Is it junk science?; biased?; flim-flam?; fraudulent?; simply bad?; lazy?; fishy science?; or just normal "whatever" science.
The daily scientific crapola appears to exist way beyond the narrow domain of orthodoxy climate science, unfortunately.
"We all know bad papers are out there. When you read them, you’re left scratching your head and wondering, “How on earth did these pass peer-review?” Worse still, there are “ugly” science articles, where the scientific method goes by the wayside and data are cherry-picked, misinterpreted or manipulated to justify a political or ideological agenda or to undermine science that interferes with that agenda.
Robeck et al. (2015) is a recent example of ugly science. The authors (three of whom work for SeaWorld, one for the Minnesota Zoo) compared survivorship and longevity of orcas in captivity versus the wild. They stated that “the estimated ages assigned to [free-ranging killer whales]…were inaccurate” and “Our analysis supports a proposed longevity of between 60 and 70 years for females and 50 and 60 years for males…substantially less than the longevity of 80-90 years for females and 60-70 years for males…previously suggested” (p. 1066, emphasis added). This paper also dismissed decades of life history table analyses that have long been accepted within the scientific community, stating that they were of “limited value” (p. 1059).
With these conclusions, Robeck et al. effectively tossed 43 years of research by a number of respected orca biologists under the bus."
As has often been the case, official climate science is now agreeing with what skeptics identified several years ago: Antarctica is not warming.
The prestigious science consensus journal Nature has published a new peer-reviewed study that counters what that journal has been reporting about Antarctica for at least the last decade.
This should not come as a surprise to the observant.
The global warming doomsday scientists have relied on a compliant mainstream media to claim that their opinions represent the supposed 97% of settled science - an indisputable "consensus" that should not be debated. But, as in almost every scientific endeavor, the science is never, ever settled.
Yet the climate science orthodoxy continues to push the catastrophic scenario that Earth's major coastal and island regions will be submerged due to the melting of the polar ice sheets found in Antarctica. Unfortunately for the consensus alarmism, this new study indicates Antarctica's canary in the global warming fearmongering-fable has actually been cooling over the last 20 years, not warming (see chart).
"Natural variability was responsible both for the decades-long warming since the 1950s and more recent cooling, according to research published today in Nature. The research, led by John Turner from the British Antarctic Survey, said while the start of Antarctic Peninsula cooling in 1998 had coincided with the so-called “global warming hiatus”, the two were not connected."
And what do they say next, after being severely humiliated with the empirical evidence that skeptics rely on? Well.....the consensus doomsday scientists bounce right back with their orthodoxy beliefs, based on the always wrong climate model computer simulations.
"Scientists were quick to declare the results of the Turner et al paper, which covered 1 per cent of the Antarctic continent, did not negate a long-term warming because of man-made climate change...“Climate model projections forced with medium emission scenarios indicate the emergence of a large anthropogenic regional warming signal, comparable in magnitude to the late-20th-century peninsula warming, during the latter part of the current century,” the Turner research concluded."
Science research (and implementation) nowadays produces all sorts of headlines that are of significant interest to the public and policymakers.
But, as seems to be the case, the natural processes of climate change, global warming and global cooling appear to bring the quack scientists with truly quack theories out of the ivy towers in search of more research funding.
Case in point: the Ohio State researchers who claim that a warmer climate produces more violence - this "new" theory that hotter temperatures cause more aggression has been easily debunked before (and debunking this theory is kinda like shooting politically correct fish in a barrel).
For an abundance of similar headlines that reflect violence across a wide range of climates, go here.
These most recent headlines firmly establish that aggressive violence is likely more a result of demographics (i.e. societal, cultural and religious backgrounds) than climate. In other words, you can take someone out a violent area with a very warm climate and nothing basically changes - well.....other than civilization just gets more violence in the cooler climate, obviously.
Stephen Hawking has gained a less than stellar reputation for predicting doomsday catastrophes multiple times. Seems his non-scientific predictions are classic clickbait catnip for mainstream media publications and net tabloids.
Hawking's space alien, robot, and nuclear war prognostications have gotten a lot of play and views. Yet they are essentially just vague fear-mongering memes provided by an individual with a high IQ.
And then there is his latest doomsday scenario of human CO2 emission causing global warming so hot that humanity on Earth is wiped out by a Venus-like climate of 250 degrees. Unfortunately for Hawking, the empirical evidence clearly indicates that Earth becoming Venus is such an absurdity that even the fear-mongers at the IPCC won't support this vaporfear.
Why is Hawking's Venus prediction so way out there in the twilight zone of black holes? Just look at the adjacent chart.
Plotted are the absolute temperatures for the tropical oceans and the atmosphere above the tropical oceans, as of April 2016 (purple columns). If the oceans are going to be boiled-off by Venus atmospheric temperature levels, then we are a very long way from that happening.
But what about Earth's temperatures a 100 years from now, due to that "runaway" warming Hawking insinuates that we suffer from?
Well, based on the linear trend of temperatures since the satellite measurement age began in 1979, the expected tropical temperatures for April 2116 (yellow columns on chart) will barely budge up - ahem, 250 degrees is not in the cards. Earth's actual experience with Hawking's modern "runaway" warming clearly indicates that we can't get there (250 degrees) from here (25.3°, -4.2°, -24.2°).
And by the time the next 100 years passes, humanity will no longer be using fossil fuels as the primary source of energy. Technology will advance far enough during that time to make the issue of runaway warming or climate change tipping points from human greenhouse gas emissions moot historical footnotes.
Note: Calculated rolling absolute temps using 12-month averages of anomalies and then adding an average absolute temp to the anomalies. Absolute average temp used for HadSST, 24.4C; absolute average temp for UAH lower troposphere -5.0C; absolute average temp for mid-troposphere, -25.0C. Excel used to calculate averages and plot column chart. Venus surface, lower and mid-troposphere temperatures are vastly hotter than 250 degrees that Hawking alluded to.
Climate change and global warming scientists seeking grants for continuing research use computer model simulations to fabricate justify why they need more budget monies from the government - it is a constant doomsday whining that inflicts (and impacts) the entire science community.
The latest simulated calamity that is being tossed around as a doomsday scenario has the oceans being depleted of oxygen because of CO2, thus making marine life impossible.
As with all computer climate simulations, this is junk science that policymakers and the public have no need for. It's a disaster-distraction used to pretend that "scientists", with just a little more money (but always turns out being a whole lot more), will be able to quantify doomsday from natural climate reality - not very likely.
“Since oxygen concentrations in the ocean naturally vary depending on variations in winds and temperature at the surface, it’s been challenging to attribute any deoxygenation to climate change."
Objectively, this certainly appears to be just another case of ever money-desperate climate science sucking the oxygen out of all other scientific endeavors.
Recently, RSS satellite scientists decided they needed to proactively adjust atmospheric temperatures in order to rid the world of the widely reported global warming hiatus. It's a pause of insignificant warming that has existed since the major El Niño of 1998 that the 2015 El Niño recently stopped.
Thus, they produced a new study refuting their previous reported satellite temperature measurements for the mid-troposphere going back to 1979.
For the period from 1979 to 1997 (see left chart), these scientists saw little need for major adjustments to their earlier RSS dataset. Yet for the global warming pause period stretching from 1998 to 2014, significant adjustments (see right chart) apparently had to be made, stat.
The charts comparing the RSS old and new datasets of monthly observations includes the plot of simple 5-year averages (60 months). The obvious RSS cherry-picked adjustments of the post-1998 period versus the earlier period is clarified by the presentation of the 'old' and 'new' 5-year averages.
So, Carl Mears of RSS chose a specific start point and a specific endpoint to apply significant man-made adjustments to, which is clearly a blatant cherry-picked fabrication to produce a desired politically correct "empirical" objective, no?
It would seem this is politically correct anti-science at its worst on bold exhibit by RSS.
(And if you don't believe RSS is a politically correct, anti-science outfit, then you might not be aware that they refer to their science critics as 'denialists', a premeditated slander.)
The end result?
The study now identifies a higher global warming trend that they were previously unable to find with the best satellite technology available as a resource. Of course, for their new research, they are still using the same technology - go fabricate figure.
And there is more to come of this style of RSS "science" with the upcoming release of their new lower troposphere dataset.
Further analysis of the new RSS "empirical" evidence is discussed here, here, here, and here.
Additional past examples of clear temperature fabrications supporting the dogmatic religion of the climate alarmism anti-science cult.
Note: Excel used to plot the RSS v3.3 and v4.0 mid-troposphere datasets, including the 60-month averages.
A recent letter from 300 scientists is requesting that Congress assure that the Data Quality Act is complied with, which NOAA has not done regarding both the U.S. and global empirical temperature observations.
When 300 scientists put their name and reputations on the line criticizing NOAA, it can be assumed that the issue is one of significance and importance to science.
And this issue is now coming to a head after 7+ years of both NOAA and NASA blatantly adjusting historical temperature measurement records on a continual basis.
In essence, these two climate research agencies have purposefully cooled the past; and then warmed the modern temperatures in an effort to make global warming seem more severe than actually has taken place since the Little Ice Age. (See here a recent example of NOAA's adjustment handiwork.)
Their combined adjustment "methodology" has certainly mislead the public and policymakers, which has added to the growing mistrust that the public has for politicians, scientists and bureaucrats.
The group of charts above reveals the gross manipulation of temperatures that strongly indicates an anti-science motivation to meet the current administration's political needs.
Charts #1 & #2 show two examples of the constant adjustments by both NOAA and NASA. These examples show the number of adjusting steps taken since 2008 to cool past historical temperatures and the number of steps to raise a modern month's temperature.
Charts #3 & #4 show the total amount of adjustments by month since 1880 for NOAA and NASA. The fabricated warming of modern temps and cooling of pre-modern temps is more than obvious - it is unequivocally blatant and an unprecedented level of science tampering.
All of these charts were compiled by Ole Humlum, a well-known university scientist/professor from Norway who publishes peer-reviewed climate change research. Go to his 'Climate4You' site to access a large volume of valuable climate information.
The extended 'pause' appears to have finally rattled the scientists at NOAA. They seemingly chose to robustly adjust thousands of past monthly temperature observations to make sure the embarrassing pause would be no longer.
The adjacent chart depicts the global annual temperature anomalies computed from the monthly NOAA dataset reported in 2014 (orange columns); and the red columns represent the new annual anomalies after NOAA's massive 2015 revisions.
By slightly adjusting down the past reported temperatures for years 2000-2003, and then by adjusting up years 2005-2014, NOAA was able to almost double the warming trend (i.e. slope of linear trend-line) for the 15 years ending in 2014.
To put the NOAA adjustments in scientific perspective, the chart also includes the satellite reported annual temperature anomalies for the same periods. Note for the satellite columns that only 3 of the 15 years (2012, 2013 and 2014) had minor adjustments of 0.01 each. As a result, the satellite temperature trend-lines remain flat for both 2014 and 2015.
One can assume that the RSS scientists avoided the temptation to massively adjust the satellite temperature dataset just to achieve desired political/activist objectives; thus, the 'pause' in the lower atmosphere continues and empirical science was not tarnished.
Unfortunately, NOAA has succumbed, allowing the bureaucracy to put the political cart before the scientific horse - the AGW hypothesis clearly predicts that the lower atmosphere has to warm first and at a faster pace than surface temperatures. The empirical evidence of the pause has not supported the prediction of a severely warming atmosphere for almost two decades now.
At this point in time, the satellite empirical evidence is significantly more trustworthy as it does not suffer from the constant monthly historical revisions that both NOAA and NASA perform on their respective temperature datasets.
Notes: Calendar year (annual) anomalies were computed using Excel from the RSS satellite 2015 year-end monthly dataset and NOAA's 2015 year-end monthly dataset.
Junkscience.com has recently contacted those universities allowing staff members to claim they had won the Nobel Peace Prize. So far, in all cases, it has exclusively involved climate alarmists making the false award claims.
Universities, to their credit, have removed or modified the claims once informed.
Hmmm...maybe universities should improve their due diligence methodology or at least do adequate background checks on awards and degrees. Posting bogus information regarding their staff is likely some form of false advertising, no?
And as is often the case, not a single mainstream media outlet discovered the institutional misrepresentation.
Australian universities are well on the way towards establishing themselves as the cesspool of falsehoods and fraud regarding global warming and climate change.
And John Cook of University of Queensland has again confirmed that Down Under academia has sketchy regard for ethics and morals. Here is a university that seems to condone fabrications and lies regarding science issues by hiring a person known for being truth-challenged.
Plus, he's a person possessing questionable judgment skills (see here and here why he's dressed as a 'SS' Nazi, shown adjacent).
Cook, who is also the proprietor of the 'Skeptical Science' web site, has now been exposed as literally posing in comments on certain blog postings as the famous theoretical physicist, Luboš Motl. Simply put, this is premeditated identity theft meant to deceive. This reprehensible behavior was done under the auspices of a Western Australia University's "scientific" experiment, prior to his Queensland employment.
On top of that, Cook's fake comments misrepresented Motl's views about climate science - in other words, Cook just made up lies stuff.
Certainly, global warming alarmists long ago jumped-the-Nazi, so to speak, which Cook's most recent bizarro revelations obviously confirm. Then there are the previous Cook episodes that expose the level of global warming alarmist "science" B.S. - see here, here, here and here.
Then there is the University of Western Australia's ethics debacle in approving shoddy science by university employees and Cook's associates. This is the same university of the climate-doomsday cult that then decided to double-down on their support of the cult.
How much has NASA's GISS climate research unit increased global warming under the Obama administration?
The earliest monthly global dataset that we have available from NASA is the one produced for the August 2005 reporting period. Overall, that dataset contains 1,508 monthly observations since the beginning of 1880.
It seems that under Obama, NASA has conducted a global warming fabrications corrections effort, especially focused on the most recent decades since the 1970's.
Specifically, when comparing the newly adjusted NASA dataset to the one reported in August 2005, out of the 308 months spanning January 1980 through August 2005, NASA has warmed 302 months (only 2 months were cooled and 6 were left unchanged from the 2005 dataset).
Of the total warming adjustments corrections applied to the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's (through Aug 2005) they average out to a bureaucrat-made warming increase of +0.08°C per month.....
===> that's equal to a 96°C per century warming trend if NASA continues with a pattern of similar "corrections."
This NASA non-random treatment and purposeful changes of past empirical evidence is beyond just being anti-science. It is fraud-like, with the root cause being attempts by bureaucrat-scientists to meet the political and propaganda agendas of government elites - agendas that have been blatantly obvious over recent years.
Prior to the upcoming, yawn-producing UN's 2015 Paris COP21 greenhouse gas fear-mongering conference, one could surmise that NASA was charged with creating global temperatures that were the hottest ever, regardless of the integrity and credibility damage that the science community and objective scientific methodologies would sustain.
NASA provides ample evidence why scientists, bureaucrats and political elites should be held in contempt by the public. Literally, their utterances should never be trusted on any issue that requires an objective, impartial scientific treatment.
'Never trust, only verify' should be the new motto for the public to take to heart.
The establishment's health/medical/nutrition consensus science rivals the IPCC's anti-CO2 crusade climate science in terms of producing spectacularly wrong theories and the associated fact-less, terrible predictions.
The anti-fat/cholesterol heart disease theory has been a mainstay of medical dogma for decades. In recent years though, it has been torn asunder by actual real empirical science. This non-consensus science is finally coming to the forefront due to establishment-nutrition skeptics, not the goose-stepping health elites and their press release parrots, the mainstream media.
The mountain of empirical evidence of fraud just keeps growing...massive climate record adjustments by NOAA and other climate agencies continues...blatant adjustment manipulations presented as the actual temperature measurements...all in the name of the "global warming" agenda of power-hungry elites...simply, it is an agenda of pure ideology supported by anti-science quacks producing fabrications...a disturbing FactCheck.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
A new article over at NoTricksZone brings us yet another example of scientific fraud perpetrated by the national climate agencies.
As the adjacent chart from the NTZ article documents, NOAA's definitive manipulations of a U.S. states climate records to enhance the modern global warming trend is indisputable.
As the engineering physicist who analyzed the recent NOAA dataset for Maine concluded:
"In my opinion, this is out-and-out fraud. Why did they corrupt national climate data? Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone...They have corrupted Maine climate data between 1895 and present by a whopping accumulated 151.2°F."
The global "warming" charade is not about saving humanity, nor about saving polar bears...it's all about a non-environmental agenda that is being pursued by the establishment elites and powerful...and they aren't bashful about admitting it...thus, government agencies, such as NOAA, will fabricate anything and everything in support of the agenda.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
The global warming political agenda requires proof that temperatures are getting hotter.
If "hotter," then the public will of course need the government to step in and save them from dangerous hot temperatures.
But what happens when the modern maximum temperatures do not fit the agenda by not being as hot as those experienced in the distant past, earlier in the 20th century?
Well, in the case of NOAA, they just fabricate the "proof."
By simply lowering adjusting past annual maximum U.S. temperatures down until they are below the modern era temps; plus, to provide a little oomph, they raise the modern maximums a bit.
As this chart reveals, NOAA massively lowered the past temperatures prior to the 1990's. The broad black curve is the 5-year mean of the maximum U.S monthly temperatures originally measured and recorded.
And the broad blue curve? That's the 5-year mean of maximum temperatures after NOAA finished with their fabrications adjustments.
Figuratively, with a few strokes of the keyboard, NOAA manipulated the long-standing historical climate records in order to present needed "evidence" that fits with the political agenda.
Unfortunately for the reputation and credibility of science, this style of empirical evidence falsification is widespread, with government climate "scientists" leading the way it would appear.
Note: Original source of chart; the animated gif image was separated into its two frames using '7GIF.' The colors of the the two frames were then changed to be different. Then one graph was superimposed on another.
"Consensus" climate science temperature adjustments by various national climate agencies has pretty much destroyed the credibility of government funded climate researchers...currently, it has gotten so bad that hardly anyone takes seriously the predictions of the climate-doomsday cult...in fact, the only remaining believers are the die-hard fringecult leaders who prosper nicely from doing so.....
Recent examinations by analysts Paul Homewood, Tony Heller and others confirm that a wide variety of official temperature datasets have been excessively manipulated by climate "scientists" - to the point where policymakers can no longer be sure if climate records can be trusted.
The blatant temperature manipulation perpetrated on the public has been, for the most part, an esoteric issue discussed by individuals familiar with temperature record analyses. (Peer reviewed research indicates that the fake-warming likely represents 25 to 50% of reported global warming by the climate agencies.)
In the past, the mainstream press essentially ignored the anti-science temperature record fabrications, but no longer.
And as this cartoon indicates, the consensus science establishment is being mocked for the exposed temperature lies.
Wouldn't it be great if we all could just trust what the establishment science states about actual climate temperature changes and trends? But we can't, as they have categorically proven to be driven by agendas other than scientific truth. One just needs to connect-the-dots, so to speak, to discern what is really happening.
Indeed, the preponderance of evidence from the officially manipulated temperature datasets indicates fabricated cooling adjustments being applied to periods pre-1980 and a fabricated warming since 1980.
The net effect of the joint cooling and warming adjustments appears to be two-fold in support of the UN/IPCC politicalsciencepolitical "science" agenda.
One, the overall warming trend is enhanced, which is then attributed to increased CO2 by the government agency scientists, versus stating that their underlying temp adjustments were the real "enhancement" cause. Two, bureaucrats (both transnational and national), politicians and journalists demand global warming/climate change talking points - thus the creation of higher (i.e. warmer) current temps than any temperatures exhibited earlier in the 20th century.
One of the unintended and humorous consequences of climate record fabrications has been the nonsensical and irrational explanations as to why enhanced global warming is producing colder and more severe winters. The faux-warming has now necessitated the fabrication of new global warming capabilities that are entirely inconsistent with known weather physics and history.
Recent winter weather examples that have caused CAGW alarmists to expose their anti-science rationales include:
Unfortunately, the anti-science of climate science will continue since it appears to be prerequisite of research funding - in simple words, scientists are forced to support the consensus green political agenda in order to survive and thrive.
Is it true about the climate warming?...since the incredible revelations of Climategate, official climate science continues to embarrass itself...frankly, government sponsored scientists seem eager to keep the curse alive that is undermining their credibility...one wonders if it due to a strong allergic reaction to truth and objectivity...maybe current global warming science should now be referred to as 'Kardashian-science' in honor of manipulating the truth for a better story...now take the case of the persistent photoshopping manipulating of the historical climate records.....
(click on image to enlarge)
Name a single individual scientist, government official or blue-ribbon commission that publicly announced 10 to 20 years ago that all the historical climate temperature records were wrong, and thus there was a need for all to be altered carte blanche to conform to certain pattern.
That's right, you can't.
Hmmm...maybe because there never was a debate/discussion about a proposed blatant altering of historical evidence.
With absolutely no public concurrence to do so, non-elected climate scientists just decided to make it happen.
It's science on its worst agenda-driven behavior.
Of course, when the empirical truth comes out regarding the overstatement of global warming by govt climate researchers they then wonder why the public has a growing distrust of science and government.
Recently, climate analyst Paul Homewood has had a slew of articles regarding the very questionable alterations of various climate station records. His research has documented multiple instances of "adjustments", from the top of the world to the bottom, with the end result always being that late 20th century global warming appears to be greater than the originally recorded - but only after the adjustments.
An example of his work are the two climate station records in the accompanying graphs. One station is in Iceland and the other in Paraguay. Both examples reveal that historical, originally recorded temperatures of the past were significantly reduced, which obviously makes the recent modern global warming appear more unusual.
This is the "unprecedented" modern warming that advocates relentlessly push. But it is only unprecedented because the past temperatures were so drastically altered - literally, it's fake unprecedented warming relative to the cooling alternations applied primarily to the pre-1970 temperatures.
Multiple articles from the near past have been written about the continuing "global warming" fabrications by climate agencies - here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It's not a pretty picture of supposed objective truth-seeking science.
Are all temperature adjustments bad or wrong? Absolutely not, as this and this article point out some merits.
Yet, indications from 3rd party analysis (here and here) indicates that potentially one-half of the hypothetical +0.8°C global warming since 1850 may be a result of the massive temperature adjustments applied to the entire historical record.
'Hypothetical' because the climate agencies cannot say with confidence what actual global temperatures were in the past (or are now):
"It is not possible to calculate the global average temperature anomaly with perfect accuracy because the underlying data contain measurement errors and because the measurements do not cover the whole globe."...
Finally, it would be one thing if climate agencies adjusted past temperatures with a one-time correction for any of the poorly reported historical temperatures. It's a whole different ballgame when climate agencies "correct" all past monthly historical temperatures every few months.
For example, did you know that NOAA/NCDC has "corrected" the January 1939 global temperature at least 7 times over the last 24 months? This is the count only when considering the 2nd decimal point changes. For corrections out to the 4th decimal point, it is highly likely January 1939 has been corrected 24 times out of the last 24 months.
And this is true for every single month going back to 1880.
Here's a commonsense suggestion to finally improve the credibility of climate science, and, most importantly, to assure the public's confidence in the global warming reported in the future:
An appointed 3rd party audit should be conducted by a team of non-climate scientists on all historical raw climate station temperatures; one-time corrections would then be applied utilizing a scientifically/statistically agreed upon standard; and, once corrected, past temperatures can never be "corrected" again by climate researchers.
Voila, the ongoing and distracting debate about the accuracy and truthfulness of global land/sea temperature records is smothered, once and for all.
How to pay for such a scientific endeavor? Easy. Take a few billion away from the spectacularly failed climate model efforts, especially since the current models rely on the fabricated temperature records. No wonder they're always so wrong.
For multiple decades, we've been warned by the elites and "experts" that extreme climate change is at our collective doorstep...severe record-setting weather events a common occurrence...CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases wreaking untold devastation & havoc...climate refugees swamping interior safe havens...and yet, at the end of 2014 the feared devastation, calamities and climate extreme records were still far and few between after 1990.....
(click on map to enlarge)
The above map depicts the greatest extremes of temperatures recorded and officially recognized as being legit by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a UN agency.
The WMO has been an avid participant pushing the climate disaster/catastrophe claims associated with the anthropogenic global warming political agenda. In conflict with their apparent agenda, the WMO happens to be responsible for determining the official records for extreme weather events across the globe.
Ironically, this proponent of CO2-caused weather extremes has officially documented the paucity thereof since the 1990s.
It was during the 1980s that the major national climate agencies and the UN began promulgating the idea that climate catastrophes and extremes were abundant, due to the growing levels of trace atmospheric CO2 emissions. The principal claim being the trace GHGs is causing an evermore hotter world, about to go from calamities to civilization cataclysm.
And as time wore on, the WMO and other "experts" were wrong - it just hasn't happened.
Examine the map closely and it will be noted that the 'newest' hemisphere/continent hot temperature record took place way back in 1978 - it's now 37 years later and we're all still waiting for those new temp extreme records.
One could conclude that the WMO's own official records have not been kind to the global warming scare. Amazingly, the same can be said for many other official weather extremes that the WMO keeps a tally of.
As can be seen, there are many climate records from the past that took place well before the 1990s. We are now into the 15th year of the 21st century and those predicted extremes remain a rare breed.
This should not come as a surprise though. Indeed, the world has suffered from incredible weather extremes, most of which were experienced prior to large GHG emissions due to natural climate and weather patterns.
With that said, earthly records are made to be broken - they always are. However, CO2 and other trace gases do not guarantee new records...but nature does, which the record books are filled with.
Cautionary note to world's elites and climate experts: Over the last 25 years, the world has witnessed multiple times more failed predictions of climate extremes than all the new record-setting weather events - a genuine exhibition of requisite humility may be due.
Source of WMO extreme records. Other extreme weather/climate charts.
Climate "scientists" on the government dole claim that CO2 emission regulation will allow bureaucrats to tweak the world's climate...thus, "scientists" will provide the world's governing class with a means to "dial in" the Earth's desired temperature with a CO2 "climate control" knob...but as it turns out, it's an indisputable shiteload of fantasy bordering on delusional.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Delusional fantasies? Pretty strong stuff one might say.
Oh well, let's review just six actual climate science facts to make the case.
===>First, we know that these same scientists don't even know where over 50% of CO2 emissions disappear to...
===>Second, we know (and these same scientists know) that the global temperature change response to CO2 has declined significantly - opposite of the IPCC's "consensus expert" predictions...
===>Third, we know that these same scientists have been predicting rapid, continuous, accelerating dangerous global warming for decades but it hasn't happened...
===>Fourth, since it is agreed by 97% of all climate scientists that global warming has essentially stopped for 17+ years (only the fringe quacks disavow this), these same bureaucrat/academia scientists have come up with an overflowing cornucopia of reasons why, which reveal absolutely zero consensus...
===>Fifth, we know that the $billion$ super computer climate models used by these same scientists are fatally flawed, thus absolutely worthless regarding future global and regional climate predictions...
===>Finally, as this accompanying chart of the empirical evidence indicates, while the per cent change in cumulative CO2 emissions dropped in a quasi-continuous pattern since 1979, the RSS annual global temperatures anomalies instead follow an opposite increasing trend.
Simply put, all the above scientific evidence falsifies the entire concept of a CO2 "control knob" for the world's climate.
Yet these on-the-dole scientists keep promoting this delusional, all-powerful climate "knob" fantasy at the major expense of not only the taxpayer pockets, but also the gargantuan expense of sound climate policy-making being derailed from the track of common sense and rationality.
Ahh...those stubborn facts just always seem to muck up the climate delusional dreams and nightmares of so many knob-fanatics and control-freaks.
Note: From this multiple dataset, an estimate of total human CO2 emissions from 1751 to 2013 can be calculated. Since the RSS satellite monthly dataset only goes back to 1979, the chart plots the annual per cent change in cumulative CO2 emissions since 1979 (starting with the calculated cumulative emissions from 1751-1979). The RSS plot represents the 12-month (year-end) average anomalies. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
Another spectacular climate model & "expert" prediction failure...the abysmal predictions generated out of billion-dollar climate models are well documented...predictions for water levels of the Great Lakes are no better....
(click on chart to enlarge)
The vicious combination of climate "experts" driven by a political-alarmist agenda and the indisputably incompetent climate models has long misled the taxpaying public and policymakers.
As the NOAA chart of the Great Lakes on the left clearly indicates, water levels are above the long-term averages. The predicted "tipping point" water level reduction from global warming and climate change is AWOL.
The frequent and spectacular prediction failures of the computer simulations and experts has been widely noted in the past.
As the world's populace nutrition improves, according tothe experts at Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the IPCC with its built-in political agenda to demonize CO2 and global warming, reports the opposite...lying is no longer even an art form for the fear-mongers of global warming and climate change catastrophe fantasies...it's blatant and brazen.....
(click on to enlarge)
The experts now estimate that the number of undernourished has decreased some 17%, from 1990 to 2103 - approximately 165 million less. Yet for the IPCC's 2014 AR5 report, they report an increase of 75 million.
There is no scientific reason, nor objective rationale for the IPCC misleading policymakers and the public so egregiously.
"Rather than using up-to-date FAO data showing a steady decline in undernourishment during a period of increasing temperatures (which they either were aware of or ought to have been aware of), the IPCC chose to feature an increase in an obsolete data set that had been previously highlighted in an “policy-relevant monograph” cited by IPCC. IPCC coyly described this earlier dataset as “provisional”...Why didn’t IPCC clearly report the long-term decline in undernourishment during a period of temperature increase. This is information that is relevant to policy-makers. And, in particular, why did IPCC highlight a supposed increase in “provisional” data (more precisely now long obsolete data) when the increase changed to a decrease in the up-to-date version of the data?...It’s hard to think of a good reason."
The adjacent image represents a temperature reconstruction from the Greenland ice sheet boreholes. The image was included in a peer reviewed paper that was published in 1998, which is approximately the same time the infamous 'hockey stick' graph was produced.
Although this paper confirmed the findings of a massive amount of previous research that the Medieval Warming generated higher temperatures than the current warming, the IPCC instead conferred star status to the statistically-tortured 'hockey stick' graph, which showed the previous warming to be less than the current era, and then was subsequently found to be without credible merit - a statistical travesty.
Why did the IPCC go with the unproven, statistical abomination that quickly smeared (irreparably?) the reputation of climate science?
"Christy’s assessment, when combined with the UEA emails, provides substantial insight into how this hockey stick travesty occurred. My main unanswered question is: How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR? He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D. It is my suspicion that the U.S. did not nominate Mann (why would they nominate someone for this chapter without a Ph.D.?)...Instead, I suspect that the IPCC Bureau selected Mann; it seems that someone (John Houghton?) was enamored of the hockey stick and wanted to see it featured prominently in the TAR."
Additional climate-history articles. The Michael Mann self-perpetuated, embarrassing "science" fiasco continues, as described here and here.
WUWT produces another example of the elite establishments' propaganda promoting bogus climate change alarmism. There is little, if any, empirical evidence of the climate refugee claim, unless one actually believes the output of egregiously error-prone climate computer models.
Instead of educating its readers about global warming reality, the Smithsonian delivers typically lame press release "science," enhanced with hyperbolic statements, which have been thoroughly debunked in the past.
Personally, I canceled my Smithsonian subscription over a decade ago after tiring from their constant anti-empirical, political-agenda science. But for those who still do subscribe, one might want to keep this infograph handy to help spot the magazine's bogus claims and bad science reporting.
For your added pleasure, obvious additional speculative hyperbole from the magazine:
====> "Other health threats have been enumerated by Robert Repetto, a United Nations Foundation economist, who says climate change will intensify smog, leading to “increased outbreaks of asthma and allergies,” and “exacerbate vector-borne diseases such as hantavirus, West Nile virus, Lyme disease and dengue fever.” Repetto also worries about the “extreme weather events” that some researchers say climate change will engender...Heat waves themselves pose a health risk, especially for young children and the elderly—and world-class athletes...Even people who don’t have to move will experience a bewildering sense of dislocation as the environment changes around them—as Northern winters start to be measured in weeks rather than months."
Establishment climate science has been a never-ending cornucopia of fraud, fabrications, misrepresentations and wild exaggerations that multiple skeptics have publicly exposed, much to the chagrin and angst of the anti-science "consensus."
Without much argument from the masses, the climate science "elites" have done a yeoman's job of tarnishing the overall reputation of the science community.
Yet, as much as we complain about the scientific wrongdoings in the climate realm, the same is happening in other research fields. And medical research is likely the super nova of scientific misconduct.
The two images on the left are explained by the above short video clip provided. In a nutshell, the consensus hypothesis that fats and cholesterol cause heart disease is a result of extreme cherry-picking and other fraudulent practices of establishment science.
And, this heart-healthy science fraud has uncanny similarities to what has happened in the climate science establishment, as written about in this JoNovaarticle.
The above short video clip is a teaser. The entire Catalyst show episode on heart health can be viewed here - it is well worth one's time. It is a reminder that scientists, in general, should not be trusted at face value.
It's also a warning to those who are worried about cardiovascular disease. Instead of accepting traditional medical advice from "experts", you may be better served doing your own due diligence on the actual science of heart disease causes and potential treatments. A good place to start is here (I own the Kindle version; an excellent, informative and eye-opener read for the layperson).
Those stubborn, ugly facts of modern climate science, documented.
Government climate research agencies, such as NOAA/NCDC and NASA/GISS, do not publicize the fact that they adjust historical temperatures on an almost monthly basis.
They claim that their tampering with the actual historical evidence is "quality control". That's a blatant misdirection, as it is well understood by the people familiar with the situation that there is extreme pressure to report scary "global warming", so as to conform to the political agenda on climate change.
Since May 2008, the web site www.climate4you.com has been tracking the NOAA "adjustments", using two specific months as an example (see accompanying chart).
If there is zero to little global warming, then it is up to the bureaucrats to make it happen.
The most brute force way to fabricate global warming is to adjust those monthly temperatures prior to 1950 downward; then adjust the post-1950 temperatures higher. Wonder of wonders, as the chart reveals, that's exactly what the bureaucrat-scientists did - to the tune of a whopping +2.2°C per century trend rate, in this specific case, since May 2008.
Not so shabby, especially if they can keep that level of science hoaxdom up across all historical months going into the future.
And America's worthless mainstream press goes right along with this fakery, with the sole goal of keeping the U.S. taxpayer in the dark to the benefit of politicians, their favorite greeny-crony capitalists and the 'at-the-public-trough' climate agencies.
NASA's famous in-house climate quack rivals notorious doomsday cultists, such as Harold Camping and others - as the empirical evidence reveals, James Hansen's headline grabbing prediction of boiling oceans, from too much CO2, is from the theater of propaganda absurdity
James Hansen and his disciples at NASA's climate research agency (GISS) have become infamous for their climate doomsday predictions since the late 1980s. (Many of those end-of-the-world type predictions can be found here.)
Likely, the most absurd, recently published, fear-mongering NASA's Hansen prediction was that the oceans will soon be boiling from increased atmospheric CO2 levels (click on James Hansen picture for video of the "boiling" prediction).
Depending on the salinity of the given area's ocean/sea water, the boiling point will range from greater than 212F degrees to 215F degrees. After decades of massive human CO2 emissions how close are the oceans' temperatures to NASA's doomsday boiling?
It's not even a disaster-twinkle in Harold Camping's eyes.
The above chart plots the impressive growth of CO2 levels since 1880, and the associated, yet incredibly small increase of the oceans' temperature (°F). For context, the charts include plots of NOAA's global, N. and S. Hemisphere, U.S. continental and the Met Office's Central England temperatures.
None of these plots depict the "runaway" warming predicted by Hansen (note the near-boiling 210°F on left axis).
To be more specific, for the oceans to do a James Hansen boil, they need to warm by only some 140F degrees. But over the last 132 years, they have warmed less than one degree - not exactly "runaway" as envisioned by NASA.
Additionally, if we are on the path to runaway boiling oceans, the UK's home island would be experiencing some very hellish warming in recent times. Although the Central England temperatures have increased since 1880, over the last 15 years they are declining at a -7.90°F/century rate - that's right, a minus 7.9 degrees per century.
There is hope though. Like Harold Camping, James Hansen appears to be backtracking from his green-religion, non-scientific predictions.
Read here. More confirmation that climate doomsday alarmists are completely incapable of conducting honest, impartial scientific research.
"The pressure is ramping up on Stephan Lewandowsky at quite a rate of knots. The illusion that his paper was a bona fide contribution to the academic literature has faded away with the news that his headline - linking denial of the US moon landing and AGW scepticism - was not even supported by his data. The first allegations of academic fraud have been made."
The credibility and reputation of the entire science community continues to be sacrificed by "scientists" with a political agenda, especially any scientist who is a proponent/advocate of catastrophic global warming and climate change.
The level of science misconduct alleged in the Lewandowsky affair again establishes why there needs to be 'freedom of information acts' that allow the public to discover the truth. And in fact, a 'FOIA' has been filed in this case. This should get very interesting.
Global warming science facts can be very disturbing at times - NOAA has been a leader in fabricating temperatures (faux warming), which many view as faux (fake) climate science
(click on image to enlarge)
'C3' and others have often written about the fabrication of global warming by various climate agencies around the world. NOAA has been at the forefront of "adjusting" historical temperatures to fabricate increased warming for modern decades (1960's and more recent) and increased cooling for the earlier decades (pre-1960's).
The adjacent chart visually depicts the changes to monthly global temperatures that NOAA has made since 2008 (updated through May 2012). Since 2008 they have "adjusted" every single month back to January 1880 (that's 1,548 months of "adjusted" empirical evidence through 2008) except for one solitary month (December 2006).
The chart is a plot of coolest temperature adjustment to the warmest temperature adjustment - from left to right. Summary factoids below:
1. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "cooled" 754 months
a. 49% of all months had their historical temperatures lowered
b. Total "cooling" applied was -29C degrees
2. Out of 754 "cooled" months, only 17 of those had dates post-1959.
a. That's only 2% - one would naturally expect close to 50% of all cooled months to be post-1959 if adjustments were applied with robust scientific rationale
3. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "warmed" 793 months
a. 51% of all months had their historical temperatures raised
b. Total "warming" applied was +23C degrees
4. Out of 793 "warmed" months, 570 had dates post-1959
a. That's 72% - not exactly random; more like adjustments due to a non-scientific rationale
7. One example of wacky (nonsensical) adjacent temperature adjustments
a. December 1881 = +0.10C deg (adjusted up since 2008)
b. January 1882 = -0.02C deg (adjusted down since 2008)
Keep in mind, when reviewing the above factoids and chart that these are NOAA adjustments made to historical temperatures (January 1, 1880 thru December 31, 2008) since 2008. The NOAA adjustments to the historical temperature dataset made prior to 2008 have also been massive, as indicated here by an Oak Ridge National Laboratory analysis.
Clearly, since the Obama election of 2008, NOAA has pursued a frequent policy of temperature adjustments (literally monthly) to meet some non-scientific objective. Their methodology has primarily consisted of lowering the majority of temperature records prior to 1960 and raising those post-1959. The cumulative effect of all these adjustments is to build a better case that modern warming is a result of human CO2 emissions.
No other major climate science agency has pursued such an aggressive (ie, frequent) process of fabricating temperatures.
Finally, some proponents of the NOAA methodology attempt to rationalize all these adjustments as "quality control/management" which is patently absurd. During 2012 alone, NOAA has "quality control" adjusted the entire historical temperature record at least 18 times - for example, they have reported at least 18 different temperatures for January 1880 over the past 5 months. This is not "quality control" in any sense that experts of quality control would understand. Instead, it's ludicrous faux-science for non-scientific reasons, month after month, plain and simple.
Conclusion: The global warming science facts are that NOAA promotes a fake style of climate science by essentially fabricating temperatures - it's enhanced modern "global warming," either by raising or cooling the appropriate temperature records.
Factual, empirical evidence is always a bitch when it strikes at the heart of a belief system - and James Hansen deserves to be a bitch slapped for the catastrophic global warming hoax religion he's peddled, which is empirically meritless
Read here. After 3 decades of predicting global warming disaster, one would think that NASA's James Hansen would finally give the 'doom and gloom' spiel a rest. But like a moth attracted to a flame (or a broken record?), Hansen couldn't resist doing the same old, same old in a recent opinion piece in the once proud NY Times.
Of course, the reason they call it an 'opinion' piece is that it doesn't have to include any empirical evidence that would embarrass the author, or none of those inconvenient facts challenging one's veracity. As a result, it's a perfect forum for Hansen since he can let fly with the surreal climate misinformation and his favored speculative disaster scenarios.
But when a "scientist" continually pushes bogus catastrophic fears on the public, they put themselves in harm's way for a well deserved major bitch-slapping.
And guess what? A global warming research expert, and a number-cruncher extraordinaire, decided to slap some sense into Hansen.
As Bob Tisdale makes perfectly clear in his response to Hansen's over-the-top catastrophic lameness, Hansen's catastrophic global warming disaster spiel has no empirical legs to speak of - it is the quintessential, proverbial emperor without clothes situation.
1. "Unfortunately, your efforts with climate models, and the efforts of the other modeling groups, have not been successful. Far from it. And since your opinions are based on the results of your climate models, one has toconclude that your opinions are as flawed as the models."
2. "...the instrument-based global surface temperature record since 1901 and the IPCC’s climate model simulations of it do not confirm the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming; they contradict it."
3. "The climate models used in the IPCC’s (2007) 4 Assessment Report show surface temperatures should have warmed about 2.9 times faster during the late warming period (1976-2000) than they did during the earlywarming period (1917-1944)."
4. "The climate model simulations are being driven by climate forcings, including manmade carbon dioxide, which logically show a higher rate during the later warming period. Yet the observed, instrument-basedwarming rates for the two warming periods are basically the same."
5. "In other words, there’s little evidence that the carbon dioxide you demonize in your op-ed has had any measurable effect on how fast global surface temperatures have warmed. We independent climate researchers have known this for years."
6. "...natural processes are responsible for most if not all if the warming over the past 30 years, a warming that you continue to cite as proof of the effects of greenhouse gases."
7. "ENSO is a natural process that you and your associates at GISS exclude in many of the climate model-based studies you publish, because, as you note, your “coarse-resolution ocean model is unable to simulate climate variations associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation processes.”
8. "If climate models are not able to simulate ENSO, then they do not include a very basic process Mother Nature has devised to increase and slow the distribution of heat from the tropics to the poles."
9. "The satellite-era sea surface temperature data reveals that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the warming of global ocean surfaces for the past 30 years..."
10. "In fact, the satellite-based sea surface temperature data indicates that, when major El Niño events are followed by La Niña events, they can and do act together to cause upward shifts in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans."
11. "...those ENSO-induced upward shifts in the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data are responsible for practically all of the global sea surface temperature warming for the last 3 decades."
12. "Using those IPCC climate models in another group of comparisons, it shows that there are no similarities, none whatsoever, between how the sea surface temperatures of the individual ocean basins have actually warmed over the past 30 years and how the climate models show sea surface temperatures should have warmed if carbon dioxide was the cause."
As they say, read the whole bitch-slapped James Hansen memo; and, if you would like to support Bob's efforts as he dismantles the catastrophic global warming hoax, datapoint by datapoint, then buy his book (and yes, 'C3' did just that - still haven't had time to read, though).
In addition to the above, 'C3' has done its own 'bitch slap' of Hansen here, here and here. Because the empirical evidence so overwhelmingly refutes Hansen's non-scientific disaster predictions, the bitch slapping is actually fairly easy to do.
For even more critiques of Hansen's climate science pathetic-ness, visit this page.
The climate science community literally went off the rails with the new 'hockey stick' science introduced by Michael Mann - from utilization of questionable statistical techniques to the ugly Climategate and Fakegate fiascoes, a 'dark science force' was unleashed which is still reverberating
Read here. There is a growing consensus among experts that bogus science does significant and irreparable harm to both the science community and the general public. And there is a greater realization that bogus science is happening way too frequently.
A new study takes a crack at the quantification of bogus "questionable research practices" (QRP). Below are a few findings and quotes related to the study:
"John et al. used multiple methods to assess the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRP) among psychology researchers. They found a surprising high prevalence of such practices in their study."
"...simulations that showed how greatly QRPs increase the likelihood of finding support for a false hypothesis. QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage. QRPs, by nature of the very fact that they are often questionable as opposed to blatantly improper, also offer considerable latitude for rationalization and self-deception."
"QRPs can waste researchers’ time and stall scientific progress, as researchers fruitlessly pursue extensions of effects that are not real and hence cannot be replicated. More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself. This can lead to a “race to the bottom,” with questionable research begetting even more questionable research."
For a better understanding (and a fascinating read to boot) of the 'hockey stick' science disaster, read this book. Read a previous 'C3' summary on the same subject.
Runaway greenhouse effect facts (or lack thereof) - while James Lovelock recently admits to hyping global warming alarmism, James Hansen still does crazy fearmongering - on video he predicts boiling oceans
(click on images to enlarge)
Look closely at the above - this is what "boiling" oceans look like after some 1.3 trillion tons of CO2 emissions poured into the atmosphere since 1850. As this tropical island paradise indicates, the long held belief of CO2 caused global warming is not supported by the tropic's data in the least, let alone supporting NASA's Hansen's recent crazy prediction of boiling oceans.
At the 2:12 minute mark of this recent video, Hansen does his crazy "boiling ocean" hype - it's a total disregard of facts and plausibility. Despite this craziness, there are scads of American coastal elites and lazy (stupid? gullible?) mainstream media types that buy into Hansen's ludicrous, catastrophic warming "science" predictions.
Still think there are runaway greenhouse effect facts that would lend credence to boiling oceans? Think again - expert tropical sea temperature measurements are conclusive - it ain't happening.
The Cook Island sea surface temperature data are another factual reality check - the tipping point of runaway global warming is not taking place and, without question, should be heavily ridiculed by all the legitimate science community and an objective press as the bogus scare hype it represents.
Runaway greenhouse effect facts: "Tipping point" global warming is not supported by the evidence; it's not even remotely plausible per the empirical data from the tropics; the world is not going to end from human-caused boiling oceans; and, NASA's James Hansen is possibly crazy, with fame, fortune and the drooling love of the MSM press lapdogs.
Note: Black dots in both charts above represent monthly CO2 levels. Sea surface temperatures plotted represent the longest continuous monthly measurements (without any monthly gaps) for both island locations.
The liberal media's James Fallows has confirmed he's far from being the brightest bulb on the planet - Hansen's disciples at 'Real Climate' convinced Fallows that Hansen's 1981 climate model is the holy grail, not his later models, nor the more recent IPCC models
(click on images to enlarge)
Read here. The 'Real Climate' scientists are basically playing a shell game with James Fallow, where apparently the pea is Fallow's brain - guess where your brain is James?
These scientists found an old 1981 paper that James Hansen authored containing computer model predictions about global warming. They then pulled an ancient chart from the paper and doctored it up, which the Atlanic Monthly's Fallows obviously didn't look too closely at (the leftmost chart above), nor did he bother to compare with more recent climate model output.
The first problem with that chart is that the actual observed temperatures that Hansen plotted (black dots) are not the same as the red line temperature values that the "Real" Climate scientists used. For good subterfuge reasons, these "scientists" covered up (replaced?) Hansen's actual temps with fabricated temps - jeeez...somehow they forgot to point that out to the liberal media and Fallows. Hmmm...I wonder why?
The middle chart highlights the temp trough (1966, denoted by gold circle, gold arrow and red dotted line) of the observed temperatures that Hansen used in 1981. Soooo...the actual temperatures were covered up with replacements to make Hansen predictions look better - doh!
The second major issue with this chart is that alarmists claim that human CO2 has impacted the climate and global temperatures prior to 1980. The "Real" Climate scientists are using an old Hansen chart that shows no differing impact until 1990 - not even climate skeptics would produce something this egregiously wrong.
The rightmost chart represents the Hansen models as of 1988, which he used for his famous 1988 Congressional performancetestimony. Reviewing the 1988 model output of that same chart, it is clear Hansen felt that CO2 was impacting climate well before 1990.
Also, the predictions of Hansen's 1981 chart are not in sync with the output from the later models. Year 1980 is a prime example of this disconnect.
Going back to the middle chart, the old model prediction for 1980 (gold circle, gold arrow and blue dotted line) is significantly below the prediction of the 1988 computer model output (the blue circle and blue arrow).
Finally, the chart that they used to dupe Fallows with does not reflect the current reality of observed temperatures versus James Hansen's famous 1988 model predictions. (And most certainly, that old 1981 chart is at severe odds with the 2007 IPCC model output.)
Look closely at that chart on the right again. The green curve is James Hansen's prediction of global temperatures if the world did not agree to strict CO2 emission reductions. In fact, the world has thumbed its collective noses at the CO2 restrictions and Hansen. End result? Real world global temperatures are well below the infamous Hansen predictions that are his typical alarmist hysteria. BTW, the prediction for 2011 is highlighted with a blue circle, and the real NASA/GISS and HadCRUT 2011 temperatures are represented by those much lower black and red dots, respectively.
As the above articulates, the 1981 predictions by Hansen were later supplanted by Hansen's newer model predictions from his 1988 Congressional testimony. In essence, Hansen turned his back on the old predictions (but just recently resurrected by others, not Hansen).
Since the late-1980's, Hansen's global warming predictions, associated with 'business as usual' CO2 emissions (the green curve on rightmost chart above), have done poorly versus the climate reality.
The fact that James Fallow fell for such an obvious con game by the climate "scientists" is of no real surprise - the liberal / left old school media are really at a near loss challenging this level of bogus science.
Conclusion: Reading Fallows' anti-science, liberal media spin can't make one feel good about the current state of the media press; nor good about our taxpayer funded scientists putting out Fakegate-style fraud. It's a sad state of affairs, which Fallows et al. makes worse.
Within the realm of climate change / global warming alarmism, there are scientists who practice admitted fraud, such as Peter Gleick, then there are those who practice incompetence - meet the extraordinarily "incompetent" Jeff Masters of wunderground.com
The global warming alarmism science community has an alarming number of fraudsters (google Fakegate and Climategate), and it has an overabundance of pathological exaggerators and serial incompetents: meet Jeff Masters, per one of his critics.
Steve Goddard of Real-Science has been tracking the proclamations and predictions of the Wunderground's weather "guru" with much glee and entertainment.
Steve has identified how Masters always takes current individual severe weather events and then claims the event is unprecedented or unusual in weather history. Unfortunately for the public (and Wundergound's reputation) Jeff is always wrong a lot and Steve takes no prisoners in pointing out the unequivocal and accelerating incompetence.
The final word on the "incompetent" Jeff Masters: obviously, ignorant of severe weather history and also appears to be a serial exaggerator to boot.
Corruption of climate science takes all sorts of forms - one is to fabricate global warming temperatures after the fact, using "correcting" algorithms that NASA / GISS favors, which it now appears to have been outsourced to a Google-funded effort - aka 'Google Warming'
Read here and here. The combined revelations of Climategate and Fakegate have well documented the culture of corruption and conspiracy that IPCC climate science has unleashed on the world over the past few decades. The revelations also unleashed the unbelievable condoning and cheerleading of actual scientific fraud, lies and fabrication by many in academia and journalism - is it any wonder the public's belief in climate science is plummeting.
One especially nefarious means of climate science corruption is to fabricate global warming temperatures from the original dataset of historical temperatures. Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, the fabricating of fake temperatures to boost the political agenda of global warming alarmists has been a preferred technique of major climate "research" agencies, even to the extreme of multiple fabrications within a month's time period.
For example, the adjacent chart reveals the recent 2011 fabrication of regional temperatures in Iceland that even the Icelandic Meteorological Office states is "grossly in error."
"...that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901...as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees...Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN "corrections" are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”."
The adjustments done to historical temperatures during 2011 provides further evidence that climate data corruption is alive and well within the climate science community. But the big surprise is who actually performed the magical global warming of Arctic regions....
"To isolate these “abrupt shifts”, they use an algorithm. And it was changes to this algorithm in July 2011 by a Google Summer Student[add'l info here]...that suddenly produced this swathe of anomalous adjustments in Greenland, Iceland and Siberia. The Icelandic Met have confirmed that there have been no station moves or other non-climatic factors, which would have created the need for the adjustments in Iceland, and of course the algorithms in use previously in GHCN V2 and V3 did not spot anything unusual in the temperature data."
Voila, we can now add the term 'Google Warming' to the climate debate - perhaps understood to mean the following?: "to fabricate global warming."
The disgraced climate science-fraud Peter Gleick of 'Fakegate' fame is not alone in the realm of climate science malfeasance - indeed, the lies of disaster alarmism persist as insurance companies and NOAA are still pushing climate change fraud
Read here. One of the world's foremost experts takes the large insurance companies and NOAA to task for brazenly misleading the public and policymakers about global disaster trends.
If there was ever a definitive indicator that science fraud is being perpetrated, the collaboration of big insurance companies and government bureaucrats has to be the best-of-breed known.
"NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and NCDC head Tom Karl write in Physics Today about the 14 "billion dollar disasters" tabulated by NOAA for 2011 and ask "Why did we see such expensive damage last year?" Their answer, predictably, includes "climate change" and is followed by a lengthy exposition on why NOAA needs more money.
Reality Check: Lubchenco and Karl somehow failed to note that NOAA and NCDC have cautioned against drawing any such conclusions from the "billion dollar disasters." And even though Lubchenco and Karl cite the recent IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events, they also somehow forgot to mention this part: "Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded." Deceiving."
Summary: Despite the well publicized fraud and deception of the amazing Fakegate climate science, major business and government officials continue pushing climate change fraud even when the known empirical evidence refutes their climate change claims.
The FakeGate web site will remind Internet visitors forever of the lunacy and corruption of global warming alarmism pushed on the public without remorse by the left / progressive / green elites
Read here. The Daily Bayonet does an excellent job mocking the activist groups that made Fakegate not only possible but are also caught condoning the obvious corruption of climate science that took place.
"You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog...Their moment of glory after they revealed the Heartland Institute’s documents took only days to blow up in their faces, and they’ve been playing defense ever since...Brendan DeMille is upset that the shocking admission from a once-respected scientist that he committed fraud to obtain the documents became the story..."
And as a result, there is now a new web site, Fakegate.org, that will forever immortalize the global warming alarmism lies and deception that the National Center of Science Education, Huffington Post, DeSmogBlog, Greenpeace, ThinkProgress and the Pacific Institute have come to represent.
Is it any surprise that public opinion in regards to global warming concerns has plummeted in recent years because the never ending climate change fakery and dishonesty that these alarmist groups continuously push?
"Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey."
Thank you, green lunatics and leftist idiots!
“Basically, [the fake memo] reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.”
'Fakegate' has reminded the public of the prevalent fraud and deception perpetrated by global warming alarmism - the IPCC's hurricane "science" is one such example
Read here(h/t Bishop Hill). The 'Fakegate' style of science perpetrated by Peter Gleick is alive and well within the IPCC, where all bureaucrat scientists seemingly channel the 'Peter Gleick' methodology. This methodology primarily embraces the politician's mindset of elections: say-and-do-anything to get elected, including lying, sprinkled liberally with criminal fraud and unethical activities when required.
Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, this 'Peter Gleick' style of climate science is evident in the global warming alarmism claims made by the IPCC, including those about hurricanes. This is the latest expert analysis on IPCC hurricane "science":
"More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported...tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration..."When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms...The IPCC continues: "It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase..."The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,"..."
And btw, Kevin Trenberth, the major IPCC climate scientist, and also co-author with the notorious Peter Gleick, is the principal player behind the global warming alarmism "science" of hurricanes.
"The IPCC's AR4 chapter lead was Kevin Trenberth, who features prominently in the Climategate emails. In 2005, the National Hurricane Center's chief scientist Chris Landsea resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth..."I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
Hmmm...maybe Trenberth's personna of climate science incompetence is instead an actual embracement of the 'Peter Gleick' methodology, no?
The former American Geophysical Union (AGU) leader on scientific integrity, Peter Gleick, confesses to being the antithesis of integrity - will the AGU now perform a slap-on-the-hand cover up of one of its own?
Based on recent experience of the investigations of scientific wrongdoing in the realm of "consensus" global warming science, the official whitewash (coverup?) and the usual condoning (the-ends-justify-the-means) rationale will likely fall into the laps of Gleick's former "integrity" AGU comrades. And the members of the integrity (exoneration?) task force are:
David J. Chesney, Michigan Tech University, Houghton, Michigan
Floyd DesChamps, Alliance to Save Energy, Washington, DC
Karen Fischer, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
Tim Grove, MIT Earth Atmosphere & Planetary Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Linda Gundersen, USGS, Reston, Virginia
Noel Gurwick, UCSUSA, Washington, DC
Dennis Moore, NOAA/PMEL, Seattle, Washington
Arthur Nowell, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Len Pietrafesa, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina
Jeff Plescia, Applied Physics Lab, Laurel, Maryland
Peter Schuck, NASA/GSFC CODE 674, Greenbelt, Maryland
Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC climate "scientist", is widely known for both his aggressive smearing of his science critics and his dog-awful climate predictions.
Like a beggar-person addicted to alcohol, Trenberth seems to say and predict any CAGW outcomes to assure a continual flow of government research monies, including the prediction that global warming will cause frequent extreme precipitation events. Like many of his global warming climate predictions, he was wrong.
Climate researchers Dravitzki and McGregor analyzed precipitation events for the northern region of New Zealand and could find no evidence of what-in-the-hell Trenberth was talking about - another major prediction fail per the peer reviewed empirical data.
"Working with data from 18 meteorological observation stations located in and about the Waikato region...developed daily precipitation time series covering the period 1900-2007, where they averaged the precipitation values..."since 1900 there have been no significant variations in the total annual precipitation nor in the occurrence or magnitude of extreme precipitation events," and they say that these events "...write that "the consistency of the precipitation totals suggests that the current economically important water supply is secure within the region." And we would add that their finding of no evidence for the projections of Trenberth and the IPCC over a 107-year period -- when climate alarmists claim the world warmed at a rate and to a level of warmth that were unprecedented over the past millennium or more - suggests that the projections of Trenberth and the IPCC are not what they are cracked up to be..." [Stacey Dravitzki, James McGregor 2011: International Journal of Climatology]
Left / Progressive politically correct anti-science claims more scientific scalps as Purdue researcher declares the walnut tree is endangered by global warming
Read here. Most U.S. colleges, are controlled by liberal / left-wing oriented faculty and administrators that wholeheartedly embrace politically correct science. To put it another way, non-empirical, anti-science results, driven by Democrat / progressive political agendas, are the cat's pajamas for academia. Purdue University is no exception.
"I read the scientific research article upon which the press release was based. What I found was shocking. The press release issued by Purdue University was not just tendentious and misrepresentative. It was plainly deceptive."
For most scientists at Purdue, human-induced global warming is the villain that causes almost all known and future ills of civilization. The list is long but there is always room for one more. And now, oh thank goodness!, a scientist has found a new climate change threat that Purdue can take credit for. To paraphrase the Purdue scientist: "climate change will kill the walnut tree."
He declares this outcome as a testament to his anti-science AGW faith. He declares this yet this same tree species has survived many extreme climate changes (warming and cooling) over millions of years. How extreme?
Well, just over the last 10,000 years, said walnut trees have existed through the major climate changes the adjacent chart reveals.
At the bottom is a pink bar that represents an approximate 1 degree increase in climate since the trough of the Little Ice Age. In contrast, the bars above the pink one represent much greater swings in climate over prior periods.
Clearly, the walnut tree species is a survivor of extreme change. It remains a hearty and enduring specimen today (read the linked article) that will weather well any changes that the climate over the next few centuries throws at it.
Regarding this Purdue scientist though, history is not likely to treat him well. He sacrificed his and Purdue's credibility to the anti-science god of political correctness, which anyone with an internet connection can quickly eviscerate and prove to be bogus.
To promote the global warming scare, Jane Lubchenco's NOAA continuously changes past temperature records to create fake warming - on a monthly basis
When one starts working with temperature data from various climate research agencies, one begins to notice rather bizarre style of science that would likely qualify as fraud in the mind of a normal person. In the case of NOAA / NCDC, this Obama "science" research group is demonstrably fabricating new "global warming" every single month. [Ed: Updates here and here]
Below is a simple example of the historical temperature record changes being done by Obama's NOAA on a monthly basis:
As can be seen, literally, Jane Lubchenco and her team are changing historical temperature records each and every month (note how they have "warmed" May 2008 since the NOAA report of December 2008) - even changing the historical record back to the very beginning, the January 1880 temperature record.
We asked a well known climate expert, Dr. Timothy Ball, if what Obama's NOAA / NCDC climate scientists are doing is common in the general science community: that is, is it common to constantly revise historical empirical evidence? Here is his response:
"Absolutely Not. There are adjustments to the raw data done by each nation when it collects the data. For me there are even questions about this, but it means that what goes to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and then to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) and used as “raw data” is already adjusted. Post-collection adjustments are unnecessary and unacceptable."
With that said, it appears Lubchenco's NOAA is conducting a corrupt-like style of science that amounts to an Orwellian revision of history and empirical evidence. Not necessarily a surprise when a left / progressive 'Big Green' political hack is put in charge.
So what has been Jane's impact on temperature history with all these small revisions being done on a monthly basis? Well...one would expect that proponents of global warming alarmism would want to make modern temperatures warmer and earlier temperatures cooler.
Surprise! That exact politically-correct green agenda is robustly being carried out by NOAA's "scientists" as seen below.
The above record of temperature change over the four months since July 2011, by NOAA & NCDC personnel, is definitely not random. There is a significant man-made pattern to the cooling and warming changes.
Soooo...since Obama's "science" team has been in place, how much have they changed the historical temperature records?
Examining the historical record changes since 2008, the same pattern emerges with warming changes dominating after 1951 - "Unequivocal" global warming by humans indeed! Those cooling changes dominate the period prior to 1940. Lubchenco even provides "unequivocal" global cooling on demand - what an amazing goddess of left / liberal / progressive science!
Back to the facts. And when comparing the left axis of both charts, it becomes abundantly clear that all those small changes done on a monthly basis by NOAA starts accumulating to become ever larger changes over a few years. Obviously, Obama's team believes in man-made warming, especially when they can simply accomplish it on their PCs.
Most importantly for policymakers and the public, the above data falsification is good reason not to trust anything the green activist Jane Lubchenco says, nor any of her NOAA / NCDC minions carrying out her political agenda.
Special note: During the month of December 2011, NOAA / NCDC had at least 4 different6 different versions of their global dataset available for download from its ftp site. Older versions are overwritten by the newer versions as they are uploaded by the agency (NCDC uses the same file name over and over apparently). NASA's GISS uploaded their first major revision of the year (December 2011) that affects all historical temperatures. The HadCRUT series has not had a major (entire historical dataset) revision this year from what we know.
The 'Yale 360' body allergic to empirical data and objective science regarding ocean acidification and climate change
Read here. Green fraud is endemic within the academic community and is a major reason why the public now view science with less esteem. The Yale 360 forum provides further proof that the academia realm is less interested in honest science than in perpetuating the green fraud hysteria of climate change.
Case in point. A green propagandist, Elizabeth Grossman, had her hysterical ocean acidification article published by Yale 360. The article claims that a massive oyster die-off was caused by ocean acidification, which is supposedly caused by human CO2 emissions. Unfortunately for the public, this Yale 360 article is another "gross" misrepresentation of scientific truth and the actual empirical evidence.
Sooo...why did the oysters at the oyster farm really die? Here are the real science reasons that Yale 360 and Grossman decided the public really did not want to know:
Larval and juvenile shellfish are highly sensitive to acidic (low pH) seawater because their shells are formed from calcium carbonate, and dissolves when pH is low
Because this hypoxic and relatively acidic up-welled water is coming from deep basins and is cold (8 – 10 oC), it is saturated with dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen while at the same time being low in oxygen as a result of biological decomposition in the benthic zone
When hatcheries heat this gas-saturated seawater to 25 – 28 oC in order to meet the temperature requirements of young shellfish, the seawater becomes super-saturated
Preliminary experiments indicate that oyster larvae are very sensitive to gas super-saturation under these conditions
A third problem for shellfish hatcheries is the recent increase in the prevalence of a pathogenic bacterium (Vibrio tubiashii or Vt) that seems to out-compete other, more benign species in this distorted environment
High levels of mortality in shellfish hatcheries and in the wild have been associated with high levels of Vt in 2006, 2007, and intermittently in previous years, such as in 1998 when environmental conditions favored disease outbreaks
There is potential for further stress to oyster seed given the difference between water conditions in the hatcheries where larvae are produced, and quality of water found in the remote settings
In essence, natural climate change, in the form of ENSO, causes cold water of the Pacific to rise to the surface during certain periods. This colder water has a higher concentration of CO2 gas. The fish hatchery pumps the cold water into the farm tanks and then heats the water. This act of heating the cold water then causes it to become CO2 super-saturated. In addition, the freshly pumped sea water contains higher levels of bacteria (associated with a specific natural ENSO climate mode) dangerous to the oyster larvae/juveniles.
Voila, a perfect storm of predictable factors cause a die-off of farm oysters, robustly a result of natural climatic conditions. Atmospheric CO2 levels and human CO2 emissions had nothing to do with this incident.
Conclusion: The academic-oriented Yale 360 environmental forum is not to be believed on any climate change or ocean acidification issue, as it is more a forum of green hysteria that is incredibly vulnerable to perpetuating scary green myths and anti-science fraud B.S.
Read here. Well, it would seem Richard Muller and his Berkeley team take the weekly chutzpah honor with their grandiose PR media blitz and speculative claim for their non-peer reviewed literature.
The obvious arrogant and egotistical approach to climate science by Muller et al. is really not needed, nor recommended, for helping the IPCC to climb out of its self-inflicted pit of scientific corruption. Indeed, the Muller-BEST technique of forcing their "science" on the IPCC prior to a proper vetting and the peer reviewed process just adds a new stink to the existing odor of corruption.
Despite the "BEST" science only confirming what everyone accepted (that the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age), their grandiose public relations machinations belie the real objective: to rig/manipulate the IPCC report process via public pressure towards acceptance of the Muller et al. findings in the next IPCC report.
It's as simple and as crass as that. As they say, read the whole thing and make up your own mind of what's really going on.
Read here. The climate science peer review journal process has become just a total joke, with editors and reviewers constantly embarrassing themselves and their respective publications. The latest examples of biased hackdom include Eric Calais of Purdue University and Noah Diffenbaugh at Stanford, editors for the AGU's Geophysical Research Letters.
The AGU treatment of scientist Roger Pielke Jr. by its minions should come as no surprise though, since these editors are likely the useful idiots of AGU board members pushing non-scientific political agendas.
How bad is the process at the Geophysical Research Letters? Read the whole thing, then weep and/or laugh - it's really that bad at this publication.
"So you have two reviews that find the paper publishable, one recommending publication and the other coming down on the side of finding the paper "publishable" but certainly not enthusiastically...As the editor what would you do?
A) Provisionally accept the paper pending a revision that meets the editor's judgment of responsiveness
B) Provisionally accept the paper pending re-review by the two reviewers
C) Reject the paper
D) Reject the paper and tell the authors that any reconsideration of the paper would have to be accompanied by a detailed response to the two reviewers followed by selection of new reviewers and a restart of the review process
If you picked (D) then you too can be an editor at GRL."
Thank you, Chris Mooney and the useful idiots of the academic world - destroying science and the journals with political correctness one step at a time.
Read here. The Worldwide Wildlife Federation (WWF) is a major green, anti-growth and anti-prosperity entity that appears to have unleashed an effective means to corrupt (ruin?) the IPCC process, its climate scientists and even a concerned public.
Step 1: Bribe the public with domestic and international travel reimbursement to report their own perceptions/reality of climate change - e.g. "I believe it now rains more in York".
Step 2: Bribe climate scientists with travel, leading conferences and hob-knobing amongst the wealthy and government elites by joining the WWF's "Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel".
Step 3: Then have these same pliable IPCC "climate scientists" take the publics reported perceptions and re-package them as supposed empirical evidence from actual scientific endeavors, with a persona of scientific gravitas.
Step 4: The WWF then sponsors or produces "scientific" reports using the results of steps 1 through 3 as the basis for the reports.
Step 5: The WWF compromised IPCC climate scientists then accept these WWF contrived-science reports as scientific gospel, positioning them as peer reviewed papers, when in fact they're the worst form of grey literature.
Literally, the strong stink of corrupted science is hard to ignore or dismiss with these new revelations.
"It is difficult to believe that any self-respecting scientist would have anything to do with the Climate Witness Panel after reading those eight pages. The WWF states baldly, right up front, that the purpose of the panel is to heighten the public’s sense of urgency. That particular phrase is used four times on the final page...In remarkably candid fashion the WWF says it wants to:
"inspire stronger action on climate change in the community. We aim to build a movement of individuals…who want to be active in addressing this threat."
No one, therefore, lied to these “leading climate scientists.” No one soft-peddled what was really going on. The WWF explicitly told them it wanted their help in frightening the public so that the WWF could build a movement."
Because the UN and governing elites did not fix the IPCC's Pachauri-problem, this type of climate science debasement by global warming alarmism proponents will also robustly taint the IPCC's 2013 report, as it destroyed the credibility of the 2007 report.
Read here. Climate scientist Andy Dessler produced research that was a supposed refutation of the Spencer and Braswell research. It was pointed out previously that Dessler chose not to use the same HadCRUT data as Spencer, which smacks one as an extreme form of cherry-picking.
If one is to challenge another scientist's research, should they not be held to the standard of using the same data to make their case? Well....apparently not in Dessler's case since he obviously is driven by a political agenda, not a scientific one.
So, what happens when the Dessler methodology uses the gold-standard HadCRUT data that Spencer used? As Steve McIntyre discovers, the new results actually resemble Spencer's output suggesting that clouds provide a negative feedback.
Well, everyone now knows why Dessler avoided the HadCRUT data. His refutation of the Spencer study was literally a sham.
"Having exactly replicated Dessler’s regression results and Figure 2a, I’ve repeated the exercise with CERES clear sky in combination with CERES all sky, and with the widely used HadCRUT3 series and got surprising results...The supposed relationship between CLD forcing and temperature is reversed: the slope is -0.96 w/m2/K rather than 0.54 (and with somewhat higher though still low significance)."
Read here. The violence-prone and globally discredited Ben Santer has Climategate friends (Kevin Trenberth and Andy Dessler) who recently claimed that the Spencer and Braswell 2011 study is invalid because it did not include prior research to their liking.
Now we have Ben Santer, Carl A. Mears, C. Doutriaux, Peter Martin Caldwell, Peter J. Gleckler, Tom M.L. Wigley, Susan Solomon, Nathan Gillett, Detelina P. Ivanova, Thomas R. Karl, John R. Lanzante, Gerald A. Meehl, Peter A. Stott, Karl E Taylor, Peter Thorne, Michael F. Wehner, Frank J. Wentz publishing a study that totally ignores the challenge of previous, pivotal research by Christy, J.R., B. Herman, R. Pielke, Sr., P. Klotzbach, R.T. McNider, J.J. Hnilo, R.W. Spencer, T. Chase and D. Douglass, 2010.
Hmmmm.....pot meet kettle, eh?
"Santer et al ignored an important paper...Trends are computed for different time periods (e.g. see figure 2 in Christy et al 2010), and should have been compared with the model predictions...The failure of Santer et al to include a very relevant paper with respect to their analysis is one of the justifications for Wolfgang Wagner to resign from Remote Sensing in response to claims that Spencer and Braswell (S&B) ignored relevant papers that disagreed with S&B."
Fair is fair.....Santer et al. is simply discredited due to this lack of respect for the new era of Climategate-style research. Santer needs to apologize to the previous research authors for this gross lack of scientific research rigor, and he could also finally apologize for threatening another climate scientist with violent harm while off his meds. ;-)
Read here. New research published today by Andy Dessler, an IPCC Climategate scientist, appears to have major shortcomings. His new study was greased, like goose leavings, through the peer reviewed process in just a few weeks, which may have contributed to the work's shoddiness.
Supposedly, Dessler's new research was to be a refutation of the Spencer and Braswell 2011 study that revealed clouds were likely to be a negative climate feedback. Instead of doing an apple-to-apple comparison though, Dessler chose a different temperature dataset (a non-consensus dataset avoided by the IPCC) than the Spencer research.
Unfortunately, the choice of non-HadCRUT, non-IPCC dataset, reflects the unbridled cherry-picking temptation that the Dessler research fell victim to. If the HadCRUT dataset is the IPCC benchmark that Spencer research followed, then Dessler should have met the scientific challenge by using the same best-of-breed data that the IPCC demands.
It now seems obvious that Dessler knew his research would falter if based on the gold-standard of the IPCC. If this wasn't the case, why not use the gold-standard?
Even with his cherry-picking of the dataset, Dessler research does not hold up to the statistical scrutiny that Steve McIntyre brings to the table. It didn't take long for Steve to ascertain that the positive cloud feedback that Dessler claims might not be so "positive."
"Doing the same regression with 4-month lagged relationships (which both Dessler and SB agree to be more significant than the instantaneous relationship), the sign of the slope is reversed. Whereas Dessler 2010 had reported a slope of 0.54 +- 0.72 (2σ) W/m2/K, the regression with lagged variables is -0.90 +- 0.95 w/m2/K and has better diagnostics...Given that the even the lagged relationship is weak, I’m reluctant to say that analysis using the methods of Dessler 2010 established a negative feedback, but it does seem to me that they cannot be said to have established the claimed positive feedback...Perhaps the editor of Science will send a written apology to Kevin Trenberth."
Objectively, if the Dessler rushed peer reviewed research is the best that mainstream climate scientists can deliver against the Spencer and Braswell study, then it's a case closed. Clouds do appear to be a negative feedback mechanism within the climate system as the Spencer 2011 work suggests.
That great climate "scientist," whose political hack and anti-science behavior is widely condoned by the scientific "elite" establishment, is at it again. Kevin Trenberth has forced the editor of a science journal not only to resign his position, but to personally write Trenberth a humiliating apology note. Why?
Read here and here. Trenberth, and his IPCC Climategate comrades, did not like the fact that said editor allowed an article to be published in the Remote Sensing journal without his approval.
Of course, we've written about Trenberth before, not in the kindest terms. To our way of thinking, he is the epitome of a political hack scientist performing mediocre science, using his position of power to destroy reputations and lives of those who challenge his scientific opinions - hey, his most recent actions are living proof of that and are robustly indisputable.
Read here. To be fair, in terms of CO2-climate science how good is Trenberth? Does the benefit of his CO2-climate science skill/capabilities outweigh the costs of his poisonous, unprofessional and ugly behavior in the realm of science?
Well, he's the one, long on record, saying additional CO2 emissions would increase the frequency and intensity of severe weather events. And, as with almost all his climate predictions and speculation, Trenberth has been wrong (as shown in the below charts - click on images to enlarge). Ergo, his climate science skill is at best mediocre.
All images from JoNova site. Arrows added by 'C3'.As clearly shown, the increase of CO2 emissions has not caused Trenberth's predicted increase in severe weather frequency and intensity.
Trenberth even confirmed the bogosity of his brand of IPCC "climate science" with his infamous "travesty" comment in the Climategate emails regarding the lack of global warming. His mediocrity as a climate scientist is readily apparent, from even his own lips.
Speaking of resignations, reflecting back on the last few years, is it time for Trenberth to resign his American taxpayer funded position because of his personal vendettas against those he disagrees with? Is it time for Trenberth to resign because of the irreparable harm he is doing to the general science community's reputation with his bizarre, ego-driven behavior?
Is it finally time for Trenberth to apologize to the American taxpayer for being such an incompetent climate scientist? (In all honesty, a freaking Ouija board would produce better results than Trenberth et al., without a hint of the viciousness and ugliness.)