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)
@Barry: You wrote: Asking because heat goes into the oceans* and melting ice
+++++++
Correct me if I am wrong here. Isn’t global sea ice at its 30 year average? So what do you mean?
Mario – you are talking about a few months. You need 20 years or so of data to address the point D’Aleo made, which is about climatic trends.
The period in question (D’Aleo) is from the 1990s. There is a clear downward trend in global sea ice since then. I was also referring to land ice (glaciers), which likewise shows a downward trend from the 1990s.
[snip}
“Barry”, if you want to take Mr. D’Aleo on at that level, I ask that you put your name to your words, like he did, like Mosher does. I’m really rather tired of your pot shots here from behind the comfort of anonymity, where if you are wrong (and you are in this rebuttal in some places) there’s no downside for you because you take the no risk hidey hole route.
If you believe your challenge, put your name to it like Mr. D’Aleo does. I think it is only fair.
Anthony Watts
[snip – off topic slayers junkscience]
“barry says:
June 7, 2013 at 9:51 pm”
If one looks further back than 1979 as a starting point, the trend is clearly one of cooler temps given that we already know this interglacial is the coldest in the last 4 or 5. Don’t sell your overcoat just yet.
Artic sea ice area is graphed here http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent_prev.htm and here http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Links to the reports from the 5 agencies that report average global temperature anomalies on the web are at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
[snip – off topic slayers junkscience]
Simon C-S says:
June 7, 2013 at 9:34 am
Simon, please see http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/08/open-thread-weekend-21/#comment-330365
[Snip. Your comment to Simon C-S was in the spam folder. It has been rescued and posted. There are typically close to a thousand spam comments to weed through every day, and that takes time; your name-calling response in this post was uncalled for. — mod.]
Anthony, what do you mean by ‘potshot’? If you can point out where i’ve done this I will adjust my behaviour accordingly.
[Reply: Anthony made his concern very clear: “I’m really rather tired of your pot shots here from behind the comfort of anonymity, where if you are wrong (and you are in this rebuttal in some places) there’s no downside for you because you take the no risk hidey hole route. If you believe your challenge, put your name to it like Mr. D’Aleo does. I think it is only fair.”
You can be fair, or not. But by now you surely must be aware of Anthony’s view of anonymous criticism. You can adjust your behavior by posting your real identity. — mod.]
No.
barry says:
“No.”
buc-buc-buc!
This may help.
ROTFLOL!!
Joseph D’Aleo
I offer:
(26) The AGW Greenhouse Effect of “AGW defined greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from the -18%deg;C it would be without them”, is an illusion created out of faked physics.
A very interesting as well as conflicting read. I am being a layman in this topic, however, feel that this piece of article lacks considerable credibility as there are no references given. I am sorry if it is only meant for the experts to understand because there are acronyms used everywhere without being expanded even once.
If I compare to the IPCC findings or publications, they are easy to read and simple to understand. In terms of communications, Mr. Gore certainly scores higher over the piece of reading.
I am sorry to state that being a common man, I certainly find this article only a wastage of time. No offenses to anyone!!!!
Rakesh says (June 9, 2013 at 11:52 am): “I am being a layman in this topic, however, feel that this piece of article lacks considerable credibility as there are no references given.”
There are two references near the end of the article, to failed appeals to “consensus”, and three references at the end. A few quick references for the main points:
#2, not warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/are-we-in-a-pause-or-a-decline-now-includes-at-least-april-data/
#7, no hot spot
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
#11, tornado/hurricane
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/tornadoes-drop-to-new-record-alltime-low/
Bear in mind that these are just a few references supporting just a few of the article’s points. There is support for all of them, but you should do some of your own homework. You seem to know a lot about the IPCC’s work, so why not get the other side of the story from WUWT or some of the other blogs on Anthony’s list (scroll down the right side of the main page)?
“In terms of communications, Mr. Gore certainly scores higher over the piece of reading.”
Gore is a professional politician. He can lie or tell the truth with equal sincerity. Here’s one skeptical look at Gore’s “inconvenient truth”:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
An excellent summary, but it appears written for fellow scientists in the field. It would be more useful if written for the kind of people that need convincing, i.e. politicians. I would dearly like to forward it to my Member of Parliament, Minister of the Emvironment, etc. (in Canada). What is needed is a glossary of the abbreviations used and a brief description of key phenomena such as the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), AMO, etc. Sceptics have got to learn to write briefs like this one in terms that politicians can understand and without burying them in detail. It’s a major challenge in communications.