by P. Gosselin, August 3, 2019 in NoTricksZone
While the headlines naturally focused on an intense heat wave over a region centered over France and Germany last week, the global warming ambulance chasers worked overtime avoiding and ignoring the real story: vast, continent-wide cold spreading across Russia.
Heat and cold zero-sum
First at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), Klaus Öllerer reported how the Sahara heat ended up being a “zero-sum” event for the northern hemisphere region of Europe and Asia.
Öllerer wrote last week that despite the heat that took place in large parts of Europe, it was cooler than usual in other neighboring parts. Only a certain area in Central Europe (purple area) was particularly hot. Around it, it was less warm (yellow) and cooler than usual (blue):
“Even large parts of the Sahara are cooler than usual (blue). This is no wonder, as the heat is now in Europe and cooler air flows into the Sahara,” Öllerer wrote.
“The above-average warm areas balance out with the above-average cold areas,” he concluded. “The current warming is a zero-sum game! Historically, such events have occurred again and again.”
“It is even the case that in cooler times – such as the Little Ice Age – warm summer extremes were more frequent than in the last one hundred years and more,” Öllerer added.
Severe cold across Russia
by P. Gosselin, August 20, 2019 in NoTricksZone
Parts of Europe have seen a couple of brief but intense heat waves this summer, and so some of the public got brainwashed by the media into thinking the continent’s summer climate is rapidly getting hotter and that all this is the new normal.
Yet, when we examine the unaltered data from the Japan Meteorology Agency (JMA) for locations in northern Europe that have long-term datasets available, we see there has been no July warming trend over the past decades. Media reports suggesting otherwise are nonsense.
Looking at 6 stations in Ireland, we have the following for July:
Data source: JMA.
Overall, Ireland’s mean July temperatures have been cooling off modestly over the past 3 decades and more, even though three stations are located at airports.
by Judith Curry, August 14, 2019 in ClimateEtc.
The latest travesty in consensus ‘enforcement’, published by Nature.
Abstract. We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.
This ranks as the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal. The major methodological problems and dubious assumptions:
- Category error to sort into contrarians and climate scientists, with contrarians including scientists, journalists and politicians.
- Apart from the category error, the two groups are incorrectly specified, with some climate scientists incorrectly designated as contrarians.
- Cherry picking the citation data of top 386 cited scientists to delete Curry, Pielke Jr, Tol, among others (p 12 of Supplemental Information)
- Acceptance of the partisan, activist, non-scientist group DeSmog as a legitimate basis for categorizing scientists as ‘contrarian’
- Assumption that scientific expertise on the causes of climate change relates directly to the number of scientific citations.
- Assumption that it would be beneficial for the public debate on climate change for the ‘unheard’ but highly cited climate scientists to enter into the media fray.
- Assumption that scientists have special authority in policy debates on climate change
The real travesty is this press release issued by UC Merced
The harm that this paper does to climate science is an attempt to de-legitimize climate scientists (both academic and non academic), with the ancillary effects of making it more difficult to get their papers published in journals (stay tuned for my latest engagement with the journal peer review process, coming later this month) and the censorship of Nir Shaviv by Forbes (hopefully coming later this week).
La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse