tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41315393439316625412024-02-21T03:41:21.896-05:00Thought FragmentsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-36798780730608182852015-10-24T18:18:00.000-04:002015-10-24T18:18:56.242-04:00Congressional science rejectionist Lamar Smith tries to harass scientists for publishing a scientific study<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Texan politician <a href="http://lamarsmith.house.gov/about/biography" rel="" target="_blank">Lamar Smith</a> is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He is the current Chairman of the <a href="https://science.house.gov/" target="_blank">House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology</a>. The Committee has oversight over the <a href="https://science.house.gov/" target="_blank">National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)</a>, the <a href="http://www.noaa.gov/" target="_blank">National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)</a>, the <a href="http://science.energy.gov/" target="_blank">Department of Energy</a>, the <a href="http://www3.epa.gov/" target="_blank">UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency</a>, the
<a href="http://www.nsf.gov/" target="_blank">National Science Foundation</a>, the <a href="http://www.faa.gov/" target="_blank">Federal Aviation Administration</a>, and
the <a href="http://www.nist.gov/" target="_blank">National Institute of Standards and Technology</a>.<br />
<br />
Lamar Smith is known for rejecting the scientific consensus (<a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta" target="_blank">Carlton et al., 2015</a> and references herein), according to which humankind was facing an ongoing climate change (with global warming as one aspect of it) that was caused by human activity. One example of his rejectionist views that come with the usual talking points, combined with elements of conspiracy fantasy can be read <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-change-religion-1429832149" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
According to an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/23/congressional-skeptic-on-global-warming-demands-records-from-u-s-climate-scientists/" target="_blank">article</a> in the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/" target="_blank">Washington Post</a> yesterday, Lamar Smith has issued subpoenas to the Obama Administration for email communications and personal records of the NOAA scientists who published a peer-reviewed scientific study in the renowned journal <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/" target="_blank">Science</a> (current impact factor: 33.61) earlier this year. The study, led by Thomas R. Karl and co-authored by eight other scientists, mostly scientists with NOAA, addressed <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.abstract" target="_blank">"Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus"</a>. In short, the scientific study comes to the conclusion that after eliminating specific, non-climatic influences which had not been considered so far, from the raw data or their analysis (such influences can arise, for instance, from changes in the instruments with which measurements are taken), the resulting time series of the global average of the temperature anomalies does not show the "slowdown" or "hiatus" in the global mean surface warming compared to the average trend since 1950 anymore, which was diagnosed in the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/" target="_blank">last report</a> of the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" target="_blank">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)</a> for the period 1998-2012. The abstract of the study by Karl et al. states with respect to that:<br />
<br />
<i>"Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.</i>"<br />
<br />
One has to note here, though, that, contrary to what is often claimed by science rejectionists, the IPCC report did not interpret the diagnosed "slowdown"/"hiatus" as a pause of the physical processes that lead to global warming, or as something that was in contradiction to the current understanding about climate change that has been presented by mainstream climate science, or the projections for future climate change, which have been based on this understanding. Instead, the report presented the "hiatus" as an example for the large interannual and decadal variability in the rate of warming, which can be observed, despite a robust multi-decadal warming:<br />
<br />
<i>"Despite the robust multi-decadal warming, there exists substantial interannual to decadal variability in the rate of warming, with several periods exhibiting weaker trends (including the warming hiatus since 1998) (Figure TS.1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12[0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for short periods are uncertain and very sensitive to the start and end years. For example, trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24] °C per decade, 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] °C per decade and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively."</i> (Page 37)<i> </i><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3irZBINaMzkDWoD90i71KnFotLUX4KD8TsonC_W19j3DoF7uyYAdBJ87aq-SFRf0_D5xJHfQ4p-hdh8d5luSBReGvytMwNkKNNnx8qYyk1itHsanXsPWMypKSWniFyGt_CXKb2B2hHlA/s1600/FigTS_01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3irZBINaMzkDWoD90i71KnFotLUX4KD8TsonC_W19j3DoF7uyYAdBJ87aq-SFRf0_D5xJHfQ4p-hdh8d5luSBReGvytMwNkKNNnx8qYyk1itHsanXsPWMypKSWniFyGt_CXKb2B2hHlA/s640/FigTS_01.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From IPCC (2013), Working Group 1, Page 38</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Thus, scientists publish a study based on new or revised data, with results that, if generally acknowledged as valid, revise some results or conclusions that had been presented in previous scientific publications like the IPCC report or individual studies. The normal scientific process is that other scientists examine the data, assumption, and methodology, and they are trying to reproduce the results from the study, if so inclined. If they do not agree with some assumptions or the methodology in the new study, they are trying to do better in their own research. If those scientists obtain different results, they present these results in another scientific study, which then is open to the scrutiny by other scientists again. This is how the scientific process works. Results from previous studies are revised all the time.<br />
<br />
However, what is supposed to be the justification for Lamar Smith to open an investigation of the climate scientists who authored the study? The implied suspicion is that the scientists have had committed unethical conduct in their
scientific research, which would warrant an investigation. Apparently, no actual
initial evidence that would justify such a suspicion has been presented. So it appears, the fact alone that Karl et al. published a study with results contradicting common rejectionists' talking points seems to be considered as sufficient to put the scientists under such a suspicion. This looks very much like a fishing expedition conducted by Lamar Smith, abusing his political power for just another witch hunt against climate scientists. I guess the general purpose of these kind of actions is to intimate scientists by putting them under a permanent threat of retribution for publishing results from their scientific research, which are in contradiction to political, ideological, or religious beliefs of the political right. If they produce such results they can become a target of an investigation by the ones in power at any time, for no real reason. It is another episode in the war on disliked science that has been waged by the
U.S. political (far) right in and outside of Congress for years now. This goes very much against the freedom of science.<br />
<br />
<br /><b>References:</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025" target="_blank">Carlton, J.S., <span data-authors=""><span class="nowrap" itemprop="author" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name">Rebecca Perry-Hill</span></span>, <span class="nowrap" itemprop="author" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name">Matthew Huber</span></span> and <span class="nowrap" itemprop="author" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name">Linda S. Prokopy, 2015: </span></span></span>The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists, Environ. Res. Lett, 10(9), 094025, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324" target="_blank">IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T. F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M. Midgley (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 1535 pp., doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5632" target="_blank">Karl, Thomas R., Anthony Arguez, Boyin Huang, Jay H. Lawrimore, James R. McMahon, Matthew J. Menne, Thomas C.Peterson, Russell S. Vose, and Huai-Min Zhang, 2015: Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus, Science, 348(6264), 1469-1472, doi:10.1126/science.aaa5632</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-change-religion-1429832149" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Smith, Lamar, 23 April 2015: The Climate-Change Religion, Wall Street Journal</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/23/congressional-skeptic-on-global-warming-demands-records-from-u-s-climate-scientists/" target="_blank">Warrick, Joby</a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/23/congressional-skeptic-on-global-warming-demands-records-from-u-s-climate-scientists/" target="_blank">, 23 October 2015</a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/23/congressional-skeptic-on-global-warming-demands-records-from-u-s-climate-scientists/" target="_blank">: Congressional skeptic on global warming demands records from U.S. climate scientists, Washington Post</a>.<br />
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-49606687067326110412015-02-24T17:57:00.000-05:002015-02-24T17:57:25.954-05:00A comment on "The crucifixion of Dr. Willie Soon" at Breitbart<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There is an article by Joseph L. Bast, president of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute" target="_blank">The Heartland Institute</a>, and the lawyer and alleged pro-freedom of speech fighter Joseph A. Morris at Breitbart with the title <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/24/the-crucifixion-of-dr-willie-soon/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"The Crucifixion of Dr. Willie Soon"</a>. I am banned from commenting at this outlet of the defenders of free speech. Thus, I am going to put my comment here.<br />
<br />
Since Bast and Morris link in their article to <a href="http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.no/2015/01/monckton-soon-legates-and-briggs.html#comment-1804867804" target="_blank">one of my comments</a>. The assertion by them that I hadn't read or understood the paper by Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs before I criticized it is false. The comment by me to which they link doesn't support their assertion. Although, there are some points in the paper that are difficult to understand on scientific grounds. For instance, how anything follows for the real climate system from the doing of process engineers who wanted to prevent oscillations in electronic circuits, i.e., positive feedbacks leading to instabilities (see also <a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-designers-of-our-climate/" target="_blank">here</a>). That such nonsense and other fatal flaws in the paper could pass the peer-review process is only explainable to me with a breakdown of the peer-review process at <a href="http://link.springer.com/journal/11434" target="_blank">Science Bulletin</a>, the Chinese journal where the paper was published.<br /><br />Scientists have commented on the paper how scientists do. They have seen fatal flaws in it regarding the quality of the science and pointed it out (e.g., <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/factcheck-scientists-hit-back-at-claims-global-warming-projections-are-greatly-exaggerated/" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ny6UAs5I9_PBKoIle7tptLXjeAuQYTaznhxXvTrZLJU/edit" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_monckton_equation" target="_blank">here</a>). They did not attack the authors, personally. Bast and Morris, in contrast, seem to think that a paper should be judged according to whether they like the economical, political, or ideological implications. This is not how science is supposed to work, though.<br /><br />After linking to criticism by scientists on the Monckton et al.-paper, Bast and Morris write, "Having failed to refute the article, environmentalists turned to smearing the authors." By linking the criticism by the scientists with this alleged "smearing", they suggest that it was those scientists who turned to "smearing". Do Bast and Morris have any evidence for this? For my part, I reject any such suggestion by Bast and Morris and consider this as smearing coming from them. To make it clear, I do not support any petition for dismissal of Soon for what he has published in scientific journals, even if it is bad science. That would go against my understanding of freedom of science. Demands by the public for disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interests are legitimate, though. In the case that Soon has committed any ethics violations it is up to his employer to investigate this and deal with this according to the institution's policies, if there is any initial evidence for it. I do not take any word by Soon, Monckton, Briggs, Bast, or Morris regarding this issue at face value.<br /><br />Also, it is hilarious that Bast and Morris, these two defenders of Soon's free speech, link to the <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/25/monckton-fires-back-point-by-point-rebuttal-at-warmist-critics-of-new-peer-reviewed-study-shoddy-rent-a-quote-scientists/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">article by Monckton at Climate Depot</a> (which, BTW, is just filled with more misrepresentation, strawman arguments, non-sequitur, and failure to understand the physics of the climate system), where Monckton demands the dismissal from their employment and the criminal prosecution of those scientists who dared to criticize the flawed science in the Monckton et al. paper. And they don't say any word about Monckton's demands.<br /><br />Scientifically, the Monckton et al.-paper is trash, as <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/peer-reviewing-climate-denial" target="_blank">Gavin Schmidt has been quoted</a> to have pointedly summarized it. Monckton et al. also have exposed about themselves that they don't have a clue about how complex climate models work. They loudly declare that the climate models shouldn't use the Bode-system gain equation to calculate the feedbacks. An equation that isn't used in the climate models in the first hand.<br />
<br />
So far for my comment. And to reconfirm that the state at Breitbart is still the same:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidBfvSrOR5G_kQ1ohZjahQ9neYTwjh8nWINgxEJ3q4A3vjGyXs8VOIi4AjcLUMvXJv7tkx7LqzEHquVo45BzNapISt3aIjOQA9k3CxH11OyGpi7sks7V42zluY4VN969-zQdXg-giVtXE/s1600/Screenshot+from+2015-02-24+16:32:23.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidBfvSrOR5G_kQ1ohZjahQ9neYTwjh8nWINgxEJ3q4A3vjGyXs8VOIi4AjcLUMvXJv7tkx7LqzEHquVo45BzNapISt3aIjOQA9k3CxH11OyGpi7sks7V42zluY4VN969-zQdXg-giVtXE/s1600/Screenshot+from+2015-02-24+16:32:23.png" height="552" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com45tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-35622641449734548732015-01-19T00:43:00.000-05:002015-01-27T11:55:50.298-05:00Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs falsely claim to have presented a new climate model<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A press release (<a href="http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=15237" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a> or <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>) has been issued by Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and William Briggs who authored a <a href="http://wmbriggs.com/public/Monckton.et.al.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">paper</a>, which they could place in Science Bulletin (the former Chinese Science Bulletin) of the Chinese Academy of Science. IMHO, the paper is a mixture of a correct physical concept (the approach of using a simple energy balance model for conceptual understanding of the response of the climate system to external forcing) and misrepresentation of previous scientific publications, flawed methodology, scientifically unfounded assumptions, and plain errors. Those have been partially discussed at <a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-designers-of-our-climate/" target="_blank">ATTP</a> already.<br />
<br />
There is a number of hyperbolic statements in the press release, regarding the originality of the content of the paper (bold face after headline by me, except bold face of “Lord Monckton”):<br />
<br />
<i><b>“NEW PAPER: Why Models Run Hot: Results From An Irreducible Simple Climate Model</b><br />
[…]<br />
The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 C. However, <b>the new, simple model</b> presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 C warming instead—and possibly much less. <b>The model, developed over eight years</b>,
is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student
can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific
calculator.<br />
[…]<br />
<b>The new, simple climate model</b> helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon.<br />
[…]<br />
<b>Lord Monckton</b>, the paper’s lead author, <b>created the new model on the basis of earlier reviewed research by him</b>
published in Physics and Society, in the UK Quarterly Economic
Bulletin, in the Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of
Scientists’ Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, and in Energy &
Environment.” </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
So, according to the press release, Monckton had created a very new climate model by himself, which was presented in the paper by the authors, and the results from calculations with this climate model were in contradiction to results from simulations with several dozens of complex Earth system models, done by climate research groups all over the world. Now, the calculations Monckton et al. have done are certainly in contradiction to the results presented in the latest Report of the Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/" target="_blank">The Physical Science Basis</a>. Because of the false assumptions that were made by Monckton et al, which they tried to justify with two non-sequitur statements, one of which was a very false interpretation of data from paleo climate change and the other one was just absurd (or metaphysical, if there is some religious belief behind the assumption).<br />
<br />
As for the assertion to have developed a "new model". This pompous claim is an untrue statement by Monckton et al. What do they do in the paper? They apply a Zero-dimensional energy balance model of the climate system that links an external radiative forcing with the temperature response to the radiative forcing. This is the allegedly new model:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXwGQVOTQP2_oJTxpUDBXJviwc427yb5tT-NcwLqOAzGimUmDlqm8lEgcAMQORnMJDXOP2kOes9meIQKSCg_j8zksyqVwTXxQufcyW4SBfJFinll3C5oHsaGV7y5qfpfGnBgAGobrLG_M/s1600/Screenshot+from+2015-01-18+23:12:07.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXwGQVOTQP2_oJTxpUDBXJviwc427yb5tT-NcwLqOAzGimUmDlqm8lEgcAMQORnMJDXOP2kOes9meIQKSCg_j8zksyqVwTXxQufcyW4SBfJFinll3C5oHsaGV7y5qfpfGnBgAGobrLG_M/s1600/Screenshot+from+2015-01-18+23:12:07.png" height="276" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
This type of climate model, a Zero-dimensional energy balance model, has been used for decades for conceptual studies of the climate system. The original idea is generally attributed to the work by M. I. Budyko (1969), "<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="mainTitle">The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth"</span></span>, Tellus, 21, doi:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1969.tb00466.x, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1969.tb00466.x/abstract">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1969.tb00466.x/abstract</a>. Feedback analysis based on a form of the equation as seen in the last line can be traced back to Hansen, Lacis, Rind, Russell, Stone, Fung, Ruedy, Lerner (1984), "Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanism", Geographical Monographs 29, <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_etal_1.pdf">http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_etal_1.pdf</a>. Or in a more recent review paper by G. Roe (2009), "Feedbacks, Timescales, and Seeing Red", Ann. Rev. Earth Plan. Sci, 37, 93-115, <span class="hlFld-DOI">doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.061008.134734, <a href="http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Publications/Roe_FeedbacksRev_08.pdf">http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Publications/Roe_FeedbacksRev_08.pdf</a>, such a model was described in nearly identical form:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="hlFld-DOI"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJNMjtsnFjUTrHxTz4AQyYQVqHsnImr_u1ScVBfLQ0TDwPyZpqu0kvEVih9DIs3_Da2srv4nt7g2zu7epMoqHmRWnvDQFoSKqygX84KTEK0mq7CUDOXNK5N-0UolD53UW-ts-opNCcIG0/s1600/roe_etal_areps2009a_eqs9-11.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJNMjtsnFjUTrHxTz4AQyYQVqHsnImr_u1ScVBfLQ0TDwPyZpqu0kvEVih9DIs3_Da2srv4nt7g2zu7epMoqHmRWnvDQFoSKqygX84KTEK0mq7CUDOXNK5N-0UolD53UW-ts-opNCcIG0/s1600/roe_etal_areps2009a_eqs9-11.png" height="186" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="hlFld-DOI"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
None of the existing literature where this type of models is discussed is referenced in the Introduction of the Monckton et al. paper. The Introduction is usually the part of a scientific paper where previous scientific research that builds the general context of the new study is referenced, and where the objectives of the new study with respect to this context are formulated. Nor are any of the previous studies referenced in Section 3 where Monckton et al. introduce their allegedly new model. However, all three of the studies mentioned above are referenced further down in a different context, e.g., to compare values of climate sensitivity (the lambda in the equations). Just not where the model is introduced. So it is not made clear by Monckton et al. that the model used by them is based on ideas, which already had been published by other researchers. However, the citing of these papers further down is proof that Monckton et al. knew the other studies, where this type of the model had been described already. Thus, they won't be able to excuse themselves by claiming to not have known these studies and to have newly invented the wheel independently and in good faith.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In summary, Monckton et al. present something, even more emphasized in their hyperbolic press release, as their own idea, although very similar content had already been published by other researchers before. They neglect to give proper credit to these other researchers where it would have been due. There is a name for such a praxis, not just in science, when someone takes credit in a publication for someone else's idea, which already had been published before somewhere else.<br />
<br />
<b>Update, 01/20/2015:</b> Mr. Monckton has personally appeared here to directly respond to my posting. I hadn't expected it, so I am positively surprised. He is welcome to defend his views here. I ask everyone to try to refrain from personal attacks, such as insults against each other or ad hominem arguments that are irrelevant for a discussed matter, regardless how big the disagreement is. Take a deep breath before posting something, you wouldn't have posted with a cool head, if emotions become too strong. Currently, my policy is to not moderate this blog. I can change this at my discretion at any time.<br />
<br />
<b>Update, 01/23/2015:</b> More criticism of the Monckton et al. paper <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/factcheck-scientists-hit-back-at-claims-global-warming-projections-are-greatly-exaggerated/" target="_blank">here</a> at <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/" target="_blank">www.carbonbrief.org</a>, including some <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ny6UAs5I9_PBKoIle7tptLXjeAuQYTaznhxXvTrZLJU/edit" target="_blank">additional comments</a> by me on severe flaws in the paper.<br />
<br />
<b>Announcement 01/27/2015:</b> The 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has posted a response at CFACT's <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/25/monckton-fires-back-point-by-point-rebuttal-at-warmist-critics-of-new-peer-reviewed-study-shoddy-rent-a-quote-scientists/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"Climate Depot"</a> to opinions stated by a number of <i>"soi-disant climate 'scientists'"</i> on the Monckton et al. paper. His Lordship continuous to be <a href="http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com/2015/01/monckton-soon-legates-and-briggs.html#comment-1814994396" target="_blank"><i>"exemplary with his courteous replies to the scientific points that have been addressed to him"</i></a> (James Rowlatt, Clerk of Mr. Monckton), as he already has demonstrated at Thought Fragments, one of the blogs of these <i>"creatures"</i> who have been <i>"savagely, but anti-scientifically attacking"</i>. Consequently, Mr. Monckton demands the <i>"dismissal"</i> of the <i>"named and shamed"</i> culprits for their illicit statements. Further down he makes clear that <i>"the climate fraud will not cease till someone is prosecuted"</i>. His Lordship's divine revelations were <i>"definitively established"</i> as irrefutable truth, by being published as a <i>"peer-reviewed paper"</i> in Science Bulletin in the People's Republic of China, one of the remaining places in the world where the true meaning of freedom of speech and freedom of science as the freedom of the leaders and lords to speak without being contradicted and criticized is still being honored, and science-serfs are not allowed to hide within <i>"the ivy-covered walls of acadame"</i>. Science Bulletin is extremely prestigious with an impact factor of 1.365, which makes it <i>"the Orient's equivalent of Nature"</i> whose impact factor is only 30 times higher. <i>"Perpetrators"</i> of the <i>"biggest fraud in history"</i> who have <i>"misbehaved"</i> by trashing His Lordship's revelations, or, generally, by publishing results from so-called scientific research that undermine His Lordship's just struggle against the dark forces behind the <i>"UN's gruesome plan"</i> to <i>"establish an unelected, unaccountable, all-powerful global climate tyranny"</i>, must be <i>"severely dealt with"</i>. Everyone hail the Viscount!</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com492tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-66803595081543411352014-12-21T11:08:00.000-05:002015-03-07T19:51:40.530-05:00Our poster presentation on predicting the mineral composition of dust aerosols at the 2014 fall meeting of the AGU<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I just have come back from this year's fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco. The meeting was very interesting and productive (and exhausting) for me. The amount of exciting science from the whole range of geosciences, presented by many enthusiastic researchers at the AGU, is always overwhelming. I wish I would have been able to suck in more from all the information provided in the oral and poster sessions.<br />
<br />
I, together with my collaborators Carlos<span style="font-weight: normal;"> Pérez García-Pando and Ron Miller,</span> had following poster presentation on <i>"<span class="itemNumber"></span></i><span class="itemTitle"><i>Predicting the Mineral Composition of Dust Aerosols: Evaluation and Implications"</i> in the session <i>"Aerosol Comparisons between Observations and Models"</i>.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="itemTitle"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7_oGGKWoTweu0tmfb0Hxt4fl0YwyMGZqY2G146-NnIeKCrNZswmNiTW0SpwlFN_dJPF1z61WuCrAmJUI3BdCV5mYkra5QJgSAFio6OjlCpInvoiowAJS5P6Bgd5OXptFSYXD0SaQHGOg/s1600/PerlwitzJanAGU201412_poster.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7_oGGKWoTweu0tmfb0Hxt4fl0YwyMGZqY2G146-NnIeKCrNZswmNiTW0SpwlFN_dJPF1z61WuCrAmJUI3BdCV5mYkra5QJgSAFio6OjlCpInvoiowAJS5P6Bgd5OXptFSYXD0SaQHGOg/s1600/PerlwitzJanAGU201412_poster.png" height="426" width="640" /></a> </span><br />
<br />
<span class="itemTitle">The abstract of the poster states:</span><br />
<span class="itemTitle"><br /></span>
<span class="itemTitle"></span><i>"Soil dust aerosols in Earth system models are typically assumed to have
globally uniform properties. However, important climate processes
related to dust depend on the aerosol mineral and chemical composition,
which varies regionally. Such processes include aerosol radiative
forcing, transport of bioavailable iron that catalyzes marine
photosynthesis, heterogeneous chemistry, ice nucleation, and cloud
condensation.</i><br />
<i>We have implemented a new version of the soil dust
aerosol scheme in the NASA GISS Earth System ModelE that takes into
account the mineral composition of the dust particles. Dust aerosols are
represented as an external mixture of minerals such as illite,
kaolinite, smectite, carbonates, quartz, feldspar and gypsum, as well as
iron oxides and accretions of iron oxides with each of these
minerals.</i><br />
<i>We present a new publically available compilation of
measurements of mineral fractions derived from ca. 50 references from
the literature. This compilation is used to evaluate our new model of
mineral and elemental composition within ModelE. We discuss the
challenges of comparing simulated mineral fractions to measurements,
which often come from field campaigns and ship cruises of limited
duration. Despite uncertainties of the measurements, we show the
importance of estimating the undisturbed size distribution of the parent
soil prior to wet sieving, along with the modification of this size
distribution during emission. </i><br />
<i>In particular, our new model
reproduces measurements showing greater amount of aerosols at silt sizes
(whose diameters exceed 2 μm) including significant amounts of clay
mineral aerosols (like illite) at silt sizes. Our model also reduces the
systematic overestimation of quartz, while allowing iron to be
transported farther from its source as impurities than in its pure,
crystalline form."</i><br />
<br />
The two papers where the details of the results from three years of research can be found have just been submitted to Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. Let's see how they are going to do in the review process.<br />
<br />
<b>Update 03/07/2015:</b> Our two discussion papers have been published at <a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/volumes_and_issues.html" target="_blank">Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions</a> now and can be found here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/3493/2015/acpd-15-3493-2015.html">http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/3493/2015/acpd-15-3493-2015.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/3577/2015/acpd-15-3577-2015.html">http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/3577/2015/acpd-15-3577-2015.html</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-49392881540060203852014-12-20T11:17:00.000-05:002014-12-20T11:17:30.127-05:00Tim Ball says Adolf Hitler was right in "Mein Kampf". How far will AGW-deniers go?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This is a slightly modified version of a comment that I wrote at the blog <a href="http://"... And Then There's Physics"" target="_blank">"... And Then There's Physics"</a> where people discussed this matter in an open thread (<a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/open-thread/" target="_blank">here</a>).<br />
<br />
Equalizing climate scientists with Hitler or Nazis has not been an uncommon rhetoric by AGW deniers. Even Roy Spencer whose work to provide one of the satellite retrieved temperature data sets is very valuable for climate science did it not long ago in his blog, when he wrote a whole post (<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>) dedicated to calling the ones who accept that what has been found by mainstream climate science "global warming Nazis" and accused them of supporting policies of mass murder. And I got banned from Anthony Watts's junk science blog when I called a commenter out and announced the application of armed self-defense (rather as a rhetorical reply, not that I carry around any weapons), if the commenter takes action, after the commenter equalized climate scientists with Nazis and fake skeptics with the persecuted Jews in Nazi-Germany to justify his fantasies about lynching climate scientists. Well, at least that was what Anthony Watts used as pretext to finally ban me from WUWT, permanently.<br />
<br />
However, I think the post by Tim Ball at WUWT (<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>) has its own quality. It seems to be perceived by a number of people, including by Tamsin Edwards and Richard Betts according to their reply at WUWT (<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>), that the core of Tim Balls article is again a comparison of climate scientists with Hitler or Nazis. I suppose this comes from superficial reading, which is understandable, since no one sane really likes to wade in a pool of s***. Then again, if one explicitly replies to such a garbage one should at least read it first carefully and see what it actually states.<br />
<br />
Although Tim Ball also mentions that Hitler's "lies and deceptions caused global disaster, including the death of millions of people" (Ball actually downplays what the German Nazis and their helpers did, since it wasn't global disaster caused by Hitler's lies and deception due to which millions of people died. Instead, the Nazis committed deliberate, state organized genocide and mass murder of 12 to 18 million people, including 6 million Jewish people, mostly within about 6 years, not even counting the additional tens of millions who got killed in the global war started by Germany), the core of the article is something else. The core is that Ball cites a passage from Hitler's "Mein Kampf", because he thinks that Hitler gave a valid explanation in the quote why "the big lie" works. <b>Ball thinks Hitler was right.</b> Hitler didn't write about his own lies in the quote, he wrote about "The Jews". Ball believes that there was a global conspiracy behind the IPCC and climate science, which worked in the same way as the alleged global conspiracy that was attributed to "The Jews" by Hitler in his anti-Semitic paranoia. At the end of his article, Ball emphasizes ones more that understanding what Hitler was saying was a key for understanding the workings of the conspiracy behind AGW. Now, I don't know whether Ball also personally thinks Hitler was right about "The Jews", or whether he thinks Hitler was wrong about this specifically targeted group, but Hitler's "explanation" was correct regarding the alleged conspiracy behind IPCC and AGW. This can't be deduced from Ball's text alone. One can deduce, though, that Ball subscribes to the same structure of deluded and paranoid explanations as Hitler did, how the world was supposedly controlled by an omnipotent evil cabal. One could call this structural anti-Semitism to which Ball subscribes. If one reads the comments below the article, some of the commenters take the cue, though, and it becomes clear that for some of the lunatics it's one and the same conspiracy that was also hallucinated by Hitler and the Nazis.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Ball's article, and even more the strong endorsement of this vile text by the crowd at WUWT is evidence for me that the accusations against climate scientists to support "evil" policies and even policies of the kind that would lead to mass murder and similar, shouldn't be simply considered just as rhetoric by some desperate cranks and science haters. They are rather projection of own desires and wishes of these people onto those who are prospective targets. This raises the question for me, how far would they go, if they got the opportunity?<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-44451322016187677462014-07-28T09:39:00.003-04:002014-07-28T10:16:44.807-04:00Al Jazeera Censors Comments That Expose and Document Hamas' Ideology and Goals<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Another experience with, this time not climate related, how facts are not being liked, when the topic is highly ideologically charged: The war between Israel and Hamas. Apparently, comments that expose Hamas' ideology of death, genocidal intentions against Jewish people, and paranoid anti-Semitic world view are not being liked at <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Al Jazeera</a>, even if the comments are backed up with Hamas' statements from their own <a href="http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Charter</a> (or because they can be backed up?).<br />
<br />
<br />
My first attempt:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0drG9UTDEmMB3hzWK2zJe696bT_gI2nm9lbZFytY2eoOi9-k9k5WKVEV6SUDQSp1bA6d1N-LMjhe_MRDmQLiqWjlurtqm5f55tVr3VdFibb4n6E9XCjcjnwsL7wSD2BQGcZYm2l4UIX4/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-07-28+10:01:36.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0drG9UTDEmMB3hzWK2zJe696bT_gI2nm9lbZFytY2eoOi9-k9k5WKVEV6SUDQSp1bA6d1N-LMjhe_MRDmQLiqWjlurtqm5f55tVr3VdFibb4n6E9XCjcjnwsL7wSD2BQGcZYm2l4UIX4/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-07-28+10:01:36.png" height="374" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
My second attempt, after suspecting they just may not allow links (at the end it was supposed to say "stood behind"):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwZVBl5X3EcKD39xrGR0YWjqY1fioOWUdC-3v1U5nkzpbvkvXcGyfKz5SdrT5xmQB8vdvHGvTqdiZPcudDwAXMUkwmMvcFhlX753NvpBZZWT88xipPl5IKtuuLxI-Fzmec7VUezP3LWyo/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-07-28+10:02:22.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwZVBl5X3EcKD39xrGR0YWjqY1fioOWUdC-3v1U5nkzpbvkvXcGyfKz5SdrT5xmQB8vdvHGvTqdiZPcudDwAXMUkwmMvcFhlX753NvpBZZWT88xipPl5IKtuuLxI-Fzmec7VUezP3LWyo/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-07-28+10:02:22.png" height="620" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Not really another attempt:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8uWAiPr1IMXJP0aCaud9gVpVR6yKfUFu0KZgjhBPjYotuDGNBhUZ8BNBUWqmRTUkkRXI0z0mNjykPp5B3JsWW2f1DJwfz9jLIM-Yu8gjE-cW0GeZv7ik5bmZ_moQ6-_tbLREMknNeWEQ/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-07-28+10:02:55.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8uWAiPr1IMXJP0aCaud9gVpVR6yKfUFu0KZgjhBPjYotuDGNBhUZ8BNBUWqmRTUkkRXI0z0mNjykPp5B3JsWW2f1DJwfz9jLIM-Yu8gjE-cW0GeZv7ik5bmZ_moQ6-_tbLREMknNeWEQ/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-07-28+10:02:55.png" height="250" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com43tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-54725070065017202862014-07-12T10:48:00.000-04:002014-07-12T10:48:14.324-04:00Cold Winter 2013/14 in United States - "Global warming? What global warming?" (Monckton)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The topic probably seems to be out of place a bit for the ones who live in the Northern Hemisphere, considering the current summer weather outside in many places of it. However, I still have seen it popping up as talking point presented by AGW-"skeptics" at various places. The following quote is exemplary:<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"The last U.S. winter colder than this one was in 1911/12, before the First World War.</i><br />
<i>Thank you, America! Most of Britain has had an unusually mild and wet
winter, for you have had more than your fair share of the Northern
Hemisphere’s cold weather this season.<br />
Global warming? What global warming?"</i><br />
(Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, March 26, 2014, <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/26/coldest-u-s-winter-in-a-century/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/26/coldest-u-s-winter-in-a-century/</a>)<br />
<br />
What <b>global</b> warming? Apparently, it is being suggested that the surface temperatures of the winter 2013/14 were about the same as about 100 years ago, and this would refute global warming. Leaving aside for the moment that it already is scientifically not justified to take the weather pattern of a single season to draw conclusions about the longer-term climate trend, here is the <b>global</b> temperature anomaly and its geographical distribution for the winter (December, January, February) 2013/14 relative to the average winter of the reference period 1951-1980, based on the <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/" target="_blank">NASA GISS surface temperature analysis</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb1LQOCUPMYn2aQ5kl0Q9SQfs-oRFcet6Fgvp9RnAJeZK-2FYsyM97WUsDpoW9PtbtkGN3oqCrm93J796AFIKHJt-ZWohR1yla-2E6-ngkt8IPePCKiMsbzeEYQEUyvlin0n8Y6BxTZHQ/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-18+09:50:28.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb1LQOCUPMYn2aQ5kl0Q9SQfs-oRFcet6Fgvp9RnAJeZK-2FYsyM97WUsDpoW9PtbtkGN3oqCrm93J796AFIKHJt-ZWohR1yla-2E6-ngkt8IPePCKiMsbzeEYQEUyvlin0n8Y6BxTZHQ/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-18+09:50:28.png" height="492" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Some people may have felt cold in United States during the winter 2013/14. However, the global picture reveals something else. The larger part of the globe had a positive temperature anomaly during this winter compared to the reference period 1951-1980, and the globally averaged temperature anomaly amounted to plus 0.56 deg. C. The temperature anomaly in North America during the high winter season did not even deviate substantially from the average winter temperature of the reference period in a large part of the continent, except for Alaska where it was more than 2 deg. C above the reference period.<br />
<br />
Many people in US perceived the winter 2013/14 as cold, because they have not been used any more to an average 20th century winter, due to the warming trend of the recent decades. The following figure shows the geographical distribution of the temperature anomaly for the average winter of the last 20 years compared to the average winter of the reference period 1951-1980:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAH9Bn7achVxYswDV8_A1UQ0jG-nXBozzmv0ZQAuzwXeyURSNFD0nTSYhkRaWfZ9uSAzEXHSGdXvFpJlFbCSjB_IvpVCcgrrwcypU-tnfCTiIlgiclMeh-6v9XO6xvJfsT0CtwxOUCHEE/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-07-12+08:49:29.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAH9Bn7achVxYswDV8_A1UQ0jG-nXBozzmv0ZQAuzwXeyURSNFD0nTSYhkRaWfZ9uSAzEXHSGdXvFpJlFbCSjB_IvpVCcgrrwcypU-tnfCTiIlgiclMeh-6v9XO6xvJfsT0CtwxOUCHEE/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-07-12+08:49:29.png" height="498" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Now, how does the winter of the year 1911/1912, which was mentioned by Monckton as pretext to deny global warming, looks like in comparison? Here is the geographical distribution of the surface temperature anomaly, again relative to the average winter of the reference period 1951-1980:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibVoL4XkkhuKdgBCe-bc9chA5nLNM4lVmzduYuHgjXLzLZr_0w8CAPUgoHE1H3IBqWiripgdnJYu63sUJijjI3NC5lYi_oOgRhvzzvGsoc-2auvTJLmpsdLNpwnfUMwiijCMd98fzL9G0/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-18+09:57:38.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibVoL4XkkhuKdgBCe-bc9chA5nLNM4lVmzduYuHgjXLzLZr_0w8CAPUgoHE1H3IBqWiripgdnJYu63sUJijjI3NC5lYi_oOgRhvzzvGsoc-2auvTJLmpsdLNpwnfUMwiijCMd98fzL9G0/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-18+09:57:38.png" height="490" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
It looks very different to the winter 2013/2014. Whereas the winter surface temperatures 2013/2014 in United States were a regional cold anomaly within a generally warmer planet, the surface temperatures of winter 1911/1912 in United States do not stand out compared to the rest of the world. The anomaly is small relative to the reference period again, but large parts of the globe were colder during that winter than the average winter of the reference period. Thus it rather was relatively warmer in the United States than in many other parts of the planet, with respect to the magnitude of the anomaly. The globally averaged temperature anomaly relative to the average winter of 1951-1980 amounts to -0.45 deg. C.<br />
<br />
Climate change is a change in the statistical properties of climate variables between different time periods, i.e., a change in the average of a variable (e.g., of temperature, precipitation, sea level, sea ice extend, etc.) or a change in other statistical moments (e.g., variance) of the variable over a time period, which should be sufficiently long. Data from only single years do not allow any conclusions whether climate has changed. This would be just weather, which can be quite variable from one year to the next. Therefore, I am going to show next how the average winter changed from the 29-year period 1881-1910 (it starts with winter 1881/1882 and ends with winter 1909/1910) to the 29-year period 1985-2014:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic4T4Z4LiVCKTTVrp-c3YdpZVK1fxzfmrsVWm6-eb9zs6mcRJsStTRn2bc4kqN3-TPQNzIJqjO7TZvig_7upAn1a8_VHvl2vOXd5vidihM9QUedpfdblbn8T-RVX1wjpzVcv3G9mL9ttg/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-18+10:22:37.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic4T4Z4LiVCKTTVrp-c3YdpZVK1fxzfmrsVWm6-eb9zs6mcRJsStTRn2bc4kqN3-TPQNzIJqjO7TZvig_7upAn1a8_VHvl2vOXd5vidihM9QUedpfdblbn8T-RVX1wjpzVcv3G9mL9ttg/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-18+10:22:37.png" height="490" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Here we have the global warming, denied by Monckton. The globally averaged increase in the winter surface temperature is 0.78 deg. C between the two 29-year periods. There has been a general surface temperature increase which is nearly global over the last century, with some regional exceptions. The magnitude of the temperature increase is not globally uniform. The Northern Hemisphere has warmed more than the Southern Hemisphere on average. There is an Arctic amplification, with the surface warming amounting to more than 4 deg. C in some Arctic regions. Land areas have warmed more than ocean areas on average. I have to mention a caveat here. The graphic presentation does not show, where the temperature change between the two time periods is statistically significant. There are likely some regions where it is not.<br />
<br />
In short, any claims that the colder winter 2013/2014 in United States refuted global warming taken place over the last century are absolutely baseless.<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-69785163736300866212014-06-15T11:59:00.000-04:002014-06-15T11:59:31.285-04:00Rossiter, Delingpole, "Climate McCarthyism", and Conservative Hypocrisy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/" target="_blank">The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS)</a> is a Washington, DC, based progressive political think tank. According to its self-description:<br />
<br />
"<i>IPS is a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace,
justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. We work with
social movements to promote true democracy and challenge concentrated
wealth, corporate influence, and military power.</i>"<br />
(<a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/about">http://www.ips-dc.org/about</a>)<br />
<br />
Thus, they are not an academic research institution. They are an advocacy group with a political mission. Like the conservative <a href="http://heartland.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Heartland Institute</a> or the <a href="http://www.heritage.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Heritage Foundation</a>, but from another side of the political spectrum.<br />
<br />
Experts from various fields, relevant for the political mission of IPS support the IPS as "Associate Fellows":<br />
<br />
<i>"Associate Fellows are scholars who share their expertise with IPS
through one of the institute's projects or program areas. IPS Associate
Fellows represent some of the country's leading progressive leaders in a
variety of areas from inequality, climate justice, foreign policy, and
many others. Most work on a volunteer basis unless dedicated funds are
raised for their work. Associate Fellows are invited or sponsored by an
IPS project director to collaborate with the institute for one-year,
renewable terms."</i><br />
(<a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/about/assoc_fellows">http://www.ips-dc.org/about/assoc_fellows</a>)<br />
<br />
Thus, the relationships between Associate Fellows and the IPS are not relationships of employment. Instead, they are relationships of collaboration on a volunteer basis, usually without any financial compensation. The Associate Fellows are employed somewhere else, if they are employed.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.american.edu/sis/faculty/rossiter.cfm" target="_blank">Caleb S. Rossiter, Adjunct Professor</a> with the <a href="http://www.american.edu/sis/" target="_blank">School of International Service</a> of <a href="http://www.american.edu/" target="_blank">American University</a>, teaches <i>"courses on African history and politics, U.S. foreign policy </i><i>and research methods</i><i> (with a focus on the use and misuse of statistics and models in the climate change debate)"</i> according to his self-description. Obviously he does not work in climate research, he is not an academic expert on climate science. He is a layman in this field. Caleb Rossiter was one of the IPS's Associate Fellows. Until about a month ago.<br />
<br />
Caleb S. Rossiter published an <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/caleb-s-rossiter-sacrificing-africa-for-climate-change/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">article</a> in the Wall Street Journal on May 5, 2014, where he publicly expressed views on economical and political strategies, which apparently do not agree with the ones of IPS, combined with some ignorant claims about climate science, climate modeling, and climate change. Two days later, IPS decided to cut its ties with Caleb Rossiter. They do not want him as Associate Fellow anymore, because his and their views were not compatible anymore (Screen shot of email as published at Climate Depot):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSlIUOY1R4d08-7rV5-woPCeKD0EaBY-Fs8v-bz89A-MP7vD790swf5wK03-SvGYlsHFeO6CBAOKJ8ue9JdcHH4maJYn_zN3qyv3ULYClpKgiq6B9cqGOxoGRDFYBxN-JrbAHtLEzlw2U/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-15+09:32:21.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSlIUOY1R4d08-7rV5-woPCeKD0EaBY-Fs8v-bz89A-MP7vD790swf5wK03-SvGYlsHFeO6CBAOKJ8ue9JdcHH4maJYn_zN3qyv3ULYClpKgiq6B9cqGOxoGRDFYBxN-JrbAHtLEzlw2U/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-15+09:32:21.png" height="572" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The article in the Wall Street Journal may have been the point where IPS drew the line. However, when I saw Rossiter's rhetoric at his <a href="http://www.calebrossiter.com/Love%20electricity.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"Climate Change" blog</a>, e.g., against the scientific knowledge presented in the reports of the IPCC, which are written by leading international experts on climate science who work and publish in the field (not by governments, contrary to what Rossiter claims), his conspiracy ideation about the IPCC, or his baseless attack against renowned climate scientist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen" target="_blank">James Hansen</a>, former director of the <a href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/" target="_blank">NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies</a>, he likely had it coming for a little bit longer already. I also wonder why Rossiter, with his contrary views, would even want to work with a think tank like the IPS.<br />
<br />
Considering the facts above, one could think not much has really happened. A collaborative relationship between a political advocacy group and an individual has been dissolved due to political incompatibility. It happens. Like divorce of a marriage because of sexual incompatibility. Something that is not really worth it on which to spend much time in the news.<br />
<br />
Caleb S. Rossiter seems to display himself in this affair as a victim of evil censorship, though, <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/fired-for-diverging-on-climate-progressive-professors-fellowship-terminated-after-wsj-oped-calling-global-warming-unproved-science/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">according to Climate Depot</a>:<br />
<br />
<i>"If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views
are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I
published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be
allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies <span style="color: black;"></span>terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’"</i><br />
<br />
This is just ridiculous. Is he prevented from speaking out freely anywhere, because IPS does not want to work with him anymore? Certainly not. It is like a guy is complaining about censorship, because his girlfriend dumped him. One thing does not have anything to do with the other one.<br />
<br />
Equally ridiculous is the spin in the AGW denier blogosphere. There, the affair is displayed as a case of "Climate McCarthyism", like in an <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/13/Climate-McCarthyism-claims-yet-another-victim" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">article</a> by James Delingpole on the right wing Internet news outlet Breitbart, followed by more than 2400 comments, still counting, largely filled with whining and ranting by the conservative audience about
"oppression of free speech", "liberal tyranny", and other absurdities, which may be a good basis for some psychological case studies about the mindset of many conservatives, e.g., to what degree this mindset is governed by absurd conspiracy fantasies or psychological mechanisms like projection.<br />
<br />
Now, pretending to take all these crocodile tears seriously for a moment, which are displayed at Breitbart, regarding the allegedly oppressed free speech and the alleged lack of tolerance, one would have to conclude it would be logical then to welcome a climate scientist who has some knowledge on climate topics, even if his informed views counter the views of most of the audience at Breitbart News Network. Reality, as one really should expect, looks quite differently, though:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4nkHcAdBi0PQN-2w66jmpQ9lgNgXym_sJ2g0fQZvzk7tRXE09Y0vCUsrT1SMIB-ys6OpnVeM3hx6cTCTn2ZE8N0J2kJRLBlApdOFuqVM9q5DgfEva7dAbFv0OdNPyX_GRvrM7S8oU0WE/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-15+11:11:21.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4nkHcAdBi0PQN-2w66jmpQ9lgNgXym_sJ2g0fQZvzk7tRXE09Y0vCUsrT1SMIB-ys6OpnVeM3hx6cTCTn2ZE8N0J2kJRLBlApdOFuqVM9q5DgfEva7dAbFv0OdNPyX_GRvrM7S8oU0WE/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-15+11:11:21.png" height="442" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeeFxzH1UtWGJx3_NEn_SGPJqL-5ZCg-DFV1VGrkloPXO-pjiu57sVOIoGdqiBwHHRhBDN5iL1tMPYG2V_ddVz3aeol55C7umYrnGE2Kt3Hch1B7I_qRdr9gv2It922pa1DGasxbSoTYE/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-15+11:13:19.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeeFxzH1UtWGJx3_NEn_SGPJqL-5ZCg-DFV1VGrkloPXO-pjiu57sVOIoGdqiBwHHRhBDN5iL1tMPYG2V_ddVz3aeol55C7umYrnGE2Kt3Hch1B7I_qRdr9gv2It922pa1DGasxbSoTYE/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-15+11:13:19.png" height="408" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZaC4DTsaTfh6r8qzwsrCqScmAVef7VMiGgU9pouCIXTI_Y09U4MqfjLRCngabLhmfxmP-gpNTJDYH_mMhJ8uBpxKaIhCTYT0RrHTxDik56OJj1TDxxelxLBZaTQYgVSXplqZvzyfE4t0/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-15+11:14:24.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZaC4DTsaTfh6r8qzwsrCqScmAVef7VMiGgU9pouCIXTI_Y09U4MqfjLRCngabLhmfxmP-gpNTJDYH_mMhJ8uBpxKaIhCTYT0RrHTxDik56OJj1TDxxelxLBZaTQYgVSXplqZvzyfE4t0/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-15+11:14:24.png" height="130" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyygvMIPv8wxzZ1OaWJ-yzEcAUrS0Fue4l43Y0eTsvxvJn6IUf3Po1qM3NG_B8nMvdI3LLE8DfB7prqlFfdziFzF1YZZc0wJ0YXEd7QjIiReBWQb9e9A61hUJlNDF8AzN-t1JjRtAgZo4/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-15+11:15:27.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyygvMIPv8wxzZ1OaWJ-yzEcAUrS0Fue4l43Y0eTsvxvJn6IUf3Po1qM3NG_B8nMvdI3LLE8DfB7prqlFfdziFzF1YZZc0wJ0YXEd7QjIiReBWQb9e9A61hUJlNDF8AzN-t1JjRtAgZo4/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-15+11:15:27.png" height="394" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
And finally:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwwaLYPbFdUnFGSZRTJt-kulfvRkXu2Sv1m5cgSILZYNRg-jiycQ6qH741fyIEaO0Bex3_oWAvkw_2yqayk2VGRMFsCYAqs4F1IXaoOv8W8f_nVZS4osJAqnkrqvwNLwIeKqy3_tVdUV8/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-14+14:47:06.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwwaLYPbFdUnFGSZRTJt-kulfvRkXu2Sv1m5cgSILZYNRg-jiycQ6qH741fyIEaO0Bex3_oWAvkw_2yqayk2VGRMFsCYAqs4F1IXaoOv8W8f_nVZS4osJAqnkrqvwNLwIeKqy3_tVdUV8/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-06-14+14:47:06.png" height="640" width="490" /></a></div>
<br />
What Irony. As much for free speech and tolerance on the side of conservatives and AGW deniers, once more, regarding views that are not in agreement with their party line, even if these views are coming from someone who is informed. It is the same pattern again and again. Many conservatives, including their opinion outlets, seem to be afraid of informed dissent, facts, and science.<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-29234207273996028922014-01-31T08:35:00.001-05:002014-02-03T04:55:02.558-05:00No "hiatus" (pause/stop) in global ocean warming up to year 2013<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Although much of the public focus regarding global warming is on the temperature increase near Earth's surface, the Arctic sea ice decrease, global glacier retreat or other phenomena at the surface, which are more visible to the human eye, from a point of view of physics, the heating up of the oceans is the most important factor regarding the changes in the energy balance of the Earth system. About 90% of the energy accumulation due to the perturbation in the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere, caused by the increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is taking place in the oceans[1]. The importance of the oceans arises from their capability to store an enormous amount of heat due to the high specific heat capacity of water combined with the large mass of water in the oceans. To put things in perspective, the heat increase related to warming up only the upper most 3.5 meters of the global ocean body by x degrees is sufficient to warm up the whole mass of the atmosphere by about the same amount of x degrees.<br />
<br />
Monitoring the oceans gives crucial information about the ongoing climate change in the Earth system. Following figure shows the global average of the annually averaged temperature anomaly in the oceans between the surface and three different depths, 0-100 meters, 0-700 meters, and 0-2000 meters over time, based on data provided by <a href="http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/about/oceanclimate.html" target="_blank">Ocean Climate Laboratory</a> of the <a href="http://www.noaa.gov/" target="_blank">National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)</a>. The figure includes the year 2013 as the most recent data point. The colored shadings show the standard error of the data times two. The black lines display local regression (Loess) fits with the 95% confidence intervals of the fits as grey shadings. The graphic was created using the package <a href="http://ggplot2.org/" target="_blank">ggplot2</a>[2] of the <a href="http://www.r-project.org/" target="_blank">statistical computing and graphics environment R</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif02bt3t14cX1M87Nd79qmYNffeQ1-pTk_yCH1FjX0Fcpj93Sm3becr-Ov0qPsGSaY71RVOcDfqUbJUcKEjZFf9-cvGVmy4j5acJU2h6oamOcjyvfPhyphenhyphennH-YIqGOwO1j4pZJtwt-b-0Rs/s1600/ocean_temp_100_700_2000.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif02bt3t14cX1M87Nd79qmYNffeQ1-pTk_yCH1FjX0Fcpj93Sm3becr-Ov0qPsGSaY71RVOcDfqUbJUcKEjZFf9-cvGVmy4j5acJU2h6oamOcjyvfPhyphenhyphennH-YIqGOwO1j4pZJtwt-b-0Rs/s1600/ocean_temp_100_700_2000.png" height="640" width="640" /></a> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
(Data source: NOAA/NESDIS/NODC Ocean Climate Laboratory, <a href="http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/">http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/</a>)</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
A few things can be see in the figure:<br />
<br />
1. The temperature increase, which is visible in the oceans for the average over 100, 700, and 2000 meters depth since the mid 1970s is largest in the upper most 100 meters and becomes smaller with adding deeper layers to the averaging. The perturbation of the energy balance comes from the top and takes decades to penetrate into deeper layers of the oceans.<br />
<br />
2. The temperature increase has been nearly linear for the average over the upper most 100 meters depth for the last decades, amounting to about 0.07 Kelvin per decade. To put things in perspective again, the same amount of heat related to this average temperature increase in those 100 meters would increase the average temperature of the whole atmospheric mass by about 2 Kelvin per decade. Luckily for humankind, most of this accumulated heat will not warm up the atmosphere, but penetrate into the deeper layers of the oceans. The exact amount of atmospheric warming in the next decades and centuries will depend on how efficiently heat accumulated in the upper layers of the oceans is being sequestered into the deeper layers of the oceans.<br />
<br />
3. Because of this quasi linearity of the temperature increase in the upper most 100 meters, one can conclude that the increase has been accelerating between a depth of 100 and 700 meters. It is not possible to conclude whether an acceleration is present between 700 and 2000 meters depth, since the acceleration seen for the average over 2000 meters depth could come from the acceleration in the layer between 100 and 700 meters.<br />
<br />
4. The globally averaged ocean temperature anomaly in the upper most 100 meters shows large interannual variability. The temperature swings can amount to about 0.2 Kelvin within a few years, for example between the years 1998 and 2004.<br />
<br />
5. No "hiatus" of the ocean warming is visible in the new century for any of the temperature averages over the various depths. The confidence interval for the upper most 100 meters allows for some lowering of the temperature increase after the year 2005 with a low probability (but equally for some acceleration of the temperature anomaly).<br />
<br />
In recent years, the talk has been a lot about the fraction of the energy sequestered into the deep and abyssal layers of the oceans (the so called "missing heat"). In my opinion, there has been some misdirection in the talk about the consequences of this regarding global warming at the surface. The argument has been put forward that concerns about global warming were exaggerated, since the deep oceans interacted with the atmosphere only on long time scales and the heat sequestered into the deep oceans was not coming back to the surface. However, it should be clear from the above that <b>the heat accumulated in the deep oceans is not needed</b> for continuing global warming at the surface and of the lower atmosphere. There is plenty of accumulated heat around in the upper layers of the oceans, which interact with the atmosphere on much shorter time scales, particularly the layers of the oceans which are above the <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/591544/thermocline" target="_blank">thermocline in the oceans</a>. The amount of heat accumulated in the upper layers of the oceans is more than sufficient for global warming at the surface and in the troposphere to continue for the decades ahead. This heat accumulation has not stopped and it will not stop as long as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing unabated due to human activities.<br />
<br />
[1] Trenberth, K. E. and Fasullo, J. T. (2013), An apparent hiatus in global warming? Earth's Future. doi: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013EF000165" target="_blank">10.1002/2013EF000165.</a><br />
[2] Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer New York, <a href="http://had.co.nz/ggplot2/book" target="_blank">http://had.co.nz/ggplot2/book.</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-25513190950894852582014-01-23T21:13:00.000-05:002014-02-03T04:55:38.409-05:00The story of my visit at Bob Tisdale's blog "Climate Observations"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bob Tisdale is a little bit a strange fellow. He has a very odd belief that global warming, including the one of the oceans is caused by the <a href="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensofaq.shtml#general" target="_blank">El Nino-La Nina (or ENSO - El Nino Southern Oscillation</a>) cycle. El Nino is characterized by a strong ocean heat and sea surface temperature anomaly in the Central and Eastern equatorial Pacific ocean. La Nina is the counterpart, characterized by a negative heat and sea surface temperature anomaly. The equatorial Pacific produces El Ninos and La Ninas every few years, with global reach through the atmospheric circulation, leading to temperature and precipitation anomalies even in remote regions of the planet, mediated through so called teleconnections. Sometimes warm or cold phases occurs in a row only interrupted by neutral conditions. It is a major mode of internal chaotic variability in the ocean-atmosphere system. Bob Tisdale understands as much. However, he does not seem to understand that El Nino-La Nina cannot generate by itself <a href="http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/" target="_blank">a global ocean warming trend</a>, because the ocean does not heat itself. A net influx of energy into the oceans is needed to cause a secular warming trend of the whole body of ocean water. The energy must come from somewhere. Bob Tisdale cannot explain where it comes from. The axiom here is, like for all the AGW-"skeptics", global (ocean) warming cannot, never ever, be caused by the radiation effect of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases. All the arguments are built around this axiom.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
This
figure (added to the post after original posting) shows the increase in the ocean heat content since 1955, for
which needs to be explained what the energy source for all the heating of the oceans
is:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOi0ruoAHFQkolBme8PLjIvYQAWEi15gW10irb8AtRnv9zHdqVVMWYnX8sdliQJ26Il-1uLEjaKx6NUXInrrWML4w8LARR1gZcA340VnCH9pGQlWh9HvTjS8qbfTnlb9ap5gUN-pBuwR8/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-01-24+11:50:02.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOi0ruoAHFQkolBme8PLjIvYQAWEi15gW10irb8AtRnv9zHdqVVMWYnX8sdliQJ26Il-1uLEjaKx6NUXInrrWML4w8LARR1gZcA340VnCH9pGQlWh9HvTjS8qbfTnlb9ap5gUN-pBuwR8/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-01-24+11:50:02.png" height="416" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(Source: <a href="http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/">http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/</a>)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
I paid a visit at Bob Tisdale's blog, because I accidentally had seen that he had written and published on his blog an <a href="http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/open-letter-to-jon-stewart-the-daily-show/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">open letter</a> to Daily Show host Jon Stewart who had made fun of AGW-denialism (<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-6-2014/the-global-warming-hoax" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-6-2014/war-on-carbon" target="_blank">here</a>). After introducing himself, what an important personality he was, in the AGW-denial blogosphere, who even publishes at such an important blog as wattsupwiththat, Bob Tisdale explained to Jon Stewart how utterly wrong established climate science was regarding anthropogenic global warming.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Well, I had had the impression before that Bob Tisdale was someone among the AGW-"skeptics" with whom one at least could talk and who is able to maintain civility, damn was I wrong. What a bully and jerk, filled with delusions of grandeur, and at the same time with the need of getting reassured from his comrades. He very quickly started to show the usual reaction of fake skeptics, when they are losing the argument. He resorted to ad hominem attacks and other evasion tactics. Apparently, when he felt that <a href="http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/also-rans-ncdc-and-giss-global-surface-temperatures-finish-4th-and-7th-for-2013/#comment-15061" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the lack of physical soundness in his "theory" was pointed out too much</a> and confronted with the inconvenient reality of empirical data, it turned out he is just another one <a href="http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/also-rans-ncdc-and-giss-global-surface-temperatures-finish-4th-and-7th-for-2013/#comments" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">who can't take it</a> when he is being contradicted:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5l_IbIWxUS7_roALYj4V0WA-j1GOUqGYCrT98ST-qRaMnrNNRd1c_O6jQT_I0zck4xRLBkCgBrVDxIi5KV57c1U9C-s3tnUzwzTxMTkdwJ2KIKiFO9nTYm58yZoHVEd6zvpk47Oacbv0/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-01-23+19%253A12%253A57.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5l_IbIWxUS7_roALYj4V0WA-j1GOUqGYCrT98ST-qRaMnrNNRd1c_O6jQT_I0zck4xRLBkCgBrVDxIi5KV57c1U9C-s3tnUzwzTxMTkdwJ2KIKiFO9nTYm58yZoHVEd6zvpk47Oacbv0/s1600/Screenshot+from+2014-01-23+19%253A12%253A57.png" height="182" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-40559897521346411512013-09-10T09:06:00.000-04:002013-09-10T09:07:36.767-04:00An independent confirmation of global land warming, not using temperatures from meteorological stations<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It has been hypothesized in some scientific publications (e.g., <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008229" target="_blank">Pielke et al, JGRA, 2007</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008229" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2006JD008229</a>) and sometimes outright asserted (by AGW "skeptics" or in some media outlets; e.g., <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/04/18/more-global-warming-alarmist-games-doctoring-the-temperature-record/" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/30/weather-station-temp-claims-are-overheated-report-claims/" target="_blank">here</a>) that temperature analyses like <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/" target="_blank">GISTEMP</a>, <a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/" target="_blank">HadCRUT</a>, or <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info" target="_blank">NCDC</a> were not reliable, and the global warming, seen in these analyses over the last century, using direct temperature measurements from meteorological stations was largely just an artefact of faulty measurements, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization_%28climate%29" target="_blank">data adjustments (homogenization)</a>, the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/hiri/" target="_blank">urban heat island effect</a>, and other factors.<br />
<br />
Gilbert P. Compo, Prashant D. Sardeshmukh, Jeffrey S. Whitaker, Philip Brohan, Philip D. Jones, and Chesley McColl have just published <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50425" target="_blank">a new study</a> (for the abstract: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50425" target="_blank">Compo et al., GRL, 2013</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50425" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/grl.50425</a>), where the land near surface air temperature is derived using a state-of-the-art data assimilation system (<a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/20thC_Rean/" target="_blank">20th Century Reanalysis</a>). The temperature is calculated from other variables (surface pressure) and parameters in the reanalysis. The measured land surface air temperature is not part of the input data. Thus, any possible contamination of the measured land near surface air temperature by other factors than the state of the atmosphere does not have any effect on the land near surface temperatures calculated in the reanalysis system. The correlation between the land near surface temperature, calculated from other variables in the data assimilation system, and the land near surface temperature data series, derived using direct measurements over land is very high. This increases the confidence in that the statistically significant global warming trend of the atmosphere near the surface, seen in the <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/" target="_blank">GISTEMP,</a> <a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/" target="_blank">HadCRUT</a>, or <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info" target="_blank">NCDC</a> analyses over the last century is real, and those data sets can be used as reliable references for other scientific analyses.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhGOxrrAM4KfmVQ8ep0WccawvFDVi1Ipe_Ipc3m30zTpJCtGtQu2IVl_uhiaSprDJCujvAhxYefG6OOCgNnjZT6ZzVsjGw_TAoJ3TqgALiZvC5DDA7qpcShzwgykCA0HgbMS8VlgXV2jg/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-09-10+08:44:41.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhGOxrrAM4KfmVQ8ep0WccawvFDVi1Ipe_Ipc3m30zTpJCtGtQu2IVl_uhiaSprDJCujvAhxYefG6OOCgNnjZT6ZzVsjGw_TAoJ3TqgALiZvC5DDA7qpcShzwgykCA0HgbMS8VlgXV2jg/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-09-10+08:44:41.png" /> </a> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Figure from: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50425" target="_blank">Compo, G. P., P. D. Sardeshmukh, J. S. Whitaker, P. Brohan, P. D. Jones, and C.McColl (2013), Independent confirmation of global land warming without the use of station temperatures, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 3170–3174, doi:10.1002/grl.50425</a>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-61827497737856041012013-08-07T10:23:00.000-04:002013-08-07T10:28:03.993-04:00American Geophysical Union's statement on human-induced climate change<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has revised and reaffirmed its position on climate change caused by human activities, which was adopted for the first time in the year 2003. Position statements like this by the AGU expire after four years, unless it is reaffirmed. I personally agree with this statement. Here, I document the text:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>"Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
'Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways -- some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human-induced climate change.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.'</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div data-canvas-width="303.696" data-font-name="g_font_p0_5" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; left: 96px; text-align: left; top: 678.88px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.816387, 1);">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013."</i></span></div>
<div data-canvas-width="303.696" data-font-name="g_font_p0_5" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; left: 96px; text-align: left; top: 678.88px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.816387, 1);">
</div>
<div data-canvas-width="303.696" data-font-name="g_font_p0_5" style="font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; left: 96px; text-align: left; top: 678.88px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.816387, 1);">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">(Source: <a href="http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/pdf/position_statements/AGU_Climate_Statement_new.pdf">http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/pdf/position_statements/AGU_Climate_Statement_new.pdf</a>)</span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-48237773632970328972013-07-12T16:57:00.000-04:002013-07-12T16:57:16.847-04:00Emerging new El Nino?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There has been some interesting development in the equatorial subsurface temperatures in the Pacific for the last two months. The positive temperature anomaly, which has been dominant in the upper 300 meters of the equatorial water body of the Western Pacific has spread eastward. Now we have a positive subsurface anomaly over the whole longitude range from 130E to 100 W. Only the far Eastern Pacific still shows a negative anomaly.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB2fD2G-TeD4Pz0R7ptIamDv8oo-9S3Hk7rum6nw1ClA4pCI0FYGjOlIt-dv19l9f2rinKMc9viAvNdmSbtvkw1jvy6aAa_4X5FUcVuJZSkxL1-NeG2_Yn-fqyndc5yy_sO1wjCGN0-Es/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-12+16:17:55.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB2fD2G-TeD4Pz0R7ptIamDv8oo-9S3Hk7rum6nw1ClA4pCI0FYGjOlIt-dv19l9f2rinKMc9viAvNdmSbtvkw1jvy6aAa_4X5FUcVuJZSkxL1-NeG2_Yn-fqyndc5yy_sO1wjCGN0-Es/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-12+16:17:55.png" height="436" width="597" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(Source: <a href="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf">http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf</a>, pg. 11)<br />
<br />
The last model simulations are from June 2013. Most of the models predicted ENSO neutral conditions through 2013 back then.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs9fYdsmtQGgOVXBOdyZqxzVvP0xznSvJHuWj6uv0lnlHnWw_IJ-I6OjyeXZPW8WiOJufM6xjWQvbI0EIyTl7E6EAs_yLf0pZvNOB3tC_0s3onnbA3tmGM21GmU6QzdYygtxHjJ5byrNs/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-12+16:31:58.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs9fYdsmtQGgOVXBOdyZqxzVvP0xznSvJHuWj6uv0lnlHnWw_IJ-I6OjyeXZPW8WiOJufM6xjWQvbI0EIyTl7E6EAs_yLf0pZvNOB3tC_0s3onnbA3tmGM21GmU6QzdYygtxHjJ5byrNs/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-12+16:31:58.png" height="433" width="597" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(Source: <a href="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf">http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf</a>, pg. 26)<br />
<br />
I am curious what the new model simulations, initialized with updated input data are going to say.<br />
<br />
If one looks at the <a href="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml" target="_blank">table of cold and warm episodes of ENSO</a>, there has not been any period longer than four years from the end of an El Nino to the start of the following El Nino, going back to the year 1950. We are in the third year since the end of the last El Nino episode now. If it does not happen this year a new El Nino really will be due next year. Otherwise it would be unusual, if none occured compared to the frequency of occurrence for the period between 1950 and present.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-21068635655155145532013-07-10T22:47:00.000-04:002014-02-24T19:23:02.747-05:00AGW denier Marc Morano of Climate Depot and CFACT suggests, "global warming skeptics" are defined by fantasies about lynching climate scientists<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Besides Morano did not get the facts right with respect to my employment, since I am not a NASA scientist (I am a Columbia University scientist at GISS), why am I saying this? Because Morano asserts on the Climate Depot website, <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/10/nasa-scientist-jan-perlwitz-publicly-threatens-skeptics-i-shoot-you-dead/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"NASA scientist Jan Perlwitz publicly warns global warming skeptics, 'I shoot you dead'"</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsaD4S8-YOP4OJNr6wdhH3PaNUbSJRM0CF-Z6NDoJDfB6_IyZi5h1EBN2o_aLZA-qp2qt7c26vDA49kyljVW5DruMgcbnRMFoNS9duq6vRZayYMg5J9XLr1Lqv1Y6rZmD2kLukJVPjgjA/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-10+21:59:12.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsaD4S8-YOP4OJNr6wdhH3PaNUbSJRM0CF-Z6NDoJDfB6_IyZi5h1EBN2o_aLZA-qp2qt7c26vDA49kyljVW5DruMgcbnRMFoNS9duq6vRZayYMg5J9XLr1Lqv1Y6rZmD2kLukJVPjgjA/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-10+21:59:12.png" height="156" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The actual fact is that I strongly responded on my own behalf to a <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1359319" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lynch fantasy against climate scientists</a> (which came combined with a delusional analogy to Nazi-Germany), articulated by a specific anonymous individual with the alias Allencic who said,<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9dz3pGzR7W67lXkkqGL-L-W2cjjBLq2wjJdUNV8kFbTfK_hE_B94q0ZypXtmbeUIQl0FFz76536S7Kag8Yk3-zJDvJqJn4MEl77QIUB0hEldFBQRbjzMXj_gn-jVwqOSZ8zmX_5b5_PU/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-10+08:00:47.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9dz3pGzR7W67lXkkqGL-L-W2cjjBLq2wjJdUNV8kFbTfK_hE_B94q0ZypXtmbeUIQl0FFz76536S7Kag8Yk3-zJDvJqJn4MEl77QIUB0hEldFBQRbjzMXj_gn-jVwqOSZ8zmX_5b5_PU/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-10+08:00:47.png" height="317" width="602" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Morano's claim my response to Allencic's lynch fantasy was addressed at "global warming skeptics" is a lie. Thus, when Morano interprets my response to this as a "warning" against "global warming skeptics" in general, he suggests this kind of lynch fantasies against climate scientists was a defining feature of "global warming skeptics". I did not say, and I do not think it was.<br />
<br />
Also, by displaying my statement as something condemnable, even though it was a conditional statement for the case the addressed individual really tried to tar, feather and torch me, i.e., murder me, because I was a climate scientist, Morano also suggests that I did not have any right to self-defense in such a situation. Thus, AGW denier Marc Morano, who is paid by the conservative think thank <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow</a> (CFACT) for spreading his propaganda and lies on his <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">website</a>, implicitly suggests that climate scientists did not have a right to self-defense, when someone tried to murder them.<br />
<br />
Marc Morano is an appalling example of lack of ethics and honesty on the side of the AGW deniers.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-14439204172017826712013-07-10T09:39:00.000-04:002014-01-24T06:42:57.610-05:00Statement of Macquarie University regarding the termination of Professor Murry Salby<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Yesterday, anti-science blogger Anthony Watts of <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">wattsupwiththat.com</a> posted an article, <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"Professor Murry Salby, who is critical of AGW theory, is being disfranchised, exiled, from academia in Australia"</a>, in which Watts claims that Murry Salby was wronged by Macquarie University. The claim is based solely on assertions in an email by Salby to Anthony Watts. I participated in this thread until I got permanently banned, saying that I do not believe Salby's accusations just at face value. The anti-science crowd of "skeptics", being not very skeptical at this point, rushed to the usual judgement, ranting about the evil establishment suppressing "the truth" and punishing critical scientists. In one case the desire of violence against those evil climate scientists who say anthropogenic global warming was real, was articulated.<br />
<br />
I think, one should not just listen to what Salby claims, one also should listen what the other side has to say. If Salby was wronged he can and should choose the legal means available to him. But I am not going to assume he was wronged just because he claims so in some email to an AGW denier website.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mq.edu.au/" target="_blank">Macquarie University</a> has released <a href="http://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2013/07/10/statement-regarding-the-termination-of-professor-murry-salby/" target="_blank">following statement</a> regarding the matter on July 10, 2013, which reads,<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Macquarie University does not normally comment on the circumstances
under which employees leave the University. However, we feel in this
instance it is necessary to do so in order to correct misinformation.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The decision to terminate Professor Murry Salby’s employment with
Macquarie University had nothing to do with his views on climate change
nor any other views. The University supports academic freedom of speech
and freedom to pursue research interests.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did
not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach.
After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his
refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a
class he had been scheduled to take.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The University took this matter very seriously as the education and
welfare of students is a primary concern. The second reason for his
termination involved breaches of University policies in relation to
travel and use of University resources.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The termination of his employment followed an extensive and detailed
internal process, including two separate investigations undertaken by a
committee chaired by a former Australian Industrial Relations
Commissioner and including a union nominee."</i></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<br />
(Source: Macquarie University, <a href="http://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2013/07/10/statement-regarding-the-termination-of-professor-murry-salby/">http://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2013/07/10/statement-regarding-the-termination-of-professor-murry-salby/</a>)</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-88435878072790242992013-07-10T08:26:00.000-04:002014-01-24T07:01:54.631-05:00The third time is the charm and the anti-science blog wattsupwiththat.com<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com/2013/06/declared-persona-non-grata-at.html" rel="" target="_blank">Previously</a>, I had reported here that I had been declared "persona non grata" on Anthony Watts' anti-science blog <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">wattsupwiththat.com</a> (WUWT). The story then developed with Anthony Watts posting a comment on the blog here to the <a href="http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com/2013/06/declared-persona-non-grata-at.html" target="_blank">previous posting</a> on July 7, 2013, where he retracted the <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/no-significant-warming-for-17-years-4-months/#comment-1337822" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">announcement previously made on his blog</a> (here is a screenshot of the previous announcement once more),<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn743oNKaZnaTpc8WATL4PRvxDWpYpm4sb4TyW_tgO0aboP4TiqvoP_7r7GUlm7_C2MDcfM_KJYwNAIGFVN_Ld_se0pM468TR-uuSmsOe5NhHWCyFCVsJQyC9RL3MQ-07JgP8ig5S0rEI/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-08+09:08:30.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn743oNKaZnaTpc8WATL4PRvxDWpYpm4sb4TyW_tgO0aboP4TiqvoP_7r7GUlm7_C2MDcfM_KJYwNAIGFVN_Ld_se0pM468TR-uuSmsOe5NhHWCyFCVsJQyC9RL3MQ-07JgP8ig5S0rEI/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-08+09:08:30.png" height="353" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
and where he also made a pathetic attempt to present it as if the banning had been only in my head. Later, he also publicly claimed that the statement about my banning were <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1359348" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><b>"unsubstantiated facts on display"</b></a>, despite the evidence above to the contrary. But he basically said I was allowed to comment again at WUWT. <br />
<br />
So, I went back to WUWT. It lasted only as long.<br />
<br />
I am usually trying to reply with polite words, even when faced with the most vicious and hateful attacks or with displays of extreme ignorance, although I may not have always been successful with my tries. However, I have some problems with diplomatic approaches. I rather tend to speak my mind, sometimes up to a fault, which can escalate situations, and it has caused me some troubles and scary moments in the past, e.g., in the country where I came from.<br />
<br />
There have been several instances, when commenters on WUWT articulated their wish that violence was applied against climate scientists, including me as a person. For instance, the late Robert E. Phelan who even was a moderator at WUWT, wrote on April 14, 2012, addressed at me, <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/#comment-955988" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><b>"When the peasants come for you with their pitchforks and torches, you will have brought it on yourselves."</b></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjHjHY3hPA68jeYItaPjx-nq8HS4o4F40C6N5rFObYOGjCa2J55hLthJczCAOaGZKNX4gx_6vEF9Kfcw4cw_ycKS1P2xJFDESFmAC-RCDnn104FNlYGuXxe3JyuklnUs8AC5jzQX1OqxM/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-10+07:49:22.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjHjHY3hPA68jeYItaPjx-nq8HS4o4F40C6N5rFObYOGjCa2J55hLthJczCAOaGZKNX4gx_6vEF9Kfcw4cw_ycKS1P2xJFDESFmAC-RCDnn104FNlYGuXxe3JyuklnUs8AC5jzQX1OqxM/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-10+07:49:22.png" height="194" width="400" /></a></b></div>
<b><br /></b>
Yesterday (July 10, 2013), some other commenter, posting under the alias Allencic, from the anti-science crowd on WUWT <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1359319" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">articulated a similar wish</a>, (combined with the delusional notion that the AGW deniers were in a situation like Jewish scientists in Nazi-Germany. The articulation of the wish for violence against climate scientists needs a strong rationalization to justify it), even though the commenter claimed later it just had been irony.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"God help us from these fools who claim to be climate scientists. When
this finally blows up and the public realizes how badly they’ve been had
you might want to invest in pitchforks and torches and tar and
feathers."</b></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTSrt9c3UsgFzFdAw3IX42yh9rCd20r-LCSLM95BAns2yOAIjrzgsg6UAyh8SuQWepqk4zNRE1sOiWkcnQqepAKg-_PbdkvGqnxCQPXjHccu2cHS1jYGF_EULRcIk-IxO8cZLpDf3e42w/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-10+08:00:47.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTSrt9c3UsgFzFdAw3IX42yh9rCd20r-LCSLM95BAns2yOAIjrzgsg6UAyh8SuQWepqk4zNRE1sOiWkcnQqepAKg-_PbdkvGqnxCQPXjHccu2cHS1jYGF_EULRcIk-IxO8cZLpDf3e42w/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-10+08:00:47.png" height="210" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Anthony Watts is growing a quasi-religious anti-science cult with his blog. And he is not the only one who makes propaganda against the findings of climate science and against climate scientists, using a combination of disinformation, junk science, inciting accusations against scientists and outright lies. There are other anti-science blogs and groups who are publicly agitating (e.g., the Heartland Institute) in the same way. If Watts does not do it himself, he tolerates it when it comes from his guest authors or followers. Therefore, I consider it very possible that some AGW-denier fanatics are going to use violence against climate scientists and scientific institutions, equally motivated, for instance, as religious fanatics are attacking abortion clinics. The grounds are laid. The hate is there, the viciousness is there.<br />
<br />
I am a peaceful person, but I am not a pacifist. I am in favor of the right to self-defense, including armed one, if someone tries to apply violence against climate scientists (or any other innocent people). <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/#comment-1360006" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">I articulated this on Watts' blog, although not as elaborated and with different words.</a> Now, I am banned again. Permanently.<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-59845767184770569522013-06-23T05:06:00.000-04:002013-07-06T07:33:57.809-04:00Is there evidence for a statistically significant trend change in the global surface temperature data?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>Update:</b> When one starts the trend analysis in 1999, using the the same tools as below, it takes the year 1998 with the strong El Nino out of the picture. Both the year 1999 and 2000 were years with La Nina present. One still gets some weak/medium statistical significance for the difference between the trends from 1975 to present and from 1999 to present.<br />
<br />
Just to clarify. This has nothing to do with the denier talking point about a "global warming stop" or similar. Global warming has not stopped as one can see from the continuing increase in the ocean heat content also in recent years (the acceleration in the melting of the Arctic sea ice is another indicator): <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLq6h8agUidzo22ZP03qByYNkOKbwtblAHh8XghHWKIEVJnupGEkqbpKQxKSNjesNZZ_MvpRG8SOfmXEObmFm_PoTQBPb1Mv6ztfL1g2pmEc989jGtU1xepgMaVlT3V4PLDJgtmTOpQ-k/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-06+07:18:03.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLq6h8agUidzo22ZP03qByYNkOKbwtblAHh8XghHWKIEVJnupGEkqbpKQxKSNjesNZZ_MvpRG8SOfmXEObmFm_PoTQBPb1Mv6ztfL1g2pmEc989jGtU1xepgMaVlT3V4PLDJgtmTOpQ-k/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-07-06+07:18:03.png" height="423" width="626" /></a></div>
<br />
Source: <a href="http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/">http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/</a><br />
<br />
It has more to do with how the additional energy available from the radiative perturbation from increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is redistributed in the Earth system. There may be years, when the fraction of this energy that heats the deeper layers of the oceans increases at the expense of the fraction that heats the atmosphere. This may have been the case in the recent decade, and it could last a few more years. Some recent research supports this possibility (see <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1" target="_blank">Meehl et al., Journal of Climate (2013)</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1" target="_blank">doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1</a>).<br />
<br />
----------- <b><br /></b><br />
<b>Update: </b><a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/shooting-from-the-hip/#comment-82110" target="_blank">I have asked</a> the question below also at Tamino's blog <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">"Open Mind"</a>. He gave an interesting <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/shooting-from-the-hip/#comment-82110" target="_blank">answer</a>, pointing me to <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20100221140707/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/cherry-snow/" target="_blank">another post</a> by him, according to which cherry-picking of a start year, which I exactly did by choosing 1998, actually changes the results from the statistical significance test and requires much higher t-values to be exceeded to make the result statistically significant. Keep this in mind, when doing such a thing. I learn something new every day.<br />
<br />
---------- <br />
Has anyone else noticed that the trend estimates in the data sets for the globally averaged surface temperature anomaly since 1998 have become statistically significantly different from the multi-decadal trend estimates since the mid 1970s? Not yet at the 95% level, but almost, except for the BEST land only data. This is different to the beginning of year 2012. Both the trend estimates and the 2 sigmas since 1998 have come down since then. <br />
<br />
I use the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/" target="_blank">Skeptical Science</a> tool (<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php">http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php</a>), which is based on the methodology according to the Foster and Rahmstorf, IOPS (2011) paper (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022">http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022</a>). For autocorrelation I use 1975 to present (What is the correct choice of the autocorrelation period?)<br />
<br />
These are the trends and 2 sigmas in K/decade for the two time periods. The statistical Null-hypothesis is that there has been no change of the trends since 1975.<br />
<br />
1975-present 1998-present Significance level<br />
GISTEMP: 0.169+/-0.039 0.057+/-0.14 >85%<br />
NOAA: 0.159+/-0.036 0.033+/-0.131 >90%<br />
HadCRUT4: 0.169+/-0.041 0.038+/-0.149 >90%<br />
<br />
For land only data:<br />
BEST: 0.264+/-0.063 0.144+/-0.26 < 1 sigma<br />
NOAA: 0.275+/-0.052 0.101+/-0.205 >90%<br />
<br />
<br />
This may be all just a statistical artifact due to the cherry picked start year of 1998 and the very strong El Nino in that year, the prevalence of La Ninas in recent years, and the deeper and prolonged solar minimum of cycle 23. The statistical significance may go away again with the adding of the data from coming years. Even a 95% significance level still allows for one false rejection of the Null-hypothesis out of 20. However, with these numbers I do not feel comfortable to reject that some empirical, statistical evidence for a significant trend change toward a lower warming trend in recent years has emerged. Those numbers actually indicate a quite high probability for such a change.<br />
<br />
It is not inconsistent with the somewhat smaller increase in the ocean heat content (OHC) in the upper 700 m over the last decade compared to the decades before. <a href="http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/">http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/</a><br />
<br />
It may be worth to check whether the smaller slope of the 700 m OHC in recent years is statistically significantly different from the slope in the decades before.<br />
<br />
Any opinions on those numbers and what conclusions can be drawn from it?</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-83873610647762151012013-06-15T21:36:00.000-04:002013-07-07T16:19:49.658-04:00Declared persona non grata at wattsupwiththat.com<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>Update, 07/07/2013:</b> See Anthony Watts' comment below and my reply. <br />
<br />
----- <br />
I just have tested the <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/10/some-changes-coming-to-wuwt-readers-will-have-more-say/" target="_blank">new approach</a>, announced in April by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29" target="_blank">Anthony Watts</a> who is host of the blog, to the treatment of comments at <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/">wattsupwiththat.com</a>, to see whether anything has changed for me. I commented on an article with the title <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/no-significant-warming-for-17-years-4-months/" target="_blank">"No significant warming for 17 years 4 months"</a> by the notorious <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley" target="_blank">Christopher Monckton</a>. Well, I tried. This is the result:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTtxHkK8r4ItP8n4ZFm5jHDhZ1BlqW-OfWU9Br8bbVhMwpdWqPaRP343mUvYpYNj7pvIYH9Gybh9FSHCUftmNNAWlz0WMpGGWJxfzFjztzzrwTXqJjLk5G1DO2N8APE85ZrUulaj5fVRI/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-06-15+20:55:19.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTtxHkK8r4ItP8n4ZFm5jHDhZ1BlqW-OfWU9Br8bbVhMwpdWqPaRP343mUvYpYNj7pvIYH9Gybh9FSHCUftmNNAWlz0WMpGGWJxfzFjztzzrwTXqJjLk5G1DO2N8APE85ZrUulaj5fVRI/s1600/Screenshot+from+2013-06-15+20:55:19.png" height="190" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Thus, the only change for me is that me being banned is official now. They want to be more among themselves, without being too much interrupted by someone informed rebutting their pseudo-science. It is like with a cult. This is Anthony Watts' big change. I am certainly not the first one who actually works in the field of climate science and who got declared persona non grata over there. I feel honored.<br />
<br />
Here is what I had submitted in reply to Monckton's article:<br />
<br />
----- snip -----<br />
Anthony Watts seems to think this article posted under the title "No significant warming for 17 years 4 months", written by Christopher Monckton has an important message to deliver to have it put as sticky first post on his blog for a number of days. But with closer examination, it is only the x-th repetition and variation of the "skeptic" talking point about the "global warming stop/pause" or "no warming", observed allegedly for x-number of years (the x varies according to convenience).<br />
<br />
Mr. Monckton asserts in his article right away in the first paragraph, that "there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for getting on for two decades."<br />
<br />
Now we are already up from 17 years and 4 months to alleged "two decades", which would make it 20 years, for which there hadn't been any warming that was statistically distinguishable from Zero, according to Mr. Monckton. Why not boldly claim "two decades", if he is at it, right?<br />
<br />
On what does Mr. Monckton base his assertion about the alleged lack of warming for > 17 years? He bases this assertion on the fact that the temperature trend in the HadCRUT4 data set does not exceed the 95% statistical significance threshold. As correct this fact is, technically, it's also the point where Mr. Monckton misleads the audience. He equalizes a temperature trend, which does not pass the 95% significance threshold when a statistical test is done with "no warming" at all. And this is just jumping to conclusions.<br />
<br />
Let's examine the trend since the start of 1996. There is a tool at the Skeptical Science blog, with which this can be done for the major temperature data sets: <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php">http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php</a><br />
<br />
HadCRUT4 shows a trend with a 2*sigma (=2*standard deviation, which is equal to about 95% statistical significance threshold) of 0.089+/-0.118 Kelvin/decade. Does this mean this warming is not distinguishable from Zero, generally, because the trend was smaller than 2 sigma? No, it does not necessarily mean that, because it is still possible that the trend exceeds a lower significance threshold.<br />
<br />
So, let's check that. The trend of 0.089 in the HadCRUT4 data since the start of 1996 equals to about 1.51*sigma. The 80% threshold of statistical significance is about 1.28*sigma. Thus, even though the 95% threshold has not been exceeded (yet) since the start of 1996, one can distinguish the temperature trend in HadCRUT4 from Zero with more than 80% statistical significance. The probability to err is less than 20%. The other data sets, except for RSS that deviates to the cold side, show similar or higher warming trends since 1996, compared to HadCRUT4 (e.g., Spencer and Christy's UAH data: 0.12+/-0.2 Kelvin/decade). The satellite retrieved data have larger 2 sigma intervals, though. There is a larger interannual variability in the troposphere temperature data compared to the surface temperature data.<br />
<br />
BTW: Even if the temperature trend was not statistically significant even at 1 sigma, this would not allow the conclusion that there was "a global warming stop/pause", since non-detectability of a trend in a time series, which is composed of trend and fluctuations is not sufficient to conclude absence of the trend in the time series. This is particularly true in this case, since there is a multi-decadal warming trend going back to the mid 70s, which is statistically significant with more than eight sigma in the surface temperature records.<br />
<br />
Another point would be that the atmosphere is one thing, and not the major component regarding global warming. The oceans have continued to warm in the time period during which global warming allegedly has "stopped/paused". About 90% of the additional energy from the radiative perturbation due to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere goes in the ocean. The ocean releases a part of this accumulated energy into the atmosphere over time. This energy release is not a linear process. A large part of this energy is released during El Ninos. And the ice caps at both poles of the planet (that includes the glaciers) have continued to melt. No one should have missed the melting trend of the Arctic sea ice, which has even accelerated over the last decade. These are strong indicators that global warming has continued also in recent years, contrary to what "skeptics" want to make believe.<br />
<br />
In summary, Mr. Monckton's assertion of "no warming" for > 17 or even 20 years is false. It does not have any scientific validity, because it is not based on empirical, statistical evidence. And it ignores other indicators for global warming than the tropospheric/surface temperature trends.<br />
<br />
Another assertion by Mr. Monckton is about something he calls "Dr. Santer's 17-year test", according to which "models may have failed", because the temperature trend hadn't exceeded the 95% threshold. Now, one could expect that Mr. Monckton provides some proof of source for this assertion about such a test, allegedly stated by Ben Santer. However, the link he provides leads only to another article in this opinion blog here, which was obviously not written by Ben Santer. So, is it the link to the one press release in the other article?<br />
<a href="https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html">https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html</a><br />
<br />
The press release states something that refers to 17 years. It states:<br />
<br />
<i>"In fingerprinting, we analyze longer, multi-decadal temperature records, and we beat down the large year-to-year temperature variability caused by purely natural phenomena (like El NiÃ'±os and La NiÃ'±as). This makes it easier to identify a slowly-emerging signal arising from gradual, human-caused changes in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases," Santer said.<br /><br />The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year "hiatus periods" with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.</i><br />
<br />
The talk in the press release is about the fingerprinting method applied by Santer. Regarding this method, it is said that one needs <b>at least</b> 17 years of observed tropospheric temperature data to detect the human-caused warming signal. However, there is no statement whatsoever in the press release according to which a lack of 95% statistical significance for more than 17 years meant that the model had "failed".<br />
<br />
I actually have read Santer et al.'s paper (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016263" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011JD016263</a>), I suspect, unlike Mr. Monckton. There is nothing in the original paper either that says anything about such a test for model predictions of the kind as asserted by Mr. Monckton. Apparently, Mr. Monckton has just made something up here, regarding the alleged "Dr. Santer's 17-year test" for model predictions using the 95% threshold of significance in the observed data.<br />
<br />
Also, I seem to have a different understanding of the English language compared to many "skeptics", because, in my world, "at least" marks a lower boundary, whereas many "skeptics" seem to think that "at least" has equal meaning to "at most".<br />
<br />
As for Mr. Monckton's assertion about the alleged IPCC predictions regarding the temperature increase since 2005. Mr. Monckton writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>It is better to focus on the ever-widening discrepancy between predicted and observed warming rates. The IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report backcasts the interval of 34 models’ global warming projections to 2005, since when the world should have been warming at a rate equivalent to 2.33 Cº/century. Instead, it has been cooling at a rate equivalent to a statistically-insignificant 0.87 Cº/century:</i></blockquote>
<br />
Mr. Monckton asserts here that the IPCC had predicted the temperature would nearly linearly increase by 0.0233 Kelvin/year since 2005, and because the temperature in the real world had behaved differently, the model predictions were wrong. I can't call this claim by Mr. Monckton anything else than absurd nonsense. Mr. Monckton just takes the model ensemble average calculated from many individual model simulations and interprets this as a prediction of how the temperature will behave in the real world. Of course, the ensemble mean does not show the same variability as the temperature in Nature, because it's a mean! Nature only provides one single realization of all possible realizations for the same boundary conditions in a chaotic system. Each individual model simulation is like a single possible realization. It is nowhere predicted by anyone that the one single realization from Nature would follow the model ensemble mean from year to year, or even from decade to decade. A proper comparison, for instance, would be to take the full range of all model simulations, among which, BTW, there are some that actually show a "cooling" over the same time period as well, obtain the 95% range spanned by the model simulations, and then see whether the observed temperature record lies within this range, or marches outside of the range. Mr. Monckton has not done that. According to the real Figure 11.33a in the leaked draft of the AR5 report, the observed global mean surface temperature still lies within the range of the model simulations, although near the lower end.<br />
----- snip -----<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-41802425568438477022013-05-23T10:42:00.000-04:002013-05-23T10:43:21.531-04:00Censored at Donner + Doria (partly in German)Following reply to user Lollobrigida's comment got censored at the German "climate skeptic" blog <a href="http://donnerunddoria.welt.de/" target="_blank">"Donner + Doria"</a>, hosted by <a href="http://www.welt.de/" target="_blank">Die Welt</a> journalist <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulli_Kulke" target="_blank">Ulrich Kulke</a>, in the thread <a href="http://donnerunddoria.welt.de/2013/05/21/angebliche-einheit-der-klimaforscher-teil-2-das-uba-papier/" target="_blank">"Einheits-Klimaforschung - Teil 2: Das UBA Papier"</a>. It is not the only one of my comments that got censored over there. Even the ones that got finally posted needed more than one try. Here, we have another example for how informed comments that debunk fake skeptic claims are not liked at blogs of fake skeptics. The censorship happened after Mr. Kulke had written a long lamentation about how only a "unified" opinion was allegedly allowed in climate science, how critical opinions were allegedly suppressed, and he requested an "open discussion" instead. How ironic.<br />
<br />
----- snip -----<br />
In der Tat hatte ich die Namen von Herrn Kulke und Herrn Vahrenholt falsch geschrieben. Aber zumindest hatte ich das konsistent in dem ganzen Kommentar gemacht. Zu meiner Entschuldigung moechte ich vorbringen, dass ich mich mehr auf den Inhalt konzentriert hatte, so dass mir das nicht aufgefallen war. Es war keine Boeswilligkeit. Ich werde versuchen, die Namen in der Zukunft korrekt zu schreiben.<br />
<br />
Sie behaupten:<br />
<br />
"Es bleibt dabei: Das Ausmaß, inwieweit der Mensch an der Klimaerwärmung beteiligt ist, ist eben nicht unumstritten, da klaffen die einzelnen Studien weit auseinander."<br />
<br />
Ihre Behauptung ist nun auch nicht sehr konkret. Wie weit ist denn "weit auseinander"? Wieviele Studien gibt es denn, die infragestellen, dass die globale Erwaermung real sei und die hauptsaechliche Ursache der statistisch signifikanten globalen Erwaermung der letzten Jahrzehnte menschliche Aktivitaeten, insbesondere Treibhausgasemissionen waeren? Gibt es mehr als den sehr kleinen Anteil an Studien, der auch von Cook et al., (2013) festgestellt wurde? Wenn Sie das behaupten, auf welche Belege stuetzt sich Ihre Behauptung?<br />
<br />
"Selbst der Entwurf für den nächsten Assessment Report des IPCC, der im September herauskommt, geht inzwischen von nicht mehr als 50 Prozent als gesichert heraus, und das will schon viel heißen."<br />
<br />
Abgesehen von der Ethik-Verletzung, die der/diejenige begangen hat, der/die den Entwurf oeffentlich verbreitet hat, wuerde ich doch gerne mal die Quelle wissen, wo Sie diese Behauptung herhaben. Ich vermute, von irgendeinem "Skeptiker"-Blog. Denn da sind Sie einer Luege aufgesessen, und Sie haben es anscheinend nicht fuer noetig gehalten, die Aussage zu ueberpruefen. Der draft report sagt naemlich etwas anderes. Der sagt aus, dass es extrem wahrscheinlich sei, dass mindestens 50% der globalen Erwaermung seit Mitte des letzten Jahrhunderts durch menschliche Aktivitaeten verursacht worden sei, und dass der Beitrag der Treibhausgase zum Trend von ca. 0.6 K von 1951 bis 2010 sehr wahrscheinlich zwischen 0.6 K und 1.4 K betraegt (Seite 10-3).<br />
<br />
"Dabei sind darin noch nicht einmal die letzten Studien berücksichtlgt, die feststellten, dass die CO2-Sensitivität offenbar deutlich zu hoch bewertet wurden".<br />
<br />
Relevant waeren fuer die Frage des Konsenses unter den Wissenschaftlern, ob AGW real ist, wenn es neue relevanten Studien zur Klimasensitivitaet gabe, die genau aus diesem Konsens herausfallen. Ansonsten gab es schon immer einige Studien mit niedrigeren Schaetzungen zur Klimasensitiviaet und andere mit hoeheren Schaetzungen. Es ist ja nicht so, dass da bisher nur ein einzelner fixer Wert als gueltig angesehen worden waere. Auch die neueren Schaetzungen werfen vorherige Aussagen, z.b im IPCC Report 2007 nicht ueber den Haufen, selbst wenn der Wert, dem die hoechste Wahrscheinlichkeit zugeschrieben wird, etwas niedriger ausfaellt.<br />
<br />
"mal abgesehen von den Studien, die zwar eine menschliche Beteiligung konstatieren, aber den Ruß/Albedoeffekt deutlich in den Vordergrund rücken."<br />
<br />
Worueber reden Sie? Es gibt keine Studien, die zu dem Ergebnis kommen, dass der Soot-Albedo Effekt auf das Klima groesser sei, als der Effekt der anthropogenen Treibhausgasemissionen, nicht mal gleich so gross. Es sei denn, ich habe da was uebersehen. Dann muessten Sie mir die Studie nennen, die zu so einem Ergebnis gekommen sein soll. Die Angabe des doi-keys genuegt.<br />
<br />
"Hier eine Einheitlichkeit vorzugaukeln, wirkt reichlich hilflos."<br />
<br />
Wer behauptet denn diese "Einheitlichkeit" bzgl. jeden Aspektes zur globalen Klimaaenderung? Oder ist diese Behauptung ueber die angebliche Behauptung einer "Einheitlichkeit" vielleicht nur ein Strohmannargument? Diejenigen, die das Wort "Einheitlichkeit" gebrauchen, sind doch auch nur Herr Kulke und Sie und vielleicht Ihnen gleichgesinnte Personen.<br />
<br />
Dass bestimmte zentrale Aussagen in einem wissenschaftlichen Fachgebiet mit der Zeit den Status eines Paradigmas bekommen, ist nicht das gleiche wie "Einheitlichkeit" zu allen Fragen.<br />
<br />
"Wo fangen eigentlich die "Skeptiker" an, und wo ist man noch im erlaubten Bereich? Und ab wann ist man "falscher Skeptiker", kein richtiger mehr?"<br />
<br />
Das ist gar nicht so schwer auseinanderzuhalten, wer ein wahrer und wer ein falscher Skeptiker ist. Das haengt nicht davon ab, welcher wissenschaftlichen Hypothese oder Theorie man skeptisch gegenuebersteht, sondern davon, welche Form von Argumenten bzw. Pseudoargumente man gegen die Hypothese oder Theorie vorbringt. Man erkennt die falschen Skeptiker an der Methode. Wahre Skeptiker verwenden wissenschaftliche Argumente, und wenn sie eine Hypothese oder Theorie ablehnen, dann stellen sie eine alternative Hypothese auf, und testen diese mit der gleichen wissenschafltichen Rigorositaet, die sie von anderen Wissenschaftlern erwarten. Skeptizismus gehoert zum beruflichen Profil eines Wissenschaftlers.<br />
<br />
Falsche Skeptiker greifen die wissenschaftlichen Hypothesen und Theorien, die von ihnen abgelehnt werden, mit unwissenschaftlichen Argumenten an, z.b, indem sie stattdessen persoenliche Angriffe auf die Wissenschaftler fahren, die diese Hypothesen oder Theorien in ihren Publikationen veroeffentlichen, oder sie bedienen sich logisch trugschluessiger Argumente, cherry picking, oder sie verbreiten schlichtweg tatsachenwidrige Behauptungen. Oft kommt das auch mit Verschwoerungsfantasien auf Seiten der falschen Skeptiker daher. Und aufgrund der stark politischen und ideologischen Motivierung, die viele der falschen "Skeptiker" antreibt, sieht man auch haeufig, dass politische und ideologische Argumente gegen die wissenschaftlichen Hypothesen und Theorien vorgebracht werden.<br />
<br />
Sie, z.B., bedienen sich einer fuer falsche Skeptiker typischen Argumentationsfuehrung, in Ihrer Entgegnung auf meine Aussagen zu der angeblichen "Pause in der Klimaerwaermung". Waehrend ich inhaltliche Argumente dazu gebracht habe, wie mein Verweis auf die logisch und methodisch falsche Schlussfolgerung, die aus fehlender statistischer Signifikanz der Temperaturaenderung in der Troposphere ueber die letzten 15 Jahre gezogen wird, und mein Verweis auf andere Indikatoren dafuer, dass sich die globale Erwaermung fortsetzt, bedienen Sie sich des logisch trugschluessigen Arguments des Appells an die (angebliche) Mehrheitsmeinung, um meine Argumente vom Tisch zu wischen. Und mit extremer Wahrscheinlichkeit koennen Sie Ihre Behauptung, dass meine Argumente eine Aussenseiteransicht unter den Klimawissenschaftlern waere, auch gar nicht mal belegen.<br />
----- snip -----<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-45092468592555257092013-04-12T08:39:00.000-04:002013-04-12T08:39:29.879-04:00What got me snipped from wattsupwiththat.com - 11Werner Brozek wrote a new <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/are-climate-models-realistic-now-includes-at-least-february-data/" target="_blank">article</a> at <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/">wattsupwiththat.com</a> about his research on noise in the global temperature record. The reply below to the article, which I submitted to the thread as a comment has not been published there. This is the second one of the couple of comments censored at Anthony Watts' blog, which <a href="http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com/2013/04/update-regarding-my-posting-status-at.html" target="_blank">I announced before</a> to document here. Since I apparently have been blacklisted at Watt's blog by default, currently, I am not going to put any more efforts into trying to comment over there, unless I am not treated differently any more compared to how the ones are treated who agree with Anthony Watts and his friends.<br />
<br />
----- snip -----<br />
<br />
Werner Brozek wrote:<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>For example, do we mean that the slope of the temperature-time graph must be 0 or do we mean that there has to be a lack of “significant” warming over a given period? With regards to what a suitable time period is, NOAA says the following:<br /><br /> ”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”<br /><br />To verify this for yourself, see page 23 here.</i></blockquote>
<br />And once again the quote from the NOAA report is misrepresented by you. The quote still refers to the ENSO-adjusted temperature record as it has done in the past. However, you omit this information and use it here as if the quote had established some criterion for the unadjusted temperature record. You do so, although you have been pointed out already in the past that the quote applies to ENSO-adjusted data.<br /><br />Your article does not hold what the headline promises. There is no analysis in there whatsoever that allows any conclusion with respect to whether climate models are "realistic". In order to do such an analysis one would have to do an actual comparison between model capabilities to simulate specific features of the climate system and real world data. Which you haven't done.<br /><br />You only show some "flat lines" in the temperature record going back different numbers of years, depending on which specific record is chosen, which by itself does not allow any conclusion with respect to the presence or absence of a trend or regarding climate models, since one always will find periods with "flat lines" in any arbitrary time series that is composed of trend and fluctuations, if one chooses the time interval only short enough. One finds similar behaviour in individual simulations with climate models. You confine your examination on those time intervals, where the noise is still masking the long-term trend. This looks to me like a pointless undertaking, unless you want to study the features of the noise.<br /><br />Models aside, your exercise doesn't even provide evidence for claims like "global warming stopped", or similar. Not being able to detect a trend, because the data set is too small does not allow the conclusion that the trend was not there. None of the seemingly "flat" temperature records, which you show here, can be statistically significantly distinguished from the multi-decadal surface or lower tropospheric warming trend, which itself is statistically significant with 3 sigma or more.<br /><br />You state:<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming according to their criteria. ... (To the best of my knowledge, SkS uses the same criteria that Phil Jones uses to determine significance.)</i></blockquote>
<br />This looks to me like another misrepresentation of what others said. Or show me where Phil Jones or anyone at Skeptical Science supposedly claimed that "warming" was significant at 95% or 2 sigma, or there was no significant warming at all. Please provide a source where anyone said something like that, allegedly.<br /><br />If warming is significant with, for instant higher than 90% probability, but lower than 95% probability, it is still statistically significant. Only the probability to have wrongly rejected the Null-hypothesis (which would be no <strike>significance</strike> warming in this case) is higher. To claim that there was no "significant warming" in such a case is just wishful thinking.<br /><br />As for your conclusion:<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>After looking at the above facts, do you feel that we should spend billions to prevent catastrophic warming? Or do you feel we should take a “wait and see” attitude for a few years to be sure that future warming will be as catastrophic as some claim it will be?</i></blockquote>
<br />You could have started with that in your posting. Then it would have been clear from the beginning, that your starting point is political and ideological preconception that you apply as a filter for your perception and examinations. That plausibly explains the motivation for your efforts here and for your misrepresentations.<br />
<br />
<br />
----- snip -----<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-35534534837095879842013-04-10T00:29:00.000-04:002013-04-10T00:29:41.196-04:00What got me snipped from wattsupwiththat.com - 10The purpose of the post is merely to document the censored reply I gave to one of the participants in the thread. It was the repeated, and yet futile try to explain what institution employs me and which one does not. One could be astonished about the notorious refusal of many of the fake skeptics to let in anything that is in contradiction to their preconceived views, if it was not just another example of the usual modus operandi of this crowd, which can be observed at many occasions. I frankly admit that I may not be fully informed about all the nuances employment contracts can have, but I am pretty sure that if there is no contract that states an employment relationship between two parties, then there is no employment relationship in legal terms. The following is not particularly exiting. It is just for the record, since I was prevented to reply at the location where the claims were made.<br />
<br />
----- skip -----<br />
<b>J. T. Jones</b> wrote on April 8, 2013 at 7:16 pm in <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/hansen-finally-muzzled-by-obama/#comment-1269733">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/hansen-finally-muzzled-by-obama/#comment-1269733</a><br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>If they were a contractor doing the work the government contracted them to do, it would be entirely legal and relevant to refer to them as being employed by the government as they (or the company that hired them) would indeed have a government employment contract. on the other hand, It wouldn’t be legal or relevant to refer to them as a federal employee, as they are not directly employed by the government</i>.</blockquote>
<br />You haven't answered my question whether you have an employment contract with the federal agency, and whether you could make legal claims against this federal agency regarding your employment. If you work for a company that has a contract with the federal agency to provide specific services to the federal agency, your employment contract is not with the federal agency. It's with the contracting company instead. You are employed with the contracting company. Or please explain to me based on what legal document you are claiming you were employed with the federal agency.<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The simple facts of the matter is NASA is footing the bill for work that you do on their behalf. That is what is called employment.</i></blockquote>
<br />No, employment is a legal contract between two parties. But it doesn't even work in the way you think regarding the relationship between Columbia University and NASA. It's not like the relationship between contractors who provide services for NASA (e.g., IT services) and NASA, and the contractors then employ people who do this work. Instead, it's a collaboration between Columbia and NASA to the benefit of both parties in the collaboration. The Columbia scientists working at GISS aren't even necessarily paid with money coming from NASA. They are paid from federal grant money like most researchers at Columbia, coming from various federal agencies, based on proposals that are submitted by the researchers and Columbia to the federal agencies, like NSF, DOE, NOAA, and also NASA, but not necessarily NASA. There is nothing in my contract that says I was employed to provide services to NASA. My legal status and my contract as a Columbia employee is not different to any contract of any other Columbia researcher who works in any other lab on the Columbia campus.<br />
<br />
----- skip -----<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-6182032069143489102013-04-09T15:15:00.000-04:002013-04-09T15:15:22.819-04:00Update Regarding My Posting Status at wattsupwiththat.com<a href="http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-got-me-snipped-from_27.html" target="_blank">As reported before</a>, I had been banned from posting comments at the AGW-"skeptic" blog <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/">wattsupwiththat.com</a>. Yesterday, I was able to publish some comments again. However, this was only until last night. Since then, none of my comments I submitted there have appeared. I take from this that I am stilled banned from posting at the blog by default. Publishing some comments submitted by me yesterday seems to have been at a whim of Anthony Watts, which apparently did not last long. This prevents me from sending rebuttals to claims made over there by some of the fake skeptics, including the ones about my person, which have reached a new level of absurdity. I am not going to try again and again to find out when I am allowed to post something and when I am not. If Anthony Watts does not want me to write at his blog so be it.<br />
<br />
I am going to publish a couple of the censored comments at this place here later.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-72660925787821777392013-02-27T16:34:00.000-05:002013-02-27T16:34:42.761-05:00What got me snipped from wattsupwiththat.com - 9Today, I got (temporarily, I was told. I will see) <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1233829" target="_blank">banished</a> from posting comments on the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) denier blog <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/">wattsupwiththat.com</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29" target="_blank">Anthony Watts</a>, weather man and blog host, seems to have got upset (while seemingly projecting his own emotional reaction on me, which made him want to punish me). I apparently have been too critical toward him and his blog. I diagnosed hypocrisy after Watts had made <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1233638" target="_blank">accusations</a> (in a reply at the end of the linked comment) against the hosts of the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/" target="_blank">Skeptical Science</a> blog. They allegedly were "fast and loose with spinning the truth to suit their agenda". The irony is that Watts writes such things below a <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/" target="_blank">post</a> on his own blog written by the newspaper journalist and spin-doctor (well, he is not really a doctor of any profession) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley" target="_blank">Christopher Monckton</a> who is known for his notorious AGW denying propaganda and spread of disinformation with respect to empirical climate data and results from research in climate science. And this is only one post in Watts's blog. Disinformation, spin, and propaganda can be found in almost every single article that is posted on the blog.<br />
<br />
I challenged Monckton's elaboration <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1231110" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1231809" target="_blank">here</a> with respect to their accuracy and scientific validity. The first comment by me got a <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1231222" target="_blank">reply</a> by Monckton, in which he only repeated previous assertions without anything to back them up, plus some ad hominem arguments against my person. So far, I have not seen anything by Monckton after my second rebuttal to him.<br />
<br />
In his <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1233829" target="_blank">announcement</a> to punish me with banning, Watts declared I should not write there anymore, as someone who was funded with money coming from taxpayers. True it is, my whole life is publicly funded, all the expenses that are needed to sustain my lifelihood, everything I do is basically taxpayer funded, since I do not have any significant private income sources, only my salary funded with government grants. Of course, Watts is free to make whatever rules he likes for who is allowed to write on his blog, and no one's rights are violated by this. However, I wonder whether he thinks this should be the case in society generally that people whose incomes come from public funds should not have the same constitutional rights as the ones with income from private sources. And what other rights and entitlements should be limited for publicly funded people compared to privately funded ones, according to Watts.<br />
<br />
I am going to see whether my banishment is going to be temporarily. I do not plan to back off from criticizing Watts's and friends's crooked approach toward science and truth on his own blog, from the perspective of someone who works in the field of climate science. If he does not want to have it there he will have to banish me permanently.<br />
<br />
Here are the comments that got censored by Watts from the mentioned thread. The first one disputes the meaning of a quote from the <a href="http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf" target="_blank">NOAA State of the Climate Report 2008</a> (Attention, this file is 14.9 MB), how it had been presented in a <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1233141" target="_blank">previous comment by another user</a>. The second one just states some facts about the trend of the near surface and lower tropospheric temperature trend over the time period of the last 17 years. <br />
<br />
----- snip -----<br />
<br />
<b>Werner Brozek</b>, on February 26, 2013 at 8:42 am, in <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1233141">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1233141</a><br />
<br />
wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"My purposes are at least two fold. I think it is fairer to say a slope is 0 than to say a slope could be 0 at a certain level of significance, but that it could also be much higher at the higher end."</i></blockquote>
<br />
I don't really understand what "fair" or "fairer" is supposed to mean in the context of assessing data as empirical evidence to support or contradict a scientific statement. What is required in science is to be precise. A statement about a slope of a trend, when it is supposed to be empirical evidence for something, is quite meaningless without any information about the error band of the slope. You can do a trend analysis, and when the result shows a Zero-trend, it is always only a statistical estimate. It does not mean that you really have the information that the trend was exactly Zero. You only have the information that it was Zero within a range of uncertainty for a specified probability. There is no other way here than to make a probability statement. If the statistical significant trend of the temperature increase since the 1970ies lies within the error band of the temperature record of the recent years, then the conclusion that both trends probably did not belong to the same statistical population cannot be validly drawn from such a statistical trend estimate.<br />
<br />
If uncertainty ranges did not matter, I could equally claim that the warming trend was something between 1.2 and 4.7 K per decade now, because that's what the trend analysis currently gives as result for all the major data sets from the beginning of the year 2012.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 23 is:<br />”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf">http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf</a><br /><br />So I admit that Hadcrut4 does NOT meet this criteria yet, but three other data sets do. See the bolded ones below."</i></blockquote>
<br />
You say everyone who wants can check the quote under the link. However, I wonder whether you yourself have bothered to check whether the quote really says what you assert here it says, because what you bring here is a misrepresentation of its meaning. I already have discussed this quote previously, like here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/01/encouraging-admission-of-lower-climate-sensitivity-by-a-hockey-team-scientist/#comment-1220510">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/01/encouraging-admission-of-lower-climate-sensitivity-by-a-hockey-team-scientist/#comment-1220510</a><br />
<br />
This is the longer version of the quote:<br />
<br />
<b>"We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007). Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”</b><br />
(<a href="http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf">http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf</a>, p. 23, Figure 2.8b on page 22 illustrates this graphically).<br />
<br />
From the longer version you have only quoted the last sentence. The whole two pages where the quote is from are about the question whether there is a discrepancy between model simulations and observations. The report refers to a study (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-006-0121-0" target="_blank">Collins et al., CD, 2006</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-006-0121-0" target="_blank">doi: 10.1007/s00382-006-0121-0</a>), where many simulations were carried out with one climate model, HadCM3, with varied configurations. The important information you have left out is that the comparison presented in the report is done for the temperature data <b>after adjusting them for the contributions to the temperature series that come from ENSO variability</b>. Therefore, your presentation that the bolded temperature series fulfill this criterion that you quoted is false, since you don't have calculated out those contributions of the temperature variability that come from ENSO.<br />
<br />
If you wanted to see whether those temperature data sets fulfill this criterion, you would have to do the ENSO-adjustment exercise first.<br />
<br />
Actually, if one really is precise this criterion of "15 years" would only apply to the simulations with the one model, HadCM3, that was used for the mentioned study. The internal variability of different climate models is not all the same. Thus, other models might have given a somewhat different answer, if the study had been performed with those models. Perhaps, the answer for some models, the ones with smaller internal variability, would have been 12 or 14 years, or for other ones, ones with higher internal variability, 17 or maybe 20 years. We don't know the answer for those other models.<br />
<br />
----- snip -----<br />
<br />
The second censored comment:<br />
<br />
----- snip -----<br />
The claim that there had been no temperature rise for 17 year isn't even factually correct, since all the trend estimates for the major data sets show a positive trend, with GISTEMP more than 90% probability of significance, and NOAA and HadCRUT4 with more than 80% probability of significance. The trend estimate for UAH is higher than for these surface data sets, but it is not statistically significant because of the higher variability of the tropospheric temperatures, compared to near surface temperatures. RSS only shows a small positive trend.<br />
----- snip -----<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-73218802769884984652013-02-13T00:26:00.000-05:002013-02-13T00:26:38.384-05:00What got me snipped from wattsupwiththat.com - 8And yet another thread where a comment by me got vanished at <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/">wattsupwiththat.com</a>. The topic to which I replied are <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1221492" target="_blank">accusations</a> against late climate scientist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider" target="_blank">Stephen Schneider</a> to have promoted lying to the public. The accusations have been stated by fake skeptics for years, mostly based on a falsified quote from an interview Stephen Schneider gave to the magazine Discover in 1989.<br />
<br />
In my comment I replied to comments by four other participants. This is the comment that was seemingly disliked:<br />
<br />
----- snip -----<br />
<b>Mark Bofill</b> wrote on February 11, 2013 at 10:27 am in <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222361" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222361</a><br />
<br />something.<br /><br />Bofill, you just have crossed the line. You don't need to further pretend that you were seriously interested in a discussion with me.<br /><br /><b>richardscourtney</b> wrote on February 11, 2013 at 7:41 am in <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222238" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222238</a><br /><br />
something.<br /><br />Every time when Courtney is exposed to have spread falsehoods or supporting falsehoods, like when he is exposed to make false claims about the NOAA Report from 2008, or here, he is shouting "Liar!" over and over again. He behaves like the thief who is loudly shouting, "Stop the thief!" to deflect the attention from himself.<br /><br /><b>D.B. Stealey</b>, on February 11, 2013 at 10:44 am in <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222375">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222375</a><br /><br />requests that I apologize to Gail Combs. Ridiculous. What for? I should apologize, because she posted a falsified quote? Anthony Watts may have tried to display this here as an innocent mistake, because the falsified quote had been spread before by some newspapers (and in the fake skeptic blogosphere). Only, this explanation is not believable to me, since Gail Combs provided a link together with the quote, which pointed to a correct version of the quote. Thus, she must have known about the not falsified version. Nevertheless, she presented the falsified one.<br /><br /><b>Bruce Cobb</b>, on February 11, 2013 at 8:10 am in <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222268">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims/#comment-1222268</a><br /><br />expressed his regret that Stephen Schneider wasn't around anymore to tell climate scientists what he really meant.<br /><br />However, that is not a problem, since he had done that already when he was still alive.<br /><br />For instance in here:<br /><a href="http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf</a><br /><br />Go to page 5, Stephen Schneider writes there:<br /><br /><i>"Vested interests have repeatedly claimed I advocate exaggerating threats. Their “evidence” comes from partially quoting my Discover interview, almost always -like Simon - omitting the last line and the phrase “double ethical bind.” They also omit my solutions to the double ethical bind: (1) use metaphors that succinctly convey both urgency and uncertainty (pg. xi of Ref. 3) and (2) produce an inventory of written products from editorials to articles to books, so that those who want to know more about an author’s views on both the caveats and the risks have a hierarchy of detailed written sources to which they can turn.3,4,5 What I was telling the Discover interviewer, of course, was my disdain for a soundbite communications process that imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the “ends justify the means” philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings. Instead, I repeatedly advocate that scientists explicitly warn their audiences that “what to do” is a value choice as opposed to “what can happen” and “what are the odds,” which are scientific issues (e.g. p. 213 of Ref. 3). I also urge that scientists, when they offer probabilities, work hard to distinguish which are objective which are subjective, as well as what is the scientific basis for any probability offered. For such reasons I was honored to receive, in 1991, the AAAS/Westinghouse Award for the Public Understanding of Science."</i><br />(Stephen Schneider, Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial, APS News, 1996, 5(8), p. 5, <a href="http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf</a>)<br />
<br />
----- snip -----Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131539343931662541.post-49190195939039795452013-02-12T10:39:00.000-05:002013-02-12T10:39:47.086-05:00What got me snipped from wattsupwiththat.com - 7More than a week has already passed. Thus, it is safe to assume my following comment to the <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/" target="_blank">smear post</a> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29" target="_blank">Anthony Watts</a> against <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley" target="_blank">William Connolley</a> got vanished back then after submission to Watts's blog. Here is my comment:<br />
<br />
----- snip -----<br />
<br />
Anthony Watts wrote:<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again"</i></blockquote>
<br />"in the news again" means here, Kopp-online, one of worst garbage publishers, which is known for spreading esoteric and pseudo-scientific views, conspiracy fantasies and outright lies, in the German language online world, published some dreck about Connolley, an opinion article filled with lies, filled with assertions not backed up with anything, filled with innuendo and conspiracy fantasy. Then the author quotes and references his own Kopp-article in his own blog, which then is quoted and referenced by Anthony Watts here. And soon, it likely is going to be further spread all around the "skeptic"-blogosphere. This is how some "news" are being created.<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>Unbelievable but true: The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC. So it was not a referee, but the 12th Man of the IPCC team.</b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><br />I’m not sure how accurate the translation is, but it suggests he was somehow part of the IPCC “short list” team.</i></blockquote>
<br />What is "the IPCC 'short list' team"? The central committee of the evil "AGW hoax" conspiracy?<br /><br />No, it means something else here. It's a sports metaphor, through which it is asserted that Connolley lacked objectivity as an author or administrator of Wikipedia because of his former Green Party membership and because "he openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC".<br /><br />"he openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC". This statement is obviously derogatorily meant, but it comes as pure innuendo. What is this even supposed to mean? What are the alleged "views of the controversial IPCC", with which he "openly sympathizes"? The scientific views on climate change of mainstream climate science, as compiled and synthesized in the IPCC report? Or what else is meant?<br /><br />So, people who agree with the mainstream views in a scientific field should not write or edit articles about topics in the field in an encyclopedia? And if they do anyhow, it's just "unbelievable"! How dare they!<br /><br />It's really an irony that the crowd here is ranting about Wikipedia, and at the same time is taking something at face value, which comes from a garbage source like Kopp-online, as soon as it seems to confirm the preconceived views. Anyone who values science and truth should stay far away from such a source, though.<br />
<br />
----- snip -----<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.com0