Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’
Psst, 'warmers'...if Obama pisses in the ocean, will it cause a flood?
:laughingb
Psst, 'warmers'...if Obama pisses in the ocean, will it cause a flood?
:laughingb
Of course it doesn't mean something is necessarily 95% likely to fall within a parameter, idiot. It's only an estimation of confidence based on some kind of variables (usually past performance). If I say I'm 95% sure something will happen based on x, y and z...that still means there's a 5% chance it won't. This is my favorite part of the explanation you copied and pasted (clearly without understanding):
Once an experiment is done and an interval calculated, this interval either covers the parameter value or it does not.
Wow, brilliant. So you're telling me once a football game ends, I either bet the winning or losing side and there is no longer a need to estimate who will win? Gripping stuff...really hope there is more where that came from.! Too bad your stupid global warming fraud of an "experiment" is anything but done or concluded.
That's why NASA said they are 38% confident that 2014 was the warmest on record, you shithead. According to them, it has the highest probability of being the hottest year recorded. That doesn't guarantee 2014 was the hottest ever. It's nothing more than an educated guess, at best.
For comparisons sake, here are the current odds for college hoops championship winners:
| Kentucky | 10/13 |
| Duke | 8/1 |
| Virginia | 9/1 |
| Arizona | 12/1 |
| Wisconsin | 14/1 |
By your stupid logic, you're saying since Kentucky is the biggest favorite...that automatically must mean they'll win the championship. It's no different than saying 2014 was the warmest on record because it's the most likely to be (allegedly)
Be sure to tell your literature professor that you got an F in Statistics from Professor JD...and you suck at stats just as badly as you suck at life.
Love,
Daddy
LMAO!!! The best part is you seriously believe you know what you are talking about. You still do not understand what they are saying. A 95% confidence level does not mean they are 95% sure something will happen. It does not mean there is a 5% chance it won't. There is a 5% probability that IF an uncertain event happened that it would fall outside the 95% confidence level. This DOES NOT mean there is a 5% probability that the value will fall outside the 95% confidence level.
LMAO!!! You are so dumb it's hilarious. It's not an "educated guess" and they are not 38% confident 2014 is the warmest on record. You clearly do not understand what they are talking about. When it comes to math you really should be asking me questions instead of making comments, because you literally have no clue what you are saying. They are trying to explain to you that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of uncertainty. They are saying there is a 38% probability that given their uncertainty that 2014 is the hottest year. This DOES NOT mean they are only 38% sure that 2014 is the hottest year.
That's not the logic at all. You still clearly do not understand what they are saying. It is absolutely hilarious.
You really should go back to high school. You are really dumb.
Love,
Someone much smarter than you
For those of you that are objective and want to understand what NASA is saying but forgot a little bit about statistics... here is a very simplistic example.
Imagine you build a device that is programmed to shoot a bullet at a far away target. But hypothetically, you don't have the ability to determine if there is any wind or how strong the wind is if there is any. So without any wind the device is programmed to hit the bullseye of the target. But, since you are not 100% certain that there isn't any wind, there is a level of uncertainty. So say you create a margin of error of 3 inches with a 95% confidence interval. So you are saying that even if there is wind, you are 95% confident that your device will be within 3 inches to the left of the target and 3 inches to the right of the target. So let's make this similar to NASA's information. Say, for simplicity sake you have a 38% confidence level with a margin of error of 1 inch. So you are 38% confident that even given an uncertain event that the bullet will hit within 1 inch of the bullseye.
Now this is the problem conservatives are having and their national enquirer like publications. They are taking this 38% confidence level in your device and saying that you are only 38% sure that your device will hit within an inch of the bullseye. Which to them means there is a 62% chance that it doesn't. This makes the device seem really unreliable as it misses the target more than it hits it.
But that is where the huge difference comes in to play in understanding what that 38% means. And this is what the scientist in the article is trying to say about uncertainties. That there is NOT an equal probability of each interval within a range of uncertainty. So between 38% and 95% there is not a 57% chance that it will hit outside the 38% confidence level and inside the 95% confidence level and there is not a 38% chance that it will hit inside the 38% confidence level.
So you can shoot the device 1,000,000 times. The device can hit the bullseye 1,000,000 times out of those 1,000,000 shots. When you shoot the gun for the 1,000,001 time there is still only a 38% probability given your level of uncertainty that it will hit within an inch of the bullseye.
So they are not saying there is a 38% chance that your device will hit within an inch of the bullseye.
Just like the 2014 temperature... they are not saying there is a 38% chance that the actual temperature for 2014 is the hottest, they are saying with a level of certainty that even if an uncertain event were to happen there is still a 38% probability that 2014 is still the hottest year.
Like the scientist said... conservatives have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the data represents.
Imagine you build a device that is programmed to shoot a bullet at a far away target. But hypothetically, you don't have the ability to determine if there is any wind or how strong the wind is if there is any. So without any wind the device is programmed to hit the bullseye of the target. But, since you are not 100% certain that there isn't any wind, there is a level of uncertainty. So say you create a margin of error of 3 inches with a 95% confidence interval. So you are saying that even if there is wind, you are 95% confident that your device will be within 3 inches to the left of the target and 3 inches to the right of the target. So let's make this similar to NASA's information. Say, for simplicity sake you have a 38% confidence level with a margin of error of 1 inch. So you are 38% confident that even given an uncertain event that the bullet will hit within 1 inch of the bullseye.
Now this is the problem conservatives are having and their national enquirer like publications. They are taking this 38% confidence level in your device and saying that you are only 38% sure that your device will hit within an inch of the bullseye. Which to them means there is a 62% chance that it doesn't. This makes the device seem really unreliable as it misses the target more than it hits it.
But that is where the huge difference comes in to play in understanding what that 38% means. And this is what the scientist in the article is trying to say about uncertainties. That there is NOT an equal probability of each interval within a range of uncertainty. So between 38% and 95% there is not a 57% chance that it will hit outside the 38% confidence level and inside the 95% confidence level and there is not a 38% chance that it will hit inside the 38% confidence level.
So you can shoot the device 1,000,000 times. The device can hit the bullseye 1,000,000 times out of those 1,000,000 shots. When you shoot the gun for the 1,000,001 time there is still only a 38% probability given your level of uncertainty that it will hit within an inch of the bullseye.
So they are not saying there is a 38% chance that your device will hit within an inch of the bullseye.
Just like the 2014 temperature... they are not saying there is a 38% chance that the actual temperature for 2014 is the hottest, they are saying with a level of certainty that even if an uncertain event were to happen there is still a 38% probability that 2014 is still the hottest year.
Like the scientist said... conservatives have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the data represents.
It's all manipulated BS no matter how you look at it. Rural temps, urban temps, different parts of the world are colder, others hotter. It all depends which data they are using to push their radical agenda.
NASA takes orders from Obama and wouldn't be the first agency to lie for him.
Thankfully nobody believes this chicken little bullshit anymore.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[SIZE=+1]2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 years?[/SIZE]
wattsupwiththat.com ^ | January 21, 2015 | Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Posted on 1/25/2015, 12:20:14 AM by Ernest_at_the_Beach
We were told in October, before 2014 was over, that it was heading toward being the warmest year on record (Figure 1). The visual link of Polar Bears underscored the message. In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.
Figure 1
We know the headline referred to NOAA’s projection, but the public only remember “warmest year”. It is a routine of manipulation of headlines practiced by bureaucrats and supporters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), from the start. The claim was not surprising, because NOAA was pushing 2014 as warm beginning in January with this headline “NOAA: January 2014 fourth-warmest on record.” Various months were identified during the year, for example, “NOAA: August 2014 Was The Warmest On Record,” noting August was the warmest by a fraction. But they had already reported,
The summer of 2014 is officially the hottest since the modern instrumental record began more than 130 years ago, according to the latest state of the climate report from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
By October they were summarizing the year.
“This makes the first ten months of 2014 the warmest January to October period on record and puts 2014 on track to be the warmest year recorded in the NOAA archive, which dates back to 1880.”
Bob Tisdale provided an excellent summary of the “Anticipation” for two surface records from GISS and NCDC. He was not surprised when these records appeared, showing 2014 was the warmest, according to them, by 0.02°C. Remember, this is from a record that is restricted by the historic record to measurements of 0.5°C. We also know the two satellite records, RSS and UAH, both show it was not the warmest year.
To counteract the headline you need something very dramatic, because there is nothing significant about the 2014 temperature as Tisdale plans to identify in an upcoming article titled, The Uptick in Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 Doesn’t Help the Growing Difference between Climate Models and Reality. He is interested in seeing how Gavin Schmidt, who replaced James Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is carrying the torch. History shows that GISS readings are consistently higher than all other sources. It is just one indicator of the temperature adjustments made so the AGW hypothesis fits the political agenda.
Challenges and IPCC Fixes
How valid is the 2014 claim? In the 10,000 – year context, it is significant because it is among the 3 percent coldest years, which is far more significant than the 100-year warm alarmists proclaim. There are two major reasons: Highest readings occur in the most recent years of a rising temperature record. Every alteration, adjustment amendment and abridgment of the record so far, was done to create and emphasize increasingly higher temperatures.
1. The instrumental data is spatially and temporally inadequate.Surface weather data is virtually non-existent and unevenly distributed for 85 percent of the world’s surface. There are virtually none for 70 percent of the oceans. On the land, there is virtually no data for the 19 percent mountains, 20 percent desert, 20 percent boreal forest, 20 percent grasslands, and 6 percent tropical rain forest. In order to “fill-in”, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), made the ridiculous claim that a single station temperature was representative of a 1200 km radius region. Initial claims of AGW were based on land-based data. The data is completely inadequate as the basis for constructing the models.
2. Most surface stations are concentrated in eastern North America and Western Europe and became the early evidence for human induced global warming. IPCC advocates ignored, for a long time, the fact that these stations are most affected by the urban heat island effect (UHIE).
The UHIE was one of the first challenges to the claim of AGW evidenced in the instrumental record. Two graphs produced by Warwick Hughes were the most effective and appeared in 1991, shortly after the first IPCC Report in 1990. Figure 2 shows temperature at six major Australian cities.
Figure 2
A most likely explanation for the increasing UHIE, is expansion of the suburban area until it encompassed airport weather stations originally outside the city. The automobile made this possible. Figure 3 provides a comparison with 26 rural stations.
Figure 3
The difference is marked. What is equally interesting is that temperatures were higher in the first part of the record from 1880 and 1900.
3. There is a consistent revision of the record to lower historic readings. This increases the gradient of supposed warming. It is apparent in the New Zealand record(Figure 4).
Figure 4
A search of WUWT, using the term “Temperature adjustments”, yields a plethora of evidence. Every adjustment serves to change the gradient of the curve making today warmer than the past. Explanations, when given, usually provide little justification for the adjustment. The other tell tale sign is that virtually all adjustments occur before the UAH satellite temperature record began in 1991.
4. Policy anticipated that satellite data would replace the need for surface weather stations. As a result many weather stations were abandoned (Figure 5), or at least not included in the calculation of the global average.
“The figures below indicate
a the number of stations with record length at least N years as a function of N ,
b the number of reporting stations as a function of time,
c the percent of hemispheric area located within 1200km of a reporting station.”
Figure 5
The number of surface stations was inadequate in 1960, but was further reduced in 1990. Notice that only approximately 1000 stations cover 100 years.
But how accurate can the global temperature be when Antarctica is omitted. Consider the IPCC conclusion
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctic).
Antarctica is 14 million km[SUP]2[/SUP], an area almost equal to Russia, (17 million km[SUP]2[/SUP]), the largest country on Earth.
Add to that the 14 million km[SUP]2[/SUP] of the Arctic Ocean, for which there is no data, as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Report notes (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Extent of these regions is one thing, their role in world climate is another, and arguably far more important than almost any other region.
6. Figure 6 shows that fewer stations are a contributing factor to higher temperatures.
Figure 6
Stations NOAA used from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) in Canada illustrate the problem. (Figure 7).
Figure 7
There are 100 stations north of the Arctic Circle, but NOAA only uses Eureka, a known warm anomaly, to cover 1/3 of the second largest country on Earth. Even the 1200km measure doesn’t apply.
7. Alteration of the historic record includes the infamous hockey stick, in which a member of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) group is reported to have told Professor David Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period? That involved creating the handle of the hockey stick. The blade was formed from CRU Director Phil Jones’ data that showed an increase of 0.6°C in approximately 120 years. The problem was the error factor was ±0.2°C or ±33 percent.
8. 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century temperature trends begin with warming from 1900 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1980, warming from 1980 to 1998 and a slight cooling trend to 2014. Alarmists attributed the cooling to human addition of sulphate, but that failed when temperatures began to rise, with no decline in sulphate levels.
9. If we accept overall warming from 1900, which is reasonable as the Earth emerges from the Little Ice Age (LIA), then the highest temperatures will occur in the most recent record (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Identifying that 2014 was fractionally warmer than any other in the record does not change the trend of the “pause”. It does not enhance the CO2 causation claim.
10. The claim is 2014 is 0.02°C warmer than any other year. It is reasonable to assume that the US temperature record is among the best. Anthony Watts showed that only 7.9 percent of US stations are accurate to < 1°C. (Figure 9)
Figure 9
A Counter Headline Must Provide Perspective
Some form of the title for this article could work. “2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 year.” Figure 10 shows the Northern Hemisphere temperature for the period variously called the Climatic Optimum, the Hypsithermal, and the Holocene Optimum.
Figure 10
The red line, added to the original diagram, imposes the approximate 20th century temperatures (right side) against those of the last 10,000 years. As CO2Science noted from Dahl-Jensen (1998),
After the termination of the glacial period, temperatures increased steadily to a maximum of 2.5°C warmer than at present during the Climatic Optimum (4,000 to 7,000 years ago).
The key phrase in the 2014 claim is, “in the record”, but that only covers approximately 100 years. In the climatologically meaningful 10,000-year context, it is among the coldest.
The claim that 2014 was the warmest on record was politically important for proponents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) story that human CO2 was causing global warming. Central to that argument was the need to prove late 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century temperatures were the “warmest ever”. This is why the 2014 claim conveniently appeared before the Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Lima Peru, at which the false IPCC claim was desperately promoted. Political importance of the measure was accentuated by the continued, 18+ years lack of increase in global temperature.
Evidence keeps contradicting the major assumptions of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. As T.H. Huxley (1825 – 1895) said,
The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
The problem is the facts keep piling up and the AGW proponents keep ignoring, diverting, or stick-handling (hockey terminology), their way round them. We know the science is wrong because the IPCC projections are wrong. Normal science requires re-examination of the hypothesis and its assumptions. The IPCC removed this option when they set out to prove the hypothesis. It put them on a treadmill of fixing the results, especially the temperature record. As Chinese General Tao Kan said, “It is like riding on the back of a tiger and finding it hard to get off.”
NASA takes orders from Obama and wouldn't be the first agency to lie for him.
Thankfully nobody believes this chicken little bullshit anymore.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[SIZE=+1]2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 years?[/SIZE]
wattsupwiththat.com ^ | January 21, 2015 | Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Posted on 1/25/2015, 12:20:14 AM by Ernest_at_the_Beach
We were told in October, before 2014 was over, that it was heading toward being the warmest year on record (Figure 1). The visual link of Polar Bears underscored the message. In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.
Figure 1
We know the headline referred to NOAA’s projection, but the public only remember “warmest year”. It is a routine of manipulation of headlines practiced by bureaucrats and supporters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), from the start. The claim was not surprising, because NOAA was pushing 2014 as warm beginning in January with this headline “NOAA: January 2014 fourth-warmest on record.” Various months were identified during the year, for example, “NOAA: August 2014 Was The Warmest On Record,” noting August was the warmest by a fraction. But they had already reported,
The summer of 2014 is officially the hottest since the modern instrumental record began more than 130 years ago, according to the latest state of the climate report from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
By October they were summarizing the year.
“This makes the first ten months of 2014 the warmest January to October period on record and puts 2014 on track to be the warmest year recorded in the NOAA archive, which dates back to 1880.”
Bob Tisdale provided an excellent summary of the “Anticipation” for two surface records from GISS and NCDC. He was not surprised when these records appeared, showing 2014 was the warmest, according to them, by 0.02°C. Remember, this is from a record that is restricted by the historic record to measurements of 0.5°C. We also know the two satellite records, RSS and UAH, both show it was not the warmest year.
To counteract the headline you need something very dramatic, because there is nothing significant about the 2014 temperature as Tisdale plans to identify in an upcoming article titled, The Uptick in Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 Doesn’t Help the Growing Difference between Climate Models and Reality. He is interested in seeing how Gavin Schmidt, who replaced James Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is carrying the torch. History shows that GISS readings are consistently higher than all other sources. It is just one indicator of the temperature adjustments made so the AGW hypothesis fits the political agenda.
Challenges and IPCC Fixes
How valid is the 2014 claim? In the 10,000 – year context, it is significant because it is among the 3 percent coldest years, which is far more significant than the 100-year warm alarmists proclaim. There are two major reasons: Highest readings occur in the most recent years of a rising temperature record. Every alteration, adjustment amendment and abridgment of the record so far, was done to create and emphasize increasingly higher temperatures.
1. The instrumental data is spatially and temporally inadequate.Surface weather data is virtually non-existent and unevenly distributed for 85 percent of the world’s surface. There are virtually none for 70 percent of the oceans. On the land, there is virtually no data for the 19 percent mountains, 20 percent desert, 20 percent boreal forest, 20 percent grasslands, and 6 percent tropical rain forest. In order to “fill-in”, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), made the ridiculous claim that a single station temperature was representative of a 1200 km radius region. Initial claims of AGW were based on land-based data. The data is completely inadequate as the basis for constructing the models.
2. Most surface stations are concentrated in eastern North America and Western Europe and became the early evidence for human induced global warming. IPCC advocates ignored, for a long time, the fact that these stations are most affected by the urban heat island effect (UHIE).
The UHIE was one of the first challenges to the claim of AGW evidenced in the instrumental record. Two graphs produced by Warwick Hughes were the most effective and appeared in 1991, shortly after the first IPCC Report in 1990. Figure 2 shows temperature at six major Australian cities.
Figure 2
A most likely explanation for the increasing UHIE, is expansion of the suburban area until it encompassed airport weather stations originally outside the city. The automobile made this possible. Figure 3 provides a comparison with 26 rural stations.
Figure 3
The difference is marked. What is equally interesting is that temperatures were higher in the first part of the record from 1880 and 1900.
3. There is a consistent revision of the record to lower historic readings. This increases the gradient of supposed warming. It is apparent in the New Zealand record(Figure 4).
Figure 4
A search of WUWT, using the term “Temperature adjustments”, yields a plethora of evidence. Every adjustment serves to change the gradient of the curve making today warmer than the past. Explanations, when given, usually provide little justification for the adjustment. The other tell tale sign is that virtually all adjustments occur before the UAH satellite temperature record began in 1991.
4. Policy anticipated that satellite data would replace the need for surface weather stations. As a result many weather stations were abandoned (Figure 5), or at least not included in the calculation of the global average.
“The figures below indicate
a the number of stations with record length at least N years as a function of N ,
b the number of reporting stations as a function of time,
c the percent of hemispheric area located within 1200km of a reporting station.”
Figure 5
The number of surface stations was inadequate in 1960, but was further reduced in 1990. Notice that only approximately 1000 stations cover 100 years.
But how accurate can the global temperature be when Antarctica is omitted. Consider the IPCC conclusion
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctic).
Antarctica is 14 million km[SUP]2[/SUP], an area almost equal to Russia, (17 million km[SUP]2[/SUP]), the largest country on Earth.
Add to that the 14 million km[SUP]2[/SUP] of the Arctic Ocean, for which there is no data, as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Report notes (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Extent of these regions is one thing, their role in world climate is another, and arguably far more important than almost any other region.
6. Figure 6 shows that fewer stations are a contributing factor to higher temperatures.
Figure 6
Stations NOAA used from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) in Canada illustrate the problem. (Figure 7).
Figure 7
There are 100 stations north of the Arctic Circle, but NOAA only uses Eureka, a known warm anomaly, to cover 1/3 of the second largest country on Earth. Even the 1200km measure doesn’t apply.
7. Alteration of the historic record includes the infamous hockey stick, in which a member of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) group is reported to have told Professor David Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period? That involved creating the handle of the hockey stick. The blade was formed from CRU Director Phil Jones’ data that showed an increase of 0.6°C in approximately 120 years. The problem was the error factor was ±0.2°C or ±33 percent.
8. 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century temperature trends begin with warming from 1900 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1980, warming from 1980 to 1998 and a slight cooling trend to 2014. Alarmists attributed the cooling to human addition of sulphate, but that failed when temperatures began to rise, with no decline in sulphate levels.
9. If we accept overall warming from 1900, which is reasonable as the Earth emerges from the Little Ice Age (LIA), then the highest temperatures will occur in the most recent record (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Identifying that 2014 was fractionally warmer than any other in the record does not change the trend of the “pause”. It does not enhance the CO2 causation claim.
10. The claim is 2014 is 0.02°C warmer than any other year. It is reasonable to assume that the US temperature record is among the best. Anthony Watts showed that only 7.9 percent of US stations are accurate to < 1°C. (Figure 9)
Figure 9
A Counter Headline Must Provide Perspective
Some form of the title for this article could work. “2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 year.” Figure 10 shows the Northern Hemisphere temperature for the period variously called the Climatic Optimum, the Hypsithermal, and the Holocene Optimum.
Figure 10The red line, added to the original diagram, imposes the approximate 20th century temperatures (right side) against those of the last 10,000 years. As CO2Science noted from Dahl-Jensen (1998),
After the termination of the glacial period, temperatures increased steadily to a maximum of 2.5°C warmer than at present during the Climatic Optimum (4,000 to 7,000 years ago).
The key phrase in the 2014 claim is, “in the record”, but that only covers approximately 100 years. In the climatologically meaningful 10,000-year context, it is among the coldest.
The claim that 2014 was the warmest on record was politically important for proponents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) story that human CO2 was causing global warming. Central to that argument was the need to prove late 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century temperatures were the “warmest ever”. This is why the 2014 claim conveniently appeared before the Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Lima Peru, at which the false IPCC claim was desperately promoted. Political importance of the measure was accentuated by the continued, 18+ years lack of increase in global temperature.
Evidence keeps contradicting the major assumptions of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. As T.H. Huxley (1825 – 1895) said,
The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
The problem is the facts keep piling up and the AGW proponents keep ignoring, diverting, or stick-handling (hockey terminology), their way round them. We know the science is wrong because the IPCC projections are wrong. Normal science requires re-examination of the hypothesis and its assumptions. The IPCC removed this option when they set out to prove the hypothesis. It put them on a treadmill of fixing the results, especially the temperature record. As Chinese General Tao Kan said, “It is like riding on the back of a tiger and finding it hard to get off.”
The idiot who started this thread has no actual critical thinking abilities. It is funny to watch, but of course he is too dumb to realize this.
Anyway:
In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement. I knew this from the politically-savvy scientists who helped organize the U.N.’s process for determining what to do about human-caused climate change. (The IPCC wasn’t formed to determine whether it exists or whether is was even a threat, that was a given.)
I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.
I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject. I went into science with the misguided belief that science provides answers. Too often, it doesn’t. Some physical problems are simply too difficult. Two scientists can examine the same data and come to exactly opposite conclusions about causation.
We still don’t understand what causes natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.
What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.
What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.
Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.
In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?
Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?
In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?
-------
It is so funny that this idiot little kid actually believes 'science' = study a bunch of data --> draw conclusion --> repeat conclusion --> Confirmed fact.
Of course he is an imbecile.
Anyway:
In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement. I knew this from the politically-savvy scientists who helped organize the U.N.’s process for determining what to do about human-caused climate change. (The IPCC wasn’t formed to determine whether it exists or whether is was even a threat, that was a given.)
I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.
I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject. I went into science with the misguided belief that science provides answers. Too often, it doesn’t. Some physical problems are simply too difficult. Two scientists can examine the same data and come to exactly opposite conclusions about causation.
We still don’t understand what causes natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.
What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.
What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.
Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.
In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?
Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?
In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?
-------
It is so funny that this idiot little kid actually believes 'science' = study a bunch of data --> draw conclusion --> repeat conclusion --> Confirmed fact.
Of course he is an imbecile.
LMFAO
Here is how laughable these people are. From 2000:
[h=1]Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past[/h]
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
Well, Dr Viner, New York has a 60% chance of getting 2 feet of snow in the next 24 hours
http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/pwpf/wwd_accum_probs.php?ftype=probabilities&fpd=72&ptype=snow
Good thing these people are so smart and such responsible scientists.
Here is how laughable these people are. From 2000:
[h=1]Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past[/h]
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
Well, Dr Viner, New York has a 60% chance of getting 2 feet of snow in the next 24 hours
http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/pwpf/wwd_accum_probs.php?ftype=probabilities&fpd=72&ptype=snow
Good thing these people are so smart and such responsible scientists.
okay by that logic what am I supposed to think, I live near Duluth Minnesota we don't have snow here there's grass with some places with dusting that's two out of the last three years that has happened for this time of the year and maybe 5 out of last 10 years we have had low snow falls. we broke the record for most consecutive days of 90 Above for this area. I am 42 years old, the winters here have been extremely mild for mostly leases last 14 years. I know people who moved here to get better winners for the snowmobiling and skiing and I've been extremely disappointed. So what am I ri think, we have a scientist tell me that global warming is real and it coincides with my area being mild for much of that time? is it just coincidence part of the cycle or part of what experts tell me it is?
