Political Climate
Feb 11, 2016
Climate Science Is Settled, Except When It’s Not

Climate Science Is Settled, Except When It’s Not

Date: 11/02/16 Tim Blair, The Daily Telegraph

image

During the past decade, researchers at the CSIRO - along with global warming alarmists everywhere - have been telling us that the “science is settled” when it comes to climate change. In other words, they’ve delivered their verdict. Bad move.

CSIRO chief Larry Marshall has recently been examining his organiszation for areas where he might achieve some $110 million in budget cuts. Inevitably, his gaze fell upon the climate change crowd - the guys who, by their own admission, have already finished their jobs. Last week Marshall sent this memo to CSIRO staff:

“CSIRO pioneered climate research, the same way we saved the cotton and wool industries for our nation. But we cannot rest on our laurels as that is the path to mediocrity. Our climate models are among the best in the world and our measurements honed those models to prove global climate change. That question has been answered.”

Reasonably enough, with that question answered, Marshall is now taking steps to throw most of the CSIRO’s climate researchers out on the street like common circus midgets. More than 300 climate scientists are set to be dismissed over the next couple of years. “Climate will be all gone, basically,” one senior scientist told Fairfax as news of the cuts emerged.

Naturally, this caused an immediate reversal of opinion among Australia’s cashed-up climate change community. Suddenly the science wasn’t settled at all. In fact, the science was almost completely unknown! Author and climate change sceptic Jo Nova rounded up some of the more hilarious reactions at her excellent website.

“Climate science is not solved,” declared Todd Lane, president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. “Most of the uncertainty in climate projections is due to uncertainty about the ways to represent physical processes in climate models. Cutting funding in this area now doesn’t make any sense.”

“This is deeply disturbing news,” wailed distressed Will Steffen, Emeritus Professor at ANU and a Climate Councillor at the Climate Council of Australia. “The impacts of climate change are already being felt around Australia at an increasing rate, and there is more to come. We absolutely need to know more about the basic operation of the climate system - how it is changing and how best can we respond to the climate change challenge.”

“The latest round of job cuts from CSIRO is nothing short of appalling,” announced Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, Research Fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre UNSW. “While we know that the climate is changing because of human activity, we have not simply ‘answered’ that question after the Paris agreement - many more questions remain.”

Perkins-Kirkpatrick continued: “Research in any field does not, and cannot stop after an apparent question has been answered.” Actually, in most fields research does stop once the central question is answered. Otherwise video referees at NRL matches would never go home; they’d remain in their reviewing suites forever, endlessly examining the same disputed try.

“I worry about [Marshall’s] statement that there is no further need post-COP 21 to understand climate change,” fretted UNSW’s Professor Steven Sherwood. Hey, prof, the science is settled. Time to move on.

“There is need for climate science,” said John Church, a CSIRO climate researcher since 1978 who anticipates losing his job. “There is a clear need for ongoing sustained and enhanced observations. The science community is actually struggling to address these issues.”

Note that word: “struggling”. So much for the absolute certainty - the alleged “consensus” - we’ve previously heard about from our climate chancey friends. The only consensus among scientists now is that taxpayer funding is really cool and climate researchers want a whole lot of it, forever. Well, those days are gone.

Economic and political priorities have shifted, in Australia and around the world. Climate change has been declining as an issue of public concern since peak panic in 2006, when Al Gore’s dishonest documentary An Inconvenient Truth succeeded in spooking so many gullible saps.

Speaking of Gore, his net worth is around double the level of the CSIRO’s budget cuts. Let’s see him put his money where his global warming gob is and fund local climate change types. The science demands it.

----------------

CSIRO boss defends shake-up, says politics of climate ‘more like religion than science’

The CSIRO’s chief has told the ABC the backlash from his decision to restructure the organisation has made him feel like an “early climate scientist in the ‘70s fighting against the oil lobby” and that there is so much emotion in the debate it almost “sounds more like religion than science”.

Key points:

CSIRO chief says he will not back down on restructure

Thousands of climate scientists sign protest letter

Chief says change is about using resources effectively

Dr Larry Marshall said he would not be backing down on his controversial shake-up of the organisation’s climate divisions, telling the ABC he was yet to be persuaded.

The redirection of climate science priorities at the CSIRO has drawn international condemnation, with thousands of climate scientists signing an open letter protesting against the changes.

The Oceans and Atmosphere division is expected to be one of the hardest hit, with 60 positions to go through a mix of redeployment and redundancies.

All up, 350 jobs will “change” - a plan that’s drawn the ire of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change co-chair and even the World Meteorological Organisation which has made an unprecedented statement condemning the decision.

But Dr Marshall said he had not been persuaded to reconsider the changes.

The politics of climate I think there’s a lot of emotion in this debate. In fact it almost sounds more like religion than science to me.

Dr Larry Marshall said: “For that to happen, someone’s going to have to convince me that measuring and modelling is far more important than mitigation - and at this point you know, none of my leadership believe that”.

Since the changes were announced last Thursday, Dr Marshall has spent much of the week trying to clarify the restructure, stressing that there will not be a net loss of jobs.

“I feel like the early climate scientists in the ‘70s fighting against the oil lobby,” he said. I guess I had the realisation that the climate lobby is perhaps more powerful than the energy lobby was back in the ‘70s - and the politics of climate I think there’s a lot of emotion in this debate.

“In fact it almost sounds more like religion than science to me.”

“I’ve been told by some extreme elements that they’ve put me at the top of the climate deniers list and what perplexes me is how saying that we’re going to shift more resources to mitigation - i.e. doing something to address climate change versus just measuring and modelling it - I don’t see how that makes me a climate denier.

“It just seems to me the whole purpose of measurement and modelling the whole purpose of trying to understand climate change is then to figure out what to do about it - that’s where we’re trying to move to.”

Dr Marshall said it was about using resources in the most effective way.

“I know we have to continue measurements, I know we have to continue modelling and it’s not a binary thing - we’re not stopping,” he said.

“But we do have to scale back in order to redirect resources to mitigation.”

It is a redirection that will be closely scrutinised at a Senate Estimates hearing in Canberra today.

There are some very profound and very distinguished scientists that are globally recognised that have signed up to this and sent emails to folks involved in putting this together.

Former CSIRO oceanographer Paul Durack, on an open letter about the changes

Dr Marshall will attend amid criticism stretching from as far as the World Meteorological Organisation’s Climate Research Program.

“Normally as a UN agency we would never intervene or interfere like this, but this is just so startling and so devastating that we have to take this stand,” director Dr Dave Carlson said.

Climate is the most complex human challenge that we face.

Creativity, intellectually, engineering wise to try and actually understand the combined biological, ecological, chemical, physical climate system and then to build models to be able to predict what the impact is of what we’re doing is one of the premier human intellectual challenges and achievements.

“So this idea that it’s something simple and something you turn it on and off and something that’s done it does leave us speechless - we’re just in awe of how much of a serious misunderstanding that is.”

CSIRO wipes out climate division - 350 scientists to go - since it’s “beyond debate” who needs em?
Joanne Nova

BREAKING BUN FEST: Hysterical. The contradictions in the propaganda are biting back viciously. Isn’t karma a bitch?



Feb 07, 2016
Scientist Ruthlessly Debunks One Of NOAA’s Central Climate Claims

Quote of the Week

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Richard Feynman

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

“It’s Wrong”: Nobel Laureate in Physics Richard Feynman (1965) was a brilliant scientist with a passion for teaching. In some of his writing, and videos of his lectures, he clearly articulates the difficulties in formulating a scientific theory and the importance of hypothesis testing (experiment), see above quote. Feynman left a lasting impression on many students of science.

In his written testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on February 2, John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville submitted the results of 102 IPCC CIMP-5 Climate Model runs for the Global Bulk Atmospheric Temperature. (Surface to 50,000 feet (15,240 meters). (CIMP-5 is the latest version global climate models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC))

Christy tested the results of these model runs against temperature observations by four different datasets of weather balloon measurements with one type of instruments and by satellites with another type of instruments as calculated by 3 different entities. Christy shows a 0.98 correlation between the types of observational datasets, which is very high for such types of measurements. Not only is there significant disparity between the average of model runs and observations; but also, since 1995 the disparity is increasing significantly. The models greatly overestimate the warming of the bulk atmosphere.

Applying Feynman’s rule, the models are wrong!

By this empirical testing, the certainty expressed by the IPCC that human emissions of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily responsible for late 20th century warming is wrong. EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases, chiefly CO2, endanger public health and welfare is wrong. And the justification for the US Administration’s power plan is wrong.

Natural or Human? Christy’s evidence does not mean that there is no greenhouse effect, or that human emissions do not contribute to a warming. But it certainly indicates that the human emissions of a cause are overstated, and that the primary cause(s) of late 20th century warming is likely to be natural influences. This is directly contrary to probability of nature-only influence calculations by Mann et al. discussed in the January 30, 2016 TWTW. The artificial truncation of the data to the past 150 years can lead to incorrect conclusions, even assuming the calculations are correct.

Extension of Prior Testimony: On December 8, 2015 Christy give strong written testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness questioning claims of human-induced climate change impacts on extreme events such as wildfires (no evidence), droughts & floods (little or no evidence) with increasing grain production. In that testimony, Christy expressed concern over the political influence on climate science, including the IPCC.

Subsequently, a grouped called Yale Climate Connections released a video attacking Christy’s December 8 testimony. The video featured statements by Climate scientists Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, Carl Mears, and Ben Santer, and David Titley. The title of the article accompanying the video is a dead giveaway of its purpose: “Experts Fault Reliance on Satellite Data Alone.” Carl Mears of the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) should know that Christy and his group have used RSS satellite data for years in addition to UAH data and NOAA data. Further, he should know that balloon data is distinctly different from satellite data. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy.

Four Points: In his February 2 testimony, Christy addresses four criticisms of satellite measurements, the first three of which are brought up in the video. The first is that satellites do not measure temperatures. Christy counters that they actually measure microwave radiation from oxygen, the intensity of which is directly proportional to the temperature of the oxygen. This is similar to modern doctors using ear probes measuring emitted radiation to measure a patient’s temperature - a great improvement to various types of older thermometers.

The second criticism is orbital decay, which was pointed out by RSS about 20 years ago and corrected. The third criticism is east-west drift (diurnal drift) of the satellites. This influences measurements of the lower troposphere, but not the middle troposphere, the data used in the hypothesis testing. Further, the error was corrected about 10 years ago.

A fourth criticism not brought up in the video, but discussed by Christy, is that some scientists have expressed that the satellite data hides the power and validity of the models. To prevent misinterpretation, Christy adjusts the data to the same starting point similar to a foot race starting at the same starting line. The starting point is1979 when satellite data became available rather than an artificially contrived one. No one has produced evidence Christy’s adjustments are in error.

Adjusting for errors in hypotheses when they are revealed is how science works to improve hypotheses. Improving hypotheses is one of the purposes of hypothesis testing.

Linear Approach: Many scientists do not care for the tendency to put time-series data into linear form, or even constructing a regression trend between two points in the time-series, because it often disguises other trends that may only be observed in the rich data. However, a linear approach can be effective. Christy uses one to eliminate the influence of volcanoes, etc. and to better demonstrate the departure of the climate models from observations. Using the 36-year period from 1979 to 2015, Christy shows a linear trend of +0.079C/decade for balloon data, and +0.091 C/decade for satellite data. The average of 102 ICCC CMIP-5 Climate Model runs over the same period is +0.214 C/decade. Globally, the models overestimate bulk atmospheric warming (surface to 50,000 feet) by 2.5 times. From the data presented Christy states:

“Thus, the evidence here strongly suggests the theory, as embodied in models, goes much too far in forcing the atmosphere to retain heat when in reality the atmosphere has a means to relinquish heat and thus warms at a much slower rate.”

How Well Do We Understand Climate Change? After addressing surface temperature data and the data quality issues involve (which have been discussed in TWTW), Christy goes to the key question: How Well Do We Understand Climate Change? After discussing the complexity of the modeling, he asserts that if we understand this complex system, we should be able of predict its behavior. This is a start; but, accurate prediction does not guarantee that the fundamental physics is understood. Based on the 102 climate model simulations of the troposphere Christy was able to access, our understanding is far from complete and does not inspire confidence.

Only One: To give a demonstration of the variation among the models Christy plots the 102 CMIPS Model Runs in 32 Groupings against Observations. Only one model comes close to the observations - the Russian INM-CM4. For those who like to calculate a low probability of 20th century warming being natural variability, there is a new challenge. What is the random probability of 101 out of 102 CMIP5 global climate model runs greatly overestimating global mid-tropospheric temperature observations?

Conclusion: Christy concluded with calculations of what would be the impact on global warming if the US ceased emissions totally - the US simply vanished. Using an IPCC model with a low end assumption of the influence of CO2 (not the much lower influence indicated by his research) after 50 years the effect would be less than monthly variations in global temperatures.

If the video by Yale Climate Connections, mentioned above, prompted Christy to prepare this rigorous, terse summary of the problems in IPCC models and science, perhaps those responsible for the video should be thanked. It would be difficult to create a better evaluation of the quality of the IPCC’s models.

Scientist Ruthlessly Debunks One Of NOAA’s Central Climate Claims
By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Feb 2, 2016

image



Jan 29, 2016
300 scientists want NOAA to stop hiding truth

Daily Caller

Hundreds of scientists sent a letter to lawmakers Thursday warning National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists may have violated federal laws when they published a 2015 study purporting to eliminate the 15-year ‘hiatus’ in global warming from the temperature record.

“We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act,” some 300 scientists, engineers and other experts wrote to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

“In our opinion...NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act.”

The Data Quality Act requires federal agencies like NOAA to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information.”

“In our opinion… NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act.”

Smith launched an investigation into NOAA’s study last summer over concerns it was pushed out to bolster President Barack Obama’s political agenda. Democrats and the media have largely opposed the probe into NOAA scientists and political appointees, but Smith is determined to continue investigating. NOAA officials surrendered emails to congressional investigators in December.

“It is this Committee’s oversight role to ensure that federal science agencies are transparent and accountable to the taxpayers who fund their research,” Smith told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Americans are tired of research conducted behind closed doors where they only see cherry-picked conclusions, not the facts. This letter shows that hundreds of respected scientists and experts agree that NOAA’s efforts to alter historical temperature data deserve serious scrutiny.”

Of the 300 letter signers, 150 had doctorates in a related field. Signers also included: 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists. Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.

NOAA scientists upwardly adjusted temperature readings taken from the engine intakes of ships to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.

The NOAA study in dispute claims the scientists found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming. They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming the temperature record from 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale.”

Is The NOAA Hiding Global Warming Data That Doesn’t Fit Their Narrative?

image

“As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use,” wrote climate scientists Dr. Patrick J. Michaels and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen of the libertarian Cato Institute on the in the science blog Watts Up With That. “Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.”

“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data, we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts wrote on the same science blog. “It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise. Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

See more here.

The letter sent to Chairman Lamar Smith says:

“We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act,” some 300 scientists, engineers and other experts wrote to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

“In our opinion...NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act.”

For those that don’t know, Federal agencies that collect data for public use and policy decision are required to adhere to the Data Quality Act by law. The purpose is to:

“...ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information.”

In my opinion, both NOAA (Karl and Peterson) and NASA (Gavin Schmidt) regularly flout this law. They need to be taken to task for it.

The letter follows along with a list of signatories.

January 25, 2016

Chairman Lamar Smith
Committee on Science, Space and Technology
House of Representatives
Congress of the United States

Dear Chairman Smith,

We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act. This is an issue of international relevance because of the weight given to U.S. Government assessments during international negotiations such as the IPCC.

The Data Quality Act required government-wide guidelines to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information,” that was disseminated to the public. Individual agencies, such as the EPA, NOAA and many others were required to issue corresponding guidelines and set up mechanisms to allow affected parties to seek to correct information considered erroneous.

We remind you that controversy previously arose over EPA’s apparent failure to comply with these guidelines in connection with its Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, which was the subject of a report by the EPA Office of the Inspector General in 2011, see.  In that case, EPA failed to comply with peer review requirements for a “highly influential scientific assessment” and argued that the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding was not a “highly influential” scientific assessment. If it wasn’t, then it’s hard to imagine what would be. (For a contemporary discussion of the EPA’s stance see.

In our opinion, in respect to Karl et al. 2015 and related documents, NOAA has failed to observe the OMB (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act, for peer review of “influential scientific information” and “highly influential scientific assessments.”

We urge you to focus on these important compliance issues. For your consideration we attach a draft letter which directly connects these issues to your committee’s prior request for documents.

Sincerely,
(List of signatories and tag lines)
-----------

RECALL:

General Accounting Office (GAO) report (September 2011) took NOAA to task for station siting issues: “NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards...nor does it have an agency-wide policy regarding stations that don’t meet standards.” The report continues, “Many of the USHCN stations have incomplete temperature records; very few have complete records. 24 of the 1,218 stations (about 2 percent) have complete data from the time they were established.” GAO goes on to state that most stations with long temperature records are likely to have undergone multiple changes in measurement conditions.

The report shows by their methodology that 42% of the network in 2010 failed to meet siting standards. Some of the stations that were worst offenders of siting quality have been removed since the non-governmental, all volunteer, not for profit surfacestations.org project photographic assessment of well over 1000 of the 1200 US climate stations in the USHCN network published its findings.



Page 1 of 593 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »