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)
Hear, hear, Mr. Lento!
My guess is that Mr. S. will plead “insanity” and back it up with some fine testimonial evidence below.
********************************
Mr. S., I’d be glad to be proven wrong on the above statement. How about it?
Ms Moore: I’m open arms… really I am.
OK – I am sure my banter here is causing people to roll their eyes. Back to the science now.
@Gary Young Hladik
My wife has always given me a choice.
(As long as I make the right choice, that is.)
Xsellent review. Thanks. Grrr …
[snip – off topic slayers junkscience]
Myrrh,
Sheer Gold & Frankincense. Doubt very much though that Roy Spencer will do his experiment, nor Anthony repeating his but correctly (i.e. directly measuring the temperature of the filament, not the shell). Thank you for also confirming that AGW and GHE are inextricably linked, as some seem to be in denial that they are. Without the conjectured GHE, there would be no thought of AGW.
All climate deniers identities have been recorded and will be contacted at some point when there is no more point to denial – the flood waters will be threatening our very survival. You will all be held accountable for your lies. So be very careful, it’s easy to trace where you get this tosh from, don’t paste anything you don’t know personally to be totally reliable. People can be so unforgiving when their lives have become untenable.
It’s all about taxes with you people, you just hate government taxing you, but would be the first to scream for help if government disappeared and you were at the mercy of the rich and powerful and the vicious and violent. Society has costs, government and taxes are how we organise our society and pay the costs. If you don’t like it, find somewhere without government [Somalia looks like a nice place] and move there. No taxes! But you might get raped by an Islamist pig; no police you see, nothing can be done about it. But never mind, you’ll have your gun …
William Astley says:
‘There is no CO2 climate crisis. There will be no dangerous warming. There does appear to be a real risk of dangerous cooling but that is a problem for another thread.’
There is a climate crisis; even insects appear to realise this fact and species are moving north, this is FACT and is not part of data accumulated by climate scientists.
There is already dangerous warming; seas are absorbing a lot of it, and becoming more acxidic, this means many species will disappear, corals are already almost gone. Sea level rise, currently measured by satellite at 1mm annually, will most likely increase its rate. Nuclear power stations are mostly on coasts because they need a lot of cooling water – just like Fukushima.
There is no risk of cooling, that is a lie promulgated by the rightwing who refuse to stop their rush for personal riches.
The only people who won’t debate are the deniers, perhaps they just can’t debate; this site is typical in that people copy and paste nonsense and think it’s debate. It isn’t. Debate means an honest use of language to back up an honestly held viewpoint, and using facts to make your point. Few here have ever debated anything, few have had any kind of education seemingly, they just want reassurance.
Dr Norman Page, a geologist and an oil man. Now why would he be a denier? Beats me! Why are fossil fuel geologists so sceptical? There seem to be a lot of them, perhaps it’s because they can only get jobs with oil companies? http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/277/
I think we can take Mr Page’s very long comments as being officially from the oil industry. Who have nothing whatever to lose by the population reducing its dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.
You couldn’t make it up!
No naughty words to upset a mod. Clean post to test if it’s words or just anything I, a dissident here, post.
[Recommend you read the site Policy page, as you are in continuous violation. —mod.]
Yep, it’s naughty words, my posts don’t get modded unless I use one from the list. Where IS the list though?
oneworldnet says:
June 7, 2013 at 5:56 am
Odd you claim that, since your “evillll” oil companies have been major contributors (by extortion ?) to the CAGW-promoting industry that owes its entire LIFE and FUTURE to continuing the lies and hypocrisies within the CAGW religion (er, doctrine).
ONLY the government and its agencies benefits by the scam through control, power, taxes, and destruction of the economies and health of the world, and it was ONLY government-paid “scientists” who were allowed to be represented within the original 97% of scientists so-called “research” results. It is government-paid “research” into government-funded labs by government-dependent “scientists” using government-limited grants and inside government-bureaucracies and government-dependent universities and government-funded “non-government-organizations” promoted by government-tied “news” medias and their profitable “non-profits” who gain from the CAGW doctrine.
It has been your socialist governments who have killed now more 250 millions of innocents this past century, not the oil companies. It is your socialist governments who need the CAGW doctrine to continue. It is the realists and engineers who have paying jobs who are defending the true science and the facts from the government propaganda and government lies.
The theory behind the fact that CO2 contributes very little to climate (even before feedbacks) is very simple, and is verified by satellite measurements.
It’s like adding an 11th layer of black paint on top of 10 layers on your window. It won’t make much of a difference. Although black paint absorbs light…
CO2 absorbs all the solar radiation energy in a very narrow band, and reflects it back into space. Even 60ppm, a seventh of the concentration, does it. Adding extra CO2 just makes this happen a bit higher up.
The theory and supporting measurements are around for 113 years now, due to Angstrom (1900). In a very simple experiment, a tube filled with 100% CO2 put at Earth’s surface in the sun doesn’t warm up AT ALL.
ALL heat in the CO2 band is ALREADY absorbed and reflected back by the CO2 higher up. Even at 3000m height, still nothing.
In the paper “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006” by Claudine Chen, John Harries, Helen Brindley, Mark Ringer where they compare the satellite data
The paper is in full here
http://tinyurl.com/ya7spzy
you can see in fig 3 that the effect of 36 years of CO2 levels growth is minimal, negligible compared to neighboring bands. Half the CO2 band is up, half is down, by about the same amount.
This confirms Angstrom’s paper, and the fact that the effect of EXTRA CO2 is minimal.
As the stagnating temperatures for 16 years now confirm as well.
PS Angstrom also noticed that the reflection of water vapor is proportional to the humidity, so water vapor DOES influence climate.
Mosher:”Theories are confirmed by evidence or disconfirmed. not falsified or verified.”
The point is that AGW has been disconfirmed by evidence. By modern science standards, it is junk.
In modern, empirical science, theories exist only to explain observations. Theories that fail to explain observations, such as AGW, are no longer part of science. They are historical artifacts, at best.
PS Your understanding of QFT renormalization is a bit fuzzy. What is your problem with it?
@oneworldnet
I’m just guessing that you haven’t read the WUWT policy here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
I am privy (but please keep it discreet before the official publication date) to the forthcoming Dana Nucitelli – John Cook literature survey.
A JOHN COOK DANA NUCITELLI SURVEY OF THE LAST 40 YEARS OF TROUSER LITERATURE SHOWS BELL BOTTOMS ARE THE MOST POPULAR SHAPE
Trouser scientists agree on bell bottoms.
So why doesn’t everyone else?
Why are Americans ignoring trouser science?
Is it the corrupting influence of the Big Shorts?
oneworldnet: “anything I, a dissident here, post”
My, are you self centered, man.
Do you get most of your insights by navel gazing?
[snip – off topic slayers junkscience, and way way too long – stop postingn this stuff in threads where it doesn’t belong or you’ll earn permanent troll bin status – Anthony]
Please allow me to definitely prove that the AGW models and their supporters are wrong. It’s quite simple, we know they’re a bit weak on math. Their claimed 97% of people agreeing is actually 9.7%. Far from any significant data point. It’s almost in the category of ‘noise’.
Janice Moore: Insanity! Far from it. As one with a science degree and many years working in a technology industry, I read all these posts and much, much more, papers included, with a level head and caring heart. I am not upset personally by Anthony’s and Roy’s childish dismissal of the arguments offered by PSI, just saddened that such irrational dismissal takes place, as they too are directly challenging the threat to humanity posed by the promoters of (C)AGW., which is I am sure the aim of WUWT. It is sad though to see Anthony descending into the “it’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to” mindset. It is childish and immature. I have greatly valued Anthony’s writing and work to challenge (C)AGW and all that it stands for, but this recent spat has somewhat dented his standing in not only my mind, but in many others also. However, I don’t hold Anthony or anyone up on a pedestal such that I will automatically believe anything he or they say or write, but treat it with the same critical and skeptical eye as anything else, and that includes those in PSI.
Of course I understand that GHE and AGW are different entities, but it remains that they are synonymous, especially in the minds of those that promote (C)AGW, particularly most of the world’s politicians and environmental groups, which is where the prime battle is. The belief in their minds that (C)AGW is true is based on them believing the GHE is true and the direct cause of (C)AGW. If there is any possibility that the GHE is not true, why wouldn’t that be a valid and supportable line of inquiry. Yet what I and many others see, is a ‘religious’ outright rejection of this based on a ‘consensus. belief (that the GHE must be true), not a true scientific open mind that questions and investigates. Remember, consensuses are man-made, and history has repeatedly demonstrated that many are eventually overthrown. Consensus, aka ‘current perceived wisdom’ is a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is transitory and illusory, it is not science.
Myrrh,
it seems that you know nothing at all about physics. It is people like you who give us skeptics such a bad name. What you have stated above is utter rubbish. Rubbish, no science and especially no physics understanding.
Simon C-S is thoroughly confused. Anthony did not write this article, so attacking him is pointless.
Simon says: “Of course I understand that GHE and AGW are different entities…”
They are used interchangably. Without a GHE there would be no AGW.
To the best of my knowledge, most skeptics do not reject the GHE out of hand. The real question is: how important is the GHE?
My view is that the GHE is minuscule on a planetary scale. Most of the effect takes place in the first 20 ppmv, and as 400 ppmv is approached, any GHE is completely undetectable. It is down in the noise, therefore it can be completely disregarded.
No catastrophic global warming is on the horizon. There is nothing to worry about, based on curent observations. The real concern is global cooling. Fortunately, the planet seems to be staying within current parameters; no unusual warming or cooling is evident.
It gets tiresome constantly reading about “What if” scenarios, when there is no scientific evidence to support those scenarios. We have been fortunate to be living in a truly “Goldilocks” climate, for which we should be thankful. Because things could easily get out of hand — naturally.
Myrrh says (June 7, 2013 at 5:05 am): “Spencer’s thought experiment has been falsified by superior expert thinking in the field …”
BWAHAHAHA! Aristotle claimed, no doubt after much “expert thinking”, that men have more teeth than women and heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones. Myrrh, the adorably naive boy “scientist”, says that “visible” light can’t heat matter. All three claims are falsified by experiment, not verbal tap dancing. (I’d link the famous Feynman lecture here, but I know it wouldn’t do any good.)
“Let him put up or shut up.”
BWAHAHAHA! You mean the way LaTour “put up”? Why didn’t he and his buddies do the experiment and prove Dr. Spencer wrong with his own experimental design?
Look, Myrrh, you guys are the outsiders, you said it yourself. The burden of proof is on you. The IPCC, its critics, science and engineering professionals and students, science textbook authors, and interested laymen like me all think of you guys as hopeless crackpots (when we think about you at all). Handwaving and posturing won’t change that. Only experiment will change that (or would, if you guys were actually correct), yet you steadfastly refuse to do the work. It’s glaringly obvious you guys don’t believe your own propaganda! Otherwise why the reluctance to “put up”? If you’re actually right, the rewards would be enormous.
BTW, from skimming the rest of your prattle, I gather you still haven’t done your own backyard Herschel experiment, Myrrh–or should I say “Aristotle”?
Simon C-S says (June 7, 2013 at 9:34 am): “Doubt very much though that Roy Spencer will do his experiment, nor Anthony repeating his but correctly (i.e. directly measuring the temperature of the filament, not the shell).”
Anthony doesn’t have to. It’s been done:
http://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/emea/images/Halogen_MR16_IR_Lamps_Data_sheet_EN_tcm181-12732.pdf
Now don’t you feel silly? 🙂
Simon C-S says (June 7, 2013 at 10:13 am): “However, I don’t hold Anthony or anyone up on a pedestal such that I will automatically believe anything he or they say or write, but treat it with the same critical and skeptical eye as anything else, and that includes those in PSI.”
No you don’t. Otherwise you’d demand they do Dr. Spencer’s experiment and prove their theories. Why do you think they haven’t done it?
Myrrh – Your post is an example of ‘anything appears to be possible when you have no idea what you are talking about’.
In brief:
GW ended in 2001. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
AGW never was. http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html
Dr. Spencer, et al. are correct and completely consistent with “real world empirical well understood modern up to date physics”.
Dr. Latour may have been having a bad day. He certainly had nothing to do with radiation HT analyses for Apollo and apparently doesn’t know how space simulation chambers work. I have used one (for testing satellites) and even directed how to fix it . . . twice (both successful).
GHE exists but the magnitude doesn’t change significantly as a result of any rational change to non-condensing ghg (never mind that GHE is a misnomer and radiation HT has little to do with why greenhouses work.).
Dan Pangburn, PE65, MSME73
By ‘global’ temperatures, are we looking at the whole globe, or only the surface and lower atmosphere? Asking because heat goes into the oceans* and melting ice. Those indicators show warming for the period (from the 1990s).
* D’Aleo only looks at a small portion of the oceans (tropical Pacific, 300 meters) in the top post. Trends are strongly upwards for global heat content from the 1990s.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png