Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 23, 2017, 08:58:44 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101756 Posts in 2375 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Pathological Science
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print
Author Topic: Pathological Science  (Read 270308 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #900 on: April 22, 2016, 12:12:00 PM »

Earth is on brink of a sixth mass extinction, scientists say, and it’s humans’ fault
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/22/the-earth-is-on-the-brink-of-a-sixth-mass-extinction-scientists-say-and-its-humans-fault/
-----------------------------------------------------
Al Gore: Polar Ice Gone in 5 Years, 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI

John Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013

PoliticFact rates this "Barely True" in 2009.  Huh?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/john-kerry/kerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ice-free-2013/

In 2011, PolitiFact changed the name of Barely True to Mostly False.  Huh??

Doug rates all of this as pathologically, reality denyingly false, then and now.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #901 on: May 07, 2016, 03:08:49 PM »

Who knew these predictions would all be false.  Probably everyone who knew the models were wrong, like the designers of the models and the manipulators of the data.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/gore-ten-years-later.php

GORE, TEN YEARS LATER   - Steven Hayward, Powerline
Hey, kids—did you realize it’s the tenth anniversary of Al Gore’s Academy Award and Nobel Prize winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth? Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller has gone back and checked on some of Gore’s near-term predictions and found—spoiler alert!—that lots of them look pretty silly now:

One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.

Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com.

In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.

“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told eturbonews.com.

Actually that one was easy to knock back at the time, since there’s good data showing the slow retreat of Kilimanjaro’s snow going back well into the 19th century, before Ford and GM built their first SUVs.

Bastasch goes through several more Gore howlers, but I’ll just add one of my own from recent studies. Gore made much of Greenland’s ice sheet melting so rapidly you’d think the continent was a grilled cheese sandwich in a pizza oven. Science magazine reports this week that the interior of Greenland’s enormous ice mass appears to be . . . completely stable. Here’s the University of Illinois’s press release about it yesterday:

Study finds ice isn’t being lost from Greenland’s interior

Scientists studying data from the top of the Greenland ice sheet have discovered that during winter in the center of the world’s largest island, temperature inversions and other low-level atmospheric phenomena effectively isolate the ice surface from the atmosphere — recycling water vapor and halting the loss or gain of ice. A team of climate scientists made the surprising discovery from three years of data collected at Summit Camp, an arid, glaciated landscape 10,500 feet above sea level in the middle of the Greenland ice sheet.

“This is a place, unlike the rest of the ice sheet, where ice is accumulating,” says Max Berkelhammer, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Berkelhammer is first author on the study, reported in Science Advances, an open-access online publication of the journal Science.

For fans of classic films, here’s my 46-minute rebuttal of Gore’s movie, though it is way out of date now, since it was done before climategate, before the duration of the temperature pause became evident, and before the numerous recent studies concluding that most of the UN IPCC computer models overestimate climate sensitivity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seGyLIrH1-4

And here’s the seven-minute update I did one year later—complete with a Bruce Jenner reference!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nITPIK6cZtE


Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #902 on: May 08, 2016, 06:12:49 AM »

Doug,

I really don't know who to believe.

Many other places in the news claim just the opposite.

I recently read something about Kilimanjaro's ice cap is clearly disappearing though maybe not as fast as Gore had us believe

Same is true for Greenland.

I have different sources making different claims.  So how the heck can I possibly have any clue?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #903 on: May 08, 2016, 10:28:15 AM »

Doug,
I really don't know who to believe.
Many other places in the news claim just the opposite.
I recently read something about Kilimanjaro's ice cap is clearly disappearing though maybe not as fast as Gore had us believe
Same is true for Greenland.
I have different sources making different claims.  So how the heck can I possibly have any clue?

There is warming and there is human caused warming.  The real warming started at the peak of the last ice age.  It started hundreds of years before the industrial age' and the hockey stick, sharp uptick of late theory has been proven false.  The current peak has held 18 years without warming even though CO2 levels are still increasing.  We had a cooling in the 1970s too.  Which means other factors are coming into play.  Factors not factored into the models.

Agreed, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and fossil fuel combustion releases it.  Therefore some warming effect comes from man.  That CO2 came from decomposed plants, fossil fuels, which in turn took it from the atmosphere where it is being returned, not an unnatural process.  These 'high levels' of CO2 we are experiencing measure at 0.4 parts per thousand, not exactly smothering us.  And what is there is enhancing plant life, greening the planet and producing more oxygen for the animal life.  Again, not an unnatural or unprecedented cycle.

The models and forecasters have been off by a factor of about 7 fold.  They don't account for negative feedback effects, and were skewed by the lying and manipulation of the data.  Alarmist politicians, Al Gore, etc. get it wrong by a factor of maybe 100-fold.  

None of the proposed solutions solve anything, they just cause poverty.  

Nuclear is safe and CO2-free, it could power the whole grid and is being ignored, which means no one is serious about this anyway.

Do you know any climate scientists who refuse travel or work summers without air conditioning?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 05:20:59 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39783


« Reply #904 on: May 09, 2016, 02:25:27 PM »

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/09/facts-clear-astrophysicist-soon-of-wrongdoing-while-indicting-journalists-covering-climate-debate/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #905 on: May 31, 2016, 08:24:41 AM »

This guy and his family have made out like bandits with taxpayer funding of his climate change institute.  Talk about cashing in on government programs.  Whole family are living like 1 %.  Even tax deduction for charity sent to India for Gods sake:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424875/climate-extremist-taxpayer-funded-ian-tuttle
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39783


« Reply #906 on: June 05, 2016, 12:39:45 AM »

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
January 27, 2012

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "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." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Corbis

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
Related Video
Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #907 on: June 05, 2016, 09:16:04 AM »

What about the theory that the oceans may be absorbing the additional heat?
Or the melting of the glaciers?

I am not disagreeing only I cannot make up my mind as to what to think.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #908 on: July 07, 2016, 03:10:53 PM »

WE kept hearing how the antarctic ice is melting (maybe it is in the West) but much less about how it is expanding in the East.  The net effect was as far as i was able to read kept in the dark .  Apparently the net is that Antarctic ice is expanding:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0706/Scientists-may-have-solved-a-mystery-Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-growing
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #909 on: July 07, 2016, 04:25:23 PM »

We kept hearing how the antarctic ice is melting (maybe it is in the West) but much less about how it is expanding in the East.  The net effect was as far as i was able to read kept in the dark .  Apparently the net is that Antarctic ice is expanding:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0706/Scientists-may-have-solved-a-mystery-Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-growing

Arctic ice is (was) contracting because of global warming.  Antarctic ice is expanding because of global warming.  

The oceans are rising because of the (formerly) melting Arctic ice.  The only ocean not rising is the Arctic Ocean.

Human caused global warming is from the release of CO2 into the atmosphere - CO2 that naturally came from the atmosphere.

Liberals are (were) concerned about the black teenage unemployment rate.  Minimum wage laws (and open border policies) worsen the black teenage employment rate.

Black lives matter is a great liberal cause.  An innocent black baby is four times more likely to be aborted than a white baby.  Whatever.

Liberalism is not really a deep or consistent thought experiment.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2016, 04:40:45 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #910 on: July 07, 2016, 06:42:53 PM »

And every ill now to man, the world is now due to global warming now know as climate change one of our biggest industries to make a fortune from.  Just ask Al when he is not chasing massage therapists around a cubicle like a wolf in heat.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #911 on: July 08, 2016, 09:11:16 AM »

And every ill now to man, the world is now due to global warming now know as climate change one of our biggest industries to make a fortune from.  Just ask Al when he is not chasing massage therapists around a cubicle like a wolf in heat.

Warming temps in Antarctica cause more snowfall.  But not elsewhere?  Warming doesn't cause more melting too?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-snowfall-disproves-global-warming.htm

But snow cover mitigates warming trend.

Antarctic Ice hits new record maximum:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

The area of North America covered in snow has increased in the last 30 years.  Who knew?

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/snow-ice/snow-cover.html

You heard about this where else, NY Times, MSNBC, nowhere??

CO2 emissions are continuous.  Warming is not.  Is there something else going on here?
Not just the science and the media are biased, google search results too!

The "ever-thickening blanket wrapped around the planet" consists of CO2 levels of one part per 2500, a 0.0004 concentration of atmospheric CO2, just slightly above the minimum in earth's history. 

If CO2 levels were falling continuously instead, plant life, and eventually all life, would cease to exist.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 09:34:51 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #912 on: July 08, 2016, 10:28:55 AM »

I cannot even browse through my medical readings without being inundated with Climate Change propaganda.  We are even advised to discuss it with all our patients!  What are these people kidding me?  I should discuss climate change on patient's health? Oh you have a cough? Must be climate change.  You have a rash?  Must be climate change.  You are depressed?  Must be the rainy day we had which is of course due to climate change.  You are constipated?  Also climate change.  Allergies bad this year?  Well we know that is man made.  You are overweight.  Obviously that is because the Republicans are blocking a soda sugar tax:

https://www.acpinternist.org/archives/2016/07/presidents.htm
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #913 on: July 30, 2016, 07:52:16 AM »

AUTHOR: KATIE M. PALMER   SCIENCE
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 07.29.16.07.29.16

COOL CATCHPHRASE, HILLARY, BUT SCIENCE ISN’T ABOUT BELIEF
Hillary Clinton pauses while speaking during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Philadelphia on July 28, 2016.DANIEL ACKER/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

ON THURSDAY NIGHT, Hillary Clinton made history when she became the first woman to lead a major presidential ticket. In a speech filled with reminders of her experience and her plans for reform, one remark stood out: “I believe in science!” she said, chuckling. “I believe climate change is real, and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good paying clean energy jobs.”

Delegates filling the convention hall in Philadelphia roared in approval. Pockets of Twitter, too. Just as quickly, though, reactions turned cynical: How awful it is, in this day and age, that a presidential candidate must say she believes in science? In the retelling, Clinton’s laugh became a nod to the absurdity of the moment.

Yes, it’s absurd that a presidential candidate has to explicitly declare an allegiance to science. But the problem with what Clinton said runs deeper. Science is not a philosophy or a religion. It is a method—imperfect, yet powerful—of testing and accumulating knowledge. It’s not something you believe. You can believe that the scientific method is a good way of amassing knowledge. You can use that knowledge to shape policy.

Yet that’s not how American politics—especially in this election—talk about science. “When people say ‘Do you believe in climate change or global warming,’ that is the wrong framing,” says Cristine Russell, a veteran science reporter now at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “Science is not a belief system.”

Of course, the word “science” has come to represent much more than the scientific method. More than ever, it shapes American culture and is a subculture unto itself. To be giddily fascinated and informed by the discoveries of neuroscientists and physicists and climate scientists is a privilege. When Clinton says she believes in science, she’s using the language of a community, fostered by the Internet, that builds cachet out of scientific curiosity. A love for the products of science has become cultural currency.

It has also become political shorthand. Both US political parties have adopted positions on issues informed by science, and as those issues have become more divisive and the positions more extreme, some people have characterized them as either “pro-science” or “anti-science.” But of course the platforms don’t actually have anything to do with science as a practice. Both sides may choose different evidence to rely on, or interpret that evidence differently. At the extremes, some groups may ignore evidence entirely.

Nowhere is that divide more apparent than climate change. The science here has reached all-but-inescapable conclusions. Some policymakers, primarily liberal, have formed policies that depend upon those conclusions. Others, mostly conservative, have made policies that dispute those conclusions (for all kinds of different reasons). But to the public, that divide now gets framed in terms of acceptance and denial—states of belief. “The idea that you can believe your own facts is an unfortunate consequence of the whole climate denial movement,” says Russell.

And now the Democrats have adopted those same words and tactics. Theparty platform echoes Clinton’s belief framework: “Democrats believe that climate change poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and future.” In a short film shown at the convention on Wednesday, director James Cameron explicitly focused on an emotional message about the dangers of a warming climate to target swing voters.

Clinton’s line suggests that she’s at least in on the joke. It was a laugh line—offset by a pause, thrown out in a mocking, sing-song voice: “And I-I-I believe in science!” She’s intentionally using emotional rhetoric, both as a jab at her opponents and a signal to supporters.

But even if Clinton understands how silly it is to conflate belief in science with belief in the products of the scientific method, her line is still problematic. Clinton’s target is Donald Trump, who has claimed that climate change is a hoax—that the evidence for it isn’t real, or true. But Republicans could hear her tone as mocking not their candidate, but them.

People who remain unconvinced that humans are a significant contributor to climate change are not necessarily anti-science (whatever that means). Many have simply grown distrustful of climate scientists and their relationship with the government. They’re not wrong to be skeptical. Science in its purest form is the best method humans have yet come up with to apprehend the world around them. But it’s humans who execute it—people with hopes and dreams and fears. To deny the potential for bias is to marginalize a huge number of potential voters who have doubts, or who hope scientists describing an impending apocalypse are wrong.

Clinton did not say that she believes in science unequivocally—she likely understands the imperfections in the research she uses to guide her policy positions. But by playing the science card for laughs, she risks alienating the voters she’s trying to attract. In this narrative, not only does Clinton become the candidate of the “pro-science” voters, but she validates the opposition of people who think science is just another way of knowing.

To reinforce the idea of science as something you can believe or not believe, to force Americans into “pro-science” and “anti-science” camps, robs science of its power. It changes the practice of science from a method for understanding into a dangerous political weapon. And in the end, that makes science smaller. At its best and most objective, science can heal divides, answer questions, solve problems. It’s not a talking point.
http://www.wired.com/2016/07/cool-catchphrase-hillary-science-isnt-belief/
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 08:21:40 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #914 on: September 06, 2016, 06:50:30 PM »

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, is an American scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce focused on the conditions of the oceans and the atmosphere.)

Raw data, actual data (Science):




'Global warming' / 'climate change' (as measured in July temperatures in the US) was 0.02 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the Industrial age and 0.00 since 1896.  The human caused component was considerably less, less than any margin of error and mathematically rounds to zero.

Adjusted data (Science deniers?):

After tweaking the data by often more than a degree they still show less than one degree of warming in Celsius since the beginning of the industrial age.

NOAA adjusts all pre-2000 data lower and all recent data increasingly higher in order to draw their conclusion:


A good measure of how fraudulent the NOAA adjustments are, is the percent of days over 90 degrees. July 1936, 1901, 1934, 1931, 1930 and 1954 all had more days over 90 degrees than 2012 did, yet NOAA shows 2012 as the hottest. The frequency of 90 degree days in the US has declined since the start of records in 1895. July 2016 (NASA’s hottest July ever) was almost exactly average since 1895.


A good indicator of hottest years is the number of July daily maximum temperature records. The 1930’s were much hotter than any recent years.


The NY Times USED TO report this stuff:


Which group has the science deniers?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/09/will-2016-be-the-hottest-year-on-record.php
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/noaa_adjustments_increase_us_july_warming_by_1000/
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/noaa-adjustments-increase-us-july-warming-by-1000/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tavg/1/7/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2016


« Last Edit: September 06, 2016, 06:58:31 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 759


« Reply #915 on: September 07, 2016, 01:26:48 PM »

Doug.... well done.  grin

I love it.

To me, man's understanding of nature pales in comparison to the eternity of perfection exhibited by the system of nature. Everything that exists, that has ever existed, or that ever will exist, was meant by nature to exist or die; yet, mankind, armed with 70 years of personal knowledge, and perhaps two centuries of collective, "advanced" knowledge, thinks that he knows how things "should be."

The Rhinos never even existed before they became "extinct." Some people need to think about that for a moment, because they clearly don't get the concept... Gore and Kerry being amongst them.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #916 on: September 07, 2016, 10:36:48 PM »

DDF,  Thank you.   Isn't it amazing that 99% of the warming comes from agenda-paid 'scientists' adjusting the real temperatures.

Who is denying the data?
« Last Edit: September 07, 2016, 10:40:55 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 759


« Reply #917 on: September 08, 2016, 12:41:50 AM »

DDF,  Thank you.   Isn't it amazing that 99% of the warming comes from agenda-paid 'scientists' adjusting the real temperatures.

Who is denying the data?

You're welcome. Great post...interesting.
-and-
The ones making money off of it, or the new age hippies coming out of school that want you to adhere to their vegan, birkenstock wearing, moral code. grin grin grin
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #918 on: October 27, 2016, 12:30:11 PM »

WikiLeaks Exposes Podesta-Steyer Climate McCarthyism

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441438/wikileaks-john-podesta-silenced-climate-change-dissent

How the Center for American Progress campaigned to suppress speech

The latest WikiLeaks dump contains plenty of insider dirt on John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress and the campaign manager for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the tawdriest story to be exposed by Podesta’s pilfered e-mails is the bragging by an employee of ThinkProgress, an arm of the Center for American Progress, about how they got Roger Pielke Jr.’s scalp.

A July 2014 e-mail from Judd Legum, an editor at ThinkProgress, to billionaire Democratic climate activist (and former coal-mine investor) Tom Steyer exposes the climate-change McCarthyism that the Left — and its myriad allies in the liberal media — use to discredit or silence anyone who doesn’t adhere to the orthodoxy of the climate catastrophists.

In the e-mail, Legum boasted to Steyer about how ThinkProgress had silenced Pielke by preventing him from publishing at Nate Silver’s then-new website, fivethirtyeight.com, on the issue of climate change. Legum was also asking Steyer, indirectly, for more money. Steyer and Podesta both sit on the board of the Center for American Progress. Between 2008 and 2014, Steyer gave the Center for American Progress some $3.85 million. I’ll come back to the specifics of that e-mail shortly.

First, some background. Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado since 2001, holds degrees in mathematics, public policy, and political science. He has authored or co-authored seven books. He has won several awards for his academic work. For about two decades, he was a prolific writer and speaker on climate issues. In 2013, he testified before Congress and declared that there is “exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.” During that same testimony, he said that global weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP. He went on, saying that there were also no observable increases in floods, tornadoes, or droughts.

Pielke’s work was backed up by data and, in many cases, by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But that didn’t matter to Podesta’s attack dogs at ThinkProgress. Long before his congressional testimony, Pielke had been the subject of a years-long smear campaign led by ThinkProgress’s Joe Romm. In fact, Romm had what can only be described as an obsession with Pielke. In a recent Twitter posting, Pielke wrote: “Propaganda works: I count more than 160 articles at the Center for American Progress trashing me over the years.”

A review of those articles shows that the vast majority of them were written by Romm. In reply to Romm’s increasingly shrill attacks, Pielke was civil, even gentlemanly. In 2010, Pielke challenged Romm to a public debate — in Romm’s hometown, at a date and venue of his choosing — offering to contribute up to $10,000 to the winner’s favorite charity. Romm, to his eternal discredit, refused. Furthermore, on his blog, Romm routinely deleted comments he didn’t like, including those that called him out for ducking Pielke’s challenge to debate.

I have followed Pielke’s work for years. In 2007, while editing Energy Tribune, I published an interview with his father, Roger Pielke Sr., who is also a climate scientist. In 2009, I published an interview with the younger Pielke on the same subject. I find both of them to be careful observers and thoughtful writers. Last year, I reviewed one of Roger Jr.’s books for The Weekly Standard.

This week I spoke to Pielke by phone. Asked for his initial reaction to the ThinkProgress e-mail, he replied, “I was just a professor with a blog. I had no funding. Really? They are going to go brag to a billionaire to shut down a professor with a blog? If that’s the case, I guess I was doing some pretty good stuff.”

Pielke went on to say that Romm had waged a “campaign of personal destruction” against him. “Nothing less than removing my voice from the public space was acceptable.” That campaign was carried out by Romm and other members of the Green Slime Machine at liberal media outlets like the Daily Kos and Huffington Post. Among other things, those outlets labeled Pielke a “disinformer” and “climate confusionist.” They did so even though Pielke’s views on climate are decidedly mainstream: He favors a carbon tax, increased energy efficiency, and a global effort at “removing incentives for fossil fuels and creating incentives for carbon neutral sources, including both nuclear and renewable.”

ThinkProgress’s smear efforts reached an apogee in 2014, after Pielke published a single article on fivethirtyeight.com — the website Silver had launched with the goal of using data and statistics to inform a new style of journalism. Pielke’s article addressed the inflation-adjusted cost of hurricanes. “I made the fairly mundane but obvious observation that disaster costs are not increasing because of extreme weather events,” Pielke said. ‘I made the fairly mundane but obvious observation that disaster costs are not increasing because of extreme weather events,’​ Pielke said.

Nevertheless, Pielke’s article met a storm of protest, led by the bloggers at ThinkProgress, who published not one but two articles on the same day (March 19, 2014) that Pielke’s article was published on fivethirtyeight.com. The first person quoted in both of ThinkProgress’s articles was none other than Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, one of the originators of the much-disputed “hockey stick” graph. It is worth noting that four years ago this month (October 22, 2012, to be precise), Mann sued National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Rand Simberg, and Mark Steyn for defamation. That litigation is still pending. (For Steyn’s paint-blistering take on Mann, the lawsuit, and climate McCarthyism, read his December 15, 2015, testimony before a U.S. Senate committee.)

And it wasn’t just ThinkProgress. Immediately after Pielke’s article appeared on fivethirtyeight.com, the Green Slime Machine went into overdrive. The Daily Kos expressed dismay that “Silver would hire as one of his science writers the egregious purveyor of disinformation on climate change, Roger Pielke, Jr.” Pielke was also trashed by writers at Slate, Earth Island Journal, and the Guardian. Rather than stand behind Pielke, Silver fired him. Silver didn’t even favor him with a phone call. Pielke told me that two and a half years later, Silver still hasn’t contacted him. “You can’t have a real journalistic enterprise if your only goal is to be popular,” Pielke told me.

Now, back to WikiLeaks. In Legum’s e-mail to Steyer, he wrote that “it’s fair to say” that without ThinkProgress’s continual trashing of Pielke and his work, “Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.” Legum continued, “He would be providing important cover for climate deniers backed by Silver’s very respected brand. But because of our work, he is not. I don’t think there is another site on the internet having this kind of impact on the climate debate.” Legum concluded his note by writing, “Thanks for your support of this work. Looking forward to doing even more in the coming months.”

So there you have it: One of Podesta’s highest-profile operatives is bragging to one of America’s richest climate activists that he and his team have silenced a prominent academic for the sin of disagreeing with Mann and other climatologists. ThinkProgress, Romm, and their fellow travelers denigrate anyone who might be getting money from the “wrong” funders. But when it comes to soliciting big bucks from Steyer — and then bragging about how effective you are at defaming people on the other side — well, that’s okay because, you know, climate change.

The WikiLeaks story about Pielke has, predictably, been ignored by the liberal media. No stories about it have appeared in the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, or Media Matters. It doesn’t fit their narrative. A few pieces about the Podesta-WikiLeaks story have appeared in conservative outlets, include a recent piece published on Breitbart by the British journalist James Delingpole, who got it exactly right. He wrote: “If the ‘science’ is as settled as it frequently claims, why is it necessary to orchestrate attacks on any scientist who speaks even slightly out of turn?”

Since the fivethirtyeight.com uproar, Pielke has quit publishing about climate change. He’s gone on to become a world-leading expert on sports and doping. He now heads the Sports Governance Center at the University of Colorado, which is housed within the university’s athletics department. He has more than 8,000 followers on Twitter and is an active, maybe rabid, tweeter. “I’m having a blast,” he told me. Working on climate change, he said, “you wake up, it’s the same people arguing about the same stuff. In sports, you have no idea what idea you will be writing about. . . . There’s so much going on. There’s so much upheaval.”

What lessons did he learn from his stint in the climate-change discussion? He replied that the debate is “almost religious in its intensity.” Instead of having a rational discussion about the best ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the debate has become solely “about power, about who gets to speak and whose voices are deemed legitimate.” The smear campaign against him by Romm and ThinkProgress was designed “to make public speech costly.”

In a concluding thought, he told me: “After all this, I’m a big supporter of academic tenure. I have no doubt that if I didn’t have tenure, I’d be doing landscaping now.” — Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441438/wikileaks-john-podesta-silenced-climate-change-dissent
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #919 on: December 15, 2016, 11:47:52 AM »

It's looking like a white christmas as seen from my living room this am on a beautiful day of roughly -10 F.  Anecdotal proof of ... nothing.



Probably looks a lot like photos I've posted other years.  Winters just keep coming, in spite of what you read.  Forecast is for below 0 C. highs and lows for the next 3 months.  Much like 100 years ago.

Alarmists only claim less than one degree warming per century.  Skeptics point out 90% of that is in the 'adjustments' made by the alarmists.

If it did warm one or two more 10ths of a degree before we got off fossil fuels and the plants all had a nice increase of one more parts per 10,000 of CO2 to blossom and produce oxygen for us to all breathe, well that's not all bad!
« Last Edit: December 15, 2016, 11:53:03 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6907


« Reply #920 on: January 15, 2017, 07:51:05 AM »

New study suggest oceans are warmer than previously measured due to inaccurate measurement techniques:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/study-just-blew-hole-one-204337230.html

Here is the new study:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full

This definitely reminds me of the endless meta analyses we see more and more of in medicine trying to splice every pubic hair down the middle to find some sort of answer.   
I have no idea if this new study is legitimate or not, but I am very suspicious of much of what I read in medical literature  as to the results, interpretation or usually even the significance of it other then it makes names for those who get their article in the journal and the journal acts as though any of it means anything to the real world individual patient care .
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39783


« Reply #921 on: February 07, 2017, 12:17:38 PM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #922 on: February 07, 2017, 03:14:07 PM »


Might I second the idea that this is an important piece.

The skeptics have been asking the alarmists to explain the 18, 19 and nearly 20 year pause in global warming that violates and invalidates all of their models.

In response we this this false, duped, manipulated report put out by presumably esteemed scientists "based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data".

And they allege 2016 was the hottest year on record without saying how much hotter, what was the margin of error in the sampling, or whether they were using actual or 'adjusted' data to reach that unverified conclusion.

From the article:
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 03:16:04 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #923 on: March 03, 2017, 12:56:13 PM »

Interesting that Michael Mann's famous hockey stick of global temperature change charts was proven false 2 years before the release of "An Inconvenient Truth".

"This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not."

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fallupdate04/update.fall04.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkDK2mZlOo

MIT Technology Review

Sustainable Energy

Global Warming Bombshell

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

by Richard Muller  October 15, 2004
 
Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isnt. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago–just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasn't so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.

In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)

The net result: the principal component will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not.

McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see. If you look, youll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis. I emphasize the bug in their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand. Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves. Other and different criticisms of the hockey stick are emerging (see, for example, the paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in the September 30 issue of Science).

Some people may complain that McIntyre and McKitrick did not publish their results in a refereed journal. That is true–but not for lack of trying. Moreover, the paper was refereed–and even better, the referee reports are there for us to read. McIntyre and McKitricks only failure was in not convincing Nature that the paper was important enough to publish.

How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?

It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesnt settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously–that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small–then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #924 on: March 14, 2017, 05:41:29 PM »

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1118.msg33227#msg33227
DougMacG
Environmental issues - re: Sea Levels
« Reply #193 on: November 25, 2009, 11:34:16 PM »
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm
Arctic dips as global waters rise
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC
Arctic sea level has been falling by a little over 2mm a year - a movement that sets the region against the global trend of rising waters.

A Dutch-UK team made the discovery after analysing radar altimetry data gathered by Europe's ERS-2 satellite.

It is well known that the world's oceans do not share a uniform height; but even so, the scientists are somewhat puzzled by their results.

----------------------------------
"Indian Ocean - sea levels falling
In 2003, Nils-Axel Mörner and his colleagues (see below) pub-
lished a well-documented paper showing that sea levels in the
Maldives have fallen substantially – fallen! – in the last 30 years.
I find it curious that we haven't heard about this.

"The Maldives in the central Indian Ocean consist of some 1,200
individual islands grouped in about 20 larger atolls," says Mörner.
In-as-much as the islands rise only three to seven feet above sea
level, they have been condemned by the IPCC to flooding in the
near future.

Mörner disagrees with this scenario. "In our study of the coastal
dynamics and the geomorphology of the shores," writes Mörner,
"we were unable to detect any traces of a recent sea level rise.
On the contrary, we found quite clear morphological indications
of a recent fall in sea level."

Mörner’s group found that sea levels stood about 60 cm higher
around A.D. 1150 than today, and more recently, about 30 cm
higher than today."

  - http://www.iceagenow.com/Indian_Ocean_sea_levels_are_falling.htm

Update, now rising:  https://phys.org/news/2016-09-indian-ocean-sea.html

Once again, why aren't these clear, cause and effect measurements in a straight line with CO2?
-----
Besides drought and flood, warming and cooling, not surprisingly, the United Nations also says that climate change also causes prostitution:

"The effects of climate change have driven women in communities in coastal areas in poor countries like the Philippines into dangerous work, and sometimes even the flesh trade, a United Nations official said."
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/177346/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work
----------
Arctic update:  Ocean rising 2.2 mm/yr +or- 1.1. 

an improved version of the Arctic Ocean sea level record for the region 66°N–82°N covering the period 1993–2015. The dataset was modified to account for an unknown error...
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2016.00076/full
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 06:01:45 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #925 on: March 14, 2017, 06:13:58 PM »

Published before the advent of adjusted data.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html
New York Times
U.S.
U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
Published: January 26, 1989

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

While the nation's weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ''cast doubt'' on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth's surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.

Readings taken by other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980's are the highest on record.

Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability that this warming trend is associated with the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that absorb and retain radiation.

But other scientists, while agreeing with this basic theory of a greenhouse effect, say there is no convincing evidence that a pollution-induced warming has already begun.

Dr. Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at Oregon State University who studies climate models, said there is no inconsistency between the data presented by the NOAA team and the greenhouse theory. But he said he regarded the new data as inconsistent with assumptions that such an effect is already detectable. More Droughts Predicted

Many of the computer models that predict global warming also predict that certain areas, including the Midwest in the United States, would suffer more frequent droughts.

Dr. Hanson of NOAA said today that the new study does not in any way contradict the findings reported by the NASA scientists and others. He said that his study, in which he was joined by George A. Maul and Thomas A. Karl, also of NOAA, looked at only the 48 contiguous states.

Dr. Hanson said that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect might have been countered by some cooling phenomenon that has not yet been identified and that the readings in his study recorded the net effect.

''We have to be careful about interpreting things like this,'' he said. What About Urbanization? One aspect of the study that Dr. Hanson said was interesting was the finding that the urbanization of the United States has apparently not had a statistically significant effect on average temperature readings. A number of scientists have theorized that the replacement of forests and pastures by asphalt streets and concrete buildings, which retain heat, is an important cause of rising temperatures.

Dr. Hansen of NASA said today that he had ''no quarrel'' with the findings in the new study. He noted that the United States covered only 1.5 percent of Earth. ''If you have only one degree warming on a global average, how much do you get at random'' when taking measurements in such a relatively small area, he asked rhetorically.

''We are just arguing now about whether the global warming effect is large enough to see,'' he added. ''It is not suprising we are not seeing it in a region that covers only 1.5 percent of the globe.''

Dr. Hansen said there were several ways to look at the temperature readings for the United States, including as a ''statistical fluke.'' Possibililty of Countereffects

Another possibility, he said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.

Dr. Hansen suggested that at some point there could be a jump in temperature readings in the United States if the measurements in the new study were a statistical aberration or the result of atmospheric pollutants reflecting heat away from Earth. He noted that anti-pollution efforts are reducing the amount of these particles and thus reducing the reflection of heat.

Several computer models have projected that the greenhouse effect would cause average global temperatures to rise between 3 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. But scientists concede that reactions set off by the warming trend itself could upset these predictions and produce unanticipated changes in climate patterns. Legislative Action Sought

Coincidentally with the new report, legislation was introduced in the Senate today prescribing actions for addressing the threat of global warming. Senator Al Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, introduced a bill that calls for creating a Council on World Environmental Policy to replace the White House's Council on Environmental Quality. This change would emphasize the international aspects of environmental issues.

The bill would also require a ban on industrial chemicals that not only are depleting the atmosphere's ozone layer, which blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation, but are believed to be contributing to the warming trend. It would also require stricter fuel-economy standards for automobiles to reduce the consumption of gasoline to reduce carbon dioxide.

graphs of temperatures and rainfall from 1895 to 1987 (Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8674


« Reply #926 on: March 15, 2017, 02:19:20 PM »

"Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change].

The UNFCCC was established twenty-five years ago, to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.

• The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,

• It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,

• Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,

• The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments,

• Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,

• Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.

Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills."
-------------------------------------

About the author:

Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. MIT’s web site suggests his scientific eminence:

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause, and provided accepted explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying what determines the pole to equator temperature difference, the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere and in generating upper level cirrus clouds. He has developed models for the Earth’s climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate.

Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS’s Meisinger and Charney Awards, the AGU’s Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS. He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., ’64, S.M., ’61, A.B., ’60, Harvard University)
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 01:17:23 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!