Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?

I rebloged Steve Goddard’s post when I saw it (with the proviso I had not checked it). Judith now has a “there’s no smoke …. without rubbing two skeptics together” type article.

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

Skeptics doing what skeptics do best . . . attack skeptics.Suyts

View original post 1,445 more words

Posted in climate | 5 Comments

You must explain the warming

**Note since posting Richard has commented to say the quote (which I couldn’t find myself) referred to something else. So apologies Richard and thanks, because it was about time I wrote an article on this. So even if it doesn’t apply in your case, the general drift is stil valid. Richard:

My quote was specifically (and only) in reference to the claim that the historical temperature records are unreliable.


I’ve frequently heard an argument from academics who believe in global warming (Like Rob Wilson of St. Andrews) which runs like this:

Skeptic: “the models don’t work”
Academic: “well how do you explain the warming if it’s not CO2?”
Skeptic: “I can’t explain the warming except by natural variation”
Academic: “well as you don’t have any explanation, why don’t you just agree with us that it must be CO2”

And today I again read a very similar sentiment from Richard Mallett**:

”If we just say ‘we don’t know what happened / is happening’ then we just give up”

I’ve constantly tried to explain why this is just wrong as a way to view the problem, but I’m not sure I’ve ever probably explained my reasoning in detail. So here it is.

Continue reading

Posted in climate | 5 Comments

Academics reject scientific method

The physicist who runs a blog he should call “AndThenIGaveUpScience” has a blog post on:

consensus, the appeal to authority, and how we counter manufactured doubt,

And the video (at end) is a real laugh.

In the talk we hear appeals to ignorance: “we can’t check all scientific claims our self”. That’s rubbish. It’s the same elitist claim that “only someone trained in media studies can tell whether a program is worth watching”. Checking and critiquing something is far easier than doing it our self. Most people are not able to create a TV program, therefore (so goes the appeal from the BBC) only those who make TV programs are able to decide what is “good” TV. Rubbish!

We all know, it is extremely easy to tell what is “good” TV even though we haven’t any skill in making TV programs our self. Anyone can tell a good program: simply look at the viewing figures! People are more than capable of deciding what they think is “good” even if they have no ability to produce something themselves. The same is true for clothes, food, books, computer games, dictionaries, doctors, plumbers, politicians. We don’t need some expert to tell us when an operation goes wrong or when a plumber causes more leaks than they fix.

When we see people reluctant to have their work assessed, trying to avoid going into detail, making up excuses (the ocean ate my heat), and trying to argue that the cracks rapidly appearing in their work are just “normal” – when we know they aren’t. We don’t need a PhD in psychology to know what’s going on.

In all other areas of life, we don’t need experts to judge whether someone has done a good job.

So, why should “science” be unique? Why on earth would the only people who are allowed to judge science be those with an self-interest – the academics? Continue reading

Posted in climate | 8 Comments

NASA Is Constantly Cooling The Past And Warming The Present

Real Science

Over the past 15 years, NASA and NOAA have turned a long term US cooling trend into a warming trend. But it is even worse than that, because almost every year they make the past cooler and the present warmer.

The animation below starts at the NASA 1999 version, and progresses through 2013 – showing how they year after year tweak the measured cooling data to create the appearance of a warming signal – which does not exist in the thermometer data.

What is really ugly about this is that they overwrite the data in place, don’t archive the older versions, and make no mention of their changes on the web pages where the graphs are displayed. There should be prominent disclaimers that the actual thermometer data shows a 90 year cooling trend in the US, and that their graphs do not represent the thermometer data gathered by tens of thousands of…

View original post 160 more words

Posted in climate | Leave a comment

Met Office “One of the warmest Junes” – how unremarkable is that?

The met office are now saying that “Early statistics from the Met Office National Climate Information Centre show that this has been one of the warmest Junes in records dating back to 1910. Based on figures up until 25 June the mean temperature for the UK for the month is 14.4 °C, making it joint 6th at the moment”. (link)

So, in 104 years, this is the sixth. There are six chances in 104 of being sixth or better. So the chances are around  5.7%.

There are however 12 months in a year. Plus four seasons that are potential records, plus the year itself. That makes 17 potential records each year. So the chances of one of these being a record is … 98%

In other words we expect one such record each year.

If however, we include “coldest”, “wettest”, “windiest”, “driest”, there are a half dozen or so such records each year.

If we then start adding records such as “the coldest 1st may” … then there are 365 x 5 … or over a thousand such records each year.

So not remarkable at all.

Posted in climate | 4 Comments

Global warming is not a scientific issue.

Earthrise (NASA)

Earthrise (NASA)

Thanks to Stefanthedenier for prompting this.

Whilst many assume global warming is a scientific issue, my long held view is that it is not.

Global warming is a social issue.

It is really a question of the way we decide as a society what is true and what is not. It was not science, that led to “global warming”, instead it was because of a specific set of social conditions in the late 20th century which led to a group of academics being given an almost god-like kudos and a low threshold of evidence for asserting their theories to be “true”. These social conditions were: Continue reading

Posted in climate | 14 Comments

Eureka!! (Ice Age theory)

I’ve had a partial explanation for why the earth enters and leaves ice-ages for a while. I’ve been tempted to publish for a while, but wasn’t entirely happy with it because the mechanism (which I’ve not seen anyone suggest) didn’t seem sufficiently robust to trigger the ice-ages.

Then this morning, I suddenly realised there was another effect an order of magnitude larger which I had been ignoring. Now I’m sure the combined effects are sufficiently large. They also explain important details and better still the theory predicts some pretty significant changes at key points – things which I’m sure can be checked – so best of all, it’s not just idle conjecture that no one will ever know whether it is right, but it it is a scientifically testable theory.

This all happened this morning, and as I began imagining the climate as it went through the various phases, so many additional ramifications and mechanisms were just flowing through my mind that I just had to write it down, before I forget something important. So I grabbed the first pad of paper and started scribbling furiously.

The pad happened to be stamped on every page “The Royal Society”. Coincidence?

Unfortunately, because the theory involves several entirely new ideas, each of which will need a detailed explanation, I need time to write it up. So, in a sense, this is just my diary entry marking the day it happened.

Posted in climate | 2 Comments

Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment

This is another great article. I’ve not got time at the moment to check it in detail so I can’t vouch for it myself.

ketchem and fleezem

I got this in email , felt it needed posting.

The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.

As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,” however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.

We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with…

View original post 2,395 more words

Posted in climate | 1 Comment

What really annoys climate academics about the public critique of their work.

The Guardian have some interesting comments from climate academics (I refuse to call people who don’t practice real skeptic science “scientists”). This really needs a detailed response to each one – something that is impossible on the Guardian, and something I don’t have time to do just now.

Unfortunately, the Guardian censor many comments from skeptics, so I don’t like commenting on the Guardian itself and therefore as many others may feel the same and wish to comment, here are the (more than likely heavily censored) statements.

(Please treat these as personal contributions, therefore no personal attacks or ad hominens “Climate academics are a load of crap” is acceptable “Prof McWorthy is a  crap” is not.


Continue reading

Posted in climate | 13 Comments

No, You Can’t Just Change The Data

The evidence of malpractice.

Real Science

Every year the past gets colder, and the present gets warmer. NASA and NOAA post no disclaimers saying that they are doing this. They simply alter the data to produce a steeper warming trend every year.

When called out on it, they say that the problem with their repeated data tampering in the dark of the night, is my “faulty analysis”  Apparently they think I traveled back in time and changed their graphs.

Every single graph needs to be plainly marked that they have reversed the 80 year trend from cooling to warming.

View original post

Posted in climate | 2 Comments

The Global Warming Pause – definition

Shows IPCC predictions versus reality

Shows IPCC predictions versus reality

Back around 2007 I posted a section in Wikipedia Global Warming talk page titled “The Pause”. In this I pointed to the lack of warming since AR3 and the growing number of articles referring to the lack of warming. (I was told there was no pause)

Since then, the “pause” has become accepted terminology to describe the fifteen years or more years without significant warming in the global surface temperature. But sooner or later we are likely to see a significant up or downward movement. This will lead to disputes as to whether the “pause” has ended. Therefore I foresee that we need a definition of the pause.

AR3

My original basis for asserting that there was “a pause” was that the warming predicted in AR3 had not occurred. AR3 gave a prediction of warming between 1.4 and 5.8C between 1990 and 2100. This is shown in the above graph (last updated at end of 2009 around Climategate) This is equivalent to limits of between 0.127C and 0.527C per decade. AR3 definition gives a prediction starting in 1990 so a strict test of whether the surface temperature is within this range would be the trend starting from 1990 with the average temperature in that year.

However, I personally feel that predictions should not start in the past. Therefore I much prefer a definition starting in the year AR3 was published (2001), this also happens to be the start of the “millennium” and as the above graph shows, there was little change in the following years, so I do not think this favours either cooling or warming.

A Definition of the Pause

The pause, implies a trend close to no trend, but how close? Above 0.13C/decade, the trend would be within the IPCC prediction and so considered “warming”. No trend would certainly be a “Pause”.  Therefore I think the simplest place to change from “warmign” to “pause” would be at the half-way point of 0.064C/decade. (1.4/220) Therefore:

  • A trend higher that 0.065C/decade should be considered warming
  • Less than 0.064C/decade would be a pause
  • But below -0.064C/decade would be cooling

Addendum

Just in case it is relevant, I will recount the reason why I started using the phrase “the pause”.  Having tried to edit Wikipedia global warming article (first as a believer and latterly as a skeptic) I realised that it was extremely difficult to get anything in which even vaguely suggested global warming wasn’t a massive “happening now” problem.

However, I had begun to see people talk about the lack of warming and I thought anyone writing a school essay would be asked to “put both sides” so would need this material.

The reason I chose the word “pause” is because better and more accurate words like “stopped” or anything implying and end, would never ever have been considered by the editors on wkipedia.

I was using the concept of a tape recorder – which is paused before the action continues. This I hoped would remove the implication of “warming being at an end”.  Despite a wealth of evidence that there was a pause and that it was being actively discussed in reputable sources my edit was summarily and quite falsely dismissed. (It wasn’t long after I decided it was pointless trying to edit wikipedia and it was best just to let the editors have their biased articles as I think that way people are more likely to view them as the propaganda they are.)

Posted in climate | 69 Comments

Key Articles

The problem with good a blog is that whether an article is good or not, it quickly gets buried and so I have problems finding some of my better and/or key articles. So to help find them I’ve created a new list to the right.

The list Continue reading

Posted in climate | 1 Comment

EU green group funding.

Following on from #Frackinggate – the allegations by NATO that green groups are funded by Russian oil, Andrew Montford has another post at  Bishop hill which caught my attention:

There is, however, an even more sinister element. As we see the march of globalisation progress, the Green 10 (all of them funded by the EU, except Greenpeace – the WWF between 2007-2012 having grabbed a massive €53,813,343 for its services to itself and the EU empire), are supporting their paymaster, “promoting EU environmental leadership in the global political arena”, helping it act at a global level.

This is from EUReferendum. Unfortunately, it isn’t clear who is and who is not being funded by the EU. So I did a search and found this:

Had Mr Farage been better briefed, he could have pointed out that the WWF has been paid nearly €54 million from EU funds in the six year period from 2007 to 2012, the RSPB were paid more €14 million, and that Friends of the Earth Europe are primarily funded from public funds. Its work programme in 2013 cost €1,368,059.00, of which the EU contributed €751,064.00 (54.89 percent). Likewise, the EEB gets most of its funding from the taxpayer.

The best bet, though, would have been to add up the Green 10 subventions for the period 2007-2012. We start with WWF grabbing €53,813,343, Birdlife is lead recipient for funds worth €25,680,683, Naturfreund gets €2,862,371, Bankwatch takes €8,178,095, the EEB is lead recipient for €13,186,263, Climate Action Network gets €2,240,616, HEAL (as EPHA) takes €4,622,921, Transport & Environment, takes €2,172,353 and Friends of the Earth was lead recipient for grants worth €13,674,033.

Putting these nine together, with Greenpeace the notable exception, the Green 10 minus one are primary or lead recipients of funds to the tune of €126,610,677 disbursed by the Commission between 2007-2012
(Link)

This is a very different story from that on Bishop Hill where it is suggested the 53 million is split between 10 NGOS. Instead EUReferendum suggest the WWF alone are getting the €53,813,343. Friends of the Earth are getting another 13million, the Climate Action Network 2million and no doubt many of the other have a radical environmental agenda.

Posted in climate | 1 Comment

My best estimate: less than 1C warming if CO2 level is doubled.

I keep making this argument in bits, and have been meaning to put it together but have never had the time. So rather than putting it off again, I’ve decided to put my assessment of the impact of CO2 on global temperature in this very quickly prepared post. Note, because it is quick, I’m assuming a reasonable competence by you the reader.

First we look at the ubiquitous “global warming graph”.

gwSecond we do what any decent engineer would do and look at the frequency components of this graph:

Fig 1: Variability of observed global mean temperature as a function of time-scale (°C2 yr–1)  from figure 9.7 IPCC (2007)

Fig 1: Variability of observed global mean temperature as a function of time-scale (°C2 yr–1)
from figure 9.7 IPCC (2007)

As you will see it rises almost linearly which is typical of 1/f noise. And it is so suspiciously straight line that it looks like 100% random noise. The only “deviation” is at lower frequencies (higher periods >50yr) which is because you only get one or two cycle of 50/100year periodic noise in a 150years of data. This is to be expected. (As is the way you see more “detail” at higher frequencies – which is because there are more such cycles in the dataset)

Initial conclusion: It is consistent with pure noise.

Continue reading

Posted in climate | 6 Comments

Censorious charlatan curtails climate chat

Tallbloke's Talkshop

‘Anders’, the proprietor of popular warmist blog ‘and then there’s physics’ issued me with a challenge when I commented on his post about the ‘little ice age recovery‘.

anders1

“Try doing some actual physics” he said. So I responded:

View original post 152 more words

Posted in climate | Leave a comment

Has Connolley given up on Catastropic Anthropogenomorphic Warming?

I usually only read the toad’s articles as a headline on uClimate, but I couldn’t help looking at this one (sorry).

From what I can see, he’s given up on the “doomsday” man-made warming and is now arguing that there still might be a problem from very low levels of man-made warming. So if we are not heading toward a catastrophe as the Toad now seems to be arguing what are we heading toward?

Catastrophe: “an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event.

In climate terms, does this mean Toad is now predicting less than 2C warming, the level Stern says is unacceptable? The level at which the huge benefits from warming are thought to be overtaken by harm (if one assumes the “scientific” aka “the worst possible imaginable – or worse” scenarios. )

To avoid anyone else having to go to Toad’s blog, I’ve reproduced the article below (And if Toad wants to complain, may I remind him that he refused to help me get a totally scurrilous and false article removed which not only breached my copyright but intentionally libelled me and many other people.)

Anthropogenomorphic: In my view, people invent big words to pretend that simple ideas are complex and falsely give the impression those using them have “special” knowledge. But, in my experience if someone uses these “big” made up words when there is are perfectly good shorter word, it often means they are trying to hide the fact they haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

If it isn’t catastrophic we’ve got nothing to worry about, have we?

Continue reading

Posted in climate | 22 Comments

The $10,000 Global Warming Challenge!

The $10,000 Global Warming alarmist Challenge!

I have heard global warming alarmists make all sorts of statements about how the science supports their claims of man-made climate change. I have found all of those statements to be empty and without any kind of supporting evidence. I have, in turn, stated that it is not possible for the alarmists to prove their claims. And, I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.

I am announcing the start of the $10,000 Global Warming Alarmist Challenge. The rules are easy:

1. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global warming is currently occurring;

2. There is no entry fee;

3. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.

That’s it! I know you are not going to get rich with $10,000. But, tell me, wouldn’t you like to have a spare $10,000? After all, the alarmists all claim it is a simple matter, and it doesn’t even have to be original. If it is so easy, just cut and paste the proof from somewhere. Provide the scientific evidence and prove your point and the $10,000 is yours!

If someone can provide a proof that I can’t refute, using scientific evidence, then I will write them a cheque.

But, I am sure I will never have to because it can’t be proven. There is no scientific evidence for global warming and no one can prove otherwise.

Any takers?

NOTES:

  1. The scientific method means a Scientific hypothesis about a data set that is tested against real data from that data set.
  2. By current warming I mean a rise in surface temperature data over the previous 15 years (So no “the ocean eat my heat” responses please).
  3. I am the final judge and my response to anyone who enters is this will be: “there is currently no warming, no one predicted this and so I will not be paying out any money”.

Explanation

The reason I’ve put out this challenge is to show that any numpty can put up a challenge asking for evidence. But unlike all the other numpties (like this) asking for evidence to disprove man-made global warming – for which there is no funding at all, I’m asking for evidence that proves man-made global warming something which has received 100s of millions if not billions and is supposedly “settled science”.

Addendum

It has righly been pointed out that Peter Laux issued a very similar challenge which is on Dennis Rancourt’s Climate Guy blog. http://climateguy.blogspot.se/2010/11/10k-climate-challenge.html

The comments are worth reading.

Posted in climate | 69 Comments

Oh no not more evidence they’ve fabricated the data.

There was a time I’d get excited by this kind of story – but there was a time that I thought newspaper journalists would care two hoots about it.

Cue the deafening silence from the press:

Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres – NASA and NOAA – have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century “global warming”.

The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show “climate change” before and after the adjustments.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA

Posted in climate | 3 Comments

The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 11 – Is the El Niño Dying?

A great article by Bob Tisdale on WUWT – I’m particularly interested in the concept of “feedbacks” in the development of the El Nino as this fits in nicely with ideas I’ve been considering on Natural variation.

Watts Up With That?

There’s still a possibility the 2014/15 El Niño could die even though it had so much promise just a few months ago.  In this post, we’ll compare a few indicators now to where they were 2 months ago at the start of the El Niño enthusiasm.  Some of them show an off-season event quickly drawing to a close.  We’ll examine other metrics that show the El Niño may not be done yet.  And we’ll look at data for a couple of occasions when El Niños looked promising in the first part of the year and then failed to form into a full-fledged El Niño during the remainder. One year, we were coming out of back-to-back La Niñas and the ENSO models predicted an El Niño, and for the other year, El Niño conditions evolved early, like this year, but then retreated over the rest of the year.

View original post 2,245 more words

Posted in climate | Leave a comment

Greenpeace in the News

Here are some recent stories that have in some way been linked to green peace

Posted in climate | 6 Comments