Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion

View From German Scientists On The U Of Arizona’s Coming Release Of The Hockey Stick Chart E-Mails

by P. Gosselin, October 26, 2018 in NoTricksZone


A Piece Of Climate Science History: Hockey Stick Emails Soon To Be Published

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Text translated by P Gosselin)

The hockey stick controversy over a temperature reconstruction of the past 2000 years represents an important stage in the climate debate. At around the turn of the millennium, the authors of the “hockey stick chart” suggested that the pre-industrial climate was monotonous and uneventful. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age described in many parts of the world climatically must have been very similar. But that’s hard to understand if you look at the wide variety of case studies.

Cover-up absurdity, then forced to correct

Later, the authors improved and presented a corrected version, which again showed stronger climatic fluctuations. Quite a science story. You can read about it here.

In addition to this scientific rush job, the debate about the hockey stick also showed that climate data really must be made publicly available. This is all the more important if the science is used for far-reaching policies. Data and results obtained thereof must be verifiable. At the time no one wanted the data to be released. Today in retrospect that was quite an absurdity — similar to smoking in a large open office.

Some Failed Climate Predictions

by Andy May, October 30, 2018 in WUWT


Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious.

A. Failed predictions

PAGES2K: North American Tree Ring Proxies

by Steve McIntyre, October 24, 2018 in ClimatAudit


The PAGES (2017) North American network consists entirely of tree rings. Climate Audit readers will recall the unique role of North American stripbark bristlecone chronologies in Mann et al 1998 and Mann et al 2008 (and in the majority of IPCC multiproxy reconstructions).  In today’s post, I’ll parse the PAGES2K North American tree ring networks in both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017) from two aspects:

Conclusions

  • ex post screening based on recent proxy trends necessarily biases the resulting data towards a Hockey Stick shape – a criticism made over and over here and at other “ske;ptic” blogs, but not understood by Michael (“I am not a statistician”) Mann and the IPCC paleoclimate “community”;

  • the PAGES 2017 North American tree ring network has been severely screened ex post from a much larger candidate population: over the years, approximately 983 different North American tree ring chronologies have been used in MBH98, Mann et al 2008, PAGES 2013 or PAGES 2017. I.e. only ~15% of the underlying population was selected ex post – a procedure which, even with random data, would impart Hockey Stick-ness to any resulting composite

  • despite this severe ex post screening (in both PAGES 2013 and PAGES 2017), the composite of all data other than stripbark bristlecones had no noticeable Hockey Stick-ness and does not resemble a temperature proxy.

Climate Book By Japanese Physics Professor: “The Globe Isn’t Warming Anymore”…IPCC “Scientifically Immoral”

by Kirye, October 23, 2048 in NoTricksZone


Dr. Fukai also points out that global vegetation coverage increased by 11% in 29 years, from 1982 to 2010, as increasing CO2 has helped the greening of the Sahel and Sahara Desert. He contradicts the often heard media claims that drought is spreading globally, writing: “The media spread the word that desertification is progressing globally, but practically the desert is greening through CO2.” […] “Everyone should be aware that increasing CO2 concentrations in atmosphere is not in itself harmful, but it’s a good thing.”

No correlation

Dr. Fukai also shows that the earth’s temperature change is not simple and does not correlate at all with CO2. He shows graphs from D. M. Etheridge et al., Mauna Loa Observatory and the temperature data from Moberg et al. (2005).

Chart: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt 

The retired Japanese professor writes that at around 1000 A.D. — the Medieval Warm Period — there were no signs showing CO2 concentration was higher. A temperature graph using data from Moberg et al. (2005) shows the Medieval Warm Period appears clearly and that CO2 was in fact around 280 ppm at that time.

DEFRA VERSUS MET OFFICE Fact-checking the state of the UK climate

by Paul Homewood, October 2018, in GWPF


This paper (.pdf 17 pages) reports the results of a detailed analysis carried out using published UK Met Office data up to 2017. These show:

  • UK temperatures rose during the 1990s and early 2000s. This rise is associated with a similar increase in near-coastal sea surface temperatures. There has been no rise in the last decade.
  • Seasonal temperatures have followed a similar pattern: a rise during the 1990s, but a levelling off since.
  • This sudden rise in UK land temperature is not unprecedented, with the Central Eng- land Temperature series (CET) showing a similar occurrence in the early 18th century.
  • Analysis of CET shows that despite the rise in average summer temperatures, there has been no increase in the highest daily temperatures, or the frequency of extreme high temperatures, in recent years. In fact the opposite is true. Heatwaves were far more intense in 1975 and 1976, when there were thirteen days over 30◦C. By contrast, between 2007 and 2017 there have only been two such days. (Note that there was also only been one day over 30◦C in the summer of 2018). The highest daily temperature on CET was 33.2◦C, set in 1976 and equalled in 1990.

Le réchauffement climatique pour les deux cultures

by Richard Lindzen, 21 octobre 2018, Conférence GWPF, in Skyfall


Traduction par Volauvent.

Il y a plus d’un demi-siècle, C.P. Snow (romancier et physicien anglais qui a également occupé plusieurs postes importants dans la fonction publique britannique et brièvement au sein du gouvernement britannique) a examiné de manière célèbre les implications de « deux cultures » :

Bien des fois, j’ai assisté à des rassemblements de personnes qui, selon les normes de la culture traditionnelle, sont considérées comme très éduquées et qui ont exprimé leur incrédulité face à l’analphabétisme des scientifiques. Une ou deux fois, j’ai été provoqué et j’ai demandé à la compagnie combien d’entre eux pourraient décrire la deuxième loi de la thermodynamique. Ils répondaient froidement : c’était aussi toujours négatif. Pourtant, je demandais quelque chose qui était l’équivalent scientifique de : avez-vous lu un ouvrage de Shakespeare ?

Je crois maintenant que si j’avais posé une question encore plus simple – telle que : que voulez-vous dire par masse ou accélération, qui est l’équivalent scientifique de : pouvez-vous lire ? – pas plus d’un diplômé sur dix aurait eu l’impression que je parlais la même langue que lui. Ainsi, le grand édifice de la physique moderne se construit, et la majorité des personnes les plus intelligentes du monde occidental en ont à peu près le même aperçu que leurs ancêtres néolithiques en auraient eu.

Je crains que peu de choses n’aient changé depuis l’évaluation de Snow, il y a 60 ans. Certains pourraient soutenir que l’ignorance de la physique n’a pas d’incidence sur la capacité politique, mais elle a très certainement une incidence sur la capacité des politiciens non scientifiques à traiter des problèmes théoriquement fondés sur la science. Le manque de compréhension est également une invitation à l’exploitation malveillante. Compte tenu de la nécessité démocratique pour les non-scientifiques de prendre position sur des problèmes scientifiques, la croyance et la foi remplacent inévitablement la compréhension, même si des récits simplifiés à outrance de façon triviale rassurent les non-scientifiques sur le fait qu’ils ne sont pas totalement dénués de « compréhension scientifique ». Le sujet du « réchauffement global » offre de nombreux exemples de tout cela.

Je voudrais commencer cette conférence par une tentative visant à forcer les scientifiques du public à se familiariser avec la nature réelle du système climatique et à aider les non-scientifiques motivés de ce public susceptibles de faire partie du groupe « Un sur dix » de Snow à aller au-delà des simplifications excessivement triviales.

Trump s’interroge sur les causes du changement climatique

by Tom Harris & Jay Lehr, 20 octobre 2018 in Contrepoints


Le 14 octobre dernier, durant une interview sur la chaine de télévision CBS, le président américain a exprimé à juste titre son scepticisme concernant le rôle de l’homme sur le changement climatique.

Contrairement à l’affirmation d’Al Gore daté du 12 octobre selon laquelle seuls « quelques rares marginaux » dans la communauté scientifique ne partageraient pas l’avis du GIEC, de nombreux chercheurs sont en désaccord avec les conclusions faites par l’agence internationale.

En effet, c’était un euphémisme pour le président américain de déclarer durant l’interview « qu’il y a des scientifiques qui réfutent cela », en parlant d’un lien entre la fonte de glace au Groenlandet du changement climatique anthropique.

Le 8 octobre dernier, durant sa conférence devant la Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) située à Londres, le professeur Richard Lindzen a mentionné « la découverte faite conjointement par la NOAA (la National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) et l’Institut Météorologique Danois, à savoir que la masse de glace du Groenland a effectivement augmenté ».

Reliable? CRU, NASA, BEST, NOAA Land Temp Data Conflict By Up To 90% (0.8°C), Spawning ‘Large Uncertainty’

by K. Richard, October 8, 2018 in NoTricksZone


A new paper documents “remarkably different” land temperatures from one instrumental data set to another. In some regions there is as much as an 0.8°C conflict in recorded temperature anomalies for CRU, NASA, BEST, and NOAA. The relative temperature trend differences can reach 90% when comparing instrumental records. Consequently, the uncertainty in instrumental temperature trends — “0.097–0.305°C per decade for recent decades (i.e., 1981–2017)” —  is as large or larger than the alleged overall warming trend itself for this period.

McIntyre: ‘a reductio ad absurdum of tree ring chronologies as useful temperature proxies’

by A. Watts, October 11, 2018 in WUWT


Steve McIntyre has a look at the “revised” PAGES2K temperature proxy dataset that includes tree rings and river sediments. He finds the usual ridiculous problems from the past, such as upside down data and river sediment accumulations that have more to do with building a dam than climate.

See also here

Richard Lindzen Lecture at GWPF: ‘Global Warming for the Two Cultures’

by R. Lindzen, Ocotber2, 208 in A. Watts, WUWT


The climate system

The following description of the climate system contains nothing that is in the least controversial, and I expect that anyone with a scientific background will readily follow the description. I will also try, despite Snow’s observations, to make the description intelligible to the non-scientist.

Conclusion

So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.

There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’.

Evolutions récentes du CO2 atmosphérique (2/3)

by JC Maurin, 4 octobre 2018 in Science,Climat,Energie


  • Pour les derniers millénaires, les proxies archives glaciaires montrent une corrélation entre rapport isotopique (« température ») et taux de COsubsistant dans les microbulles. Toutefois les valeurs numériques de taux de CO2 doivent être prises avec précaution: l’enregistrement comporte à minima un biais « passe bas » qui efface les extremums. Si la corrélation est bien réelle, en revanche des affirmations telles que « les taux de CO2 des derniers millénaires sont toujours inférieurs aux taux après 1958 », ou bien « une variation de 1°C entraîne une variation de 12 ppm » ne sont pas démontrées.

  • Le COne précède jamais l’augmentation de la température, et cela depuis au moins le Pléistocène (240 000 ans) où la démonstration a bien été établie (cf. Fig. 8). Le COn’est donc pas le ‘bouton’ contrôlant l’évolution de la température.

  • Les concentrations anciennes de COatmosphérique sont sous-estimées et les données de Vostok non seulement donnent un ‘ background’ plus faible que les données fournies par l’analyse des stomates (Fig.10,) mais ne voient pas les pics de concentrations plus élevés de CO2. Ainsi affirmer que les teneurs actuelles en CO2n’ont jamais été aussi élevées, même à une échelle géologique très restreinte (telle que Quaternaire) est trompeur.

  • Pour les dernières décennies, les mesures contemporaines montrent une corrélation entre température de surface des océans sous les tropiques et variation annuelle du taux de CO2. La variation annuelle c’est aussi la différence entre entrées et sorties. Les mesures contemporaines montrent également une corrélation entre température des océans sous les tropiques et variation annuelle du δ13C. Ces 2 corrélations sont nettes lors des forts épisodes El Niño de 1998 et 2016.

  • Nous exploiterons ces corrélations dans la troisième partie qui montrera que le modèle anthropique du GIEC n’est pas en accord  avec les mesures du δ13C  et ne peut rendre compte des évolutions récentes du CO2 .

IPCC Now Claims All Warming Since End Of Little Ice Age Is Man-Made

by B. Peiser, October 10, 2018 in ClimateChangeDispatch


So the very first sentence of the SR15 Summary for Policy Makers, after the Introduction, consists of a statement which is not well supported by the totality of the available scientific literature and which is at odds with the IPCC’s own findings in the AR5 Working Group 1 Report of just 5 years ago! Not a good start. —Climate Scepticism, 9 October 2018

 

#DataGate! First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling towns, boats on land

by Mc Lean in JoNova, October 8, 2018 in JoNOva


What were they thinking?

The fate of the planet is at stake, but the key temperature data set used by climate models contains more than 70 different sorts of problems.  Trillions of dollars have been spent because of predictions based on this data – yet even the most baby-basic quality control checks have not been done.

Thanks to Dr John McLean, we see how The IPCC demands for cash rest on freak data, empty fields, Fahrenheit temps recorded as Celsius, mistakes in longitude and latitude, brutal adjustments and even spelling errors.

Why. Why. Why wasn’t this done years ago?

So much for that facade. How can people who care about the climate be so sloppy and amateur with the data?

The Evidence For AGW

by P. Homewood, October 9, 2018 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


Some of my initial thoughts:

  1. The topic of climate change is not a simple black and white one, and there are many areas where there is substantial disagrement among scientists. However the official party line pretends this is not the case.

  2. It is generally accepted that there has been some warming since the end of the little ice age in the 19thC. But how much is natural, and how much man made?

  3. The LIA is reckoned to be the coldest era since the ice age, so it is reasonable to assume that at least part of the warming since is natural.