If you know someone or have personally been involved in missionary work, you would probably know that the above is a good example of the "tools" you get to go among the savages to convert them.Best Practices for Talking with Climate Skeptics
From: Kelly Rigg: How to Talk to Climate Skeptics? Stick to the Basics, Anna Fahey: Talking to The Tea Party
About Climate?, Larry Susskind: Talking to Climate Skeptics, eHow: How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic,
Amanda Staudt: Tips for Talking Climate Change at the Holiday Party
The following “do’s and don’ts” are a synthesis of recommendations on how to engage those
who deny the existence of climate change. Experts recommend that communicators consider at
the outset whether it is in your best interest to engage with climate deniers as part of your public
engagement strategy. If they are one of your target audiences, keep these tips in mind:
• Know whom you’re dealing with (i.e. doubters v. industry-funded deniers)
• Approach people in an emotionally sensitive, aware manner to make them feel less
threatened. Talk to people with the same respect you’d like to have them talk to you.
• Argue on the basis of what you know.
• In spite of differences in beliefs or levels of understanding, look for opportunities to reach
• Go for the gut, not the brain. Talk in terms of commonly held values such as economic
stability, benefits for health, stewardship, and pragmatic solutions.
• Explain that our military, medical, and religious leaders are already grappling with how to
• Research the arguments of the other side. Most global warming skeptics use at least
one of three basic arguments: “climate change is a natural phenomenon, the evidence is
inconclusive, and addressing the problem will harm economic growth.”
• Identify who stands to gain by questioning global warming and how these individuals benefit
• Talk about the impacts that are happening right now, such as extreme weather, as a way of
connecting the dots and making climate change concrete and local.
• Shift the conversation to a discussion of risk and the need for preparedness, even if these risks
are not fully predictable.
• Talk about the consequences if we don’t deal with global warming now and the opportunity
to achieve co-benefits (i.e. improving public health and the economy).
• Point people to solutions. Help people identify actions that they could take (or may already be
taking) now and paint a positive vision of the future.
• If you’re not a scientist, don’t argue the fine points of the science.
• Avoid asking yes or no questions. Instead ask “when, where and how” questions. How could
we reduce risks while accomplishing other goals?
• Don’t personalize the conversation. Focus on outcomes that would respect everyone’s values.
• Don’t get stuck on is-it-happening claims. Share how climate change will significantly impact
our lives and what we can do about it.
The AGW, that started as a basic fraud has now ballooned into a religion and has now professional missionaries that go to the diaspora to convert the infidel.
If you are or know someone that is involved in a political party that is "out there" you probably know that the above is a good example of the tool you get to go out and recruit lunatics.
How much longer? is my question, how much longer until they are forced to go and get a real job?
There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
and that's your own self.
Australia's Chief Scientist Ian Chubb said the scientific evidence for human-induced global warming was so overwhelming that those who reject it are usually forced to “impugn the messenger” with “stupid expressions like ‘groupthink’” or “silly” arguments that global warming is a “delusion”. “Climate science is one of the most heavily scrutinised areas of science I have ever experienced,” said Chubb. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/27/abbotts-advisers-at-odds-climate-change
Environment Minister Greg Hunt - who routinely repeats that he accepts the science showing the planet is warming and humans are mostly responsible - says the government will not revisit the country's targets until next year no matter what.
Climate Change Authority an irritating gadfly to Tony Abbott
Two of the world’s most prestigious science academies say there’s clear evidence that humans are causing the climate to change.
The time for talk is over, says the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the UK.
The two released a paper, Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, written and reviewed by leading experts in both countries, lays out which aspects of climate change are well understood and where there is still uncertainty and a need for more research.
The World's Top Scientists: Take Action Now On Climate Change | Business Insider
Like I said.
There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
and that's your own self.
The western world political system works like this:
"How many votes am I going to gain if I legislate XYZ and how many will I lose?
If the equation is favourable in the short or medium term, the legislation is passed, deal made with opposing parties. Science, moral principles, common sense or any other consideration is irrelevant.
The AGW fraud is no different. Created as a political tool, it works just like any other principle religion or moral standard, it is a tool to gain or lose votes in the political chess game.
The more accolite to the warmism religion are made, the more valuable the tool becomes. The rulers of old, used God and Christianity as a tool to rule, despite their complete lack of moral standards, AGW is the same. This new clamor from the populace once set in motion has grown and is now utilised.
For that purpose each side recruits "experts" that at the sound of the millions, parrot their side of the story to prop up their pay-lord and support political decision that are made only to accumulate power and shift resources towards convenient positions. To think that political decisions are made with the common good, the moral principle or common decency in mind is naive in the extreme.
If a new religion would prop up today, stating that working when the sun is not up is immoral and offends god, if the numbers are there, governments would legislate against night shifts, impose taxes against maintenance companies, and make all sort of deals, not because they have found religion but because they want to buy the votes of the lunatics who believe such nonsense.
It is up to us, the sovereign to stand up and reclaim our right to common sense. Denounce AGW for what it is, an ordinary fraud perpetrated against the gullible and the naive to drum up support for a religious belief that is as absurd as the nyctophobia religion I just made up.
The advantage of a traditional religion over the AGW fraud is that a religious belief can not be demonstrated to be false because it is based on faith. A fraud based on false assumptions and false hypothesis and false pretenses, can be uncovered and proven wrong. Many die hard believers will still cling to it by faith yet will come off one by one.
It is up to us to stop politicians to make political mileage out what they themselves don't believe in, yet do just to gain the lunatic vote.
There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
and that's your own self.
I suppose if you don't believe in the existence of climate change then you have to come up with a reason why so many do believe. It is probably not surprising then if you can ignore the work of so many scientists, the views of UN, NATO, the Euro zone, as well as the recent compact between America and China the IMF, senior officers in the military and others services then you need to come up with something, a reason to counteract that view. That may explain why some argue it is a cult or conspiracy that is akin to a religion. I fail to see the logic, there is nothing to show an organised religion and I don't think mankind is clever enough to construct a conspiracy on that scale. At least it shows society is stable and open enough to have divergent views let's hope it stays that way in Australia. It would be preferable though to stick to proper research rather than notions that don't appear to have much substance and could be falsely applied to either side.
"We may not have a word for this type of crime yet, but the international community should find a way of classifying extraordinarily irresponsible scientific claims that could lead to mass suffering as some type of crime against humanity."
Donald Brown, an associate professor in environmental ethics, science and law at Penn State University. (State Crime and Resistance (Hardback) - Routledge)
Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort.
The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy, ultimately dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet.
Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organisations, Robert J. Brulle (Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations - Springer)
Thanks Marc for highlighting out the obvious. It is time to denounce AGW denial for what it is, an ordinary fraud perpetrated against the gullible and the naive.
and thenI suppose if you don't believe in the existence of climate change ....
My friend, you are giving yourself an answer. Religions "believe IN"... science reach conclusions, thinks that, states that in the light of current knowledge, or words to that effect.there is nothing to show an organised religion
I would be a fool if I did not believe that there is climate change, of course there is, there always was and always will be. I studied Climatology at university for two long years or was it three. The definition of climate is change, just like time does not stand still climate changes.
If in my class someone would have said "I believe IN climate change" he would have drawn a good belly laugh from all of us. "I believe in gravity" ... what?
AGW is as nonsensical as phrenology.
The debate about the influence of human produced CO2 over climate is so absurd given the minuscule amount produced by humans, the marginal and not lineal efficiency of CO2 and the poor or non existent link or cause and effect, that its existence (of the debate) can only be linked to "believe" or "disbelieve". Is there a God? I believe there is, or I believe there isn't or I don't know are the only possible answers. The basis of such beliefs are as flimsy as the basis for "believing IN the existence of climate change" yet we respect each belief because it is traditional to believe in something.
Men have killed each other over the god principle for millennia and still do so. It is no wonder that the creation of a principle that can only be believed by faith, creates similar antagonism.
When it is possible to produce "proof" for each side of the argument, in this case, the notion of science is corrupted because each side is given large amounts of money to produce "a proof" any form of it, because such proof has fantastic political value. That makes the process so corrupt that it must be completely discarded.
The sad part is that humans do have some bad effects on nature in the form of industrial and urban pollution (the real pollution not CO2 that clearly is NOT pollution) yet this are completely put aside because those who traditionally would complain about them are intoxicated and fooled into battling a false enemy.
The AGW fraud had a double effect to consolidate "believers" into plinking at windmill ( and supporting wind mills at the same time ... haha talk about confusion), and take them away from battling a lot of real culprits that would hurt a lot if someone would take them on.
This situation is rather pathetic. Where to now? Wait and watch. Politicians will soon realise that the numbers of "believers" is getting lower and the skeptics getting larger so they will turn towards the larger number of votes.
The ordinary man will live his life unaffected by any prophesied doom and gloom from global warming, in fact the only real danger for human kind if history is any guide is climate cooling not warming and increased CO2 has already proven to be more good than bad.
My suggestion is to turn the aim of those who have a passion for nature towards real not imaginary pollution. Real threats like industrial pollution, the food industry, the building materials, the windmills, the gas exploration methods and many other things that degrade our health or abuse our rights in one way or another.
Believe in whatever you want but try to keep science separate from religious faith. We have done that mistake before and the outcome was not good.
and that's your own self.
Marc's posts, the gift that keeps on giving!
Here is another take on science denial:
Denying Climate Science in Multiple Dimensions – Greg Laden's Blog
There is lots of good points in that post, but I choose to share this one, the good old climate science skeptics are like Galileo meme:
The final dimension of argument I want to mention is perhaps the silliest of all, and we see it in widespread use far beyond the area of climate science denialism. The idea is simple. All major advances in science have come about when almost everyone thinks a certain thing but they are all wrong, but a small number of individuals know the truth, like Galileo’s attack on a geocentric universe.
While it is true that such things have happened, in history, they have not happened that often in science. For example, Einstein’s revision of several areas of science fit with existing science but modified it, though significantly. Subatomic theory did not replace the atom, but rather, entered the atom. The discovery and characterization of DNA was a major moment in biology, but the particulate nature of inheritance had long been established. Darwin did not change the existing science of nature, but rather, verified long held ideas about evolution and, dramatically, proposed a set of mechanisms not widely understood in his day. Science hardly ever gets Galileoed, and even Galileo did not Galileo science; he Galileoed religion. Even his insightful contribution was accretive.
There is a demented logic behind the Galileo claim. If every one thinks one thing, and one person thinks something different, that high ratio of differential is itself proof that the small minority is correct. But the truth is that consensus, or what we sometimes call “established science,” is usually coeval with alternative beliefs the vast majority of which are wrong, most of which do not even come from the science itself, but rather, from sellers of snake oil, individuals or entities that would benefit from the science being questioned, or from individuals with delusional ideas. Even if there is now and then a view held by a small minority that is actually more correct than the majority view, we can’t establish veracity by measuring rarity. Chances are, a view of nature held by only a few is wrong. This simple numbers game is not how we should be seeking truth, but if one does engage in the numbers game, then dissenting views of established science can be assumed to be wrong, if you were going to place a bet.
Like playing air saxophone to a non existing audience, the AGW "believers" are so immerse in their ...technically a delusion but lets be kind and call it belief, that even a simple statement pointing to the difference between belief and the outcome from a careful scientific method, is lost.
Of course it does not matter the number of those who have reached the right conclusion, it only matters how they did so.
Geocentrism was based on BELIEF in the inerrancy of the bible. Copernican theory was blasphemy and could not be allowed. A political system based on the belief in God and bible would crumble and the heretics would win.
Scientific discoveries if the process is not corrupted by politics, usually build up and each chapter supports the next, normally scientific discoveries follow the "majority" principle, not because majority means anything at all but because of statistical probability.
The few that believed that Copernico was correct and supported his findings were suppressed and fearful of the establishment. Only Galileo Galilei because of his fame could afford to challenge them. He was condemned to house arrest for his audacity in stead of being executed as anyone else would have. Hardly an environment for the scientific process, not different from the last two decades of the established AGW doctrine
Invoking that because the majority "believes" something, then it must be true and the debate is over equates precisely to the vatican's take on a discovery that challenges the bible. Eppur si muove, yes perhaps he did not say it just like that, who cares, it epitomises the rebellion against a corrupt and false majority by the courageous few.
The scientific principle where skepticism is welcome and findings are challenged from the inside does not exist in the AGW argument. The science is corrupted and completely unreliable. Only history in the next 50 or so years will provide some resemblance of reality to this debate.
and that's your own self.
There are people who challenge the science from within, using science not politics and opinion yet the science remains accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field. Those skeptics are the people who should be seen as real skeptics, not the fake skeptics who in the famous words of the Doc, "don't need any science"
If the skeptics have evidence to support their non-scientific opinions, they should publish. That they have not taken this step is prima facie evidence that they do not have verifiable scientific evidence to back up their attacks on science itself.
Equating scientific knowledge, the results of scientific enquiry to 'belief' and the current open scientific process to a church controlled doctrine is nothing but a straw man argument. The science stands on evidence, not belief. We moved on from that with Galileo, remember? You choose to align your views with a group who do not have scientific evidence to challenge the accepted science, never mind replace it, so your argument relies on personal opinion, conspiracy theories and dare I say it, belief, rather than scientific evidence.
I love global warming, I love CO2 but most of all I like classical music.
Listen to this organ sing.
and that's your own self.
Latest State of the Climate - 2014 report from CSIRO:
Data and analysis from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO show further warming of the atmosphere and oceans in the Australian region, as is happening globally. This change is occurring against the background of high climate variability, but the signal is clear.
Air and ocean temperatures across Australia are now, on average, almost a degree Celsius warmer than they were in 1910, with most of the warming occurring since 1950. This warming has seen Australia experiencing more warm weather and extreme heat, and fewer cool extremes. There has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and a longer fire season, across large parts of Australia.
Rainfall averaged across all of Australia has slightly increased since 1900. Since 1970, there have been large increases in annual rainfall in the northwest and decreases in the southwest. Autumn and early winter rainfall has mostly been below average in the southeast since 1990.
Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise and continued emissions will cause further warming over this century. Limiting the magnitude of future climate change requires large and sustained net global reductions in greenhouse gases.
State of the Climate - 2014
← The Top Ten Reasons global temperature hasn’t warmed for the last 15 years
An Odd Mix of Reality and Misinformation from the Climate Science Community on England et al. (2014)
Posted on February 28, 2014 by Bob Tisdale
In this post, we’ll discuss a recent article and blog post about the recently published England et al. (2014). This post includes portions of past posts and a number of new discussions and illustrations.
We’ve already discussed (post here) the paper England et al. (2014) Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Since then, NBC News has an article by John Roach with the curious title Global Warming Pause? The Answer Is Blowin’ Into the Wind. And the team from RealClimate have agreed and disagreed with England et al. (2014) in their post Going with the wind.
I find it surprising that England et al. is getting so much attention. It’s simply another paper that shows quite plainly that the past and current generations of climate models are fatally flawed…because they cannot simulate coupled ocean atmosphere processes that cause global surface temperatures to warm and that stop that warming. Maybe the attention results from their use of “wind” as a metric. Everyone understands the word wind.
A FEW PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
We’ve illustrated and discussed in past posts how the current generation of global models cannot simulate how, when and where the surfaces of the oceans have warmed since 1880 and during the satellite era. See the posts:
- CMIP5 Model-Data Comparison: Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies
- Models Fail: Land versus Sea Surface Warming Rates
- IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide
We’ve also illustrated this recently, but as a reminder: The sea surface temperature anomalies of the tropical Pacific are a part of this discussion, because that’s where El Niño and La Niña events take place, and because that’s where the trade winds in question blow. The satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data for the tropical Pacific show that the surface of the tropical Pacific has not warmed over the past 32+ years—the full term of the Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data. See Figure 1. On the other hand, climate models indicate that, if the surface temperatures of the tropical Pacific were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases, they should have warmed more than 0.6 deg C (or about 1.1 deg F).
So the problems with climate models are not limited to the past decade and a half.
OVERVIEW OF ENGLAND ET AL. (2014)
England et al. (2014) are basically claiming that stronger trade winds in recent years are driving CO2-based global warming into the depths of the Pacific Ocean, and that the stronger trade winds are associated with a shift in the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. They use an abstract metric called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) to define the periods when El Niño or La Niña events dominated.
As an expanded overview of England et al., during the period from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s, the trade winds were weaker because El Niño events dominated, so, according to their modeling efforts, more global warming was occurring at the surface. But since the late 1990s, the stronger trade winds associated with more-frequent La Niñas are causing the CO2-based global warming to be driven into the depths of the Pacific Ocean.
Figure 2 presents a commonly used index for the strength, frequency and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. It is a graph of the sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region. I’ve also highlighted NOAA’s official El Niño and La Niña events, based on their Oceanic NINO Index (but the data in the graph are not from the Oceanic NINO Index). And as we can see, there were a series of strong and long El Niño events from 1982 through 1998: the 1982/83, the 1986/87/88 and the 1997/98 El Niños. Although the series of El Niños in the first half of the 1990s are now considered independent events, Trenberth and Hoar proclaimed them as one long event in their 1996 paper The 1990-1995 El Niño-Southern Oscillation Event: Longest on record. The El Niño events since 1998 have not been as strong, and the frequency of La Niña events has increased.
Because trade winds are weak during El Niños and strong during La Niñas, the change in the frequencies of El Niño and La Niña events indicate the trade wind should have increased during that time…and they have. We illustrated and discussed this in the recent post El Niño and La Niña Basics: Introduction to the Pacific Trade Winds.
But that’s not where the problems exist with the findings of England et al. (2014).
THE BASIC PROBLEMS WITH ENGLAND ET AL. (2014)
England et al. (2014) have the same problems as the recent Trenberth papers. I discussed those in my Open Letter to Kevin Trenberth – NCAR. The following is a revised portion of that post. I’ve changed a few of the graphs to reflect the differences in the start date for the hiatus. Trenberth used 1999 in one of his recent papers, while England et al. used 2001.
Based on England et al (2014), the ocean heat content of the western tropical Pacific should be increasing during the hiatus period. As noted earlier, England et al. used 2001 as the start of the hiatus. Figure 3 presents the NODC ocean heat content for the western tropical Pacific (24S-24N, 120E-180), for the depths of 0-700 meters, for the period of January 2001 to December 2013. We can see that the western tropical Pacific to depths of 700 meters has, in fact, warmed.
Before we proceed, let’s confirm that the variability in the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific takes place in the top 700 meters. The Tropical Atmosphere-Ocean (TAO) project buoys have sampled subsurface temperatures, etc., in the tropical Pacific since the early 1990s, so the NODC data should be a reasonably reliable there. Over the past decade, ARGO floats have supplemented the TAO buoys. And now for the data: the source Ocean Heat Content data in the tropical Pacific for the depths of 0-700 meters and 0-2000 meters (represented by the unadjusted UKMO EN3 data) during the TAO project and ARGO eras are exactly the same, see Figure 4, and that suggests that all of the variability in the tropical Pacific ocean heat content is taking place in the top 700 meters.
Back to our discussion of the hiatus period: The NODC ocean heat content data also show the ocean heat content (0-700m) of the eastern tropical Pacific, a much larger region, has been cooling from 2001 to 2013. See Figure 5.
As a result, there has been an overall decrease (not increase) in the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific since 2001, Figure 6, and a substantial decrease in the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific as a whole since the peak around 2004.
Therefore, based on data, there appears to have been a rearrangement of heat within the tropical Pacific and not an addition of heat as suggested by England et al. (2014).
Also, in the recent post If Manmade Greenhouse Gases Are Responsible for the Warming of the Global Oceans… I presented the NODC’s vertical mean temperature anomaly data for the Indian, Pacific, North Atlantic and South Atlantic Oceans, for the depths of 0-2000 meters, during the ARGO era (starting in 2003). Figure 7 is an update of that illustration, including the recently released 2013 data. The flatness of the Pacific trend indicates there has not been a substantial increase in the subsurface temperatures of the entire Pacific Ocean to depths of 2000 meters over the past 11 years…same with the North Atlantic. It cannot be claimed that manmade greenhouse gases caused the warming in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans, when they obviously have had no impact on the warming of the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to 2000 meters over the past 11 years.
The problems with the England et al. (2014) model-based assumptions are blatantly obvious. The ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific has cooled quite rapidly since 2001. And subsurface temperatures of the entire Pacific Ocean during the ARGO-era show little to no warming.
Those basic data-based realities contradict the climate-model-based assumptions ofEngland et al. (2014)…and Matthew England’s guest post at RealClimate, and the NBC News article by John Roach.
The body of the RealClimate post by Matthew England is a summary of the England et al. (2014) paper, and we outlined the failings of the paper above. Eric Steig wrote the introduction for the RealClimate blog post. For support, Eric linked a few papers:
- Foster and Rahmstorf (2009) – We discussed the failings with Foster and Rahmstorf (2009) in the post here, and with the follow-up Rahmstorf et al. (2012) in the posthere. And as you’ll recall, even SkepticalScience threw Foster and Rahmstorf (2009) under the bus.
- Balmaseda et al. (2013) – Balmaseda et al. (2013) was a primary topic of discussion in the “Trenberth still searching for the missing heat” series of posts: here and here andhere and here and here and here and here and here and here.
- Cowtan and Way (2013) – We discussed how the Cowtan and Way (2013) infilling of HADCRUT4 global land+ocean surface temperature data did nothing to explain the hiatus over 90% of the globe–but exaggerated the model failings at the poles–in the posts here and here.
THE NBC NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT ENGLAND ET AL. (2014)
John Roach begins his article with (my boldface):For the past 13 years, global surface air temperatures have hardly budged higher despite continual pumping of planet-warming gasses into the atmosphere from the engines of modern life. Does this prove global warming is a giant hoax? No, according to a new study, which says the missing heat is being blown into the western Pacific Ocean by extraordinarily powerful and accelerating trade winds.The reference to “global surface air temperatures” is curious. I suspect John Roach relied on England et al. (2014) for it. The abstract of England et al. (2014) begins (my boldface):Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001.And the first sentence of the paper reads (my boldface):Observations of global average surface air temperature (SAT) show an unequivocal warming over the twentieth century1, however the overall trend has been interrupted by periods of weak warming or even cooling (Fig. 1).Yet England et al. did not present “global surface air temperature” data in cell a of their Figure 1. See my Figure 8.
Figure 8 (cell a of Figure 1 from England et al.)
England et al. (2014) presented GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data in their Figure 1, which is a combination of land surface air temperature data and sea surface temperature data, with the vast majority being sea surface temperature data since the oceans cover 70% of the planet.
To confirm that, under the heading of Methods, England et al. write [my brackets]:Observations and reanalysis data. SAT [surface air temperature] is taken from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) climatology.And no, I’m not being pedantic. As we’ve shown in numerous posts over the past year, climate models do a reasonable job of simulating land surface air temperatures over the past 30+ years, but in order to achieve that warming, the climate models have to double the observed warming rate of the surface of the oceans. See Figure 9.
And using marine air temperature data do not help the models, either—see Figure 10—though it has to be kept in mind that the ICOADS marine air temperature data are not corrected for the shipboard “heat island effect” that plagues that dataset.
and that's your own self.
John Roach began his discussion of climate models with a catchy heading:Model failureIt’s not a potential problem. It’s a major problem. One contributing factor to the problem is that climate scientists (example Shang-Ping Xie’s quote) view coupled ocean-atmosphere processes as “noise in your system”. ENSO is not noise; ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere process that climate models still cannot simulate. Sea surface temperature data and ocean heat content data indicate that ENSO acts as a chaotic, sunlight-fueled, coupled ocean-atmosphere, recharge-discharge oscillator—with El Niño events acting as the discharge mode, and with La Niña events acting as the recharge and redistribution mode. If this topic is new to you, refer to illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” [42MB pdf] for an introduction.
The shortcomings of the climate models highlighted in this new paper feed into larger criticism that the models play down the importance of natural variability in the global climate system. “You want to have enough noise in your system” in order to get a realistic result, noted Xie.
That this shortfall is highlighted in the new research, he added, “is quite a nice result, but in a sense it is bad news for the climate research community because it does point to a potential problem for the climate models.”
Climate models failings with respect to ENSO—their failures to properly simulate of El Niño- and La Niña-related processes—have been known for years. See Guilyardi et al. (2009) and Bellenger et al (2012). It is very difficult to find a portion—any portion—of El Niño and La Niña processes that the models simulate properly.
Then John Roach allowed Matthew England and others some more leeway:A problem with the models, in turn, could erode trust in climate science, noted England. But “that would be akin to writing off the medical profession for finding out something new about an illness that they didn’t know about earlier,” he said.For those who understand climate model failings, the trust in climate science has been eroding for years. In fact, for many persons, it has eroded to the point that we have no confidence in climate models…none at all.
The inability of the models to capture the observed wind trends and thus the hiatus is “just one small process in the global system that seems to need improvement,” he noted. The long-term global warming trend, he added, is independent from decade-to-decade variability in the Pacific Ocean.
Fyfe echoed the sentiment. Instead of undermining climate science, he said, “What you are seeing here in this discussion is the natural evolution of science and improving our understanding. The overall big picture that the planet is warming and that that warming is due to human influence stills stands with or without the hiatus.”
This sentence is a classic: “The long-term global warming trend…is independent from decade-to-decade variability in the Pacific Ocean.” And the claim “just one small process in the global system that seems to need improvement” is the understatement of the year. Combined they form the most bizarre assertions I’ve seen attributed to a climate scientist to date…
- …especially when the paper that England authored indicated the lack of global surface warming has been caused in part by the “decade-to-decade variability in the Pacific Ocean”. In other words, without that “decade-to-decade variability in the Pacific Ocean” there would not have been the hiatus. (His paper also failed to address the contribution to the long-term warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century caused by the domination of El Niño events during that period.)
- …especially when England et al. (2014) presented multidecadal changes in surface temperatures in response to multidecadal “variability in the Pacific Ocean”, not “decade-to-decade variability”. (See their Figure 1, which is my Figure 8.)
- …especially when one considers that the Pacific is the largest ocean on this planet, that it covers more of the surface of the planet than all of the land masses combined, and that its surface area dwarfs the area of the other ocean basins. See Figure 11.
- …especially when one considers than the monthly, annual and decadal variations global sea surface temperatures mimic the variations in the Pacific sea surface temperatures…because the Pacific is so massive and because the dominant coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that express themselves as El Niño and La Niña events take place in the Pacific. See Figure 12.
- …especially when one considers that the multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the global oceans mimic the variations in the Pacific…again because the Pacific is so massive and because the dominant coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that express themselves as El Niño and La Niña events take place in the Pacific. See Figure 13, which presents the two datasets detrended and smoothed with 121-month running-average filters.
- …especially when one considers that the forced component of the climate models (represented by the multi-model mean) cannot simulate the multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the Pacific Ocean (Figure 14) or the global oceans (Figure 15), again represented by detrended and smoothed data and model outputs.
# # # # # #
- …and, last but not least, especially when everyone understands that climate models were tuned to (and model projections extend from) a naturally occurring upswing in global sea surface temperatures, not the long-term trend. See Figure 16. (For the years used for model tuning, refer to Mauritsen, et al. (2012) Tuning the Climate of a Global Model [paywalled]. A preprint edition is here.)
Imagine how foolish the models would look if the modelers had tuned their models to the warming period from the early-1910s to the mid-1940s.
[Note: If you’re wondering why the climate models performed so poorly in Figures 14 and 15, refer to the post IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide. The climate model simulations of sea surface temperatures do not capture the cooling that took place from 1880 to the early-1910s (see Figure 16 above) and, consequently, they do not capture the warming that took place from the early-1910s to the early-1940s.]
And once again, we find climate science being compared to medicine. But let’s put the climate model failings into perspective. The failures of the climate models to properly simulate coupled ocean-atmosphere processes are akin to doctors not being able to explain respiration and circulation. Climate models are in the dark ages compared to medicine.
The data and model outputs presented in this post are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer.
and that's your own self.
- JRM says:
February 28, 2014 at 6:46 am
The planet has seen a shift in the climate since the dawn of time, now we are seeing a shift in science from independent research to a time of grant driven predetermined outcome. The rise of Goreism in climate science is a mirror of Lysenkoism from the Soviet Union of the 30′s and 40′s. Stalin political doctrine allowed that rise of conformational science and those same tactics seem to be making a comeback.
The average person has no clue that the report they see or hear from a media outlet is somebody’s WAG, how many times a day does the words global warming or carbon pollution get thrown at them. It is seldom reported as somebody’s theory, it is reported as proven science. Go to the weather channel website for your daily weather, click a link and before long you will hear or see global warming/climate change thrown at you.
Then they successfully labeled you as a denier or skeptic, your science or data is then dismissed by 75% of the people hearing it. AGW is not about science, it is a war for political control. The Goreism science is just a smokescreen to cover the backdoor regulations and policies.
The global climate can continue to cool for the next 20 years and the science will continue to show that it is cause by carbon pollution. When you are basing your research on failed climate models and readjusted data you can produce any projection you deem necessary to prove your theory.
Look at 90% of the graphs they produce, they pick two points in time and get a bold red line to shoot up, the average Joe only sees that and thinks they are going to fry in 10 years.
I may be the lest intelligent person posting on here, but from my point of view, honest science and factual data are winning the science battle but losing the Climate Change War. The average person on the street does not believe it is getting hotter or that the planet will burn up in the next 20 years, but they do think that CO2 is a pollutant and it is hurting the environment. CO2 may not be heating up the planet but it is a nasty pollutant. To many here see this as a discussion of only the science, I am right and you are wrong, when really this has nothing to do with the science, it is a AGW ad campaign.
The people producing these papers are intelligent and have to know the shortcomings of their work. They turn a blind eye to the critics and move on to the next well funded project. As I type this listening to the news about the weather on the west coast, I laugh thinking that they got billions for drought relief, now they can get billion for flood relief and climate change caused both.
Go out on the street and ask 100 people for their thoughts on El Nino and La Nina, most will say they like La Nina, the food is better.
How in the heck do you fight that?
and that's your own self.
So the "climate conspiracy" is now determining psychology research outcomes too - LOL.
"While scientific consensus and political and media messages appear to be increasingly certain, public attitudes and action towards the issue do not appear to be following suit. Popular and academic debate often assumes this is due to ignorance or misunderstanding on the part of the public, but some studies have suggested political beliefs and values may play a more important role in determining belief versus scepticism about climate change."
(Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time)
As anyone who has worked on forecasts will understand if the modelling ends up producing the same numbers in reality then it is an accident of chance. Models are management tools nothing more and the writer of the above articles is simply playing a pedantic game using very selective figures to create a fiction that even if temperature is rising it really isn't because some selectively sourced models didn't get it exactly right. It is interesting in so far as seeing how people are prepared to distort reality to support an existing position, one thing it is not is anything informative it ranks with advertising fluff it is certainly not independent reasoning by any stretch of the imagination.
HA HA ... my words exactly.It is interesting in so far as seeing how people are prepared to distort reality to support an existing position, one thing it is not is anything informative it ranks with advertising fluff it is certainly not independent reasoning by any stretch of the imagination.
and that's your own self.
"Not all misleading or inaccurate information on global warming in the popular media is intended to be so, and there is therefore a difference between misinformation and disinformation, the latter being deliberately false or misleading. However, at least some of the misinformation in the popular media has the very strong appearance of being deliberately misleading. For example, the views of Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, were so thoroughly misrepresented in the documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle that Wunsch has claimed the film “comes close to fraud” (as reported in The Economist 2007, 61).
"Writers of syndicated opinion columns in leading news publications occasionally quote the scientific literature in such an egregiously selective manner that only the most charitable interpretation could see the mistake as a genuine oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to misrepresent (examples are provided by Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck 2008). Thus, although not all incorrect material in the popular media on global warming is deliberate, at least some of it has the strong appearance of being so.
"The existence and effects of this agnogenesis* campaign are problematic, both in the larger sense of society’s response (or lack thereof) to an increasingly urgent problem, and for the scientific education community, including geographers. However, it also presents an opportunity. The study of misinformation about global warming—an agnotology of global warming—can help teach critical thinking skills, the process and nature of science (as distinct from opinions), and the relevant basic scientific concepts."
*Agnogenesis is organised activity intended to engender doubt and confusion in the public, such as that carried out by the detractors of the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change and their apostles.
I cannot believe the amount of regurgitate crap in this thread!
Ah yes, the OISM petition, thanks for bringing that up!
The petition (which represents about only about three in each thousand of the more than ten million graduate scientists who were qualified to sign BTW) has the signatories of veterinarians, forestry managers, food technologists, electrical engineers, computer scientists (climatologists are rather thin on the ground - you get the picture) and medical professionals including Doctors Frank Burns, Honeycutt and Pierce from M*A*S*H and Spice Girl Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition twice, once as Dr. Geri Halliwell and again as simply Dr. Halliwell.
Anyone who places any credibility on this bogus petition is not a sceptic, just being foolish.
This is what will eventually kill off the AGW scare.
Ignore at your peril.
The new GWPF report concluded:
We believe that, due largely to the constraints the climate model-orientated IPCC process imposed, the Fifth Assessment Report failed to provide an adequate assessment of climate sensitivity – either ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity] or TCR [transient climate response] – arguably the most important parameters in the climate discussion. In particular, it did not draw out the divergence that has emerged between ECS and TCR estimates based on the best observational evidence and those embodied in GCMs. Policymakers have thus been inadequately informed about the state of the science.
The study was authored by Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok. Crok is a freelance science writer from The Netherlands and Lewis, an independent climate scientist, was an author on two recent important papers regarding the determination of the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
The earth’s climate sensitivity is the most important climate factor in determining how much global warming will result from our greenhouse gas emissions (primarily from burning of fossil fuels to produce, reliable, cheap energy). But, the problem is, is that we don’t know what the value of the climate sensitivity is—this makes projections of future climate change–how should we say this?–a bit speculative.
Goodness me, Rod, everybody knows this, including the IPCC which devotes an enormous amount of time and effort over it. My, my, you're quoting the GWPF, a secretly funded organisation founded by UK climate science sceptic Lord Nigel Lawson, BTW, and even if the GWPF report is correct, it still means 3 degrees of warming by the end of the century, which I think you will agree is actually very bad news indeed!
Sorry Marc, ill leave it to you!
Last week at the CERAWeek 2014 - Energy, Commodities and the Global Economy conference in Houston, Andrew Mackenzie, Chief Executive of the world's largest miner BHP Billiton, stated that:
"Predicting the detail of the future climate is complex but the geological evidence record provides compelling evidence. Substantial variation in CO2 and other greenhouse gases results in temperature changes with potentially significant implications for life on Earth. Warming of the climate is real, human activity is the dominant cause of this warming and physical impacts are unavoidable."
You might remember that Former BHP chief Marius Kloppers also accepted the mainstream science of climate change and supported carbon pricing back in in late 2010. BHP Billiton alone is responsible for 0.52% of accumulated man-made greenhouse gas emissions BTW.
Science is a process for producing knowledge. The process depends both on making careful observations of phenomena and on inventing theories for making sense out of those observations. Change in knowledge is inevitable because new observations may challenge prevailing theories. No matter how well one theory explains a set of observations, it is possible that another theory may fit just as well or better, or may fit a still wider range of observations.
In science, including climate science, the testing and improving and occasional discarding of theories, whether new or old, goes on all the time. Scientists assume that even if there is no way to secure complete and absolute truth, increasingly accurate approximations can be made to account for the world and how it works.
Although scientists reject the notion of attaining absolute truth and accept some uncertainty as part of nature, most scientific knowledge is durable. The modification of ideas, rather than their outright rejection, is the norm in science, as powerful constructs tend to survive and grow more precise and to become widely accepted.
Better science, when it does come along, will not overturn the observations and measurements of CO2 released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels, it will not overturn the observations and measurements of CO2 acting as a green house gas in the Earth's atmosphere, and it will not overturn the observations and measurements of the resultant shift in radiative heat forcing of the Earth that is a consequence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
You might say that to an overwhelming degree "the observations are settled" because there is no credible refutement of the recorded data. What is happening, is happening, and is both measurable and measured. In that sense, the reality of anthropogenic climate change is settled.
The dilettant part time agitators and global warming back patting masseurs do not rest. In their quest to "prove" how the bad rich are making everything dirty and hot in their own little view of their own little world....(Oh my gosh ... isn't that oh so terrible?) they would stoop as low as to quote the same bad rich people they despise.
THE world's biggest mining company has urged Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to act on climate change ahead of other countries, warning that Australia's economy will suffer unless it looks to a future beyond coal.In a dramatic intervention into the stalled climate debate, BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers yesterday called for ''a clear price signal'' on carbon dioxide emissions, possibly including both a carbon tax and a limited carbon trading scheme covering power plants.
Read more: Move on climate, BHP Billiton urges
BHP Billiton has revealed it is working with the Abbott government on the development of carbon policy, and it praised the Coalition's ''direct-action'' policy for protecting companies that compete in the international arena.There's no point in giving up [carbon dioxide] in Australia only to find that it's going to be emitted less efficiently elsewhere.BHP chief executive officer Andrew Mackenzie told shareholders at the company's annual meeting in Perth on Thursday: ''We are looking very keenly with them as to what we can do with their direct-action measure that will, I think, protect the competitiveness of trade-exposed industries across Australia - not just ours - and really understand how we can drive emissions reductions.
''So far I am finding these discussions [with the government] very constructive, and we have a number of ideas.''
Read more: BHP in talks with government to help formulate carbon policy
In September 2010, the company embarked on a step-change when the former chief executive, Marius Kloppers, publicly called for a carbon price in Australia. Timed just ahead of the Gillard government acceding to office, this started a debate that was long overdue in a usually defensive domestic mining sector.
Now times are different. Australia's political context has changed dramatically with the new government claiming an electoral mandate for its anti-climate agenda. In the past few weeks, BHP has supportedAustralia's Abbot government on its legislation rescinding the country's commitment to a carbon price.
Anyone wants to add something?
More Bla Bla perhaps?
Is there anyone left out there that does not understand that big or small companies act just like politicians for self interest self preservation, vanity, PR, propaganda, and that the truth, let alone scientific independent truth does not exist anymore?
Knock knock ... neee, empty.
and that's your own self.
New coal mining industry policy update.
LINK REMOVED....CHECK HERE,
While you're at it, READ THIS too!By clicking on the Agree button when you register to become a member of Woodwork Forums you warrant that: you will not use these forums to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy
Nice find PhilT2!
Truth in advertising standards upheld!
story does nothing to "dispelthe theory well & truly as CO2 being the major driver of AGW" when all of the other contributors to the planets energy balance are taken into account.
It is a basic requirement in a written forum, to read ... (stating the obvious) ... and reply to all or most points made possibly in context.
Of course in a verbal debate, there is more of an histrionic context and support can be drummed up by appealing to the crowd with half truth and addressing points from a totally unrelated angle, crack jokes, pretend and other distractions.
Yet in the written context, this does not work. May be a distraction but means absolutely nothing.
Your replay is a vacuum of meaning and has no relation to what I said nor in the context I said it.
Companies, even more big companies, act like politicians, always have and always will. I said so.... your point is? no point! zero.
Scientist stop seeking truth when they are paid to do so, always have and always will.
Scientist told us that the earth was the centre of the universe, that bleeding would cure baldness, that asbestos is safe, smoking calms the nerves and that human produced CO2 will make the sea rise 7 meters ... or was it 9 meters?
Belief in a cause, any cause, follows a pattern of thoughts that is not the accepted norm of searching, finding, researching and accepting and perhaps then believing. It is more like believing first then search for a fitting cause to feed the preconceived belief.
That is why most of the time "debating" is useless since the rusted on believers are unmovable for one and one reason only. Thier mind can not accept to be wrong because that would make their preconceived value that is part of their character wrong and the subsequent domino effect unbearable.
Uncorrupted scientific process is different. There is always scope for doubt and skepticism is welcomed as part of the process of finding the explanation to a problem. Note I did not say truth since that term is absolute and relates better to religion than science. What is the truth today will be false tomorrow so may as well not call it "the truth" at all.
AGW fraudsters, supporters and assorted cheer leaders want the world to applaud and chant in chorus
"What do we want? Stop global warming! ... when do we want it? NOW !!!"...
in the best unionist street concentration fashion.
The paid mercenary scientist join them if the pay is OK.
Fortunately not all scientists are happy with the pay, others missed out and are pissed off about it, and other still may be have some ethics left and tell what they know to be fact.
Let's sit down and watch what will unfold next.
No amount of histrionism and charades will change fiction into facts, not even with lots of smoke.
and that's your own self.