest on record for HadCRUT as well. But according to this person, not statistically so. Meaning, their data didn't reach the 90th percent confidence level. And again, here we are in a solar minimum, which should mean marked cooling going on, and instead we are seeing record high temperatures.

Is it beginning to dawn on you that you were trusting the wrong people?

 

[brewmama]

Well, let's take a look...

Last year was the Earth's warmest since record-keeping began in 1880, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA said Wednesday.
It's been clear for quite some time that 2015 would steal the distinction of the hottest year from 2014, with 10 out of the 12 months last year being the warmest respective months on record -- and those records go back 136 years.
While it wasn't necessarily a surprise that 2015 finished in first place, its margin of victory was startling -- it lapped the field, with the average temperature across the entire planet 1.62˚F (0.90˚C) above the 20th century average, more than 20% higher than the previous highest departure from average.
This was aided by a December that looked and felt more like a March or April for much of the Northern Hemisphere, where traditional winter holidays had weather that was neither traditional nor winter-like.
In fact, December became the first month to ever reach 2 degrees Fahrenheit above normal for the globe. In the United States, December was both the warmest and the wettest on record -- no other month has ever held both distinctions for the country.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/us/noaa-2015-warmest-year/

NOAA scientists confirmed today that 2015 set a new record for warmest average surface temperature on planet Earth. According to the press release:

During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all years in the 1880-2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C). This is also the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken. Ten months had record high temperatures for their respective months during the year. The five highest monthly departures from average for any month on record all occurred during 2015. Since 1997, which at the time was the warmest year on record, 16 of the subsequent 18 years have been warmer than that year.
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...prise-2015-sets-new-global-temperature-record

Surprised that Watt would lie to you? Get used to it.

LOL!! I post proof that temps have been manipulated and the process has been corrupted, and you respond by posting press releases of the manipulators and corrupters!

I'd say we all know (well, at least most of us know) which side the lies are on!

 

[brewmama]

Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate
In February 2015, Greenpeace agent Kert Davies, a vocal critic of Soon since 1997, falsely accused him of wrongfully failing to disclose “conflicts of interest” to an academic journal he submitted research to. Despite the fact the journal’s editors and the Smithsonian Institution found no violation of their disclosure or conflict of interest rules, Davies’ accusation created a clamor amongst alarmist reporters, who repeated the claim without further investigation.

The Greenpeace ruckus brought pressure from the Obama administration on the Harvard-Smithsonian Center to silence climate skeptics. Smithsonian responded with an elaborate new “Directive on Standards of Conduct,” which forced its employees to wade through bureaucratic rules replete with an ethics counselor and a “Loyalty to the Smithsonian” clause.

Despite the pressure applied to Smithsonian, its inspector general found Soon had not broken any rules, prompting additional attacks from alarmists.

In March and April 2016, two outlets published stories scurrilously demonizing Soon, relying heavily on bogus claims. The two activist-writers, David Hasemyer, who worked for the controversial InsideClimateNews, and Paul Basken, who worked for The Chronicle of Higher Education, seem to have forgotten journalistic ethics and the facts...
Accordingly, writers who’ve accused Soon of wrongdoing despite evidence to the contrary are unethical and should be censured.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05...ndicting-journalists-covering-climate-debate/

What! Warmist journalists lie and erroneously besmirch nonconforming scientists character and reputation?? We are used to the lies!

 

[Barbarian]

LOL!! I post proof that temps have been manipulated and the process has been corrupted, and you respond by posting press releases of the manipulators and corrupters!

You claimed NOAA said one thing, and I showed you that they not only didn't say it, they said the opposite. And now that it's been shown that they don't agree with your assumptions, you want to disaparage the very source you were touting.

Doesn't sound like a very good argument, to me.

 

[Barbarian]

The investigation by Elsevier, a global network of scientific journals, was prompted by documents showing that Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon failed to disclose industry funding in 11 studies published by nine journals.

Six of those papers were published in four Elsevier publications. Elsevier requires its authors to disclose financial conflicts that "could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work."

The documents were obtained by Greenpeace and made public in February by the Climate Investigations Center, an environmental watchdog organization based in Virginia. After the documents were released, the center alerted the journals that the lack of disclosure violates ethical guidelines requiring authors to identify their funders and potential conflicts of interest.


The Smithsonian Institution has written new rules to head off conflicts of interest, part of its long-awaited response to revelations that one of its scientists, climate contrarian Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, failed to divulge the funding sources for research questioning man-made global warming.


The organization's new disclosure policies would make funding sources for research by its staff more transparent––and allow the institution to assess potential conflicts before approving research grants.


Those and other recommendations follow dual four-month investigations prompted by the revelation in February that Soon did not disclose the identity of fossil fuel interests that funded his published studies––which often place blame for rising global temperatures on solar activity instead of fossil fuel burning.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...uel-funded-work-draws-ethics-review-publisher

The communications show that Soon called his peer-reviewed research papers "deliverables" in return for funding from fossil fuel companies. In addition, the documents reveal that Soon and Harvard-Smithsonian gave the coal utility company the right to review his scientific papers and make suggestions before they were published. Soon and Harvard-Smithsonian also pledged not to disclose Southern's role as a funder without permission.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...rvard-smithsonian-koch-exxon-southern-company


Had the proposed policies been in place years ago when Soon––a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.––obtained more than $800,000 for widely discredited climate research, he would have been required to disclose the sources of his funding, said John Gibbons, Smithsonian spokesman.


Soon did not respond to a request for comment.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...isclosure-rules-after-willie-soon-controversy

Odd as it might seem, the Smithsonian apparently did not have ethical standards that required a scientist to disclose that he was being paid to take a particular stance with regard to scientific questions. If they had, Soon would have been required to disclose the payoff. Normally, scientific journals require such disclosures because of the obvious conflict of interest involved.

Accordingly, writers who’ve accused Soon of wrongdoing despite evidence to the contrary are unethical and should be censured.

As you see, the Smithsonian found that the accusations were true. There's no way to hide the fact. Soon failed to disclose the payments. The Smithsonian just didn't have any standards in place that required scientists to be honest about their funding.

 

[brewmama]

2015 had a very strong EL NIno, one of the strongest, but El Ninos have nothing to do with climate change. This contributed to 2015 being warmer...The current El Nino phenomenon that has brought prolonged drought and sweltering heat to Malaysia is the strongest of the 20 over the last 60 years, but there is no concrete evidence to link its heat intensity to global warming, says former IPCC vice-chairman. Climatologist and oceanographer Prof Dr Fredolin Tangang of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia said this year’s El Nino was even more extreme than the severe phenomena experienced in 1982/82 and 1997/98. “There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change,” said Tangang, who had served from 2008 to 2015 as vice-chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency.

It's all within natural variation...

You claimed NOAA said one thing, and I showed you that they not only didn't say it, they said the opposite. And now that it's been shown that they don't agree with your assumptions, you want to disaparage the very source you were touting.

Doesn't sound like a very good argument, to me.

Where did I quote NOAA, that you proved the opposite? What of my sources are you talking about?

 

[brewmama]

This article gives full details of who was behind and how it was done, re: the Willie Soon smear, (of which even Barbarian admits that he did nothing wrong.)

"The latest instances where Boston Globe, New York Times, and Washington Post articles cited Kert Davies’ supposedly damaging documents (screencaptures here, here and here), in an effort to trash skeptic climate scientist Dr Willie Soon, invites exactly that kind of parody.

Funny how none of those publications bothers to mention (hiding appearances of bias, we much?) Davies’ former position as Greenpeace’s Research Director."...
The UK Guardian’s same-day variation written by John Vidal contained the identical quote from Davies, but Vidal skipped the last sentence in the Reuters article where Dr Soon said he’d gladly accept Greenpeace funding. An internet search of just that date and Dr Soon’s name shows just how far and wide those twin stories were spread.

Want to see a fun circular citation in action? Greenpeace’s own ExxonSecrets web site (created and run by Davies) has a page dedicated to Dr Soon, where it cites the above John Vidal Guardian article as the source to say Dr Soon received a million dollars of ‘big oil’ funding. Who did Vidal cite for that? Greenpeace....
I can at least say Kert Davies had ties with Ozone Action as far back as 1997, since Greenpeace saved a copy (screencapture here) of his July 29, 1997 email from his Environmental Working Group address to a person at Ozone Action.

What is the critical missing element to this 20-year collection of ‘breaking news stories’ about skeptic scientists’ funding? Any scrap of evidence proving the skeptics falsified/fabricated data or conclusions as performance required under a monetary grant or paid employee contract. It’s all guilt-by-association and nothing more.

When gullible news outlets unquestioningly cite people from the same enviro-activist clique every time, failing to realize they could win Pulitzers if they turned the tables on sources of smear material, and when they egregiously allow members of that clique to be labeled as ‘reporters’, this all invites one more “Sharptonism” to be applied to the mainstream media:

Commit political suicide, we much?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/26/the-origin-of-climate-smear/

I didn't post the whole article obviously, so if anyone wants to debate it at least read the whole thing.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ― Socrates

 

[Barbarian]

This article gives full details of who was behind and how it was done, re: the Willie Soon smear, (of which even Barbarian admits that he did nothing wrong.)

No, that's not what I said. I pointed out that it's highly unethical to not disclose who is paying you for a paper. As you learned, your website slandered the people who turned him in. He failed to do exactly what they said he failed to do. And yes, it's considered unethical.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ― Socrates

Which is what Watts did. Soon failed to disclose his funding. He got caught. Your denier site is trying to find a way to smooth it over. So they're blaming the people who caught him.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.


Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

...but he didn't disclose who was paying him to write those reports. For understandable reasons.

 

[brewmama]

Oh not again! Those Cagwistas never learn!

An expedition to the North Pole intended to measure the effects of global warming ground to a halt this month when the scientist’s ship got blocked by the ice packs near Murmansk, Russia, reports reveal.
The Polar Ocean Challenge set out on a two-month campaign hoping to prove that the ice at the North Pole was melting. As the expedition’s website explains, the group aimed to show “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”

Despite their best intentions to show that the ice is melting and the temperature at the pole is higher than normal, the group has only been confronted with the exact opposite as ice continues to block their path.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-stuck-in-arctic-sea-because-of-too-much-ice/

 

[Barbarian]

Despite their best intentions to show that the ice is melting and the temperature at the pole is higher than normal, the group has only been confronted with the exact opposite as ice continues to block their path.

Well, let's take a look. The most accurate reading is obtained by satellite data.
Every year, the cap of frozen seawater floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and its neighboring seas melts during the spring and summer and grows back in the fall and winter months, reaching its maximum yearly extent between February and April. On March 24, Arctic sea ice extent peaked at 5.607 million square miles (14.52 million square kilometers), a new record low winter maximum extent in the satellite record that started in 1979. It is slightly smaller than the previous record low maximum extent of 5.612 million square miles (14.54 million square kilometers) that occurred last year. The 13 smallest maximum extents on the satellite record have happened in the last 13 years.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...ice-wintertime-extent-hits-another-record-low

Let's see if we can get look at the annual sea ice extent:

As you see, the trend is strongly downward. The data for 2016 looks like it's going to be another record low year. The total mass of ice is falling faster than the extent. This is because ice is thinning and there is less old sea ice in the Arctic now.
http://nsidc.org/data/masie/index.html