Texas Tall Tales and Global Warming

“…extreme heat events were roughly 20 times more likely in 2008 than in other La Niña years in the 1960s” It is this statement that has made headlines across the country.   Headlines you shouldn’t believe.

Guest post submitted by Dr. Cliff Mass University of Washington

Last week the national media was full of stories about how global warming has made Texas heat waves TWENTY TIMES more probable.  We are talking about hundreds of stories in respected national media outlets (including NY Times, Washington Post, and even the Seattle Times).   These stories were all based on an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (DID HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE MAKE THE 2011 TEXAS DROUGHT MORE PROBABLE?  with lead authors David E. Rup and Philip W. Mote of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and some British colleagues…found here…scroll down to page 12).

The trouble is that this study is flawed and weak (and I will explain why) and its scary conclusions are insupportable.   This is important story:  about the hyping (past) of global warming, about poor research being published, about the media jumping on sexy, scary global warming stories.  And most worrisome of all..this is not an isolated incident.

Before I go further, let me stress that I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century.  The impacts could be both profound and serious.   But exaggerating the impact of human-induced warming on what is happening now and in the past only serves to weaken the efforts of the meteorological community to provide information society needs to make rational decisions.  If you cry wolf too many times and are proven wrong it is bad for credibility.

So lets consider the Rup/Mote et al. study.   Texas had an extraordinary six-month  heat wave and drought in 2011…no doubt about it.   The question is whether we can ascribe this event to global warming..human or otherwise.

Now to examine this issue, the authors of this article compared temperatures and precipitation for March through August and June through August over Texas between observations (from the National Climatic Data Center) and simulations by the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Center Atmospheric General Circulation Model 3P (HadAM3P).   This is a global atmospheric climate model typically used to simulate climate.  Specially, they ran the climate model many times for the decades of 1960-1970 and 2000-2010.   This is called an ensemble.  Each ensemble member is started with a slightly different initial state in order to get some handle on the uncertainty of the forecast. Totals of 171, 1464, 522, and 1087 ensemble members were analyzed for 1964, 1967, 1968, and 2008, respectively.  Why these used different number of ensemble members for each year is never explained.  Furthermore, they selected those specific years because all were La Nina years.  The idea was that La Nina/El Nino variability is an important natural sources of climate/weather change and could skew the results, so they wanted to insure that they were comparing apples to oranges.  It turns out they forgot some other fruit (more later!)

The following is from figure 8 of their paper, showing a graph of temperature versus precipitation over Texas for March through August for both observations (National Climate Data Center, NCDC, 1895-2011) and the climate model (HadAM3P) ensembles for 1964 and 2008.  For both observations and the model, there is a tendency for drier years to be warmer.  But there are real warning signs that the climate model is out to lunch (or out to whatever climate models do when they are not doing their job!).

First, the climate model is MUCH warmer and drier than reality…and the observations included the dry/warm conditions of the 1930s.  A serious bias.  Furthermore, the relationship between temperature and precipitation in the model and observations are VERY different…very different slope, with the model warming up much more quickly as precipitation declines than the observations.  Clearly, the model is not simulating Texas climate very well.

Rupp, Mote et al., Figure 8

With this flawed GCM simulation, the authors should have been hesitant in going further in the analysis, but they decided to use the biased/flawed modeling results to determine whether the chances of heat waves are increasing over Texas.

Their next figure shows a return time analysis of the model temperatures over Texas.

Specifically, using the collection of simulations for each of four years (1964, 1967, 1968, and 2008) they calculated the typical number of years one would have to wait until a certain mean March-August mean temperature occurs.  So a mean of 25C would be expected to occur every 1-2 years in a 2008 climate and every 3-4 years for the 60s.  27C is expected to happen every 10 years for the climate of 2008 and perhaps once in 500 years (extrapolating the graph) for a 60s climate.

Furthermore, 100-yr return period MAMJJA and JJA heat events under 1964 conditions (roughly 26.5C)  had only 5- and 6-yr return periods, respectively, under 2008 conditions. It is this graph that was the basis of their statement:

“extreme heat events were roughly 20 times more likely in 2008 than in other La Niña years in the 1960s”

It is this statement that has made headlines across the country.   Headlines you shouldn’t believe.

Let me explain why.

Now I already have shown you that the model “climate” was way too warm and dry, and its simulated relationship between temperature and precipitation was all wrong.   But it is worst than that.  Looking at their figure, you can see the average model temperatures (March-August) in 1964 (blue circles) are roughly 24.5C, while the model 2008 temperatures (red circles) are approximately 26.25C…so about 1.75C warmer (give or take .25C for my reading of the graph).   (This kind of information SHOULD have been explicitly stated in the paper).

So what is really happening in Texas?   How correct was the model?  Mark Albright of the University of Washington acquired and plotted the NCDC observations over Texas and plotted the average Texas temperatures for March-June, and July-August (see below) for 1895-2011.  In March through May there is a weak upward trend (perhaps .5F, .3C) over the entire period. The trend over June to August is much less.  The second figure also shows how anomalous 2011 was…it was an extreme year that was completely outside the envelope of variability of the previous decades.  There is no trend consistent with global warming…which slowly increased starting the mid-70s.

March-May
June-August

The bottom line:  the actual observations show the temperatures over Texas have warmed by a perhaps a few tenths of a degree C since the mid-1960s, while the GCM model used by Rupp/Mote et al had major warming (1.5-2 C).  Clearly, one can not trust the model and the conclusions reached in this paper are unsupportable.

And folks it is even worse than this.  There are other modes of natural variability in the atmosphere, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).  The AMO, which is associated with the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean, has a substantial impact on the weather of eastern N. America., including heat waves and droughts.   During the mid to late1960s this cycle was in the negative (cool) phase, while in the 2000s it has been in the warm phase (associated with heat waves and droughts over the Midwest)–see graph.

Thus, the authors picked dates that would maximize the warming signal associated with natural variability, irrespective of global warming.


Moral of this Sad Story

This situation is so disappointing on so many levels.   It is disappointing the peer review process has allowed this paper to be published in a well known and prestigious journal.  I have learned from personal experience that articles noting major global warming effects fly through the review process with only cursory examination, while papers with a more nuanced view of the issue are given a hard time.

It is disappointing that the media distributed these results so widely…with headlines…throughout the nation and world.  The faults noted above were easy to find…it appears that media folks don’t evaluate the materials they headline when it comes to science.  Sometimes the media go wacky based on materials that are not even published in peer-review journals or are made available in press releases.  They need to act more responsibly and secure the resources (e.g., trained science journalists) that have the time to insure the rigor of the materials they spotlight.

This is only one if series of weak global warming scare articles.  My own sensitivity to the issue came five years ago when certain folks (including a coauthor of the Texas article) were hyping that global warming was resulting in the rapid loss of the Cascade snowpack (which has not declined in 30 years by the way).  These folks think they are doing society a favor by hyping global warming impacts now and in the past.  They aren’t.  Most of the impacts of global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases are in the future and society will not believe us if you cry wolf now.

This work will only hammer the credibility of the scientific community at a time when society needs to be taking global warming seriously.

==========================================================

Cliff Mass is a professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington, as well as a frequent television and radio commentator. While we are sometimes on opposite sides of the issue, I have great respect for his work, and I’m honored that he asked for his essay to be published here. Please bookmark his blog Cliff Mass Weather - Anthony

About these ads
This entry was posted in Drought and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

110 Responses to Texas Tall Tales and Global Warming

  1. John says:

    Did you mail this article to the NYT for them to publish too? Not that I expect that they will do that.

  2. Martin C says:

    I would sure like to see what Dr. Nielsen-Gammon would have to say about both the study (since he is in Texas), and about and Dr. Mass’s rebuttal. And then see a discussion about it between him and Dr. Brown (ref the recent 6 part feature of a discussion between Dr. Brown and Dr. Nielsen-Gammon ). Maybe time to break out the popcorn . . ? :-)

    Dr. Nielsen-Gammon wonders why people don’t accept all the ‘climate scientists’ work, such as the projections of a few to several degree temp increases in the next 50 -100 years (when for the last 15 or so years, global temps, sea level rise by a meter or more this century (when the latest data don’t show any acceleration in sea level – a report I saw references on reference on J. Sexton’s blog); and this with CO2 levels nearing 400 ppm. Those two items, plus the study and the rebuttal is a prime example ( . . without even mentioning Hansen, Gore . . ooooops , I just did . . .! ) :-)

  3. John Servais says:

    Delighted to see this article from Cliff. He is well respected by all up here in the Pacific Northwest. He has a book on NW weather that everyone loves. He is a no nonsense guy who has great credibility. I enjoyed his column earlier today and was going to enter a Tip for this site. No need.

  4. betapug says:

    “Climate Central is beginning work with 10 meteorologists in pivotal metro areas and regions where elevating concern or shifting opinion is critical. Our objective is to bring climate change into focus at the local level and in the weather-news cycle by delivering a steady stream of scientifically grounded information that links local weather to climate change, in a style that works for them. We deliver science-based talking points and broadcast-ready graphics, as well as expanded information for their blogs and personal lectures, customized to each market. We produce videos, compelling climate messages, and rapid response to extreme weather events. The TV Mets program is an opportunity to reach far beyond the usual environmental audiences to speak directly to a broad swath of the national population while testing what works for audiences in a variety of regions.”

    With grants coming from various US government agencies as well as the usual private foundations http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/funding/ Climate Central’s “TV Mets” program to deliver “Meals,ready to eat” for cash starved media outlets would have a lot of appeal.
    They are hiring now: ace.princeton.edu/fellowships/high-meadows-fellowships/climate-central-research-analyst-multimedia-journalist ….and you do not even have to be an American citizen!

    I wondered why my local Vancouver TV station has started displaying temp maps with our recent (cooler and wetter than average) Spring 15 deg centigrade temp areas in molten red: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0XT4_PTJ5bUJ:ccimgs.s3.amazonaws.com/HeatIsOnReport.pdf+&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESggcuR6HjP_EKn2Dan_H06-yf5-3pnNwCMMweolTsVqW_8ON-FfQH0p0NYaiIeSfPQwkEESmtRCjpfWO067WaeEQLjPysxOoYYcZGErTs_MVNRFDZ7vu1KTki71NUd1a9Kk2MvH&sig=AHIEtbS5TiXe8SgoOMhjvcHkCLNO4Qs3xQ&pli=1

  5. James Sexton says:

    Dr. Mass, it is too bad that this has happened about the peer-review and crying wolf. But, it’s too late for all of that now. There’s no going back. There is a significant segment of this society that simply laughs every time we see the same hyperbole. Sadly, all of you get painted with the same brush. I am heartened that someone still cares, but the trust and credibility ship sailed long ago. Peer review is to be mocked. Any paper which leans on such models is automatically disregarded. They’ve never been right to my knowledge, but if they were it would only be happenstance…….. useless computer games.

    About the future warming……. I doubt it. But, even if it were so, there’s absolutely nothing to be done about it. We’ve wasted so much time, energy, and money on the silly non-workable solutions such as windmills and solar panels that any opportunity decrease atmospheric CO2 in the next hundred years or so was lost long ago.

  6. davidmhoffer says:

    Thank you Dr Mass for calling it like it is on this matter. If we had more “warmists” such as yourself engaging in the discussion, we might get some actual science percolating to the surface and we might even make some intelligent decisions along the way. All I’ve seen from the CAGW camp to date is hype, exageration, obfuscation, and the quality of much of the “science” is far worse than what you’ve pointed out here. If the theory had merit, it would rest on itz own evidence. That it doesn’t suggests that it has no merit. I’ll be persuaded otherwise if, and only if, honest open science emerges that points to that conclusion.

    I think you and N-G (see previous thread) are doing something incredibly important by speaking out and engaging on the basis of the facts. Congrats and let’s see more of the same in the future.

  7. John F. Hultquist says:

    If you cry wolf too many times and are proven wrong it is bad for credibility.
    And . . .
    . . . society will not believe us if you cry wolf now.

    Too late.

  8. Katherine says:

    This work will only hammer the credibility of the scientific community at a time when society needs to be taking global warming seriously.

    The Minoan Warm Period and Roman Climate Optimum were warmer and the human race not only survived but thrived. With all the technology currently available, Man is in a better position to adapt to warmer temperatures than ever before. It’s during the cold periods when famine and war are more prevalent.

    Most of the impacts of global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases are in the future and society will not believe us if you cry wolf now.

    Since there hasn’t been any catastrophic warming, much less catastrophic warming directly attributable to human activity, the impacts of CAGW are all in the models and the fevered imaginings of the fearmongers hooked on the gravy train of CAGW.

  9. davidmhoffer says:

    James Sexton;
    Any paper which leans on such models is automatically disregarded.
    >>>>>>

    Thanks for bringing that up, I almost forgot to make the point that not only have the models lost credibility, much of the climate “science” community has for doing what this bunch did. As Dr Mass points out, the model FAILED to model current conditions accurately, but the authors of this paper simply ignore that fact and published predictions based on the model KNOWING that the model got it wrong.

    Climate “science” is replete with examples of this sort. Researchers clearly coming to conclusions based on their belief system, and then publishing results commensurate with that belief system despite their own data failing to produce any evidence to support that same belief system.

    Dr Brown commented in another thread that skeptics ought to police themselves to help establish credibility. There’s a lot of junk science spouted in criticism of AGW. But CAGW is filthy with it, and it is high time that we saw some self policing from the other side. Good on ya Dr Mass.

  10. Brian H says:

    Edit:
    “But it is worst than that.”
    Use the comparative, not the absolute, please.
    “more worser” — or SLT.
    ;)

  11. Brian H says:

    “This work will only hammer the credibility of the scientific community at a time when society needs to be taking global warming seriously.”

    Hmm. Since global warming is of trivial concern, or at worst much to be encouraged, the proper conclusion is that the climate science community should be applauded for issuing a steady stream of stupidities like this, as their totally unearned credibility needs to be detonated ASAP!!

  12. pat says:

    Warmists have simply entered the world of the delusional and frauds. They simply do not get the fact that the world is coming to believe they are fruitcakes.

  13. dough says:

    Gentlemen: Global warming is not about science. It is a cause celeb for establishing a one world government.

  14. rgbatduke says:

    I would sure like to see what Dr. Nielsen-Gammon would have to say about both the study (since he is in Texas), and about and Dr. Mass’s rebuttal. And then see a discussion about it between him and Dr. Brown (ref the recent 6 part feature of a discussion between Dr. Brown and Dr. Nielsen-Gammon ). Maybe time to break out the popcorn . . ? :-)

    I believe that’s his next topic, and I rather expect that he’ll rip its guts out too. It sounds like shoddy work. And as the article above states, it reduces the credibility of this entire approach and climate scientists in general when something like this is published and nobody says anything within the field, waiting for the Steve McIntyres of the universe to intervene from outside of it to produce even greater embarrassment and loss of confidence later.

    Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.

    rgb

  15. davidmhoffer says:

    Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.
    rgb
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Do you think there had been an actual uptick recently? Or are you just more sensitive to it because you’ve been following the debate more closely than in the past? I think the papers come out in waves around the IPCC reports, so we’re seeing a lot of hasty writing to get in under the AR5 deadline, but without having actually quantified it in some way, my impression is that the steady stream of hype and tripe has not changes much in the last 20 years. (In other words, the uptick you notice appears to be within natural variability of hype and tripe ;-) )

  16. Kev-in-Uk says:

    ”This work will only hammer the credibility of the scientific community at a time when society needs to be taking global warming seriously.” (Presses big red gameshow buzzer! – errr, errr…!)

    I assume this is meant as a statement from a warmist stance? and this despite the very fact that the author confirms that there has been only a smidge of warming in Texas over the entire record anyway! So, whilst I appreciate the article, and the apparent ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity’ of the author – it seems somewhat crazy to include the last, clearly ‘blinkered’ statement!
    Why do we need to take global warming seriously? – when the scientific community promoting it are over-hyping and blovating?
    Perhaps another explanation is that Dr Mass knows he is on the wrong side? and needs to raise some ‘gentle’ dissent in the warmista ranks?

  17. Venter says:

    Very well said Dr.Brown. Absolutely spot on.

  18. Carbon500 says:

    As I read the unfolding story, I inreasingly wondered if any historic real world data was available – and there we have it, average Texas temperatures from 1895 to 2011, and another fairy story exposed.
    Another inconvenient truth.

  19. Kaboom says:

    To be fair, Dr Mass’ contribution has advanced the cause of proper science, and kudos to him for that. We need proper scientists like him, to comprehensively analyse the warmist rubbish that ends up in the MSM.

    Well done, well done!

  20. Peter Miller says:

    It was a pleasant surprise to see a well-argued warmist commentator here on WUWT.

    I think most of us agree the world’s climate will warm a little due to the activities of man (subject, of course, to the machinations of natural climate cycles), but that this will not be catastrophic in any way.

    It is truly very rare to read something from the warmist side, which is not full of grant addicted drivel and dubious/fraudulent data manipulation. Dr Mass appears to realise the yawning credibility gap caused by climate ‘scientists’ in their pursuit of fame, financial gain and grants will be the cause of the ultimate demise of the CAGW cult.

    All that is needed from the warmist side is for them to practice science, not ‘science,’ and much of their credibility will be restored.

  21. vukcevic says:

    If the AMO is a major factor in the Texas temps, I suggest to keep an eye on the far north Atlantic atmospheric pressure. It is just about to cross into negative territory (see second link below) indicating rapid cooling in the SST in the forthcoming 2-3 decades.
    It is a natural oscillation, poorly understood, I’ve done some work but for the moment no interest, the CO2 has favor with academia and the like.
    You can find more what is in store for the future of the AMO :
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO-SST-ea.htm

  22. Biffo says:

    Not only is the reputiation of the scientific community being tarnished by this sort of garbage, but the media are showing that they no longer care about being proper journalists. As long as the media can get a juicy headline or a convenient activist article to cut & paste, they’ll print anything. No wonder the circulation of newspapers is dropping off so much.

  23. jono1066 says:

    We beat you guys hands down on this one ….
    The Respected (doff cap, touch forelock) British newspaper called “The Times” (Sunday 15th July) ran an article …
    “A flood of facts to overwhelm climate sceptics” quoting the NOAA “extreme weather events” 2011 report and the fact “that last years record warm Novemeber was 60 (SIXTY) times more likely” than 50 years ago due to global warming etc etc
    They also threw in the 20% figure for the Texas drought for good measure in the reasonably balanced article, while still being a gentle `call to arms` for the government to take action.
    And I thought things were bigger in Texas
    regards

  24. Disko warmy Troop says:

    Giving a powerful computer and a climate model to a climatologist is like giving a chimpanzee a hammer. He might think he is making a cabinet…..You might think he is making a cabinet….But he is not; he is just hitting things with the hammer.

  25. rogerknights says:

    rgb:
    “Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”

    See the comment from betapug above at:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/15/texas-tall-tales-and-global-warming/#comment-1033602

  26. Jerker Andersson says:

    One thing that I have thought about when scientific research is said to be consistent with models is, must not the model be proven to work and predict climate accuratly before it can be used or related to? If I am not wrong 17 or 30 years is the minimum time that has to be used in order to claim it is climate on not weather.
    I don’t think those models used have been predicting climate for up to 30 years with good accuracy yet.

  27. Bill Tuttle says:

    We are talking about hundreds of stories in respected national media outlets (including NY Times, Washington Post…)

    There — all fixed.

  28. Bill Tuttle says:

    %$#@! The “close sarc font” didn’t take…

  29. steveta_uk says:

    Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.

    Dr Drown, could this be anything to do with the deadlines for getting a reference in the next IPCC tome? No, I didn’t think so.

  30. steveta_uk says:

    Oops – that of course should read “Dr Brown”

  31. rgb: Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.

    Perhaps not so “odd” if one looks closely. First, the centre popcorn-piece recently has been the Gergis paper, with all the fanfare and bad behaviour from Karoly (for reasons well noted here). Probably Gergis got grants at the time when the government was in maximum thrall to the warmists’ siren song and now the cuckoo has hatched. Second, there was the Gleick episode which might stick in your mind as “something like Gergis”. Third, you yourself have gotten really interested and involved, which means you personally notice more. Fourth, there is the warm-up to IPCC-5 and there must be a sense of Götterdämmerung where fewer and fewer diehards are pushing harder and harder with less and less substance.

    Perhaps one day now we’ll finally see one of the august bodies breaking rank and owning corporately what many of its members individually and privately believe.

    But people hate to own being in the wrong. Leaders especially. And even here, there are some topics I cannot bring up (or only with difficulty, fear of failure, and inadequate brevity) even though I might consider them highly relevant to Climate Science and of a substance that will, at some point in the future, need to be reconsidered, if the science is going to truly advance and reclaim integrity.

  32. Gary Hladik says:

    “The faults noted above were easy to find…it appears that media folks don’t evaluate the materials they headline when it comes to science.”

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

  33. mike about town says:

    you would want to correct this line:

    “Before I go further, let me stress that I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century. “

  34. Mindert Eiting says:

    Dear Dr. Mass,
    Thanks for your contribution. May I suggest the following approach to your collegues? Determine with a random number generator a region on the earth with the size of Texas. Determine with a random number generator a period of six months from the last few decades. Determine the likelihood of the observed temperatures in the obtained region and epoch with the models and repeat that with models assuming zero CO2 forcing. Compute the likelihood ratio. This may be the beginning of a scientific approach, avoiding post-hoc fallacies and meaningless comparisons of probabilities.

  35. Alan the Brit says:

    Sincere apologies & all that, but am I missing something, were there no La Nina years for the forty years from 1968 to 2008 at all? I know things go in cycles as is clearly demonstrated by the graphics, but surely there must have been something? Oh well, must be Global Warming, then!

    BTW folks, here in the PDREU state of UK (get it? state of UK, brother what a state it’s in too!) it’s raining, again!!!!! Even we die hards are beginning to get fed up with it! Dear old Met Office, they haven’t a clue, bless their little cotton socks, they tell us authoritatively that it’s the Jet Stream, but very little info on why it’s the Jet Stream! They are truly hopeless, their forecasts are constantly peppered with doubt & uncertainty, yet we’re supposed to believe every word they utter about Global Warming,……bless! :-(

  36. mike about town says:

    and this: “But it is worst than that.”

    (i would gladly send this privately if i knew where to send it!)

  37. Slabadang says:

    Its a tradgedy for science and demcoracy when it turnes out to be an corrupted idiocracy!

    I think that corruption of science is the last stage before a collaps of society as we know it and there are many who wants that to happen. Some are acting with perpose most are just useful idiots! It takes guts and a lot of moral to publish this important proof of what we are up aginst!

    Thanks Dr Mass…

  38. Jimbo says:

    Before I go further, let me stress that I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century.

    When I look at Hansen’s 1988 projections / scenarios and compare them to today I really do have my doubts about this statement. There is a serious divergence problem as can be seen with one’s won eyes. Ditto IPCC’s earliest projections / scenarios.

  39. I am afraid that the good doctor’s first statement-that he is a believer in the GHG theory- failed the whole article for me. The whole theory is based on model forecasts but observations show that this theory is false. Temperatures are falling but the atmospheric CO2 levels are rising. The very opposite to theory predictions. The middle troposphere hot spot predicted by the theory has not been found by the daily observations using radiosonde.
    It is a fact of science that if observations are not as a theory predicts then the theory is wrong not the observations. Unfortunately it is also a fact that when observations are found not to agree with this onerous theory the observations are altered to fit. The good doctor should remember this.

  40. Chris Wright says:

    Of course, as this comes from a convinced believer in AGW / CAGW, it probably carries more weight, as no one can accuse him of being a ‘climate change denier’.
    He has done an excellent job of showing this research to be the nonsense that it is. But it doesn’t seem to occur to him that this nonsense is pretty standard practice for AGW science in general. Perhaps if he could be a bit more sceptical, as all scientists should be, he would start to question the very basis of AGW / CAGW.
    Chris

  41. terrarious says:

    rgb “has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”

    Since I too noticed that Australia is copping a similar barrage, I questioned whether these events are part of a far bigger plan, than to be just random publicity by individuals.

  42. Old Forge says:

    On a positive note, I caught a BBC comedy programme on Friday night ( a repeat from December last year) where comedian Steve Hughes hits CAGW head on – great fun, and his punchline got a roar of approval from the audience:

    Steve Hughes (on BBC’s ‘Live at the Apollo’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b018hb3p/Live_at_the_Apollo_Series_7_Episode_6/ at 27.30 mins)
    ‘Then we deal with that [War on Terror]. And then next, what do we deal with, while this is all happening?
    “Aww, by the way, the planet’s broken. It’s all warmed up. And, er, yeah … we have to fix it … now, ‘cos we’ve broken it. And, er, y’know, we’ve done tests.”
    “Who has?”
    “Y’know, experts.”
    “Who are they?”
    “Aggh, don’t worry about it. They’re here.”
    What are you talking about? I don’t even believe in it. People freak out.
    “Waddya mean you don’t believe in it? You have to believe in it … it’s the law!”
    “Oh, it’s not yet … I’m sure it soon will be, but until then, no.”
    Why should I believe in it, what are you talking about? They’re running round the world dropping depleted uranium all over the earth, sitting there letting nuclear weapons off under the sea and the rest of us, what are we going to do? Sit at home, with a special light bulb and a shopping bag for life?’
    [Biggest laugh of the evening from the audience.]

  43. Dr Burns says:

    “I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century”
    A scientist would have evidence rather than being a religious true believer.
    Where is your evidence ?

  44. FerdinandAkin says:

    “Thus, the authors picked dates that would maximize the warming signal associated with natural variability, irrespective of global warming.”
    Where have I heard this before?
    Oh Yeah, now I remember:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/13/hump-day-hilarity-bringing-in-the-sieves/

  45. Robin says:

    betapug-they are called memes–“units of information that, once mastered, condition–indeed constitute!–the way we think and that can be passed on to person to person.” TV sound bites to create the desired filtering memes.

    When an economic model is wrong it can sometimes be difficult to locate the wrong variable or improper assumption. Models about future changes in temperature, not so much.

    I have written about the Future Earth Alliance. Beyond the UN agencies and the Belmont Forum funders, you have the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the International Social Science Council trying to merge the natural and social sciences around the sustainability model. One of the other goals of this Earth System Science Partnership work is to “break down the traditional walls between scientific disciplines and between science and policy.”

    Not only are the models wrong, it is erroneous models that are to serve as the basis for transformative policy changes in human behaviors, economic systems, political systems, and society itself.

    So yes these are bad models but they are modelling with aspirations that have nothing to do with temperatures or even climate.

    And I also want to thank Cliff Mass for being a plaintiff in the valiant effort to change the tragic math curriculum being used in Seattle schools and to get the school board there to quit disregarding the negative consequences in making their decisions. Believe it or not, there is a direct connection between those corrupting NSF Math-Science Partnerships to change curricula and instructional practices that too many states, universities, and school districts have in place and the climate science corrupting grants.

    Apparently in the future all science is to be political science. And it won’t impact the weather or climate at all. Just our ability to respond to what ever happens.

  46. j ferguson says:

    This is a very minor point, but i think the thought might have been “comparing apples to apples” with regard to using la nina years in the comparisons.

  47. Frank K. says:

    terrarious says:
    July 16, 2012 at 3:11 am

    rgb “has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”

    No, it’s not odd. This is an election year in the U.S. The CAGW fanatics know their funding (aka Climate Ca$h) will be cut substantially if Obama is NOT reelected. Hence, they are pulling out all the stops to create a phony climate crisis – with help, of course, from the dysfunctional MSM.

  48. DaveS says:

    I hope Dr Peter Stott of the UK Met Office reads this, he’s just used the Texas heatwave as evidence of a direct link bewteen climate change and extreme weather events – with the inevitable caveat that much more (lucrative) research is needed…

  49. David says:

    Yeah – this story got picked up by one of the ‘greenist’ columnists in the UK ‘Sunday Times’ this week. He also stated that ‘Arctic sea ice has shrunk by a third…’ er, really..? Not according to the (unbiased) satellite-viewed graphs – unless of course he’s talking about the normal seasonal shrinkage which takes place every year in the northern hemisphere summer….

  50. One thing we can be happy about: the article is open access. And the return tie prediction of 5-6 years is (sort of testable). Though if there is a lot of autocorrelation in the Texas temperature record that might be difficult to test (sic?).

  51. Ian W says:

    vukcevic says:
    July 16, 2012 at 12:57 am

    If the AMO is a major factor in the Texas temps, I suggest to keep an eye on the far north Atlantic atmospheric pressure. It is just about to cross into negative territory (see second link below) indicating rapid cooling in the SST in the forthcoming 2-3 decades.
    It is a natural oscillation, poorly understood, I’ve done some work but for the moment no interest, the CO2 has favor with academia and the like.
    You can find more what is in store for the future of the AMO :
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO-SST-ea.htm

    Vuk,
    From your diagram it would appear that in the AMO negative phase the Hadley cells reduce and the Ferrel cells now run a lot further South. Is that correct?

  52. Bill says:

    There are a number of simple typos and simple grammatical errors with words like “the” and “a” left out. Sadly, most are at the beginning and end of the article. Makes it too easy for some to dismiss or not even read since they can just say the person can’t even write correct sentences. Take a few minutes and edit those if you can.

  53. JP says:

    Dr Tim Ball has a pretty interesting theory concerning this year’s heat waves/cold snaps:
    http://drtimball.com/2012/current-global-weather-patterns-normal-despite-government-and-media-distortions/

  54. Joseph Bastardi says:

    Cold PDO warm AMO supports warmth now like in the 1950s, Have been screaming this message actually on Fox for several years, that the globe starts cooling overall but the south has real problems as the cold PDO causes much less influence of tropical pacific moisture, until atlantic cools. Its why Obama flat out lied last year, given global temps cooling give the dry hot signal for a time when the reversal starts as in the 50s. Texas had been wet during the ramp up of the PDO and then AMO the previous 25 years.

    What is amazing to me is people with PHD’s like McKibben, Mann, Cullen, Hansen, Hayhoe, Dessler, North make statements like they do and OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT HAVE LOOKED OR TRULY STUDIED PAST WEATHER AND CLIMATE CYCLE THEORY. They only look at what they look at. How did they defend their phd dissertation, because they sure cant defend this given the knowns of previous cyclical driven events, and what they are saying now. Then they run to the cloak of natural variability how stupid is that? Does that mean if not for their co2 madness we would be in an ice age. And Hansen and his super nino forecasts actually is admitting IT IS THE OCEANS since he knows a warming in the tropical pacific will add energy and heat to the global
    picture. So how can he not understand the warm pdo has more enso warm events, and accounts for warming until a balance is reached, then the earths temperature levels off, and now should fall. Simple test, and in any case its way below his trumped up numbers. And the media is vapid. Astounding how they simply buy into it as if nothing is every a challenge

    Irene a sign of global warming? 8 majors on the east coast in the 1950s. Hottest ever? Des Moines finally TIED a record in July, it still has not broken one since the 1950s. LGA July 3, 1966 106 for a high , 89 for a low ( before the buildup that made it a famous hot spot relative to areas around it today) Massachusetts state high ONE HUNDRED IN SEVEN… AUG 2 1975.
    one can cherry pick for eternity because the orchard is loaded with easy to research examples countering their claims, yet either they are lazy, or know and choose to lie!

    I will remind I was on national tv talking about all this with the PDO flip back in 08, and in Sept 10 on FBN, and again in Dec 10, said 2011 would feature a major drought in the southern plains BECAUSE IT LOOKED LIKE THE 1950S, 1954 to be specific. I now that sounds like its tooting my own horn, and I am partly because I cant believe these people have the gall to actually say what they say. Its like they have no ethics, they simply spout out non facts as if they believe their precious ideas allow them to tell all the lies they want, because they know they are right.

    THEY TELL US AFTER WHAT HAPPENED ITS BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY SAID IT IS, AND YET WONT MAKE A SPECIFIC FORECAST FOR ANY PERIOD. Their forecast for global temps is busting horribly since the leveling and now slow fall has begun
    http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png

    btw NCEP is not a right wing think tank. That is their chart

    When one has loved the weather since their first memory, its vastly different to someone who comes along, adopts an agenda, and then uses the weather as a way to further it. In a way, its like they are climate pimps, using the weather for their own needs, Its no different than other immoral practices in history where a belief in the ends, justified the means, and shows the rise of soft tyranny in science..as well as in many other things in our country

    And while I am attic, it is them, not us, who are the people whose ethical stances should be questioned, given starving people in our nation, and an economy and way of life they seek to handcuff and control

  55. Joseph Bastardi says:

    note the spell check changed at it to attic, you get the message. Very frustrating sometime with the auto pilots put on these systems

  56. beng says:

    ****
    rgb “has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”
    ****

    Gearing up for the Nov election.

  57. Pamela Gray says:

    Your current analysis of drought is spot on.

    BUT!

    As a scientist, you must expunge yourself of all notions related to encouraging public advocacy of “rational decisions” regarding future weather and climate warming. The hypothesis has yet to be proven. Any words you use to the affect that public policy needs to address future catastrophy…

    “But exaggerating the impact of human-induced warming on what is happening now and in the past only serves to weaken the efforts of the meteorological community to provide information society needs to make rational decisions.”

    …leaves your scientific endeavors in virtual fine print while bolding the “sky is falling” quote above, the very thing you wish others would not do.

  58. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    S.S.D.D. – This is more of the same junk science as Kevin Trenberth’s 2007 Scientific American article claiming that AGW would produce more frequent and more powerful hurricanes (the opposite of which has happened) To refresh everyone’s memory of this Trenberthsty:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=warmer-oceans-stronger-hurricanes

    If you haven’t already cancelled your subscriptions to Sci-Am, do it now.

  59. Bruce Stewart says:

    It’s a good point that one can see the inadequacy of the models from the paper’s own data. However, an even stronger conclusion is well justified: there is no evidence that ANY GCM has skill at the regional level; see R. Pielke Sr.’s blog.

  60. Bill Marsh says:

    “let me stress that I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century.”

    I’d be interested if you would post your reasons for this belief (specifically what exactly you mean by ‘warm significantly’) and any supporting evidence you have.

  61. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    terrarious says:

    July 16, 2012 at 3:11 am

    rgb “has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”

    Since I too noticed that Australia is copping a similar barrage, I questioned whether these events are part of a far bigger plan, than to be just random publicity by individuals.

    Of course it is. It’s about saving the worlds resources for the super rich.

  62. Billy Liar says:

    From the AMetSoc paper:

    explaining the causes of specific extreme events in near-real time is severely stretching the current state of the science

    I think it’s been stretched so far it broke.

  63. D. J. Hawkins says:

    Brian H says:
    July 15, 2012 at 11:08 pm
    Edit:
    “But it is worst than that.”
    Use the comparative, not the absolute, please.
    “more worser” — or SLT.
    ;)

    “Worse” is the comparitive. “Bad”, “worse”, “worst” and “good”, “better”, “best”. Modify the comparitive with “much” or “a little” or “slightly” etc if you like. ;-)

  64. Doug Proctor says:

    “This work will only hammer the credibility of the scientific community at a time when society needs to be taking global warming seriously.”

    Good comment, IF global warming were about intellect rather than emotion.

    It is not necessary to be right to secure funding and legislation. It is only necessary to convince the money-holders that it is the right thing to do. Which might be an altruistic move or it might be a politically expedient move. Doesn’t matter to the thing getting approval, though a political expediency is easier to undo than one based in purported altruism.

    The recent (WUWT) reported poll of Americans’ thoughts about climate change/global warming showed that not much had changed since 2006. People were still waiting to see solid evidence that significant changes were occurring and that they were firmly attached to man’s CO2 output. But people were also still willing to put some TAX dollars towards reducing man’s impact on the environment. Papers like this one will be cited as support that what we are seeing is outside the “normal” envelope, but we really need a series of them to be convincing enough for people to want to open their wallets.

    The time for skeptics to worry is when the average Joe wants to spend more of his after-tax dollar on “saving the planet” (and making Al Gore richer). What we really need is for Archibald and Svensmark to be proven right with a couple of years of temperatures going down. By their calculations, this should be happening by 2015, given that there is some lag in cause-and-effect.
    Until then debunking like here is essential.

    Journalists don’t start off cynical and opportunistic, and don’t always end up that way. They are also sensitive to climbing aboard the wrong bus (in the beginning, before the story is working for them). So there will be those that read (and perhaps report on) the alarming “new” story and then look for the rebuttal … and remember.

    At the same time, if the global temperatures don’t start to drop soon, the best we can say as skeptics is that the sensitivity of the world to CO2 is less than that said by the IPCC. The Precautionary Principle will be relevant. In order for the real impact of the eco-green to be avoided, we really need a cooling phase to indicate that nature has the upper hand – and has had it for the last 50 years. And we need it to begin in some populated area, (continue) in Antarctica.

    2015, and counting.

  65. more soylent green! says:

    We’re in the middle of a brutal heat wave here in Kansas City and so far this year ranks #8 for the hottest summer on record. The hottest summer is 1934, the second hottest is 1936. The third is 1954 (or ’56).

    So our hottest summer on record has nothing to do with greenhouse gases, or AGW. It seems to me the 1930’s were pretty dry years, too, which also had nothing to do with AGW.

  66. John F. Hultquist says:

    Jerker Andersson says:
    July 16, 2012 at 1:42 am
    If I am not wrong 17 or 30 years is the minimum time that has to be used in order to claim it is climate (and) not weather.

    These numbers (17 & 30) have been used but are meaningless. I think the “17” thing is someone’s idea of minimum necessary years for relevancy in a statistical application. I remember seeing this sense-of-use but did not tag it. Maybe someone did and can post it. The “30” is simply a convention selected for calculating weather related averages, comparing observations to, and calling it “normal” rather than just an “average.” This selection (of 30) was meant to give an adult a numerical marker based on experience from post-child to young adulthood. The 30 year periods have ended in a year with ‘0’, so starting in say 1961 and ending in 1990. Now 1981 to 2010 is used. Examples are here (see left side):
    http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?id6152

  67. Joseph Bastardi says:

    Bill
    Could you please explain the physics of how a greenhouse gas, that is .0004 of the atmosphere, which has 1/1000th of the heat capacity of the ocean which supplies the vast majority of the major greenhouse gas, water vapor, which is 400 times that of co2, is going to warm the system. When one takes into account that mans contribution to global co2 according to DOE is only 3-5% which means mans contribution is .00002 to the entire system, and that even TERMITES contribute 2.5 that times of man, it seems a fools errand to go after co2. That is not to say true pollutants should not be looked.

    But given this chart, how can co2 be anything more than coincidental in this matter. Please again, could we use more than just “you believe” can you justify how a hang nail ( co2) would be the cause of obesity ( the rise in global temps)

    In addition it has a specfic gravity of 1.5 that of air, heats and cools faster than air, and has different radiative property.

    We all await the proof, given the actual data

    please have a look at this
    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/overlayco2.png

    and actual temps since PDO flip

    http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png

  68. kim says:

    Lissen up to the early bird @ 4:18 AM. There is the worm.
    =================

  69. kim says:

    Joe, we are all attic now.
    ============

  70. Werner Brozek says:

    John F. Hultquist says:
    July 16, 2012 at 8:03 am
    I think the “17” thing is someone’s idea of minimum necessary years for relevancy in a statistical application. I remember seeing this sense-of-use but did not tag it. Maybe someone did and can post it.

    Is this what you were looking for:
    https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
    “LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.”

    I could be wrong here, but I think the 17 years has something to do with the fact that both RSS and hadsst2 show 15.5 years of no temperature change. I do not recall reading about the 17 years until we were close to the 15 year mark of no change. See:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend

  71. Bill Tuttle says:

    Climate Central’s “TV Mets” program to deliver “Meals, ready to eat” for cash starved media outlets would have a lot of appeal.

    Talking Head-flavored MREs?

    At least it’s appropriate: “Meals,ready to eat” — two lies for the price of one…

  72. KenB says:

    If they continue to release junk “science” reports at this frequency and calibre, there will be no need to release any further CRU emails. The “fat lady” will have already sung, and the “comical Ali” version of climate science will be relegated to history, to be discussed over a glass of wine or two to the theme of, how stupid could they be thinking they could get away with this tripe!

  73. Wagathon says:

    Do we need more evidence of the personal fortitude of George Bush who saved the country from the scourge Warmanism? Like the lone Chinaman facing the tanks in Tiananmen Square with nothing but courage in his heart, will to do right and the principles to oppose the mindless conformity of the Climatists, Bush stood up to the UN, dead and dying Old Europe, a biased media, the superstitious crowd and all of the Leftist purveyors of fear in academia.

  74. John@EF says:

    Joseph Bastardi said: July 16, 2012 at 8:03 am
    ========
    Why are you asking Bill to explain anything? I don’t believe he (or any of them) made a CO2 claim.

    I think you’d benefit from revisiting the science of natural carbon cycles because it appears you don’t understand them – maybe someone has a special cycle example on the carbon life of termites … perhaps you’d come to grips with the fact that the human activity of digging-up millions-and-millions of years worth of sequestered carbon deposits and combusting them into the atmosphere is not part of the natural cycle and throws off the natural balance. I find most of your CO2 commentary specious, not reflect well on you.

  75. Billy Liar says:

    Think of the upside! This study has kept over 20 ‘climate scientists’ in their jobs despite the fact that it is worthless.

    Why do they associate drought only with heat? Most of Texas was in extreme drought from April 1956 to February1957. From August 1956 to January 1957 the small area around Brownsville was in severe drought, the rest was in extreme drought.

    Why did they leave the early 1950’s and the 1930’s out of their X-box studies?

    I think their most stunning observation is that when it is very dry, it is very hot. Could this be associated with fewer clouds around?

  76. Kev-in-UK says:

    Dr Burns says:
    July 16, 2012 at 3:23 am
    ”A scientist would have evidence rather than being a religious true believer.
    Where is your evidence ?”
    Exactly ! But it’s worse IMHO – he dismisses some silly claims with REAL evidence of a REAL station that shows NO significant warming – but then still returns to his BELIEFS !
    – clearly, this brings into question whether or not Dr Mass is indeed a real ‘scientist’? He seems to have the honesty and integrity ((from this article) – but where is the common sense?

  77. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Joseph Bastardi says:

    July 16, 2012 at 8:03 am

    Bill
    Could you please explain the physics of how a greenhouse gas, that is .0004 of the atmosphere, which has 1/1000th of the heat capacity of the ocean which supplies the vast majority of the major greenhouse gas, water vapor, which is 400 times that of co2, is going to warm the system. When one takes into account that man’s contribution to global co2 according to DOE is only 3-5% which means mans contribution is .00002 to the entire system, and that even TERMITES contribute 2.5 that times of man, it seems a fools errand to go after co2. That is not to say true pollutants should not be reduced.

    But given this chart, how can co2 be anything more than coincidental in this matter. Please again, could we use more than just “you believe” can you justify how a hang nail ( co2) would be the cause of obesity ( the rise in global temps)

    In addition it has a specfic gravity of 1.5 that of air, heats and cools faster than air, and has different radiative property.

    And statistically whats the chance of an incomming photon hitting a molecule of CO2?

  78. vukcevic says:

    Ian W says:
    July 16, 2012 at 5:46 am
    ……..
    Everything moves with the polar jet stream
    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream//global/images/jetstream3.jpg
    which is currently (around 50N) further south then its summer normal over the NE. Atlantic http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_atl_anal_00.gif
    Long term atmospheric pressure oscillation is entering negative phase.

  79. Bill Marsh says:

    Joseph Bastardi says:

    July 16, 2012 at 8:03 am

    Bill
    Could you please explain the physics of how a greenhouse gas…………………..

    ====================

    Joe, Curiosity compels me to ask which ‘Bill’ among the posters this was addressed to.

  80. Mariana Britez says:

    After looking at the COLA maps for years
    http://wxmaps.org/pix/clim.html
    Im now convinced they are basically tripe they simply show cold cold during winters ie southern hemisphere and hot hot Northern hemisphere every year they really are not anomalies at all.

  81. observa says:

    Trouble is you science geeks just don’t get it-

    “Science is a social and cultural activity through which explanations of natural phenomena are generated,” it (a Queensland government syllabus statement) says.
    “Explanations of natural phenomena may be viewed as mental constructions based on personal experiences and result from a range of activities including observation, experimentation, imagination and discussion.
    “Accepted scientific concepts, theories and models may be viewed as shared understandings that the scientific community perceive as viable in light of current available evidence.”

    And now you do compliments of Slatts. etc-
    http://www.slattsnews.observationdeck.org/?p=6337

  82. Wagathon says:

    Then, extreme heat events must have been ~20 times more likely in Mexico than in Texas for decades but nobody cared, right?

  83. Caragea says:

    The biggest tragedy of the internet is the polarization of the public. Blogs and news companies of all kinds allowed for biased information, pseudo science and politicized information to find it’s own vociferous advocate groups. We all have biases but most importantly we should strive to be aware of them and try to overcome them. We should search for truth regardless of how uncomfortable it is. Look into public media for less biased information, and look at established reputable institutions with respect not dismissal. Most people here seem convinced that anthropogenic climate change is a myth, and they follow the science presented here. However, the Royal Society of England, has established otherwise, and I think that when that institution issues a warning, everyone better listen. An institution with that kind of reputation cannot be so easily and realistically dismissed.
    http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/

  84. Robert Thomson says:

    From the Financial Times US – http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f86b2fc-cce4-11e1-9960-00144feabdc0.html#axzz20o933Tdw

    Welcome to the new world of American energy – By Edward Luce

    Opens with – “According to Nasa, nine of the 10 hottest years globally have occurred since 2000. And so on, from one statistical milestone to another, until we reach a nagging dilemma: evidence of global warming has never been stronger but the public appetite to respond has rarely been weaker. Nowhere are both observations truer than in the US. Yet in few places do the list of alibis stack up so impressively.
    To the surprise of many, President Barack Obama in April told Rolling Stone magazine that he would make tackling climate change a second term priority.”

    It is amazing how disinformation is taken as the truth – the MSM have much to learn ……………………………………………

  85. Chuck Nolan says:

    Nice try Doc but you must not have read the climategate emails.
    This is just more of the same.
    cn

  86. Robert Thomson says:

    Careaga – “the Royal Society of England, has established otherwise, and I think that when that institution issues a warning, everyone better listen. An institution with that kind of reputation cannot be so easily and realistically dismissed.”

    Reputations are not what they seem – try this and let us know what you think ………….
    http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/montford-royal_society.pdf

  87. highflight56433 says:

    “Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”

    Answer: The greeners, tree huggers, environazis, progressives, and other lefty types, have a philosophy of throwing such volumes of mud to the wall that some will stick. The proof is in the number of ignorant folks who bought into the CAGW. The left media, of course, has the same progressive agenda and support any religion that gives governments more control to tax and regulate. I hate to repeat myself, but it is the “how to catch a wild pig” syndrome combined with “never waste a crisis” philosophy.

    Take the movie industry as an example of dumbing down the public. Look at all the space movies with space craft roaring through the void emptiness of space. Look at all the movies depicting an airplane with dead engines nose diving and roaring into the earth below. The list is endless. Then, we have the Algorean inconvenience thriller with hyped up emotional agenda ranting spit flying horror of doom. Even the science channels are full of bunk global warming science.

    It is very much deliberate. $$$$$$$$$$$$$ So, if some of those are feeling some back pressure, out they come with even more outlandishness.

  88. davidmhoffer says:

    Caragea;
    Most people here seem convinced that anthropogenic climate change is a myth, and they follow the science presented here. However, the Royal Society of England, has established otherwise, and I think that when that institution issues a warning, everyone better listen.>>>>

    Certainly we should listen. We should also research and verify their opinion. I did so, and the claims made by various bodies are misleading and built upon shoddy science. I came to that conclusion NOT from reading a single thing on WUWT, but from reading the papers themselves, AR4 in particular.

  89. Myron Mesecke says:

    I live in Temple, TX. The “official” weather comes from a station at the local airport. Last week the station was not operating correctly. Temperature and humidity were bonkers and all over the place. The readings were shown on everything from AccuWeather to local TV to NWS. I saw everything from 0 degrees with a wind chill of -18 and 0% humidity to 133 degrees with a heat index of 144. And those two readings happened on the same day several hours apart.
    I hope none of last weeks readings will go into any records or data sets.

  90. @ Robert Thomson

    “the Royal Society of England, has established otherwise, and I think that when that institution issues a warning, everyone better listen. An institution with that kind of reputation cannot be so easily and realistically dismissed.”

    Reputations are not what they seem – try this and let us know what you think

    And large increases in govt funding for the Royal Society have coincided with massive salary rises for the senior managers. How strange!

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/royal-society-funding/

  91. mkelly says:

    Caragea says:
    July 16, 2012 at 10:35 am
    “Look into public media for less biased information,…”

    PBS here in the states is a left leaning organization and the BBC has been shown by internal investigations not to be truthful on the subject of AGW so why would any one look to “public media for less biased information”.

  92. highflight56433 says:

    “However, the Royal Society of England, has established otherwise, and I think that when that institution issues a warning, everyone better listen. An institution with that kind of reputation cannot be so easily and realistically dismissed.”

    You are kidding, right? That paper is a rehash of propaganda. Not one citation in the first 6 pages.

  93. Billy Liar says:

    Caragea says:
    July 16, 2012 at 10:35 am

    argumentum ad verecundiam – you’ll have to do better than that.

  94. vukcevic says:

    @ Robert Thomson

    Don’t you believe it, just few years ago they were at each others throats.
    Not for the first time:
    “The critique of Newton’s work was to be the beginning of a long and spiteful rivalry between the two men, with Newton taking an arrogant stance, and Hooke often accusing Newton of plagiarism. Newton also received some criticism of his optics experiments from some Jesuits, who claimed that they could not replicate Newton’s prism experiment, and therefore it was wrong. Newton erupted in anger at this at Hooke. He convinced himself of a conspiracy against him, and gave up the study of optics, refusing to correspond with anyone about it. Newton moved to chemistry, and more specifically alchemy. He laboured day and night in his chemical laboratory and immersed himself in mathematical and mystical calculations.”

  95. Gary Hladik says:

    Kelvin Vaughan says (July 16, 2012 at 9:18 am): “And statistically whats the chance of an incomming photon hitting a molecule of CO2?”

    The odds are low, because very little of the sun’s radiation is at wavelengths absorbed by so-called “greenhouse” gasses (GHGs). The odds on the way out, however, are higher because much of the earth’s outgoing radiation is at wavelengths absorbed by GHGs. For example, the earth’s atmosphere is nearly opaque around 4.3 micrometers, where water vapor doesn’t mask absorption by CO2.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

  96. _Jim says:

    Kelvin Vaughan says (July 16, 2012 at 9:18 am): “And statistically whats the chance of an incomming photon hitting a molecule of CO2?”

    Gary Hladik says July 16, 2012 at 11:57 am

    The odds are low …

    So stuck in conceiving of EM physics as if ‘rocks’ were being thrown back and forth and only direct hits are scored; this isn’t case and I would recommend a review of the such fields as IR Spectroscopy or the direct study of EM waves and antennas: how they work (how does a slim wire dipole for instance ‘act’ for all intents and purposes as if it had greater area than just that the ‘area’ the wire surface presents to incoming EM energy?)

    .

  97. Mr.D.Imwit says:

    This should be made compulsory reading for all the ‘OOH-AAH’ brigade.
    http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/wxevents.htm
    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf (big download 15MB)
    Blistering temperatures,7 year droughts,Floods,tsunamis and Mothers eating their babies.
    Chaos has reigned many times in the past well before ‘official records’ began.Do these so called ‘Experts’ not know this?.

  98. agfosterjr says:

    Did I feel something quake? From now on we’ll have to distinguish between “alarmists” and “radicals.” Anthony Watts has done for climate science what Bill Buckley did for politics: move the center. It seems the warmistas will be relegated to posting on WUWT the way things are going–peer review will reject the non-radical. –AGF

  99. Jonas says:

    Yes there might be populistic reports on Global warming, but are following facts independant?
    1)There has been an industrial revolution resulting in almost a doubling of CO2 concentration.
    2) The arctic is melting, see http://www.economist.com/node/21556798
    3) Global temperature has increased with almost 1 degree the latest century, see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ and/or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

  100. John F. Hultquist says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    July 16, 2012 at 8:33 am

    Thanks, Werner.
    Yes, that’s the sort of thing I remember but it makes very little sense:

    “Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate,” said Benjamin Santer, . . .
    “They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

    Note that the issue is not climate but “to discriminate” between . . .

    So, it requires 17 years because 10 years is cherry picking. That’s entertaining but not very educational.

  101. Mr.D.Imwit says:

    Reply to Jonas,
    If you are terribly worried please visit the the links I posted above to allay your fears,read and digest the Information.
    Do you want to go back to those dark and dastardly times?.

  102. jaya says:

    Hi Anthony, Was this pulled without permission from Cliff Mass’ web site or was this a guest post? I’ve heard both.

    [REPLY: And just what part of the phrase "Guest post submitted by Dr. Cliff Mass University of Washington" (emphasis added) do you fail to understand? -REP]

  103. jaya says:

    Thanks Anthony. I heard from a mutual colleague of mine and Cliff’s that it was pulled without permission, but not from Cliff himself. I just wanted to get your side. Thanks for the reply and thanks for your great site.

    REPLY: I’d appreciate if you’d pass on my note to your colleague, and if he still has issues, I’m happy to forward the email from Cliff giving permission. – Anthony

  104. Gail Combs says:

    terrarious says:
    July 16, 2012 at 3:11 am

    rgb “has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”

    Since I too noticed that Australia is copping a similar barrage, I questioned whether these events are part of a far bigger plan, than to be just random publicity by individuals.
    ________________________________
    ELECTION TIME coming up….

  105. “Before I go further, let me stress that I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century. The impacts could be both profound and serious.”

    Ummmm…. wrong.

    There is ZERO evidence and I mean ZERO of significant man made global warming. Let me educate you Mr Mass

    The Earth has been warming steadily for 300 years, well before humans could’ve had any impact, and cooled for the past 8 years. As the climate has been steadily warming naturally, independent of human influence, then of course the hottest days are going to be at the end of the record!!! So claiming the hottest days/years being evidence of AGW is a fallacy.
    The fact is there has been no warming for 15 years!!!!!!

    The medieval Warm period was warmer than today. CO2science.org provides comprehensive collation of studies around the globe and has found it was hotter. Temperatures have been steadily increasing since a period called the Maunder Minimum, a mini-ice age straight after the MWP. The steady upward trend since shows no human signal as man had no heavy industry then. The incline from the 70s to ’98 is repeated many times in the past, even before the turn of the centurey and thus is not significant or unique in any way.

    Global ice levels are normal and sea levels have not risen significantly for 60 years.Sea temperatures according to the ARGO buoys deployed years ago show no increase! there goes the ‘hidden warmth’ theory of the Alarmists.

    Also climate models and IPCC predictions vastly exaggerate warming, they overstate CO2 levels, and exaggerate climate sensitivity forcing equations for CO2. They propose a fictional runaway feedback effect as the CO2 heats up the oceans which then release more CO2 into the atmosphere in a vicious circle. While this feedback does happen to a certain extent, not only is CO2 a lesser greenhouse gas in terms of contribution, the greenhouse effect is counterbalanced by other factors.

    The IPCC admits that GHG warming alone without feedbacks will account for no more than 1 degree over the next century. Empirical data shows feedbacks to be zero to negative otherwise we would have seen much more warming due to the CO2 than we have. There are negative feedback variables that the IPCC has vastly understated or ignored. For instance, the climate models vastly exaggerate upper tropospheric water vapour leading to understated Outgoing Longwave Radiation, and thus vastly exaggerating warming.

    In reality, Increased cumulonimbic convection and humidity creates more return flow subsidence and radiative mass sinking, leading to less upper tropospheric water vapour. This leads to more OLR escaping and thus less warming.

    The models also ignore or understate low level clouds resulting from increased humidity that reflects radiation back to space and cools the planet. The albedo effect resulting from cloud cover corresponds to cooler periods in the climate record.

    The mid tropospheric hotspot that should be there according to the IPCCs greenhouse gas warming contribution projections is NOT there, proving the IPCC’s models incorrect.

    Lindzen (you might have heard of him, the top climate scientist in the world) has studied the climate for 40 years and has plotted the satellite data that shows that Outgoing radiation goes UP with surface warming, NOT down as the IPCC suggests.

    Sea acidification is also complete rubbish as even if all the CO2 in the atmosphere was dissolved in water it would not even come close to approaching a neutral PH, let alone acid.

    Corals, crustaceans and other life forms flourish with more CO2.

    Add to that all the data tampering and manipulation, for example the Darwin tampering, the elimination of weather stations from higher altitudes, the attempted removal of the mediaeval warming period, and the bullying of scientists who didn’t support the AGW scam, in other words the bullying of scientists with a least a shred of conscience and morality and you have a 100% certainty that AGW is a scam.

    So how you can possibly claim half a degree in the next hundred years is catastrophic in any way shape or form brings into serious question your scientific integrity.

  106. JPeden says:

    Caragea says:
    July 16, 2012 at 10:35 am

    “Most people here seem convinced that anthropogenic climate change is a myth, and they follow the science presented here. However, the Royal Society of England, has established otherwise, and I think that when that institution issues a warning, everyone better listen. An institution with that kind of reputation cannot be so easily and realistically dismissed.”

    Caragea, since you have very firmly established yourself as a follower – and indeed one with no scientific argument to make – and have further apparently not been able to even conceive of the possibility of the existence of people who function using their own individual rational free thought capacity, including adhering to the principles of real science – since you’ve immediately concluded that everyone here at WUWT must necessarily think exactly like you do in being mere followers – I’ll just give you two facts bearing on the question of who to follow:

    1] China and India are constructing essentially as many coal-fired electricity plants as possible as we speak – many hundreds of them.

    2] The UN’s ipcc/unfccc have excluded right from the very start countries containing about 5 billion of the Earth’s
    ~6.8 billion people from having to follow their Kyoto Protocols, which constitute their own alleged cure to their still only alleged fossil fuel CO2 caused disease.

    So the UN entities are saying that the vast majority of people on Earth don’t even have to
    follow the rules for their alleged cure to their alleged Catastrophic disease; and in order to relieve their own very real catastrophies relating to underdevelopment, two countries containing a total of about 2.5 billion people are vigorously pursuing a course which is the exact opposite of the ipcc’s alleged cure, by producing as much fossil fuel CO2 as possible.

    Therefore, two questions for you as an admitted follower are: why aren’t all of the above entities following what you imply the Royal Society says; and why aren’t you following them instead of the Royal Society?

    Hint: as we’ve seen and proven here at WUWT and elsewhere – including quite a lot of personal investigations, regardless – “Mainstream Climate Science” is actually not practicing real science, in the face of which its alleged cure is manifestly worse than its still only alleged CO2 = CAGW disease.

    Finally, how much of this kind of damage do you want to be responsible for by functioning as a mere follower, even if that’s all you can do?

  107. Caleb says:

    RE: davidmhoffer says:
    July 15, 2012 at 11:44 pm
    Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.
    rgb
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Do you think there had been an actual uptick recently? Or are you just more sensitive to it because you’ve been following the debate more closely than in the past? I think the papers come out in waves around the IPCC reports, so we’re seeing a lot of hasty writing to get in under the AR5 deadline, but without having actually quantified it in some way, my impression is that the steady stream of hype and tripe has not changes much in the last 20 years. (In other words, the uptick you notice appears to be within natural variability of hype and tripe ;-) )”

    I disagree. The balderdash is worse now. Once there was an effort made to sound scientific. It seems they are not even making that effort any more, and are simply attempting to out-yell voices of reason.

  108. Brian H says:

    D. J. Hawkins says:
    July 16, 2012 at 7:43 am

    Brian H says:
    July 15, 2012 at 11:08 pm
    Edit:
    “But it is worst than that.”
    Use the comparative, not the absolute, please.
    “more worser” — or SLT.
    ;)

    “Worse” is the comparitive. “Bad”, “worse”, “worst” and “good”, “better”, “best”. Modify the comparitive with “much” or “a little” or “slightly” etc if you like. ;-)

    Gah! “more worser” was humour. Are you seriously telling me you didn’t get it? Or thought I was serious? Gah!

  109. Toto says:

    Please Dr. Mass, do some guest posts on the limits of weather prediction using computer models and what that says about the limits of climate prediction models.

    For those that haven’t been following cliffmass.blogspot.com here are some relevant posts:

    U.S. Climate Versus Weather Computers: Climate Wins
    http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/05/us-climate-versus-weather-computers.html

    Extraordinary Skill for Extended Weather Forecasts
    http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/05/extraordinary-skill-for-extended.html

    Troubles at the National Weather Service
    http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/06/troubles-at-national-weather-service.html

Comments are closed.