Guest essay by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics
National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory as
“a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist in a lecture explained how theorys that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (“wrong”) and must be discarded.
Global Warming Theory Has Failed
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.
Given the failures of global warming science, just a few mentioned here, the most disreputable alarmists like Oreskes, Cook and Trenberth and the demagogue party have tried to convince the uniformed by using the consensus argument. See the latest failed attempt here. It was also described on Forbes here.
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology
Related articles
- Benchmarking IPCC’s warming predictions (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Schellnhuber Slips, Confirms Ocean Cycles Do Play A Major Role, Yet Hasn’t Added Them To Climate Models (notrickszone.com)
- To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here (forbes.com)
Pokerguy, et al, I’ve built a web site in order to host a neutral climate survey.
I am interested in people submitting questions to put on it.
RoHa says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:00 pm
…
. I, on the other hand, would want to be paid.
Do you take Paypal?
If so, I’m in.
Lets start at the top.
First, he misread Feynman, Feynman was a great practioner of correcting theories, beacuse theories are never falsified. Not logically and not practically. But, leaving that misreading aside,
lets start with the first three strawmen.
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only.
A.) the theory of global warming does not dictate that it must warm every place on the globe.
B) the theory actually predicts more warming in Northern latitudes. This is known as polar
amplification.
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
A) this is statistically wrong.
B) even if it were true the theory does not predict uniform or monotonic increases for all time
periods. Yes, you even have some models that have periods of cooling that exceed 20
years.
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
A) I does not suggest both. contamination of the surface and/or uncertainity in the tropospheric measures could explain the issue. This is an excellant example of how
simple falsification fails as a model of how science works. Another example
would be Feynmans use of renormalization.
The bottom line is that no theory is “falsified” by observation. Observation and theory are always in conflict because observations never ever fit a theory exactly. Never ever.
When theory and observation come into conflict ( as in ALWAYS ) there are these choices.
And note these choices are pragmatic
A) you can ascribe the difference between theory and observation to “error”
B) you can re examine your data, re run your test. And in some cases find
errors, saving your theory
C) you can adjust your theory to account for the data.
D) You can replace the theory, but you need a theory that is at least as good as the existing
theory.
Put another way, since theories can never be true, you can’t falsify them. Since they are always conditionally “true”, they can never be unconditionally false.
Theories are confirmed by evidence or disconfirmed. not falsified or verified.
“(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.”
Coincidentally (?) Dr. Spencer discusses the “hot spot” here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/#comments
I wonder what on Earth the Alarmists will get alarmed about next.
Steven Mosher says:
“…Feynman was a great practioner of correcting theories, beacuse theories are never falsified.”
1. Theorems are never falsified. But theories can be falsified — in theory. ☺
2. Man-made global warming is a conjecture, not a theory.
Nit-picking, I know. But in science, especially, language matters. Claiming that AGW is a “theory” is wrong. It is a conjecture; it is not even a hypothesis, because AGW is not testable, so it cannot be falsified. That may happen one day. But currently AGW is not testable because it cannot be reliably measured.
If AGW could be verifiably measured, then the disputed question of the climate sensitivity number would be answered. But right now that guesstimate ranges from negative warming for 2xCO2, to zero warming, to the UN/IPCC’s preposterous 3ºC to 6+ºC warming for 2xCO2, and plenty of WAG’s in beteween.But right now there is no widespread agreement as to how much global warming [if any] might result from a doubling of CO2. That number could even vary depending on CO2 concentrations.
Language matters; AGW is a conjecture, nothing more.
Steven Mosher says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:08 pm
…”Observation and theory are always in conflict because observations never ever fit a theory exactly. Never ever. ”
————
You just said “never ever”.
All this time I thought it was settled.
Sarc/
Methane?
CO2?
Coal Dust?
Black Carbon?
Dihydrogen monoxide?
Aah there are any number of things that they can pick next. Reposted this article on Weatherzone where the resident SkS Crusher crew will by now be doing a number on it no doubt.
“And the importance of editing can be seen in the above post. ” [Roha at 5:04PM]
I beg your pardon! #[;)]
***************
Re: my above apparently absurd remark (oh, brother). At the time, Roha’s 5:00PM post was invisible (a.k.a. “m-o-d-r–at–n”).
rgbatduke says:
June 5, 2013 at 3:56 pm
“Did you ever wonder why Anthony, and I, and Roy Spencer, and Dick Lindzen, and many others who actually have a clue about physics and meteorology spend an entirely disproportionate time bashing PSI’s absolutely absurd claims and their bad science just so that they might, one day, stop being an active embarrassment to the entire skeptical community and an active obstacle to its arguments?”
———————————————————————————————————————
I would say those behind PSI succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. How many sceptics are now too afraid to challenge the radiative GHE hypothesis for fear of other sceptics pointing the finger and shrieking “slayer”?
PSI claims were, as you say, absurd and bad science. The problem with the radiative GHE hypothesis that sceptics needed to be deflected from lays elsewhere.
It is worth reading Dr. Spencers description of an atmosphere without radiative gases –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/
Dr. Spencer describes the resulting isothermal atmosphere –
“Only the surface and a shallow layer of air next to the surface would go through a day-night cycle of heating and cooling. The rest of the atmosphere would be at approximately the same temperature as the average surface temperature.”
All it takes for the net radiative GHE hypothesis to fail is this claim –
“The rest of the atmosphere would be at approximately the same temperature as the average surface temperature.”
– to be false.
If the temperature of a non radiative atmosphere was set by surface Tmax not surface Tav, then such an atmosphere without strongly radiative gases would be far hotter than our current atmosphere.
There are two ways to arrive at the wrong answer. The first is to ignore the diurnal cycle and calculate conductive flux between the surface and atmosphere based on surface Tav. The second is to consider the diurnal cycle of surface temperatures, but fail to apply gravity bias when calculating conductive flux between the surface and the moving gas atmosphere.
Empirical experiment indicates that such an non radiative isothermal atmosphere would have its temperature above the near surface layer set by surface Tmax not surface Tav.
Simon C-S says:
June 5, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Gary,
The whole AGW/CAGW business is grounded in and synonymous with the GHE. Without the claimed CO2 GHE there would be no claimed (C)AGW. If AGW has failed, then GHE has, they cannot be separated.
It’s strange therefore that Anthony is vigorously defending the GHE yet proclaiming AGW has failed, it just doesn’t add up. It is PSI who have the line that maintains an integrity, that BOTH the GHE and CAGW claims have failed, with good, robust physical explanations why.
+++++++++++++
You are confused about what Anthony thinks. I do not intend to tell you what he thinks, but it’s certainly not what you wrote!
Believing in the GHE (theory), is not the same as agreeing with proponents of AGW or CAGW. Because evidence of the latter two (AGW and CAGW hypothesis) are only shown in models, which show with certainty that CO2 causes an initial warming which certainly causes positive feedbacks which will lead to catastrophic warming. CAGW proponents go as far as saying there is a tipping point where there is no return, as run away warming will essentially lead to a one way doom with no hope of fixing it.
Some skeptics of CAGW do believe in GHE theory in varying degrees. Most of us do not believe that CO2 is the main driver of climate that will lead to catastrophe. I think CO2 has some affect on climate, but that its effect is difficult to measure and is probably very small. I have believed that we were headed for cooling back about 5 years ago. The warming that was impossible to stop according to CAGW proponents, has stopped. It seems that their understanding of climate is based too strongly in preconceived notions that are just not panning out.
On points 16 and 17 (Antarctic ice and Greenland) we now have this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-06/greenland-antarctica-ice-loss/4736298
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7452/full/nature12238.html
It combines “new observations of ice-sheet mass balance and improved computer simulations of ice-sheet response to continuing climate change”.
Improved?
Can someone explain how 18. – sea level data manipulation – does the trick for alarmists. I can’t see how accounting for land rise would hide the levelling off in sea levels unless they only applied the manipulation to the last few years. Surely not?
CodeTech: Agree with Pokerguy. Let’s realize that the research is easy but needs academic quality and the cooperation of experts. Not waist our time with fruitless discussions but determine within one month whether it is feasible. I’m interested but where is your website?
Steven Mosher says:
June 5, 2013 at 7:08 pm
“When theory and observation come into conflict ( as in ALWAYS ) there are these choices.
And note these choices are pragmatic
A) you can ascribe the difference between theory and observation to “error”
B) you can re examine your data, re run your test. And in some cases find
errors, saving your theory
C) you can adjust your theory to account for the data.
D) You can replace the theory, but you need a theory that is at least as good as the existing
theory.”
You have forgotten
E) Don’t fix the theory, don’t collect new data, ignore all new data you can’t stop from being collected, and let a Cartoonist and a Scientologist write a paper saying that everyone agrees that the theory is correct.
This is what the international warmist-communitarian movement has chosen to do. An interesting new paradigm of science; surely Post-Popperian, but is it Post-Normal? Post-Normal Science does not include the writing bogus survey papers so I suggest we call it Cartoon Science.
You know you’re deep into big foot / area 51 / GHE when 25 ways a hypothesis has failed is listed, and the believers come out saying “that doesn’t mean GHE isn’t real.”
If it wasn’t wrong when they showed you the 168 watts into the earth and out, into some gas acting as a mirror with 324 X 2 coming back out after 168 went in,
There’s nothing short of psychiatric treatment that’s going to help you over your belief in the GHE.
The definition of belief based non science is when some men convince you that a
miles deep
frigid
fluid
nitrogen/oxygen
bath,
with a warm rock spinning submerged at it’s bottom at 1,000 miles per hour
has the analysis characteristics of a warm blanket.
It’s over there. The ones who ever believed or were willing to say there’s a chance that might work out, were the patients in the mental ward; and in climatology they took over and ran the honest science out of the building.
When you consider that adding a 1% shot of atmospheric pressures phase-change refrigerant to that mix, so that it cycles regularly picking up heat, taking it upward and dumping it up toward space, turning to ice falling back to repeat –
is referred to by these same psychos as “the hottest part of the giant heater which is actually a warm blankie”
you know it’s worse than you thought.
When you find grown men saying they believe all that in public places,
you know you’ve got as pure a group of wackos as you’re ever going to put together in a room and call what they say ‘science’
and just as the article points out, not a single element of that wacko insanity has turned out valid.
You’d think when people saw the “168 watts out of the earth into some gas which acts as a mirror and 324 watts X 2 come out of the mirror doesn’t break the laws of thermodynamics”
they would have realized just how loopy the believers in the stuff had to be.
It’s a mish mash of non scientific bloviating mixed with voodoo that breaks so many laws it’s past counting.
Gary Hladik says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Sorry, I missed the part where the so-called GHE “failed all tests”. Could you point it out, please?
Sure be glad to:
“(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.”
Gary Hladik says: “Thanks! I guess also that “168 watts into the atmosphere but 324 X 2 coming back out violation of the second law of thermodynamics sort of kept it’s options limited.
A little. ”
=========
No problem it just happened to be another endless list of the failures of this voodoo.
Others include the fact that the infrared astronomy business is stone silent on why they don’t have a bright pupil just trot out the photos of the sky for the past 100 years taken by students proving they know what such slides look like, studies done USING the earth frequency IR, etc.
Then there’s the study done by the people whose story it is, verifying there’s less infrared radiation in the frequencies demanded by GHE today, than 15 years ago. That’s just impossible if the GHE has any truth at all.
This is NOAA themselves, checking for their own Back Radiation.
For fourteen years.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim
While the magical mirror got 168 watts per sq meter out but returned 324 down to earth, 324 back out to space. While not breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others stubbornly continue to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was the primary cause of global warming.
Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.
CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since 2001 by 25.46 ppmv (an amount equal to 27.56% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; May, 2013, 396.59 ppmv).
The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat. (Some agencies say flat since 1997 see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml )
That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 25.46 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.
Average global temperature actually has little to do with meteorology so the wrong experts have been trying to figure it out. The so-called Global Climate Models (aka General Circulation Models) are actually weather models and they do a pretty good job of predicting weather for a few days. However, their predicting ability declines into computational noise within days. It is profoundly naive to perceive that a weather model can be turned into a climate model by running it longer.
DirkH says: @ur momisugly June 5, 2013 at 12:58 pm
….Anyone who still believes that the media would give him the same sort of exposure they give to crooks like Cartoonist Cook and Scientologist Nuccitelli must be living under a rock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed. Our best bet is one on one with people who will listen (sitting on the fence).
I jot down websites to look at on the back of a business card and give it to people.
I do not start with CAGW but with more neutral topics like food and banking. The idea is to open eyes to the fact that the media (and government) LIES and is in bed with the elite/bankers.
For food: SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy
For banking: Democratic Congressman Wright Patman chair of the Finance of the Banking and Currency Committee: “A Primer on Money”
Also a supplement to A Primer on Money by Patman: MONEY FACTS – 169 Questions and Answers on Money
Rosa Koire, Democrat, protester, lesbian and government employee is one of our best weapons.
The Post Sustainability Institute
Democrats Against Agenda 21
Youtube: Rosa Koire-UN Agenda 21 Surprise Tea Party May 1, 2012
The idea is to find a suitable crowbar to open minds. Once the mind is open and questioning, then it will also question CAGW especially when the body is freezing.
Two papers on line provide some eye-opening insight on possible cause of change to average global temperature. The papers are straight-forward calculations using readily available data.
The first one is ‘Global warming made simple’ at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/. It shows, with simple thermal radiation calculations, how a tiny change in the amount of low altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny cloud change. (The other half of the temperature change is from net average natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)
The second paper is ‘Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight’ at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.
A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent (since 1996) measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.
Rud Istvan says:
June 5, 2013 at 1:36 pm
With a bit of language cleanup such as pointed out above, and probably some comsolidation of points, and graphs and charts illustrating at least some of those points, this would make a fine general circulation all round position paper. Worth a shot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I asked my husband, a technical writer to edit Joseph D’Aleo’s piece. With Joe’s permission and Anthony’s cooperation we can then put up the revised version and determine the best graphs/ papers to use to illustrate each point.
@Jm Ward
…When I see a figure like this 97% consensus I am not surprised because it is 97% of a club whose entry requirement is being a believer. The only other place we ever see these sorts of levels of agreement is in the election of banana republic dictators. The dissenting 3% is more surprising….
There IS no 97%. Look at the methodologies used for all of these assertions.
Invariably, these are poorly designed surveys which, if they measure anything, attempt to measure attitudes in the vaguest sense, and then interpret the results as supporting anything that the survey writers want.
If you were trying to give the alarmists as much credibility as possible, you could probably say that the attitude of most ‘general scientists’ (that is, those who had not studied ‘Climate Change’) in 2000 was probably “There must be something in it, otherwise why would it be being pushed so hard?” So they probably believed that:
1 – the Earth was warming
2 – Man had something to do with it.
If you had asked them for any more detail they would have said: “Hang on- I don’t know any details – I’ll have to study the science. And if they were then asked about specific items – such as Jolliffe was about the hockey-stick stats, they would have said (as he did): “Well, this paper is rubbish, but maybe there’s more proof somewhere else.!”
And that would be the high-point – belief has gone rapidly downhill from then.
I can’t see how this can be claimed as a consensus. The best you could claim is probably that:
“more than 50% of scientists think there may be something in it”
and that would have been at the height of its popularity….
SIGH, My husband looked at this piece and said “NO, it would take too much time and the commenters here are already doing a great job.”