Archives quotidiennes :

better to know...?

On Global Warming, Journos Are Very Consistent: They Never Ask Questions

by J. Heller, Mar 2, 2022 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Another week and we get another dire report on the climate from the U.N. and again, there is no scientific data showing a direct link between oil use and temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity. [bold, links added]

What they have are computer models.

Here is what they are putting out now:

UN panel’s grim climate change report: ‘Parts of the planet will become uninhabitable’

Life in some locations on the planet is rapidly reaching the point where it will be too hot for the species that live there to survive, international climate experts said in a report Monday.

“With climate change, some parts of the planet will become uninhabitable,” said German scientist Hans-Otto Pörtner, co-chair of Working Group II for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produced the report released in Berlin.

The report assesses scientific literature documenting the devastating effects of human-caused climate change on society and ecosystems worldwide.

And, as always, the media just reports these dire reports without asking any questions or doing any research. Five simple questions would be:

  1. Why have your previous predictions been 100% wrong?
  2. Why should we believe these predictions and base policies on these predictions when previous predictionshave been completely wrong?
  3. Shouldn’t policies be based on actual scientific data instead of computer models that can easily be manipulated to get the results you want?
  4. Should we destroy an industry based on computer models, especially one that has greatly improved the quality and length of life?
  5. Has the UN ever accomplished anything that indicates it can control the climate?

One prediction we continuously see to scare the public, especially the children, into compliance, is how many species of fossil fuels and humans are causing them to go extinct.

What we never see is actual data from the previous 150 years of fossil-fuel use that have gone extinct.

…

climate-debate

UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2022 Was 0.00 deg. C

by Roy Spencer, Mar 2, 2022 in ClimateChangeDispatch

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February 2022 was 0.00 deg. C, down a little from the January 2022 value of +0.03 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Pielke Jr. on IPCC AR6 WG2 Release

by Pielke Jr., Feb28, 2022 in WUWT

An initial thread on the IPCC AR6 WG2 report released today

Whereas WG1 received a mixed review in my areas of expertise (specifically: poor on scenarios, solid on extremes), my initial reaction to the WG2 report is that it is an exceedingly poor assessment

The first observation is that the report is more heavily weighted to implausible scenarios than any previous IPCC assessment report

In particular, RCP8.5 represents ~57% of scenario mentions

This alone accounts for the apocalyptic tone and conclusions throughout the report.

…

better to know...?

IPCC WGII AR6, More Insanity: Small Islands

by K. Hansen, March 1, 2022 in WUWT

A Shocking Lack of Evidence for Shocking Claims

The IPCC has rushed out a new portion of the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.  The report itself and all of its summaries and chapters are available from the IPCC web site.  I say rushed out because when I downloaded Chapter 15: Small Islandsat 5:00 pm EST on February 28th, the copy I received was still marked “Accepted Version Subject to Final Edits” and “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”.

They are quite right to mark it “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”  —  I would have suggested expanding that to “Do Not Cite, Quote, Distribute, or Read”.   But, that would be a personal opinion.  I am afraid I failed to follow my own best advice and have made the mistake of reading Chapter 15:  Small Islands.  So, having failed to “not read” I will follow up by failing to not cite, quote or distribute potions in this Opinion essay.

…

biology+acidification

The Decline Effect – Part 2: How Does This Happen?

by K. Hansen, Feb 29, 2022 in WUWT

What exactly is the decline effect?  Is it the fact that certain scientifically discovered effects decline over time the more they are studied and researched? Almost, but not really.  The Wiki has this definition for us:

“The decline effect may occur when scientific claims receive decreasing support over time. The term was first described by parapsychologist Joseph Banks Rhine in the 1930s to describe the disappearing of extrasensory perception (ESP) of psychic experiments conducted by Rhine over the course of study or time. In its more general term, Cronbach, in his review article of science “Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology” [ also .pdf here ] referred to the phenomenon as “generalizations decay.”[1] The term was once again used in a 2010 article by Jonah Lehrer published in The New Yorker.”

Some hold that the decline effect is not just a decrease of support over time but rather that it refers to a decrease in effect size over time – or, according to some, both because of one or the other.  That is, the support decreases because the effect sizes found decrease, or, because of decreasing support, reported effect sizes decrease.  The oft cited cause of the decline effect are: publication bias, citation bias, methodological bias, and investigator effects.  Part 1 of this series was an example of investigator effects.

Let’s be perfectly clear:  In no case does the decline effect refer to an actual decline in real world effects of some physical phenomena, but only to effect sizes found and/or reported in research reports over time.

One of the best discussions of the decline effect was published in The New Yorker over a decade ago.  In an article titled: “The Truth Wears Off — Is there something wrong with the scientific method?” by Jonah Lehrer.  At 2100 words, it is about a 10 minute read – and worth every minute.

…