By EMILY HOLDEN
08/11/2017 05:32 PM EDT
Updated 08/12/2017 01:01 PM EDT
Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt said his staff will gauge the “accuracy” of a major federal science report that blames human activity for climate change — just days after researchers voiced their fears to The New York Times that the Trump administration would alter or suppress its findings.
“Frankly this report ought to be subjected to peer-reviewed, objective-reviewed methodology and evaluation,” Pruitt told a Texas radio show Thursday. “Science should not be politicized. Science is not something that should be just thrown about to try to dictate policy in Washington, D.C.”
Pruitt, who has expressed doubts about carbon dioxide’s role as a major driver of climate change, also dismissed the discussions in Washington about manmade carbon emissions, calling them “political.”
Scientists called his remarks troubling, especially because the report — part of a broader, congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment — has already undergone “rigorous” peer-review by a 14-person committee at the National Academies. The reviewing scientists backed the report’s conclusion from researchers at 13 federal agencies that humans are causing climate change by putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to a clear increase in global temperatures.
Morning Energy newsletter
The source for energy and environment news — weekday mornings, in your inbox.
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
The report’s authors implemented the 132 pages of suggestions from the reviewers, and now the Trump administration has one last opportunity to review the document before publication. Agencies are supposed to sign off by Aug. 18 and send their comments to the authors.
“It’s a much more extensive process than a usual peer review, which does not typically come out as a paperback book,” said Bob Kopp, a lead report author and climate scientist at Rutgers University.
Kopp said he has “no idea” what to expect after hearing Pruitt’s comments. Staffers at EPA had already signed off on an earlier draft.
Eric Davidson, president of the American Geophysical Union, said the report has undergone “a very rigorous peer-review” and is “built on 50-some years of published research, and each of those papers went through its own peer review.”
He added that while fears of Pruitt suppressing the climate report might be more imagined than real right now, he didn’t rule it out.
“Certainly it’s a possibility, and if the administration doesn’t understand that it’s already peer-reviewed, that really is a sign of concern that he may not understand the process,” Davidson said. “If he’s continuing to question why CO2 is a big deal, that’s also very concerning, because CO2 is a big deal. … To see those quotes continue to come out is definitely disconcerting.”
Several climate experts said they welcomed scrutiny of the report, but they also expressed concerns that political biases could color the process.
“The question is will it be reviewed by people who are scientific experts or will it be reviewed by people who have a political agenda?” said Kathy Jacobs, who oversaw the broader National Climate Assessment under the Obama administration and now heads the Center for Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions at the University of Arizona.
“The implication of [Pruitt’s statement] is that it hasn’t been linked to the data,” she said of the report. “That certainly is not true. This is built on a mountain of evidence.”
Even as Pruitt said EPA would review the report for objectivity, he criticized the Times for saying scientists worry that the administration might interfere with its publication.
“The New York Times out there saying they had to release this report because it’s going to be suppressed is just simply legendary,” he said. “It’s just made-up news trying to create a distraction from the real work that’s being done in Washington, D.C.”
His comments Thursday came the same day that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a separate report confirming that 2016 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the records set in each of the two previous years.
This week’s dust-up over the 13-agency climate report is far from the first climate science dispute for Pruitt, who as Oklahoma’s attorney general sued to block a series of major EPA regulations. He drew criticism after announcing in June that he wanted to conduct a “red team, blue team” debate of climate science, a move that his detractors said would put fringe views on the same plane as established, peer-reviewed research.
The EPA chief defended his “red team-blue team” strategy in the radio interview, saying that “this debate, this discussion, I think it’s good and healthy for the country.”
Pruitt told the Texas radio show that his agency would review the 13-agency report “like all other 12 agencies and evaluate the merits and demerits and the methodology and accuracy of the report.”
HT/The GWPF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Enter Al Gore….
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1AR23M
Like a fire in a barn! They can smell their own destruction!
I hope what the Trump Administration does is to acknowledge the report, identify it as being produced from scientists held over from the Obama administration, and say that it does not represent the findings or policy of the Trump Administration. Then Pruitt and his crowd should issue a short report detailing the areas of the report that they don’t agree with, and get after appointing a “red team” or Trump team to produce a thorough report giving the administrations view of these matters.
The Trump people should not tinker with or try to alter the report, but should leave it as is — a statement of holdover scientists and one which we will respond to shortly. Do not give the agw crowd an opportunity to complain that the denialist Trump people are tampering with sacred consensus science.
…. and then contract an independent auditing firm to audit temperature data going forward. Maybe two, to keep them both honest. Expensive yes, but firing 100 climate “scientists” ought to cover it. Two birds with one stone.
After they got the systems running, they could then move on to auditing retrospectively too.
Pruitt has put the stench of politics on the report and previous work already. That’s how he begins to prepare the ground for alternate opinion and house cleaning. I think he is being pretty crafty. It can’t happen overnight and as much as I am not a fan of Trump the man I think it is important for the future of the Western world that he wins a second term so that some of these economic initiatives can unfold properly.
In 1976 NASA published an analysis of literally millions of data points for the entire atmosphere using real physics: the US Standard Atmosphere Model. This was done to support the Space Program. Yes, it IS rocket science! They accounted for all temperature and pressure variations based on solar energy input. thermodynamics, gravity and the MASS of the atmosphere (NOT, the composition). With minor tweaks it became the world standard. This semi-empirical model does NOT use “radiative forcing,” “heat trapping,” or “radiative imbalance” from any greenhouse gases in their physical chemical calculations. The people who are talking about ‘greenhouse gases’ simply do not understand heat capacity or the adiabatic lapse rate.
This is a point not often enough made.
Also around that time, GISS assessed sensitivity to CO2 and concluded that it was very low. They assessed an 8 fold increase in CO2 would cause less than 2 degC warming.
Thus NASA/GISS were assessing Climate Sensitivity at less than 0.7degC per doubling.
OT folks, sorry.
But Gore is spouting his crap on BBC Radio 2 right now 18:20 hrs BST. It is probably the most popular radio station in the UK.
And he started by telling everyone that extreme weather events are becomeing more frequent and harsher!
#sickofhtiscnut
I caught the five minutes before the 6 o’clock news, where Gore, using his understanding, explain-it-to-the little-people tone of voice, was calling the fossil-fuel users irresponsible polluters, turning the sky into a sewer for the rest of humanity. The interviewer commented favourably on Gore’s film’s assertion that renewables, especially solar, have now become so cheap that it would be planetary irresponsibility not to use this technology. Tell that to the farmers who live near the Baogang Steel and Rare Earth Complex in Inner Mongolia.
I accept that Auntie has become a mouthpiece for the watermelons, but to hear first hand the . . . patronising guff from the manbearpig made my fists clench.
Like the hashtag, HotScot
Cynical Seamus
Appreciate the like. 🙂
What really effed me off was that Gore’s Radio 2 interview, and the even worse one with the snivelling sycophant Frank Skinner on Absolute radio last night, was that both were pre recorded.
Not even the usual opportunity to text or email questions or comments, just a carefully scripted, non contestable Gore propaganda statement.
Even his ‘self deprecating’ joke was repeated verbatim on both broadcasts.
He makes my skin crawl!
#carboncreditpirate
Almost everything on the BBC is crap. They proclaim views, not report news.
The BBC is part of the swamp that needs draining in the UK
“The question is will it be reviewed by people who are scientific experts or will it be reviewed by people who have a political agenda?” fair question the answer to which depends if they use climate ‘scientists’, they do in that h case the answer is no it will not but third rate , at best , people who very much have self interest and political outlooks at heart .
‘Frankly this report ought to be subjected to peer-reviewed, objective-reviewed methodology and evaluation,’ this will have cause the need new pants all around for the climate ‘science’ community , because ‘they only want to find something wrong with it , and who needs facts when you have faith .
‘This is built on a mountain of evidence.’ Only if do what you should and include ‘model results ‘ has evidence .
‘Staffers at EPA had already signed off on an earlier draft.’, pigs will never vote for less rather than more food .
“The question is will it be reviewed by people who are scientific experts or will it be reviewed by people who have a political agenda?” fair question the answer to which depends if they use climate ‘scientists’, they do in that h case the answer is no it will not but third rate , at best , people who very much have self interest and political outlooks at heart .
‘Frankly this report ought to be subjected to peer-reviewed, objective-reviewed methodology and evaluation,’ this will have cause the need new pants all around for the climate ‘science’ community , because ‘they only want to find something wrong with it , and who needs facts when you have faith .
‘This is built on a mountain of evidence.’ Only if do what you should not and include ‘model results ‘ has evidence .
‘Staffers at EPA had already signed off on an earlier draft.’, pigs will never vote for less rather than more food .
Sorry mods – first time that hasn’t worked for me, and I checked the URL in my browser too ??
I had a vision of Al Gore pointing to the ceiling and telling me to repaint. Not sure I heard him correctly.
“Frankly this report ought to be subjected to peer-reviewed, objective-reviewed methodology and evaluation,” Pruitt told a Texas radio show Thursday. “Science should not be politicized. Science is not something that should be just thrown about to try to dictate policy in Washington, D.C.”
Amen!
It is essential that the EPA revisit the basic science rather than simply accept the group-think of the eco-left academic establishment scientific community..
NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract:
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH6 temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
The forecasts in Fig 12 of my paper are similar to those in Ludecke et al.
It is well past time for a paradigm shift in the forecasting methods used by establishment climate science. The whole dangerous global warming delusion is approaching collapse
Ludecke etal also emphasizes the importance of the Millennial Cycle and support my forecasts of a coming long term cooling .
Harmonic Analysis of Worldwide Temperature Proxies for 2000 Years
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke1, *, Carl-Otto Weiss2
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
ISSN: 1874-2823 ― Volume 11, 2017
Year: 2017
Volume: 11
First Page: 44
Last Page: 53
Publisher Id: TOASCJ-11-44
DOI: 10.2174/1874282301711010044
“Abstract
The Sun as climate driver is repeatedly discussed in the literature but proofs are often weak. In order to elucidate the solar influence, we have used a large number of temperature proxies worldwide to construct a global temperature mean G7 over the last 2000 years. The Fourier spectrum of G7 shows the strongest components as ~1000-, ~460-, and ~190 – year periods whereas other cycles of the individual proxies are considerably weaker. The G7 temperature extrema coincide with the Roman, medieval, and present optima as well as the well-known minimum of AD 1450 during the Little Ice Age. We have constructed by reverse Fourier transform a representation of G7 using only these three sine functions, which shows a remarkable Pearson correlation of 0.84 with the 31-year running average of G7. The three cycles are also found dominant in the production rates of the solar-induced cosmogenic nuclides 14C and 10Be, most strongly in the ~190 – year period being known as the De Vries/Suess cycle. By wavelet analysis, a new proof has been provided that at least the ~190-year climate cycle has a solar origin.”
The paper also states “……G7, and likewise the sine representations have maxima of comparable size at AD 0, 1000, and 2000. We note that the temperature increase of the late 19th and 20th century is represented by the harmonic temperature representation, and thus is of pure multiperiodic nature. It can be expected that the periodicity of G7, lasting 2000 years so far, will persist also for the foreseeable future. It predicts a temperature drop from present to AD 2050, a slight rise from 2050 to 2130, and a further drop from AD 2130 to 2200 (see Fig. 3), upper panel, green and red curves.”
The EPA therefore has available for immediate use a forecasting method which is not based on the bottom up approach of the IPCC modellers which is inherently useless
The problem is that the EPA as it is presently structured and staffed is not “fit for purpose”. It needs some hard headed physicists at the top to provide some semblance of scientific objectivity to what has become a hideout for incompetent and venal opportunists. People who produce crap for government policy purposes should have it thrown back in their faces and their future funding restricted.
The core competency in the Geological Sciences is the ability to recognize and correlate the changing patterns of events in time and space. This requires a set of skills different from the reductionist and mathematical/statistical approach to nature, usually used by physicists but which is essential for investigating past climates and forecasting future climate trends. It is necessary to build an understanding of the patterns and a narrative of general trends from an integrated overview of the actual individual local and regional time series of particular variables. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good empirical understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities which include the principal components of the observed emergent phenomena. When analyzing or comparing data time series geologists refer to a stratigraphic unit that serves as the standard of reference as a “type section”. In climatology it is useful when illustrating hypotheses to talk in terms of “type reconstructions”. Mann’s “Hockey Stick” is the iconic example. It is necessary also to be cognizant of the fact that the emergent time series will reflect turning points and threshold effects in the underlying physical process interactions. Such turning points mark the major inflection points in temperature and solar activity time series and serve as geologists would say as “golden spikes” when analyzing and forecasting temperature and solar activity trends.
Establishment climate model forecast outcomes included two serious errors of scientific judgment in the method of approach to climate forecasting and thus in the subsequent advice to policy makers in successive SPMs. First, as previously discussed, the analyses were based on inherently untestable, incomputable and specifically structurally flawed models, which included many unlikely assumptions. Second, the natural solar-driven, millennial and multi-decadal cycles plainly visible in the data were totally ignored. Unless we know the phase of the millennial and 60-year cycles in particular, useful forecasting is simply impossible. I would, in contrast, contend that by adopting the appropriate time scale and method for analysis, a commonsense heuristic working hypothesis with sufficient likely accuracy and chances of success to guide policy has been formulated in the link above
The UNEP, IPCC and UNFCCC rely heavily on the “precautionary principle” to motivate their agendas and action plans. The working hypothesis proposed here provides a broad overview of future climate trends for the N H These could be the basis for more realistic and useful forecasts. In reality, there is very substantial climate variability between the earth’s different geographical regions. It would be prudent to designate regional Type Reconstructions and Solar and temperature Golden Spikes and then build regional narratives of climate trends for the past 2000 years.
Dr. Page
I concur with your assessment but I would particularly point out one aspect (of several) that needs some individual attention. While you ascribe scientific advisements as containing (at least) two errors in approach, I would suggest that the inclusion of the precautionary principle is egregious and intentional. Virtually any future possibility can be conceived (in the 1970’s it was global cooling) and put forth as a justification for action. Selectively, this is not always done.
The IPCC and global “Green” movement has advanced the precautionary principle deliberately as a response to an issue which, if it is real at all, is proceeding exceedingly slowly. So slowly in fact, that it is imperceptible over the last 18 years. So what, exactly, are we supposed to be taking precautions against? More non change? This is just one question they do not want asked as they have no answer for the fact that their magic molecule is pretty damn sedentary. Would not the current pause in warming not, at least, justify a parallel pause in herding us toward an energy starved (if not actually starved) future? This is another question they don’t want to deal with. There are so many!
One cannot fail to conclude that most of climate science operates under the direction of political forces which seek to undermine Western economic strength and progress. The scientists are mostly activists and scientists in name only. Michael Mann is the poster boy of the science- a complete and deliberate fraud!
If we don’t understand the political nature of this battle it is lost!
John
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to select from the evidence and from time to time produce reports which would show that CO2 was the main driver of dangerous climate change and a second recommendation resulted in a meeting in Rio in 1992 chaired by Maurice Strong himself which produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , later signed by 196 governments.
The objective of the treaty is to keep greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed would prevent dangerous man made interference with the climate system.
This treaty is really a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.
It says :
“The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
such measures”
In other words if the models show there is even a small chance of future warming caused “adverse effects” the Governments who signed the treaty should act immediately to stop it.
In short The UNFCCC Agenda 21 is quite deliberately designed to misuse science for political ends.
In other words; activists masquerading as government scientists.
He’s obviously not expecting serious attention to doctored science and alarmist writings. Now he is panicked.
Fifty years of layered broken peer review.
That pro-cagw AGU president Davidson is making public pronouncements is extremely indicative that the peer reviewed paper is heavily biased.
There are huge differences between “understand the process” and “trust the process”.
Davidson is code speaking that CAGW climate consensual science is the driving force behind this report.
This specious claim is a clarion warning to all involved that there is no science involved. Jacobs is dependent on the CAGW scam and seriously conflicted.
Pruitt is facing a document produced by government committee with activist support that brings into focus how seriously unethical CAGW advocates are.
Pruitt and the Trump Administration should consider this report to be a laundry list of activists to identify, evaluate and reassign or dismiss. An excellent place to start draining the swamp.
Months of background communications; emails, reviews, comments, meeting notes, meeting summaries, text messages, comment documentation, private messages, etc. will all be extremely illuminating.
Those communications will likely identify a larger network of activists that deserve scrutiny.
I liked this –
“he wanted to conduct a “red team, blue team” debate of climate science, a move that his detractors said would put fringe views on the same plane as established, peer-reviewed research.”
It reminds me of being asked why I don’t mind showing someone everything I know. The answer I gave was if they then are better at what I do than I am, then they should have the job. And when discussing something with someone, if they can show me where I am wrong, I have no problem looking into why I saw it differently. What always amazes me is those people that cannot “see” their error when you can present them with the data showing they are wrong. I have never understood the mind that refuses to learn. HOWEVER, if there is an “agenda” other than scientific discovery, I can then understand stonewalling.
‘I have never understood the mind that refuses to learn.’
Here’s a quote from Michael Crichton (speaking through his Ian Malcom character) that covers it pretty well:
“Human beings never think for themselves, they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told-and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. The characteristic human trait is not awareness but conformity, and the characteristic result is religious warfare. Other animals fight for territory or food; but, uniquely in the animal kingdom, human beings fight for their ‘beliefs.’ The reason is that beliefs guide behavior which has evolutionary importance among human beings. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see no reason to assume we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion. Next question.”
This is clearly the right move by EPA Administrator Pruitt.
The so-called “climate science report” is a product of Obama era climate alarmists which presents phony claims of certainty which are manufactured using flawed and failed climate models and schemes of “assessed” probabilities which are nothing but climate alarmist conjecture and speculation disguised as calculated values where none exist.
The politicalized climate alarmist report utilizes UN IPCC AR5 WG1 CMIP5 climate models which have been shown in testimony before Congress to be both flawed and failed in presentation by Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. John Christy respectively.
Additionally the reports claims of certainty are based upon subjective evaluations by climate alarmist scientists which manufacture “assessed” probabilities of likelihood and confidence which are touted as discrete values when in fact these “assessed” probabilities are simply based on conjecture and speculation.
The report completely fails to present data and analysis of the flaws and failures of CMIP5 climate models upon which its analysis is based and compounds this error by disguising likelihood and confidence levels based on conjecture and speculation as being calculated probabilities.
This climate report needs to be scrubbed by objective climate science reviewers and its clear and significant shortcomings and politicalized climate alarmism bias exposed.
It simply needs to be returned and tell them we want a National Climate Assessment that include data, computer runs for the US (all validated of course), good changes to flora and fauna, and what are the costs and benefits? No more CAGW is bad, just because. They also need to know a Global Temperature just isn’t sufficient.
Correct Larry. They performed a calculation of 10% X 10% and got 100%!
Ian W August 14, 2017 at 9:42 am
+1
Get engineers on board that are used to working with gases and thermodynamics and enthalpy in gases. Have them fully validate and carry out an in depth ‘third party audit’ on the report. No academics, purely practicing engineers.
How about getting engineers to examine the data acquisition of climate data. Back in 1968 some engineers in Brighton UK looked at temperature measurement for climate and discovered that the clean air acts were creating a temperature rise of nearly a degree in the apparent measurements. No enclosure gives a zero rise compared to ambient but the Stevenson screen gave a rise that was quite seriously influenced by direct solar radiation so cleaning the air meant that it was impossible to use historic data meaningfully. The nearest to an accurate figure was obtained by an enclosure with a small extractor fan sucking in outside air. At the time we were actually involved with acid rain so this was an outside activity not really seriously followed up.
Forget the fancy stuff though get engineers and statisticians used to complex signal analysis to determine the actual normal from the complex historic data. One thing is certain. The climate scientists wildly over simplified assumptions are wildly off target. Even good old first year engineering Fourier analysis shows how pathetic the climate fraternity’s view is but there are far more advanced techniques now available but I am uncertain as to the availability of these on the open market and classification levels.
Physicists, statisticians and chemist, yes. To correct the children’s ( climate scientist’s) work. I don’t believe engineers would get sufficient respect from the science community even though they could be helpful. Unfortunate , but they could be used as outside advisors.
… almost 700 pages of crap:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3920195/Final-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf
No, I did NOT read it. The first few paragraphs of the Executive Summary were enough to sway me in the direction of printing it out and using it as toilet paper in my newly designed bathroom.
Stylish!
In terms of the number of sheets per roll of toilet paper, that’s almost the number of sheets in TWO Charmin mega rolls … and THESE would be mega size too.
Economical!
RK, I downloaded and read the whole thing. It is pretty bad on many dimensions and should be thoroughly scrubbed.
ristvan,
What a champ! — reading the whole thing! There are more entertaining forms of fiction out there, you know. (^_^)
Do they ever discuss how temperature readings at different locations are quite possibly giving two different heat contents. Do they just go ahead and assume that all locations have the same parameters and average them anyway?
You mean sort of like this maybe?:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/TBSbriefing.pdf
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) served as the administrative lead agency for the preparation of this report. The Federal Science Steering Committee (SSC) comprises representatives from four agencies (NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], the Department of Energy [DOE], and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]), the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and three Coordinating Lead Authors, all of whom were Federal employees during the development of this report.
… no possibility of bias there.
In the real world you cannot ADD MATHEMATICALLY radiative fluxes from different sources at different temperatures and then calculate a temperature for the sink using the S-B equation. IT’S UTTER NONSENSE !!
I am now getting a virtual big red pen and striking through all WUWT comments which talk about X W/m^2 as if such an addition had any meaning whatsoever.
On reflection I may need a big virtual boxful or virtual red pens.
When you’re done with your “big red pen” ( I hope that’s not a euphemism), send them to Pruitt’s “Big Red Team”! They will need all they can get!
… and don’t forget to apply your red pen to discussions that deduce a greenhouse effect from comparing global-average-near-surface-air/ocean temperature to emission temperature of the whole planet as measured from space.
OR make sure that those who present such discussions invoke the axiom: Subtracting three green pears from five red apples will leave two red apples remaining, where the magnitude of that quantity is known as the “green pear effect”.
“of” of course
The rebuttal to “the National Climate Assessment” should be titled “the Rational Climate Assessment.”
Having read the draft, it is highly politicised. Cherry picks date ranges to skip out the 30s temperatures. Conveniently forgets to tell people the number of tornadoes is decreasing and instead tries to claim a daily increase is a sign.
For me its not so much what it says, but its what people have gone to a lot of trouble not to mention. When people try to pull the wool over peoples eyes on something obvious, what are they doing on something complex.
Those are the kinds of points that can be made as a start. The report is “incomplete” and “incorrect in some respects”. As such it fails to provide “an adequate framework” for decision making. this can and should be the prelude to the formation of a more discriminating team to evaluate the science. That in itself will marginalize the activist/fraudsters. It is of absolute importance that the selected members of the team to evaluate the science should be highly respected and above reproach. Their mandate should be to call a spade a spade in terms of the science and not hold their punches as the stakes are far too high.
This can set the cat amongst the pigeons, as they say!
Here is what we know.
We know the skeptics and guys like Rud are taking
Their best shots against the report.
We know Pruitt and Trump are in charge.
The final report will tell you conclusively if skeptics have a single valid point.
Well, the foundation of it all is the assumption that we actually know what the global temperature was in the past.
Dr. Ball had a post where “they” admitted past numbers, at the time, were inadequate to determine a Global anything.
Yet they continued to build on the sand.
Here’s how record highs and lows for about 50 square miles (Columbus Ohio) of the Earth’s 170 million square miles of the have been … adjusted.
Maybe somebody “in-filled” over reality?
Forrest, While I got to the list via my local NWS site, they came from NOAA.
BTW I have the list from a few other years. One of them I found on TheWayBackMachine. It is from 2002.
I compared it to the the 2007 list and there were no differences. 5 years between 2002 and 2007 and no new records, real or adjusted.
5 years between 2007 and 2012 and lots of changes made right down to my little spot on the globe.
(I only included records after 2007 if the 2012 list conflicted with the 2007 list.)
What was happening during those years?
Here’s what we know. There are people here discussing the report, potential implications, what NY Times stated etc. They’re discussing based on available facts. You as usual show up,
throw your usual factless shit and go away without flushing.
Mosher, it’s honorable to be an honest proponent of a theory that might be wrong, eg mainstream climate science. It is totally anathema to be against skepticism. Proponents have a much higher standard to meet and the level of thoughtful skepticism is greater or lesser given how well this standard is being met. I hope you don’t believe that three percent of scientists are kicking a55 against 97%. We can take empty ideological zealots out of both sides of the question (clearly you guys are winning hands down in this parallel ‘debate’), and what we have left is proponents desperately fighting a rearguard action with little information content against an apparently better armed but ragtag skeptical squad (otherwise why have proponents been so afraid [that is before the political climate change]).
Some simple questions for the report authors and reviewers:
1. How much has the global temperature risen over the past 50 and 100 years?
2. How much of that increase can be conclusively attributed to man-made CO2 emissions?
3. What evidence is there that that increase has been catastrophic versus favorable (e.g. crop production)?
4. With the Paris accord in place, what is your prediction of the global temperature increase over the next 30 years attributable to humans?
5. What is your prediction of the advantages/disadvantages of that predicted increase?
6. What is your best estimate of the costs/benefits of trying to ameliorate any global temperature increase?
All good points, but one immediately runs into a problem that there are few stations with 50 years of uninterrupted data, still less 100 years.
The time series land based thermometer data set is meaningless since the sample which it is purporting to depict constantly changes. The sample set in 1900 is not the SAME sample used in 1920 which is not the SAME sample used in 1940 which is not the SAME sample used in 1960 which is not the SAME sample used in 1980 which is not the SAME sample used in 2000 which is not the SAME sample used in 2016.
With a constantly changing sample set it cannot tell us whether and if so by how much temperatures have changed these past 100 or so years.
All stations needed to be audited. The 150 (or so) most prime stations in the Northern Hemisphere (those where there are no station moves, no nearby change in land use, best practices of maintenance, practices of record keeping and observation etc) and which are reasonably spatially distributed should then be retro fitted with the same type of LIG thermometer calibrated in Fahrenheit or Centigrade in accordance with the 1930 historic practice of each station selected, and then observations should be made using the same practices (eg., the same TOB) as used at each station. There would be no attempt to make a hemispherical data set, merely compare RAW unadjusted historic data for the period 130 to 1945 with RAW unadjusted recent observation on an individual station by station basis, and note the number of stations that show warming and the amount of such warming.
This will quickly tell us whether there has been any significant rise in temperatures during the period covering some 95% of all manmade emissions.
Retro-fitting stations presumably means having some remote reading /data capture solution, which means providing power and electronics, which generate heat, so these would have to be housed externally & some distance away to ensure no corruption of the temperature measurement.
wrong. have you ever looked at any data.
second you dont need uninterrupted data, you fundamentally dont understand the estimation problem
Richard
FWIW. You have my 100% support for this simple but important initiative. Geoff.
From analyzing the paleoclimate record and modeling results, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. A good absorber is also a good radiator so any radiant energy that CO2 absorbs, CO2 also radiates away. In the troposphere, CO2 is in almost constant contact with other molecules so energy is sharded. CO2 can gain energy from surrounding molecules and then radiate that energy to space. It is the non-greenhouse gas molecules that are more apt to trap heat because they are such poor radiators to space. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposhere but such has not happened.
On researcher has found that the original radiant calculations of the climate sensivity of CO2 are too great by more than a factor of 20 because the original calculations do not take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight but very significant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of a climate sensivity of 1.2 degrees C, not including feedbacks, we have a climate sensivity of less than .06 degrees C which is a rather trivial amount.
Then there is the issue of H2O feedback. The idea is that CO2 warming causes more CO2 to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming because H2O is the primary greenhouse gas. Positive H2O feedback causes an amplification of the warming effect of CO2. The AGW conjecture completely ignores the fact that besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s Atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface which is mostly some form of H2O, to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to energy balance models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both LWIR absorption band radiation and conduction and convection combined. As evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less then the dry lapse rate, H2O is a net coolant and hence a negative feedback retarding any warming that more CO2 might provide.
Another major problem with the AGW conjecture is that the radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system including the Earth…The warming effect of our atmosphere is provided for by a convective greenhouse effect and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of trace gases including CO2, Since the radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction, the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction.
Good comments, Will.
When I read a report earlier this year by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation announcing that 2016 was the hottest year on record ( since 1850 in any event) the report said that 2016 was 4 one-hundredths of a degree Celsius warmer than the previous hottest year (2015) according to NOAA and 1 one hundredths of a degree Celsius hotter according to The Met UK.
At about the same time the GWPF were mentioning that but pointing out that the margin of error was one tenth of a degree Celsius.
This is my recall from memory and I will dig out the report.
What does NOAA state in this report as the difference between 2016, 2015 and 2014?
Is any margin of error identified?
With the huge gaps in land station coverage, 70% of the surface being oceans, and the poor land station quality, measuring a global average temp at all is simply not possible. So to claim a new record by 4/100ths is disingenuous at best, even outright fraud.