Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm
The religion of Science has been proven wrong on more than one occasion.
Mar 19, 2020 at 7:45 AM Radical Rodent
False prophets have achieved money and power.
golf charlie
'Climate Realists' say this
"NASA and NOAA jointly or separately operate the U.S. Climate Reference Network, the gold standard of surface temperature data, global satellites, and weather balloons. The temperature data recorded by these three independent, unbiased temperature-measuring networks show minimal warming over the past 40 years. "
In fact, not only does the CRN show rapid warming of 0.47C/decade (though uncertainty is high as the network only went live in 2005), the reference network readings match the overall network almost exactly, which indicates the adjustments being made to the broader network are working.
The satellites measure the temperature of the atmosphere rather than the surface however the measurements from the layer of air nearest the surface - the lower troposphere - show warming at the rate of 0.13C/decade, comparable with the surface record and in line with model projections.
There are various weather balloon datasets, probably the most relevant is Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC). Again, this mirrors the warming seen in the satellite data, 'Climate Realists' say this
"NASA and NOAA jointly or separately operate the U.S. Climate Reference Network, the gold standard of surface temperature data, global satellites, and weather balloons. The temperature data recorded by these three independent, unbiased temperature-measuring networks show minimal warming over the past 40 years. "
In fact, not only does the CRN show warming of 0.47C/decade (though uncertainty is high as the network only went live in 2005), the reference network readings match the overall network almost exactly, which indicates the adjustments being made to the broader network are working.
The satellites measure the temperature of the atmosphere rather than the surface however the measurements from the layer of air nearest the surface - the lower troposphere - show warming at the rate of 0.13C/decade, comparable with the surface record and in line with model projections.
There are various weather balloon datasets, probably the most relevant is Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC). Again, this mirrors the warming seen in the satellite data, with RATPAC actually showing slightly more warming in recent years.
Not much realism at Climate Realists, but then anyone expecting to get straight facts from the Heartland Institute is making a category error, in my view.
Phil Clarke
Apologies for the copy-paste error, the edit box is tiny!
Phil Clarke
The sloppy data management at that heart of climate darkness know as the CRU was exposed in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt (e.g. see this report) file in the Climategate Revelations of 2009. Simple incompetence by not very able data custodians would seem to explain much of it. But since then, the data management in the camps of the CO2 AgitProppers has become slightly more sophisticated and purposeful. And the purpose seems clear enough: make the data look like what the models tell us it ought to look like.
There was a time when even a CO2 zealot like James Hansen was willing to discuss actual data in conflict with his own notions. Here he is in 1999:
‘Yet in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2).’
(See Hansen et al )
Since then the troops have rallied and made the headache go away: NOAA and GISS adjusted the data, as if they wanted to pat poor James H on the head and say ‘there, there, pain all better now’.
Paul Homewood has their number, and in this post he illustrates their shenanigans, and he concludes:
‘The US temperature record presented by NOAA and GISS is little more than a political construct.’
See this article from Climate Realism to read more about this sort of stuff in the USA and elsewhere:
John Shade
Homewood should do his homework. He, as usual, makes some basic factual mistakes, which he could have avoided with a little bit of basic research:
Q. Why are the US mean temperatures in the Hansen 1999 paper so different from later figures?A. In the Hansen et al. (1999) paper the GISS analysis was based on GHCN data alone; in the meantime, the group working at NOAA/NCEI had taken a closer look at the US data, an investigation that resulted in substantial modifications compensating for station moves, procedural changes, etc. These corrected data were made available as "adjusted USHCN" data. The adjustments and their effects are described here, with a graph showing the effect of each of the five individual adjustments here. These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990. They had no significant impact on the global mean. About half of that increase was due to information obtained about station moves (mostly from cities to airports where conditions were generally cooler), the other half from changes in the time of observation (mostly as a consequence of a concerted effort to transition to a uniform time of observation for a whole network of stations). After 1999, GISS replaced the unadjusted USHCN reports by the adjusted reports, and reported on the differences this made in Hansen et al. (2001). A list of all changes to the GISS analysis and their impacts is presented in the History Section.
From <https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q215>
Phil Clarke
See this article from Climate Realism to read more about this sort of stuff
That's the page containing the false claim I quoted above.
Phil Clarke
Phil, please can you enlighten me, as I fear I'm missing something:
"In fact, not only does the CRN show warming of 0.47C/decade (though uncertainty is high as the network only went live in 2005), the reference network readings match the overall network almost exactly, which indicates the adjustments being made to the broader network are working.
The satellites measure the temperature of the atmosphere rather than the surface however the measurements from the layer of air nearest the surface - the lower troposphere - show warming at the rate of 0.13C/decade, comparable with the surface record and in line with model projections."
Is it 0.47C per decade, or 0.13C per decade? And how is one consistent with the other?
Mark Hodgson
Mark,
The 0.47C is from the US CRN, so US-only - and hence land only, the land area is warming faster than the sea surface. The 0.13C is for the globe - or to be picky, the parts of the globe covered by the satellites; they exclude the polar latitudes.
And of course the satellites are measuring atmospheric temperatures - although again being picky they cannot measure temperatures directly, they measure microwave intensity from oxygen molecules and run that through a model (hah) to derive temperatures.
It amuses me when people deride the adjustments applied to the surface record then praise the satellites as the 'unbiased gold standard'. The satellite record is stitched together from different instruments flying on 15 different platforms at different times all with different rates of drift. All of which requires thousands of adjustments.
Phil Clarke
Mr Shade: Hansen is not the only one concerned about lack of evidence to support their theories – 10 years later, Kevin Trenberth had this to say in an email to Michael Mann (Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate), dated Mon, 12 Oct 2009, with copies sent to a wide array of others (include Hansen)
Hi allNow, another ten years on, and I wonder what Stephen Schneider would have had to say about this comment that was included in the email:
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).….
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,I suspect Mike Schlesinger (if, indeed, it was he) is glad he didn’t bet too much money on it.
Steve
Radical Rodent
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
https://www.wired.com/2009/11/climate-hack/
Phil Clarke
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
https://www.wired.com/2009/11/climate-hack/
Mar 20, 2020 at 11:46 PM | Phil Clarke"
Why was it necessary for the article to have this comment at the end?
"This post was updated with comments from the Climate Research Unit and Michael Mann."
Phil, you don't believe in the honesty and integrity of the Hockey Stick, so why should you be quoting Mann and his collaborators as trustworthy sources?
golf charlie
Phil Clarke - 8.18pm yesterday.
Thanks!
Mark Hodgson
https://skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html
Phil Clarke
https://skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html
"Mar 21, 2020 at 9:24 AM Phil Clarke"
It is a tragedy that you expect people to trust the fabricators of the 97% Consensus.
golf charlie
In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Phil Clarke
" the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research"
Quite, quite understandable. The SDIDS (sceptics detection, isolation and destroy squads) are getting rather effective.
AK
"In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers"
Mar 21, 2020 at 10:49 AM Phil Clarke
97% Con Trick. It can only be Climate Science.
The EU is now realising that it needs to do something beneficial to retain support from Europeans.
If only Climate Science could get honest, and ditch the fakery, 3% of Climate Science funding could be saved.
golf charlie
Rad Rod, Golf Charlie, and others,
You take our Phil far too seriously. His, presumably self-appointed, role is that of the troll. He will not sustain discussions, but rather looks for details to jump on and divert us all with, and he'll jump on a detail in a reply if he can find something he thinks promising for stirring purposes. Reminds me a bit of Vicky Pollard, although Phil is a bit more refined. She'll take a detail and riff away on it with great abandon, generally missing the point. Here's a clip where she brings a group counselling session to a dramatic end, with all the group getting furious with on another. Troll heaven.
Vicky P
John Shade
I really ought to get online more. Just came across a post at Paul Homewood's with more good news. Another site aimed at helping folk rebut the climate alarm drivel piddling out from the mass media, from politicians, from teachers, from so-called NGOs: Climate At A Glance
The purpose? A noble one: Climate At A Glance puts frequently argued climate issues into short, concise, summaries that provide the most important, accurate, powerful information. The summaries are designed to provide a library of solid yet simple rebuttals so that legislators, teachers, students, and laymen can easily refute the exaggerations of the so-called “climate crisis.”
Here is Paul's post: Factcheck Coral Reefs
John Shade
John Shade, you did title this thread "The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm", and Phil Clarke demonstrates it on behalf of the Hockey Teamsters most admirably by linking to the work of dedicated Hockey Teamsters.
If only they would denounce Mann's legacy, the good bits of Climate Science could be saved. Without some honesty from those dedicated to Mann love, the whole lot risks being recycled into something more useful, like paper weights made out of paper.
golf charlie
Just wow. Another Heartland site even more deceptive than their new one. (Progress?)
Coral thrive in warm water, not cold water.
Therefore warmer water must be good for corals, right?
Recent warming has allowed coral to expand their range poleward, while still thriving near the equator.
Call me ungrateful but I don't believe the loss of about 50% of shallow water corals is worth a slight expansion in range. Thriving?
Coral has existed continuously for the past 40 million years, surviving temperatures and carbon dioxide levels significantly higher than what is occurring today.
Hmmm. Maybe. Coral has in fact bounced back from seven extinction events., but different species were dominant in each period.
Mid-Eocene PeriodCoral began to gain a foothold around 46 million years ago before disappearing for the last time in the Mid-Eocene period around 40 million years ago. Finally around 20 million years ago, the Great Barrier Reef, located off the west coast of Australia came into existence.
Modern Day
The climate of the globe is currently undergoing a rapid PETM-like event (a warming period), driven by greenhouse gases as in the PETM. Evidence now suggests that coral reefs will pass a point of no-return around 2040, and go into terminal decline, eventually disappearing at the end of this century. If so, based on past evidence, it is likely that many millions of years will pass before they return.
The primary causes of coral bleaching include oxybenzone (a chemical found in sunscreen), sediment runoff from nearby coastal lands, and cold temperatures like those recorded in 2010 off the Florida coast.
Not really a complete list is it?
Seems to me it is you who runs away from discussion Mr Shade. I think that 'Climate at a Glance' site is a slab of anti-scientific propaganda riddled with half-truths and downright lies, not to mention intellectual poverty. Certainly the coral reef page could not be more at odds with what the people who study them are saying. More than happy to 'sustain a discussion'; it is likely that somebody who relies on the Heartland for their climate information is in dire need of some education.
Phil Clarke
We could, for example, discuss this.
Phil Clarke
Mar 21, 2020 at 8:23 PM Phil Clarke
Mar 21, 2020 at 8:57 PM Phil Clarke
Do you think it would be more sensible if Hockey Teamsters stopped making false claims while funded by Taxpayers?
golf charlie
what's up Phil ... no mutual masturbators to play with over at https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/ ?
fred
And now for some good news ...
A new website has been launched and it promises to be of great value in helping the victims of the CO2 scaremongering, directly in the case of those willing and able to study and learn, and indirectly by helping helpers with good information they can use to encourage the scared and misinformed to be more optimistic despite the tawdry hyperbolic alarmism they have been exposed to.
Here it is: http://climaterealism.com/
(hat-tip: WUWT)