by tonyheller, March 20, 2018 in TheDeplorableClimSciBlog
NOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased. This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they “adjust” the data to make it look like the US is warming.
by F. Bosse and Prof. F. Vahrenholt, March 20, 2018 in NoTricksZone
The sunspot number for February 2018 was 10.6 and thus was some 30% below the meanfor this time into the cycle. At the moment solar activity is close to quiet.
Just 10 years ago, all the talk was about the Arctic sea ice “death spiral”, with some of scientists hysterically predicting the sea ice would soon disappear altogether in the summertime. Ten years later the scientists are now scratching their heads as sea ice has stabilized and is showing some clear signs of a rebound.
by K. Richard, March 19, 2018 in NoTricksZone
In the last 10 years, overseers of the NASA GISS global temperature data set have been busy utilizing cool-the-past-and-warm-the-present adjustment techniques to alter the slope of the overall warming trend.
For example, as the climate4you graph illustrates above, there was a +0.45°Cdifference between the 1910 temperature anomaly and the 2000 temperature anomaly as of May, 2008.
Today (March, 2018), NASA GISS has tendentiously adjusted up the difference between 1910 and 2000 to +0.69°C, a 53% increase.
by Polar Bear Science, March 12, 2018
Polar bear specialists Andrew Derocher and Steven Amstrup recently spent inordinate energy trying to refute the opinion piece I’d written for the Financial Post in celebration of International Polar Bear Day last month, ignoring my fully referenced State of the Polar Bear Report for 2017 that was released the same day (Crockford 2018) and the scientific manuscript I’d posted last year at PeerJ Preprints (Crockford 2017). (…)
by Willy Eschenbach, March 18, 2018 in WUWT
Well, folks were complaining that my graph of the CET compared to the centennial solar minima was just one location, England. So here are the five European temperature records which start before 1815. Now, if the theory of the solar/temperature connection is correct, the temperatures should start trending downward when the solar minima start, and they shouldn’t start warming back up until the sunspots get numerous again after the end of the minima. Here are the records so you can see if they agree with the theory.
(…) As you can see, there is no obvious sign that the solar minima have caused any change in the temperature. Some go up, some go down, some go nowhere.(…)
See also here Approaching ‘grand solar minimum’ could cause global cooling
by Jo Moreau, 19 mars, 2018 in Belgotopia
La question est posée dans un excellent article de Pierre Gosselin paru en juin 2017 sur son site incontournable (1).
Personnellement, et je ne suis évidemment pas le seul, je n’accorde aucun crédit aux annonces tonitruantes d’ “année la plus chaude”, de “record de température” dont sont si friands nos médias, et je conserve un scepticisme identique pour la détermination de la température globale moyenne de la planète. En effet, pour qui s’intéresse à l’actualité climatique, les contradictions et manipulations dans les relevés de température terrestre sont monnaie courante, sous prétexte bien souvent d’ajustements et de mise à niveau, que ce soit pour les relevés actuels ou “l’actualisation” de données anciennes…
“L’avenir est connu, il suffit de modifier le passé“.(…)
by J. Cartwright, March 16, 2018 in A. Watts WUWT
WUWT readers may recall this chart which clearly illustrates just how uncertain climate science really is.
t seems that some climate academics are a bit embarrassed that they haven’t been able to pin down climate sensitivity. From EU Horizon Magazine
Climate sensitivity – reducing the uncertainty of uncertainty
by Jon Cartwright
A study published in January 2018 claims to halve the uncertainty around how much our planet’s temperature will change in response to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, potentially giving governments more confidence to prepare for the future.
by Willis Eschenbach, March 16, 2018 in WUWT
Finally, we have the IPCC Likelihood Scale:
Virtually certain – “All my cool scientist friends agree”.
Very likely – “We really hope this is true”.
Likely – “Two climate models out of three agree”.
About as likely as not – “Nobody has a clue”.
Unlikely – “This outcome offends us”.
Very unlikely – “We really don’t want you going down that path”.
Exceptionally unlikely – “Stephen McIntyre said it first so it can’t possibly be true.”
by A. Watts, March 15, 2018 in WUWT
This paper deals with the central argument that skeptics bring up about claims of global warming: How do you separate the temperature signal from the base components like natural variation, human land-use influence, micro-site bias, measurement errors and biases, and other factors to get the “true” global warming signal?
The answer is that you can’t, at least not easily.
With the surface temperature record, it’s somewhat easier since you can observe some of those elements directly and separate them (such as we’ve done in our surfacestations project for land-use microsite biases), but in the ocean, everything is homogenized by the ocean itself. All you can look for is patterns, and try to disentangle based on pattern recognition. That’s what they are trying to do here.
Disentangling Global Warming, Multidecadal Variability, and El Niño in Pacific Temperatures
Authors
Robert C. Wills, Tapio Schneider, John M. Wallace, David S. Battisti, Dennis L. Hartmann
(…)
by P. Homewood, March 15, 2015 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
According to the heavily adjusted NOAA data, last month was the fifth warmest February on record in the Central Lakes Division of NY State, with an average mean temperature of 31.4F.
Prior to 1981, the warmest was February 1954, which averaged 29.8F. In other words, NOAA claim that February 1954 was 1.6F colder than last month.
Which all looks very suspicious, because the opposite picture is shown at the high quality station of Ithaca Cornell University (…)
by Larry Hamlin, March 14, 2018 in WUWT
In June 23, 1988 the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing addressing the Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change.
Among the presenters at this hearing was Dr. James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies who introduced his infamous and now debunked global surface temperature model results with future temperature projections under three different scenarios of CO2 emissions growth that grossly over exaggerated resulting projected global temperature increases.
by A. Watts, March 14, 2018 in WUWT
From the Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past department and the Finnish Meteorological Institute comes this press release today.
Exceptionally large amount of winter snow in Northern Hemisphere this year
The new Arctic Now product developed by the Finnish Meteorological Institute shows with one picture the extent of the area in the Northern Hemisphere currently covered by ice and snow. This kind of information, which shows the accurate state of the Arctic, becomes increasingly important due to climate change. The Arctic region will be discussed at the Arctic Meteorological Week which begins in Levi next week.
by P. Gosselin, March 14, 2018 in NoTricksZone
German skeptic and weather expert ‘Schneefan’ here writes how climate activist Mark C. Serreze recently announced this year’s sea ice extent was at the smallest all-time area. But since then Arctic temperatures have plummeted and sea ice area has grown to over 14 million square kilometers (…)
by Javier, March 13, 2018 in WUWT
So, you still don’t believe small changes in solar activity can significantly affect climate? You know a very cold period during the Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder Minimum, but you have heard that the Little Ice Age could have had other causes, like volcanoes. You have been told repeatedly that since 1980 solar activity has been decreasing while global temperature has been increasing, so it can’t be the Sun.
Not so fast. There is a vested interest in climate change not being due to the Sun, as the Sun can’t be taxed or prevented from doing what it does. A further problem is that solar physicists have no clue about how the Sun can show centennial or millennial periodicities. As they prefer to talk about what they know, they reject such periodicities, even though we have evidence in cosmogenic records (14C in tree rings and 10Be in ice cores).
And if I tell you that little changes in the Sun have a disproportionate effect on climate you won’t believe me. You shouldn’t believe me. You shouldn’t believe anybody. Science is not about believing. Religion is about believing. So, I propose that you prove to yourself what effect little changes in the Sun have on climate.
by K. Richard, March 12, 2018 in NoTricksZone
(…) “A recent aerial survey of the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation concluded that the abundance of polar bears has remained steady since 1986 (943 bears; SE: 174) (Obbard et al., 2015). The survey included the entire coastal range and offshore island habitat of the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation, except for the eastern James Bay coast. Taken together, the results of the aerial survey and the participant responses from Wemindji and Chisasibi indicate that the local population has remained stable. However, the unanimous responses from participants in Whapmagoostui/Kuujjuarapik suggest that there has been a localized increase in the number of bears near Whapmagoostui/Kuujjuarapik.”
by Dr. B. Peiser, March 12, 2018 in ClimateChangeDispatch
Greens fear that optimism will foster complacency and hence undermine activism. But I find the essays of Pinker and Boisvert inspiring, not enervating.
I plan to assign the essays to my students, who have become quite gloomy lately. These days, despair is a bigger problem than optimism. —John Horgan, Scientific American, 8 March 2018
by Judith Curry, March 9, 2018 inClimateEtc.
This post is motivated by a twitter thread from Andrew Dessler that responds to a recent ruling in the Northern California versus the oil companies lawsuit (discussed previously here) (…)
by P Gosselin, March 6, 2018 in NoTricksZone
I couldn’t possibly recommend the following new book enough: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.
It is authored by the person whom leading German center-left “intellectual” weekly Die Zeit once portrayed (black vs white) as the Godfather of the global warming denial and doubt syndicate: Marc Morano of CFACT’s Climate Depot.
by David Archibald, March 10, 2018 on WUWT
This recent post discussed the end of the Modern Warm Period and the year that global cooling began. That post was inspired by a comment to a post on WUWT six to eight years ago to the effect that climate is controlled by the Sun’s magnetic flux – no need to worry about much else. The comment seemed to come from a warmer scientist – they are well funded, have plenty of time on their hands, some are smart and idle curiosity would get a few looking into what controls climate. The results would not be published of course. To paraphrase Mussolini, everything within the narrative, nothing outside the narrative, nothing against the narrative. If the Sun’s magnetic flux controls climate, you don’t have to worry about what goes on under the hood – the effect of EUV on the NAO, the GCR flux, the F10.7 flux, any other flux apart from the magnetic flux (…)
by Jo Moreau, 9 mars 2018, in Belgotopia
Complémentairement à l’article de Donna Laframboise, il semblerait que les différents groupes de travail du GIEC n’aient pas la même définition d’un conflit d’intérêt. On peut identifier deux formes principales de conflit d’intérêt : soit l’utilisation d’une étude rédigée par un auteur ou coauteur du GIEC, ce qui revient à publier des études qu’on utilisera ensuite dans une auto-justification, (voir aussi à ce sujet un billet précédent : http://belgotopia.blogs.lalibre.be/archive/2013/01/03/methodes-interpellantes-au-sein-du-giec.html ), soit la présence en ses rangs d’un salarié de l’industrie ou d’un membre ou d’un proche d’une ONG militant dans le domaine idéologico-politique.
On se rappelle que des contributeurs du GIEC, salariés de l’industrie chimique, avaient été accusés par diverses sources de conflit d’intérêt en 2016, que dire alors de membres ou proches d’ONG militantes, qui semblent de plus en plus se substituer aux organes démocratiques dans la direction de nos sociétés…
by Douglas Fox, February 16, 2018 in NationalGeographic
Scientists have peered into one of the least-explored swaths of ocean on Earth, a vast region located off the coast of West Antarctica. It is locked beneath a crust of ice larger than Spain and more than 1,000 feet thick, making its waters perpetually dark—and extremely difficult for humans to access. Now, a team of researchers has bored a hole through the ice and sampled the ocean beneath it. Their work could shed light on a poorly understood, but ominous episode in Antarctica’s recent past… (…)
by W. Eschenbach, March 9, 2018 in WUWT
I’m sure you can see the problem with Dr. Judith’s question—temperatures can rise without ANY new sources of heat or ANY change in existing sources of heat.
For example, regarding the climate system, every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean. This oil floats on the surface in a monomolecular layer, and it reduces both conduction and evaporation. As a result, the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil … where is Dr. Judith’s mysterious “source of heat” supposedly driving that change?
Here’s another example … (…)
by P. Gosselin, March 9, 2018 in NoTricksZone
Schellnhuber is often worshipped by the fringe-element climate alarmists as a sort of Climate Pope, whose every uttered word is to be regarded as infallible. Now he may be paying the price for his entrenched, radical positions on climate change.
“We now seriously need a Schellnhuber timeout. […] We do hope the new PIK leadership will correct the extreme direction the institute is currently on and rapidly puts an end to the flow of climate-alarmist press releases.“
by D. Laframboise, January 29, 2018 in BigPicturesNews…
BIG PICTURE: In November 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared for the first time that humans were changing the climate. Its verdict turned on a single piece of then-unpublished research. Four months after the fact, the research was submitted to a prominent journal. Three months later it was published.
The world then learned that 25% of the IPCC personnel tasked with making its most crucial determination were involved with this research. In a naked a conflict-of-interest, these nine people, led by IPCC chapter head Ben Santer, had evaluated the persuasiveness of their own fledgling scientific work – and had judged it sound enough to change history.
See also here (in French)
