From the UNIVERSITY OF EXETER and the “but we are certain there’s some kind of effect” department comes this uncertain study:
Induced climate change ‘tug of war’ keeps scientists guessing on storm tracks
The pivotal study, carried out by a team of international researchers, has shown that ‘multiple’ environmental influences can stymie predictions of how mid-latitude storms could behave.
Professor Mark Baldwin, Head of Mathematics at the University of Exeter and co-author of the paper said: “The study frames the important problem of what factors influence the paths of storms, and explores the possible future changes to storms and precipitation as climate changes.”
Specifically, the study looks at how a series of environmental forces such as enhanced surface warming in the Arctic – known as Arctic amplification – will impact the position of storm tracks. These are regions where storms travel from west to east across oceans and continents, driven by the prevailing jet stream.
The study suggests that there is a ‘tug of war’ between how these different environmental forces could change the position of the storm tracks.
Crucially, such major changes could significantly impact many of the most iconic cities worldwide – including New York, Chicago, London, Tokyo, Cape Town and Melbourne – because they shape temperature, precipitation and extreme weather.
The study, a review of the latest research in the field, is published in leading scientific journalNature Geoscience.
In idealized and comprehensive climate model simulations, warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere leads the clouds in high latitudes to reflect more solar radiation – thereby cooling the earth’s surface in those regions and increasing the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. In isolation (the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface) this would lead to a poleward shift of the storm tracks.
Meanwhile, those same clouds tend to enhance the greenhouse effect, thereby warming the Earth’s surface in those same regions and decreasing the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles, producing an opposite shift (also, in isolation).
Dr Tiffany S. Shaw, assistant professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago and lead author of the paper added: “Changes in the position of storm tracks in response to anthropogenic climate change depend on how the equator-to-pole temperature gradient will change, and among the various factors affecting this gradient, cloud changes stand out as one of the important pieces of the puzzle.
The study found many examples of opposing influences affecting the position of storm tracks. These included the opposing influence of warming in the tropical upper atmosphere and Arctic amplification (enhanced surface warming in the Arctic), both of which occur in models in response to climate change.
Ultimately, any major changes in the position of storm tracks will have a significant impact on society because storm tracks shape temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather.
“The opposing cloud influences on the equator-to-pole gradient should be studied in more detail to understand the ultimate outcome of this ‘tug of war’ as it relates to the future position of the storm tracks,” Shaw said.
The researchers have now called for expanding observational efforts and the hierarchy of computer simulations used to understand how storm tracks will shift in response to the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Such shifts in position have the potential to significantly change patterns of rain, snow, heat waves and cold outbreaks. For example, if storm tracks shift poleward, New York and Chicago will likely experience warmer weather and less snow. And there’s already evidence that the shift of the austral storm track southward – which was caused by the ozone hole at the South Pole -has impacted rain in Australia and South America.
###
The Nature Geoscience review article, titled Storm track processes and the opposing influences of climate change, grew out of a conference held last year in Grindelwald, Switzerland, that was sponsored by the National Science Foundation and The World Climate Research Program.
So how do they discern the effects on global weather patterns between man-made CO2 and natural CO2? Hmmm?
Well of course they are guessing.
How could anyone possibly know what the future weather is going to be ??
So you have to guess. sometimes you’ll be correct.
It’ still a guess.
g
Didn’t quite make sense to me :
The first paragraph states that the higher latitude clouds reflect incoming solar radiation cooling the surface and the second states that those same clouds cause warming in the same region???
Well Bryan, firstly it seems that they are trying to describe two opposing effects produced by increased cloud. They don’t seem to say which will dominate, so I guess that means they are admitting not knowing whether the cloud feedback is positive or negative.
oh, for pity’s sake, why can’t they get someone who understands the subject to proof read the damned press release? It is clear from this sentence that it means what it said “in isolation” and isolation does not mean the amount of solar energy. Jeez!
possibly a victim of Spell Checker and a firm belief that with said program, proof reading isn’t necessary
Insolation vs Inisolation = spell checked to = In isolation
This is nu science, discerning the two doesn’t make sense because natural climate change ceased at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Science was too hard, nu science is eezeepeezee, all you need is more funding.
oeman, george,
Did you spot the game changer: –
“The study, a review of the latest research in the field, is published in leading scientific journalNature Geoscience.”
It is not models all the way down.
It is a Review of models all the way down.
However, tradition has finally re-asserted itself:
“The researchers have now called for expanding observational efforts and the hierarchy of computer simulations used to understand how storm tracks will shift in response to the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
May I translate? “Send Money.”
FIFY all.
And, George:
“How could anyone possibly know what the future weather is going to be ??
So you have to guess. sometimes you’ll be correct.
It’s still a guess.”
Spot on.
And around the UK anything more than – perhaps, in a settled spell (which we do sometimes get) – about 48 hours ahead is a horoscope with numbers.
As you say – a guess.
Pin-sticking.
Auto, enjoying [No, not really the mot juste] the second day of a strike on Southern Railways.
Bryan it’s unicorn pharts and fairy dust. There’s no rational thought in it and and you might just as effectively hammer your head with a 2×6.
“So you have to guess. sometimes you’ll be correct.”
Unless you are a warmista panic monger.
They have never guessed right yet.
It is really astounding how consistently incorrect they are.
What is most sad about AGW is it has side tracked all of us as this article is so indicative of , of wasting our time trying to defend or dispute AGW THEORY which is a fraud ,instead of having the study of climate directed toward what really causes it to change and why.
Progress in this field will stay at a standstill until this AGW theory is considered no longer valid. It is wasting the time of so many of us who are in the climate arena.
These articles keep coming one after the other.
Funny thing. Somebody just said the exact same thing on another thread I was reading a while ago.
g
Those are not his words. He has copied that from someone else as he often does. He never states that he is quoting someone else. Although you can generally tell when he has done so as Salvatore forms his own sentences in a unique manner.
That was me. I think I am correct . If global temperatures go down as I expect then the AGW theory will be proven wrong and thus all the arguments made for it will be false.
If one is wrong when it comes to a theory on climate it has a snowball in that all the research and studies that have been done to prove or not prove this theory to be correct would have been in vain. Worst yet it would have served on allocating money to the wrong areas when it comes to trying to solve the climate puzzle.
From my point of view it is great because it gives people like myself who are not afraid not only to take a strong stance but come up with alternative climate theories, a great opportunity.
I expect the global temperature trend going forward to be down due to very low solar activity which will not only prove my theory to be correct but prove AGW theory is wrong.
@ Salvatore…my apologies if I was wrong about your upper comment. Usually, I can pick out when you are posting the words of another.
But if they don’t mention AGW or CAGW in their funding application then they go to the back of the queue. That is the main consideration in play. The bureaucretins who make the funding decisions are so addicted to deferring to ‘experts’ and seeking ‘expert’ input into the issues that are ‘trending’, see the hookwords and give it the dough. It works like clockwork.
Whatever happened to the pageant bimbos with- ‘yada yada and world peace?’ At least they had something worth looking at when they were practising their lines.
The keep telling us the science is settled and the scientists all agree…
Salvatore Del Prete writes:
I think this is a very keen observation and one that needs attention; the failed AGW hypothesis is consuming research funding that might be spent in study of the actual process. All things considered, that’s a valuable endeavor.
Someone, at some point, decided funding would only be granted to people investigating human causes of warming. As a result, we see larger and larger leaps of absurd conjecture attempting to tie human activity to climate change, all the while deliberately ignoring any non-human factors.
It’s clearly a funding problem, but it effects a very important subject. What’s to be done?
This is a very astute comment. When I worked in climate science, I was constantly amazed about how little fundamental science was being done to try and understand the climate system. Instead, all of the effort was aimed at bolstering the science (and politics) of CO2 induced catastrophic global warming. I got so fed up with it that I now work in insurance.
The insurance industry is quite clear global warming will bring increased risk
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/05/18/rift-widening-between-energy-and-insurance-industries-over-climate-change/#27520dc775ee
Griff, the insurance industry bases their rates on fear, not so much on reality.
Griff,
This is because, for an industry that covers potential losses to survive, they need to plan and charge for what ammounts to the worst case scenereo. If they didn’t, and the worst case came to pass, they would loose their shorts or go insolvent as an industry. The greater the risk that the industry can ascribe to any potential event, the higher the rates they can justifiably charge for coverage of said event.
Greater risk = greater premiums
The first sentence of the press release is quite funny: we can’t make accurate predictions of the effects of global warming, because of global warming.
One must preface with their crazy ant credentials before making crazy ant statements, lest they fall victim to concerted attack by crazy ants.
Can’t predict warming because of warming! That’s funny, but they have got even that wrong. They can’t make accurate predictions of the effects of global warming because (a) they don’t know how much global warming there will be or even whether there will be cooling not warming, and (b) they are using models that can never work because their structure is hopeless (a university head of maths should know that), and (c) they don’t know anything about climate (they acknowledge their ignorance re clouds but not re everything else). Every step these people take is a step backwards.
“Can’t predict warming because of warming”
They aren’t saying they can’t predict warming. They say they can’t predict the paths of mid-latitude storms.
Well, they wouldn’t say “they can’t predict warming” would they. It would give the whole game away.
And yet, they can’t predict warming. They can’t predict anything.
I suspect you know that, too, Nick. But you won’t say so either.
Pat,
Would you please send me your email address at sherro1 at optusnet dot com dot au
Lost it in PC crash.Ta. Geoff.
Oh, we know that they (they = CAGW alarmists) can predict warming. That’s what they do best. Hell, they predict warming even when it’s not warming. They can predict warming so far out that their predictions will be long forgotten when it’s time to measure. Oh, and then they really up their game and predict the killer storms that just happened. If someone dies in a flood, a wildfire or tornado, out come the predictions of WE KNEW that was going to happen. Brilliant friggin’ science.
What they can’t do is figure out how to honestly test and try to falsify their own pet hypotheses.
My mistake, I precis’d too far. Should have been “can’t predict effects of warming because of warming”. Rest of comment was correct.
Certainly Nick,
That is true but was a misinterpretation … as was stated later it was meant to say “Can’t predict the Effects of warming because of warming” which is a far truer statement
Of course, without AGW , the whole climate system is totally unchanging and all they’d need to do was to copy last years tornado numbers, cyc lone energy, temperature data, sea levels ….. it would all be so much easier if only we’d stop making the climate change all the time. Especially now we don’t even know which way we are making it change, what with all the climate weirding and all.
Paul,
That is precisely what I thought! Along with the interpretation that they are saying: climate change might make storms go this way, or might make them go that way – OMG! As though that is not precisely the way it’s worked for multi-millennia. I do not understand how science got to this sad state.
Two words…
Government Funding
Was at a presentation yesterday on climate change effects on water supply. Climate models had been calibrated to historical rainfall and flow for 2 rivers. “High-level of confidence” due to all the agreement and match to historical conditions.. So then future projections were run under IPCC emission scenarios…suddenly rainfall and riverflow varied widely between models, from basically no flow to huge increases. With any given model, the results for riverflow were basically insensitive to the emissions scenario. But whichever of 10 envirotranspiration models was used had a huge impact. And these people really think they can detect a “human fingerprint” on a storm event or claim to tell us where we’re headed.
“Future global weather patterns” have ALWAYS been “determined” by a WAG.*
And always will be.
*(wild-assed guess)
In my experience, its more like SWAG…need to get the Stupid in up-front.
Oh, I always thought the “S” stood for Scientific.
Ron Clutz September 8, 2016 at 10:06 am That is generally the case in electrical or mechanical applications as most often there is smoke rising from the affected area. Smoke is real data which makes it science.
WAG: Wild Anthropogenic Guess 🙂
AGW=WAG
reminiscent of the purity of essence , peace on earth : the recall code for the B52 in Dr Strangelove.
What if the Russkies try to take over our GCMs in order to breed alarm more prodigiously than we can?!
Russia already is…through their Pshchic Research Department
They call it
Мужчины , которые смотрят на Крупы
or
Men who stare at Groats
Been dealing with marine ecosystems like this for a long time.
It works this way
http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/17/the-facts-show-louisianas-floods-not-caused-by-man-made-climate-change/
or not
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html?_r
This “pivotal study” is simply priceless. It basically says: “we haven’t got a clue – the climate might change, but we have no idea in which directions”. All this after gawd knows how many billions of dollars have been spent on this nonsense research, and the supposed effects of CO2 increase, world-wide in recent years.
You really, really couldn’t make it up.
Maybe, just maybe, Barack and Ban, the science isn’t quite settled yet.
Its ‘pivotal’ because they haven’t got a clue and are ‘pivoting’, i.e. spinning their mental wheels and doing intellectual ‘doughnuts’ on the spot.
Its ‘pivotal’ because they are standing in the middle of some vast pseudoscientific stage surrounded by ‘bluescreen’ background knowing only which way the ‘camera’ is pointing. No actual script, its all ad libbed and the CHI does the rest, just stick to the theme and drop the hookwords as you go.
Take your pick.
Weather patterns depend on holistic climate patterns ….. and those are determined by
using the Climate Pattern Recognition analysis, which produces an accurate hind- and
forecast, see http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html
“Dr Tiffany S. Shaw, assistant professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago and lead author of the paper added: “Changes in the position of storm tracks in response to anthropogenic climate change …”
As there is no evidence of any kind for “anthropogenic climate change” and every reson to judge it undetectable or absent, she is basing her work on a completely false assumption.
She should talk about factors that influence storm tracks but leave out the money-grubbibg “climate-change” please-give-me-more-taxpayer money sentences—it lessens her character and questions her integrity.
“As there is no evidence of any kind for “anthropogenic climate change” and every reson to judge it undetectable or absent, she is basing her work on a completely false assumption.”
All these CAGW studies are operating on false assumptions. It’s pure speculation. If this happens, then that will happen. Well, what if “this” doesn’t happen?
Assuming too much based on a bogus Hockey Stick graph. It has sent a lot of people off the deep end.
“And there’s already evidence that the shift of the austral storm track southward – which was caused by the ozone hole at the South Pole – has impacted rain in Australia and South America.”
What evidence do they have that the ozone hole impacts storm tracks? Is there a correlation between the size of the ozone hole and the shift of the austral storm track southward? Since they have no idea how big the ozone hole was before they detected it and began to measure it, have they collected data long enough to draw a reasonable conclusion? For all they know, the ozone hole is not directly related to Austral storm track changes but share a common cause, such as sun cycles, ENSO, etc.
Would that be the same ozone hole that has always been there and hasn’t changed significantly in size since we started monitoring it?
This was a fools errand from the beginning. CMIP5 GCMs show no skill at global levels on basics like temperature, clouds, and precipitation. They do not downscale regionally no matter what methods are tried. To think they could be used to project changes in regional storm tracks is beyond silly into cargo cult ‘science’.
Grindenwald is a really nice location to have a conference pretending this isn’t so, until afterwards you publish a paper saying it is so afterall.
Despite knowing the exact effects of AGW we cannot predict climate driven weather patterns because of AGW uncertainty. Is there nothing that magic molecule cannot do?
I thought tropical UA warming, which was supposed to be the “fingerprint” of AGW, had been conspicuous by it’s absence.
But….the models show the opposite of reality, so of course, she believes the models !!
More government money down the swirling vortex in the toilet!
Problem with the theory that Arctic Amplification would weaken the gradient is that AA occurs nearest the surface ( from the increased polar night release of latent heat of freezing ).
The kinetic energy of storm tracks are determined by gradients aloft.
Now, the ‘Hot Spot’ is supposed to increase that gradient aloft.
But that hasn’t happened:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HotSpotGradient.png
Assumptions/assertions of uniformity, independence, and progress (i.e. monotonic change) form the foundation of a new a-religious/a-moral orthodoxy. The scientific method was designed to limit prophecies about the future and past, far and near phenomenon. It has failed. Today, people are informed by emanations from the penumbra… the twilight zone.
Penumbra? Are you saying AGW is constitutional? That will seal the deal. Now will the money we all will be paying to stop it, as mandated by the Constitution, be a tax or not a tax? Inquiring minds want to know.
If you are going to pick cherries you have to guess.
Lamb said and studied all of this back in the 1970s. Marcel Leroux did similar work, which was covered in his 2005 book “Global Warming Myth or reality.”
I think they should just quietly and conscientiously keep on collecting data – as proper scientists ought to. But leave the guesswork (ot theorising or whatever you call it) for, say, 100 years. Who knows, it just may be that some observant person may then detect some pattern in our chaotic, global weather system.
Maybe globull warming is the reason we haven’t had a major hurricane in the US in the last decade . A win win sort of thing. Always look on the bright side of life.
That is fantastic. The reason the models suck and cannot predict climate change is due to climate change. Seriously? !!!! Does it get any more Orwellian than that? Un-freakin- believable.
As any fule kno, London, on the east coast of England, is constantly bombarded by massive storms from the prevailing westerlies across the Atlantic.
/sarc
Without a global, overriding driver, and with a semi-stable system, there exist only confluence of events that can be marginally forecast in the short-term and recurring periods. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is scientific mysticism that indulges in prophecies and political/social opportunism.
Lets see, they state “The study frames the important problem of what factors influence the paths of storms, and explores the possible future changes to storms and precipitation as climate changes.”
Hmmm, myself I think the meteorologists have done a good job of plotting the tracks of the last group of hurricanes and tropical storms. Everyone got timely warnings and were able to prepare. Maybe they need to check with the weatherman to first see if there is a problem, before doing a study on it.
I know silly me
michael
Ya really wanna know for sure? Ask God. 👍🏻
WOW! That’s news. They don’t know how to predict the weather. who would of guessed it?
“…and explores the possible future changes to storms and precipitation as climate changes.”
subtle change of language here, not the usual “in a warming world”.
I think there is the beginnings of a ‘ how do we talk ourselves out of this mess without making it look like we’re admitting being wrong?”
If I understood this correctly, they are saying that:
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
The quote is from: IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
and was the epigraph of a three part series last week on WUWT by Kip Hansen:
Chaos and Climate – Part 1: Linearity
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/15/chaos-climate-part-1-linearity/
Chaos & Climate – Part 2: Chaos
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/23/chaos-climate-part-2-chaos-stability/
Chaos & Climate – Part 3: Chaos & Models
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/04/chaos-climate-part-3-chaos-models/
Walter Sobchak ==> Thanks for the promotion — there is yet one more part of the series upcoming.
Dave Fultz and Raymond Hide, working independently, were able to show all this in revolving shallow pans of water, cooled with ice in a tin can in the center (simulating the Arctic ice cap) and a Bunsen burner heating the rim, acting for equatorial heating.
This is a statement of the bleeding obvious. But that is good because it makes not knowing more legitimate. The whole idea of predicting if and where dangerous anthropogenic climate change is going to happen, if at all, is shown to be preposterous.
“Study essentially says “we are guessing at future global weather patterns”
And even tomorrow’s local ones as well.
One would think that a mathematician would understand the inherent futility of trying to forecast the behavior of a multi-variate non-linear coupled (chaotic) system. The good professor needs to refresh himself with an undergraduate course in Chaos. The U of Exeter Maths Department doesn’t have one listed on their website, so maybe the London School of Economics (LSE) can help him: MA303: Chaos in Dynamical Systems
Several scientifically sad assumptions. The first one is that climate change and human caused climate change are assumed to be the same thing. All climate science cares about now is the effect of increasing CO2 on climate.
When models and observations don’t match up, this is when natural climate change comes in……..to explain the difference.
We have defined the ideal global temperature and CO2 level of our planet for life in general and specifically for humans……..which was at some point in our past, before humans caused both of these measures to go up.
It’s clear from the last 4 decades have featured of the best weather and climate since the Medieval Warm Period(that got that name for a reason) and maybe since humans walked the earth if you add the beneficial CO2 increase…..for most life on this planet.
The earth is greening up greatly and outside of heavier rains/high end flooding events, the benefits outweigh the negatives by several orders of magnitude.
Even as we hear about the “hottest” 2 years ever, the data shows the biggest crops ever. Not in spite of but with the assistance of slight warming and the increase in CO2.
So objective empirical data/real world observations, updated thru this last month, suggest that things are still improving in most important measures. If that’s not true then where is the evidence to contradict it?
A graph that shows increasing temperature and increasing CO2 isn’t evidence of anything bad………except, that maybe that we are getting closer to the ideal levels for life on this planet.
I wonder where Exeter Uni would get funding if not from the AGW trough !
Nowhere if quality of work of the climate department is any guide to the rest.
Well then. As long as we’ve eliminated all the usual suspects we’re down to natural influences.
We can make the problem much simpler by just eliminating all the useless hypotheticals.
It states that “Ultimately, any major changes in the position of storm tracks will have a significant impact on society because storm tracks shape temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather.”
All this stuff is based on poor quality models. The Hurricane Season since 1913 showed a normal distribution. That is they are following natural variability only and no human influence on them.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Hello Grindelwald, Switzerland – low season?
‘The Nature Geoscience review article, titled Storm track processes and the opposing influences of climate change, grew out of a conference held last year in Grindelwald, Switzerland, that was sponsored by the National Science Foundation and The World Climate Research Program.’
That’s jolly good green air travelling in the Alps :
https://www.google.at/search?q=Grindelwald+to+Ramsau+route&oq=Grindelwald+to+Ramsau+route&aqs=chrome..69i57.49689j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
BIG ecological footstep !
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=CizSV5KUJejfgAaOw6mgDA&q=visit+Grindelwald+Volksfest&oq=visit+Grindelwald+Volksfest&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3
‘And there’s already evidence that the shift of the austral storm track southward – which was caused by the ozone hole at the South Pole -has impacted rain in Australia and South America.’
Totally bogus, there was an extended period over recent times where the Subtropical Ridge was strengthening, apparently caused by human induced CO2 (a line pushed by Timbal at BoM) but 2016 has seen the nexus broken and the storm tracks are moving north again.
We are saved.
And slightly drowned from the looks of it. I have noticed many news clips this year at WeatherZone, which tell stories of heavy rains and floods in many areas of Australia. Praise the Lord the drought has broken. …http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta
I challenge anyone with contacts in the fossil fuel world to get up and argue with climate scientists. Start by demanding compensation for the subsidies extracted given the difference between the original claims that were used to justify them and the unadjusted data. Demand that since they claim the science is beyond question they sign documents giving unlimited compensation for any failure of the predictions to be as drastic as the scientists claim.
After all if the science really is beyond question they are at zero risk by doing so.
It is time for the fossil fuel industry to stop being a punch bag and start throwing really hard punches back and the universities be made to suffer economically for their pontification as customers have for years.
Or to go with the science
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/44642/total-s-billion-dollar-acquisition-will-allow-it-to-compete-with-tesla-solarcity-says-lux-research/
Griff, I use advanced batteries every day, but still know they aren’t within two bulls’ roars of where you think they are. Physics is not the strong suite of greenies, but they are welcome to put their own money on the line. Just not ours.
This isn’t recent; I’m posting it in response to the keyword “patterns” in the title. It’s the second incident involving replacement of natural patterns with modeled data that I’m aware of. The first was Pacific Marine Lab director Chris Sabine’s replacement of pH values with a wide range and no trend with a modeled smooth curve and a trend toward lower pH; the fraud discovered by PhD candidate Mike Wallace.
“Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.
The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.
But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:
• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.”
NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
November 24, 2015
Written by P Gosselin, notrickszone.com
http://principia-scientificdotorg/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/
nothing new here
Information theory provides a writer with a logical basis for defining terms and grouping them together under which the “science” of a study is the mutual information of the model that is a product of this study. This model makes predictions plus a conditional prediction that is called a “predictive inference.” As the mutual information is non-nil this model suitable for use in regulating a system e.g. the climate system. The “conditions” are defined on the complete set of independent variables of the model and are called “patterns.” The humans that conduct the study are rightly called “scientists.” The rules under which the patterns are discovered are called “the principles of reasoning.”
A model that makes “projections” makes no predictions or predictive inference. The mutual information is nil thus the model does not support regulation of a system such as the climate system. There are no patterns or principles of reasoning. A human who conducts a study of this type often has features of a scientist that include a PhD degree and appointment to the scientific faculty of a of research university. Thus, a human of this type is widely mistaken for a scientist but as his model generates no mutual information he/she should rightly be called a “pseudoscientist.”
There is much to be said for drawing your conclusions from observations and hard data rather than from predictive models that pretend to understand a system so complex as Earth.
davidbennettlaing:
Observations are essential but inadequate for the purpose of regulating a system as the outcomes of the events lie in the past. To regulate a system one must have information about the outcomes of events lying in the future conditional upon actions taken in attempts at regulating the outcomes that are taken in the present. In information theory information of this type is called the “mutual information.”
For today’s climate models the mutual information is nil. Thus, notwithstanding continuing attempts by politicians to control our climate it cannot be controlled. To have a chance of making it controllable, climatologists must switch from building models that make projections to building models that make predictions. A conditional prediction aka predictive inference is made by a model that makes predictions. Today’s climate models make no predictive inferences.
Many well meaning people think there is not a useful distinction to be made between predictions and projections but this is not so. Failure to make this distinction is symptomatic of widespread applications of the equivocation fallacy in making arguments about global warming.These applications draw a conclusion from an argument in which “prediction” or “projection” changes meaning in the midst of the argument. An argument of this type is an example of an “equivocation.” An equivocation looks exactly like a syllogism but while the conclusion of a syllogism is true, the conclusion of an equivocation is false or unproved.
Good point!