Monday, May 18, 2015

U.S. Warmer Than Average In April

Despite headlines about how cold it was in the east, the U.S. actually had mostly warmer than average temperatures in April. This is according to the National Climatic Data Center, which released its April State of the Climate for the U.S. today. Florida, in particular, had its warmest April on record. Take a look:

Source: NCDC
Once again, reality doesn't support the claims made by deniers.

147 comments:

  1. I am glad you said that Christopher. Even DeSmogBlog apologized for the tobacco smear, when they discovered I was actually on the other side of the issue. So, that places you below DSB credibility-wise. I, and everyone else, can safely ignore you now (although I have saved all these comments for future reference).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, come on, Tom. You worked for an organization that promoted disinformation about tobacco. You can't claim to be innocent. As for ignoring me, you have amply demonstrated you ignore all science, so I fully expect you to ignore me. Your credibility is zero.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Even if you are not paid to lie about tobacco, you work for a dishonest propaganda outlet that is:

    "The Heartland Institute's tobacco ties are many. Heartland opposes tobacco control measures such as tobacco tax increases (the Institute denies the health effects of second-hand smoke)."

    www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute_and_tobacco

    Given that you've been caught lying about climate science, don't you think you ought to be a little more careful about the company you keep?

    Were you unaware Climate Deniers have a credibility problem?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I work for no one other than ICSC and my private communications company. I couldn't care less what groups I do not work for are rumoured to be doing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ICSC publishes its webpage from the same IP address as the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the Australian Climate Science Coalition. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, a well-known denier organization, created ICSC in 2007. ICSC created the Australian Climate Science Coalition, also a well-known denier organization, in 2008. The Heartland Institute gave money to both the NZ Coalition and to ICSC. The Australian Coalition is almost completely funded by Heartland.

    Wow! Every step of the way, you are standing waist deep in manure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who cares what groups designed to smear their opponents say. I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just watched that video, and it was GREAT! Katharine Hayhoe is a star! That was the best layperson's climate science video I have ever seen, with the possible exception of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos episode devoted to climate change.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well then Tom, why don't you give people a clue about your funding, and the whole problem would go away.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The last thing I would do to our donors is to sic you guys on them. Geez.

    ReplyDelete
  10. About a month ago, Tom, you told me:I don't care if there is "even higher confidence that human-induced causes dominate the observed warming."
    That is not important.https://disqus.com/home/discussion/augustafreepress/environmentalism_must_re_focus_on_known_problems_time_to_cut_climate_campaigners_loose/#comment-1966060165

    You later explained that you did not believe it is important unless it is dangerous. Still, as someone qualified to teach a university cporse in climate science, surely you can answer the question: Dangerous or not, do human-induced causes dominate the global warming of the last half-century? Do you know the answer to this question?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Of course not. No one really knows. But it doesn't matter since it is the future we are concerned about, not the small warming of the past half century.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What's even more amazing are the comments at the end.


    Interestingly for the Daily Mail, there's a tab labeled "worst rated" and another one labeled "best rated". What's REALLY ironic to me is what kinds of comments come up underneath each tab...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your saying no one really knows suggests to me that you're not keeping up with the literature. For example, a 2011 study by Markus Huber & Reto Knutti titled Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance concludes "suggesting an even higher confidence that human-induced causes dominate the observed warming." Do you still maintain nobody knows?
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html#/

    ReplyDelete
  14. Constant GardenerMay 18, 2015 at 11:31 PM

    You concede the science described in the video is accurate, then? Why else cleave to your collateral attack?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think Tom is afraid to talk science.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Constant GardenerMay 18, 2015 at 11:38 PM

    He's a typical intellectual lightweight. All tactic, no strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Constant GardenerMay 18, 2015 at 11:44 PM

    Sincerely questioning bias isn't character assassination. Unless you think the Rules of Civil Procedure in every American courtroom condone character assassination. is that what you think? It doesn't matter what you think, of course, evidence as to character is inadmissible, unlike evidence going to bias like funding which is admissible.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Of course. "Suggesting an even higher confidence" in the minds of those authors is not 'knowing.'

    ReplyDelete
  19. Did you read the abstract? The full quotation isWe find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85°C of warming (5–95% uncertainty: 0.6–1.1°C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56°C. The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability, even if current models were found to strongly underestimate it. Our method is complementary to optimal fingerprinting attribution and produces fully consistent results, thus suggesting an even higher confidence that human-induced causes dominate the observed warming.Would you agree with the numerical findings in the first sentence, or would you dispute them?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Who cares what groups designed to smear their opponents say."

    If it's a smear, are you saying ICSC doesn't receive funding from Heartland?

    ...publicly?

    ...without run run running away from the question like a little bunny wunny as you've done multiple times before?

    Who would pay a propagandist so incompetent and how could any money you're paid to lie about climate science possibly make up for the damage those lies are likely to cause?

    "both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice."



    www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

    ReplyDelete
  21. It is just their opinions based on their interpretation of the observations they used.
    Nobody knows any of this.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well you could easily prove Christopher wrong by watching and commenting on the video.

    ReplyDelete
  23. As one who has taught a university level course in climate science, how accurate do you think their opinion is?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Constant GardenerMay 19, 2015 at 12:22 AM

    Evolution was merely Darwin's opinion. A spherical Earth was merely Eratosthenes opinion. The germ theory of disease is an opinion. Big Bang, an opinion. Blah blah blecky blah.

    ReplyDelete
  25. One does not evaluate opinions by ascribing 'accuracy' to them. Accuracy applies to information.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well how accurate do you think their information is?

    ReplyDelete
  27. To assess that would take an expert at least several days.

    ReplyDelete
  28. How accurate was Eratosthenes' opinion that the earth is round?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Constant GardenerMay 19, 2015 at 1:06 AM

    The beautiful nescience of Tom Harris, ladies and gentlemen. Go to bed, Tom. Sowing foolishness ought not be a 24 hour a day job.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I agree! It was an excellent talk.


    Katharine Hayhoe's example of the hot room experiment actually makes me think it's better to use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming"... (and yes, I know Luntz is the one who pushed that).


    I also agree that Climate Deniers like Tom Harris should be made to explain themselves. If they think climate change is not likely to be dangerous, they should be able to acknowledge that other scientists disagree and to explain why those scientists are wrong.


    If they cannot or will not, they have no business taking up anyone's time with their blather... As far as I'm concerned, it's an admission they aren't telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Tell that to CCL, Suzuki, Gore, et al.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Tell that to CCL, Suzuki, Gore, et al."

    lol!

    You do realise those people aren't here... right?

    It's just you and the public you've lied to.

    "Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly... Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2014 was 6,970 km³... 59% lower than the maximum in 1979"

    psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly

    ReplyDelete
  33. CB ... if anybody knows about dishonesty and credibility problems, that would be you.

    Still crazy after all these years.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "if anybody knows about dishonesty and credibility problems, that would be you."

    LOL!

    You still don't know how the internet works, do you!?

    Poor, confused creature...

    "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality... the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk--the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke -- is highly implausible"

    www.heartland.org/ideas/smokers-rights

    ReplyDelete
  35. About two weeks ago, Tom, you told CB440 million years ago CO2 levels were 14 times that of today and we were in the depths of the coldest period in the past half billion years. This was a result of our position in the galaxy, it is believed.https://disqus.com/home/discussion/augustafreepress/pope_should_ignore_ghanaian_cardinal_and_un_on_climate_change/#comment-2008060029
    But in 2010, New Scientist ran this report, titled "High-carbon ice age mystery solved":The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO2 levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO2 concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.

    Lee Kump of Pennsylvania State University in University Park says earlier studies missed the dip because they calculated levels at 10-million-year intervals and the ice age lasted only half a million years.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18618-highcarbon-ice-age-mystery-solved.html#.VVqwwVJLd1i
    Seth Young's paper is here: http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~saltzman/youngetal_2010.pdf

    How many years ago was 2010? When you wrote that comment to CB, were you aware of this study and ignored it, or were you simply ignorant of the current state of the science? Incidentally, your Heartland friend Tim Ball sneeringly used the same talking point about high Ordovician carbon levels during his radio debate with Canadian Green Party leader Elizabeth May on March 16 of this year.

    Do you Heartland guys make any attempt to keep up with the science or do you simply repeat old, debunked theories whenever it suits your ideological purposes?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Constant GardenerMay 19, 2015 at 1:35 AM

    Empirical reality will fend for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  37. A quote from Heartland has absolutely ZILCH to do with your lack of integrity, honesty, credibility ... much less your maturity or critical thinking skills.

    Still crazy after all these years.

    ReplyDelete
  38. What an anti-scientific idiot you are not knowing the fundamental difference between opinion/common doxa and episteme/justified belief/ scientific knowledge.

    Pay no attention to this moron, people. He's a paid hack for a harmful consumer product

    ReplyDelete
  39. What are you, a stalker?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yes, this is what the science wars of the 1990 was about - see http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/science-wars-what-scientists-know-and-how-they-know-it.html

    ReplyDelete
  41. Oh heck, since Tom didn't answer, I'll provide his answer myself, consistent with his previous response: One cannot ascribe accuracy to Eratosthenes' opinion that the earth is round.

    ReplyDelete
  42. N.B. You did not address the basic difference between common doxa and episteme aka "justified true belief."

    Your anti-scientific positions will almost certainly never be justified. Never

    ReplyDelete
  43. Step by step instructions for making Tom Harris explain himself:
    http://www.wikihow.com/Catch-a-Greased-Pig

    ReplyDelete
  44. His bs answers are that scientific uncertainty = absolute ignorance.
    What an imbecile!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hi CB.... Do you happen to know why Sky hasn't been posting?

    ReplyDelete
  46. And, you wonder why anyone would call you a denier. You're wrong (and, yes, I know that) about climate change - the science is settled. We KNOW manmade emissions are changing the climate.

    ReplyDelete
  47. t is just their opinions based on their interpretation of the observations they used.
    Nobody knows any of this.

    Therefore the same would be true for the NIPCC, which in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science asserts:Evidence is accruing that changes in Earth’s surface temperature are largely driven by variations in solar activity. ...

    The Sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed twentieth century warming, and perhaps more.
    https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Chapter-3-Solar-Forcing.pdf

    Certainly it is obvious that someone doesn't know any of this.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Are you afraid of siccing me on the Heartland Institute? I'm not asking for the names of your private donors, just whether or not you are receiving Heartland funds.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Unfortunately global warming deniers don't have to disprove the work of scientists in order to validate their own claims. Since Public awareness is what actually influences political change, and because the public is grossly under--informed about the science, all global warming deniers need to do is to create sufficient doubt, so that public knowledge will not cause special interest candidates to lose elections or lose control congress.


    Unfortunately, just as Republicans do with voter ID legislation, they, they offer denial in a neat package which seems to be innocently promoting nothing more than common sense. That's why a few cold days in Texas, successfully negate years of record heat--simply because the public believes deniers who point to such irrelevant factors as being simple matters of common sense, and can circulate a science conspiracy myth that large parts of the public willing to believe.


    But yes, if our paper's opinion pages included specific claims by deniers alongside of actual explanations provided by climate scientists, eventually the public could begin to understand. As far as well-funded deniers go---the emperor really has no clothes and the public needs to be made aware about the illusion that he does!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Mr. Harris,


    Have you ever heard of an educated opinion which is very likely to be true--as opposed to junk science which is designed to deliberately deceive?

    ReplyDelete
  51. This is compounded, as luck would have it, by the fact that the only part of the entire northern hemisphere that has been colder than normal for the past two winters has been the heavily populated northeast U.S. and eastern Canada, home to a disproportionate share of the world's TV and print media. If this cool spot had instead, for example, been located over central Africa and the rest of the world experienced record highs, the level of media skepticism would be a tiny fraction of what it has been. I put this gif animation together from graphs available at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201504.

    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/1i95kEjcILd7IPg2LkDNV27Xj9lStnlrcUO7IkHVxg=w283-h207-p-no

    ReplyDelete
  52. Why?---as a link in one of my guest post illustrates, Al Gore has been widely misquoted and has had many of his views wrongly discredited!

    ReplyDelete
  53. And about how likely, or proven to be accurate that information is.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Nice cop-out Mr. Harris!

    ReplyDelete
  55. But do you think Mr. Harris will ever respond to this obvious contradiction in the research, (opinions) of deniers?

    ReplyDelete
  56. He'll probably reply that it is impossible to know anything, which may be true for him.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Made to order, custom made findings, are the common tools used by deniers. Real scientific research deals with actual facts!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Really? The quote has been proven to be wrong, and the tobacco industry has been proven to have known about the health hazards of smoking all along.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Constant GardenerMay 19, 2015 at 12:06 PM

    I've been learning about you. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/05/tom-harris-free-speech-and.html#more

    ReplyDelete
  60. The Luntz memo is a bit overdone as a meme or 'proof'. Dated 2002, IPCC was 1988, so the the term has far more scientific validity than Luntz is trying to imply.

    And I'm not sure is we'd actually see any evidence that the suggestion was taken to heart; Maybe a word search on LN or other databases for how often and how "climate change" was used as Luntz suggests.

    Part of memo THE ENVIRONMENT:
    A CLEANER SAFER, HEALTHIER AMERICA
    is at https://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  61. Using logical fallacies as an argument is an effort to sidestep the content. Here we have accurate science that is supported by data being presented with the authority of one who has demonstrated expertise in the topic.


    IF you had data supporting a contention that the presentation is invalid by omission or misinterpretation, you would have done so. You didn't. You can't. So you've fallen back on implying rather than trying to bring forward evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Well done! Worth well more than the 3 upvotes (so far).

    ReplyDelete
  63. You've made a claim about a logical fallacy. Your claim is that since you think you see a logical fallacy, all the data is suspect.


    so, in effect, you are using a logical fallacy to base your claim on. I think 'attacking the messenger' is the operating term for your strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Not to mention that the math was pretty accurate....

    http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/~jochen/gtech201/lectures/lec6concepts/Datums/Determining%20the%20earths%20size.htm

    ReplyDelete
  65. And I think that is a logical fallacy..... Which puts a certain light on his use of a logical fallacy as 'proof'......

    ReplyDelete
  66. Thanks. I was under the impression that he was much farther off than that. It's amazing how close Eratosthenes came to the true earth's circumference without modern instrumentation (or at least to our present-day opinion of the earth's circumgerence).

    ReplyDelete
  67. There's a sense of terrible awfulness to such an abuse of one's cognitive (although dull, immature, primitive) faculties

    ReplyDelete
  68. Constant GardenerMay 19, 2015 at 2:32 PM

    I hoped the "blecky blah" would stand in for /s.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "Do you happen to know why Sky hasn't been posting?"

    I have my suspicions!

    He says he's working on a crazy biochar permaculture energy farm which is totally my bailiwick:

    disqus.com/home/discussion/earthtechling/vancouver_joins_the_100_percent_renewable_energy_movement/#comment-1949576756

    Some days, I think I'd rather be doing that than therapy... :/

    ReplyDelete
  70. I mentioned Elizabeth May. She posted this today.
    http://elizabethmaymp.ca/2015-the-year-that-must-change-everything/
    Also, today Canadian public servants across Canada are protesting the Harper government's muzzling of scientists.
    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/scientists-want-contracts-to-guarantee-they-wont-be-muzzled

    ReplyDelete
  71. There is a difference.. They relate what the vast majority of scientists tell us...

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412

    And the consensus of EVERY major science agency in the world

    http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

    You on the other hand, sling the propaganda

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tom_Harris_(Canadian_engineer/PR_specialist)

    That your employers

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

    Tell you to push...

    https://www.heartland.org/tom-harris



    I would relate you to pond scum, but that would be an insult to pond scum. At least it can produce biofuels. You only produce lies and hot air...

    ReplyDelete
  72. Ya gotta keep trying to cure Digger Graves, Davie Russell and SparaFukall.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "... "It is the kind of thing people like Tom Harris and Russell Cook would never watch ...."

    Living rent-free in your mind now, I am? And just how many video presentations, reports, web sites, books, etc have you looked through at length from skeptic sources? Myself, in specific regard to the accusation that skeptics are paid and instructed to knowingly lie, I personally bought copies of Gelbspan's, Oreskes', Hoggan's, Gore's, Leggett's and others' books, I had my own personal DVD copy of An Inconvenient Truth (until I misplaced it at ICCC9), I'm about to write up another review of Merchants of Doubt which I saw right here in town, I watched Greedy Lying Bastards and wrote a review of it ( http://blog.heartland.org/2013/03/movie-review-greedy-lying-bastards-global-warming-skeptics-indicted-or-epic-advocacy-failure/ ), I've sifted through numerous lofty papers by the folks I call 'Skeptic-Trashing Environmental Sociologists' ............. all of which you'd know already if you only took time to read my own GelbspanFiles.com blog posts instead of fleeing from the material in them.

    And you chose to launch into the literally unsupportable assertion that I would never watch it?? I've already dissected video material by Katherine Hayhoe http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/hayhoenova-2011.jpg , which you'd also already know if you would only read my material. Puh-lease, fella, stop and give some thought to the assertions you hurl so that you can avoid these exact kinds of total wipeouts.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Russell! I thought you ran and hid when your boy started getting beat up.

    I can state that I have read, and still read, many denier writings and postings. I also analyze them to understand what they are saying and why it is wrong. That is why I was so confidant I wouldn't lose the Global Warming Challenge - I had seen all the false arguments and lies you guys put out there many times and knew there was no validity to what deniers were saying.

    As for you, I'm sure you pointed your eyes at these references, but I am completely skeptical you read them. That would entail understanding and you have exhibited zero understanding of any of the science. So, I stand by my original statement. That video is not the kind of thing you would watch.

    ReplyDelete
  75. By all means, attend ICCC10 in D.C. in a few weeks and you will hear hours of skeptics, including Harris, explaining at length how they differ from IPCC assessments. Don't expect Mr Keating to give you a ride to it though, or show you what evidence he relies on to prove skeptics are paid and instructed to lie.

    ReplyDelete
  76. You're right, the future is what we are concerned about, so still, why not answer this very relevant question. Surely a person knowledgeable about climate science which you seem to consider yourself as being, is aware that as Co2 emissions accumulate the rate of warming will increase, and may even cross a tipping point threshold. So do you agree that global warming is dangerous or not? You cannot be president of "Tom Harris University," which claims to the only correct knowledge of global warming? But if so, please enlighten us! NO DOUBLE TALK, just your own honest assessments!

    ReplyDelete
  77. I already know how the ICCC differs from IPCC. The IPCC is founded on science, the ICCC is founded on rejection of science. The IPCC is founded on the principle of furthering civilization. The ICCC is founded on the principle of furthering the fossil fuel industry.

    The reason I will not ever attend one of these conferences is simple - I will never allow someone to say I attended one. As analogy, if someone were to fall into a cesspool and you reached in and pulled them out, you would be doing a very good thing. But, you would still be getting your hands dirty.

    Now, I know it is not fair to compare the ICCC to cesspools and I apologize to all of the cesspools in the world, but I prefer to keep this venue family friendly and that is the strongest statement I can make about the ICCC and its attendees under that restriction.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Is that the sound of crickets I'm hearing?

    ReplyDelete
  79. So what do they have to hide? Will the poor babies be traumatised simply by revealing their own identities? Another Fox guarding the henhouse argument if there ever was one!

    ReplyDelete
  80. lol! I don't know if what they have is curable... but at least we can keep it from spreading...


    I'm actually optimistic about David Russell's chances! I think he actually has a conscience...

    ReplyDelete
  81. Chris,


    What does that mean? Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Like in the cartoons when there is no response - its so quiet the only thing you can hear is the crickets chirping.

    Sorry, being obtuse, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "By all means, attend ICCC10 in D.C."

    BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!

    As generous as your invitation is, I'll have to decline.

    There is no way I'm paying money to go to your little liar convention.

    If Tom Harris actually had a point, why hasn't he already made it?

    "A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea."

    www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148

    If he's not here looking for a quote-mine to fuel his persecution complex, what is he doing?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Quite alright, I have just never heard that expression.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "that they try to gloss over the significance of very real data," This is VERY REAL DATA: COOLING since 1997. Data from NOAA satellites. This is not "emphasising short term" 18 years and not "regional weather," GLOBAL...

    ReplyDelete
  86. "that they try to gloss over the significance of very real data," This is VERY REAL DATA: COOLING since 1997. Data from NOAA satellites. Are you gong to gloss over this? This is not "short term" it is 18 years and it is not "regional weather," but GLOBAL...

    ReplyDelete
  87. The white areas have no anomalous temperature, they are normal. The blue-ish areas are COOLER THAN NORMAL.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Voodude, it's been a while. Sorry to see your education level hasn't improved, though.

    See my posting on the State of the Climate report:
    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/05/april-2015-fourth-hottest-april-ever.html

    Oh, by the way, that claim about no warming since 1197 has been busted so many ways and by so many people you should be embarrassed to put your name on it anymore. Here is just one of many times I addressed it:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/first-10000-and-1000-challenges.html

    ReplyDelete
  89. The blackish areas have no anomalous temperature, they are normal. The blue-ish or purple areas are COOLER THAN NORMAL.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Well, even by your very biased claims, there are more hot areas than cool areas. All you did is provide proof that global warming is real, despite the claims of deniers. Bad form, buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  91. There is no sense denying that the earth had warmed up, just as there is no sense denying that it is cooling. What is significantly different about my point is that it is currently cooling and that your point is old news.

    ReplyDelete
  92. And, just like the one below, there are more hot areas than cool one. Do you even bother to read what you write before you submit it? I got it - you're actually a climate scientist in disguise trying to show how silly climate change deniers really are. Good job! You succeeded.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Peter pointed out, "Since Public awareness is what actually influences political change"
    Well, the UN did a poll. "Action on Climate Change" came in dead last

    ReplyDelete
  94. Answer a question for me - If the world is actually cooling, why have nine of the ten hottest years ever recorded occurred since the year 2000? By the way, the random chance of that happening is one in 1.5 trillion.

    ReplyDelete
  95. The IPCC was formed in 1988, to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” It was founded on the assumption of “human-induced climate change”. There was never an attempt to evaluate ALL the scientific evidence. There will never be a conclusion, from the IPCC, that mankind is not responsible - it isn’t in their charter.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
    It is a foregone conclusion that man is responsible; that is incorporated into the documents that founded the IPCC in the first place. The IPCC is, first and foremost, a UN bureaucracy. It is the nature of bureaucracies to pursue their own agendas. “Science” takes a back-seat to politics at the IPCC. The IPCC is an example of how a UN organization took a particular set of political and philosophical beliefs, and dressed them up as “science”.


    ”2. "Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
    http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php











    Maurice Strong established the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) so that all participants were bureaucrats or selected by bureaucrats.

    ReplyDelete
  96. That is both misleading and irrelevant. First, the option given is 'climate change.' But, at the same time, people state that 'jobs' and 'the economy' are important. And, of course, climate change is reducing the standard of living of everyone that isn't a billionaire from selling fossil fuels.

    But, so what? What does that have to do with the reality of climate change? Are you so dense you think the reality of climate change depends on public opinion? I sure hope not.

    ReplyDelete
  97. A linear regression analysis determines a trend ... not a count of hottest years. Proper linear regression analysis has been done on those two NOAA satellite time-series charts. The result is a negative slope.

    ReplyDelete
  98. The IPCC was established to evaluate the status of the climate science in regards to manmade climate change. It is not a scientific body in and of itself. However, it's evaluations and decisions are based on peer-reviewed science and all papers it considers are presented as references. It considers all valid science presented and, contrary to your claims, has considered all contrary viewpoints. It just finds them to be invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Only in the minds of deniers. People such as Roy Spencer have been found to falsify their findings. Do your own analysis, if you think you can do a fair and open-minded evaluation. I provided you with two examples in my posting to show you the record is pretty clear - the world is getting warmer, not cooler. Boy, do I wish we were getting cooler, but we aren't.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Facts, are. You are in charge of interpreting them. Yes, it warmed. You would have preferred that we stayed in the Little Ice Age? What fraction of the warming, since the "industrial revolution" (aka Little Ice Age) is attributed to natural variation? The present temperature rise hasn't exceeded one standard deviation:





    ”... there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.”


    Lloyd, P. J. (2015). An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures Energy & Environment
    http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417

    ReplyDelete
  101. RSS is headed by "a believer" - yet the data from different sets of NOAA satellites apparently comes to the same conclusion. Free from tampering "adjustments" justified by excessive and redundant use of Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res.

    ReplyDelete
  102. "However, it's evaluations and decisions are based on peer-reviewed science and all papers it considers..."
    Therein lies the rub...

    ReplyDelete
  103. Where's the Science in this?

    ”At a news conference [22Jan2015] in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism.

    "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."


    Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3RXh5Tujn

    ReplyDelete
  104. Where's the Science in this?

    IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world's wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” "This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, anymore.”

    http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

    ReplyDelete
  105. I don't consider cherry picking to be applicable when the end of the data is current. If one picks a period, like, 1966-1968, both end-points "picked” ... then, that is cherry picking. But specifying one point, as in, a temperature series, while the other point is "now” ... that's a bit different. What, then, are the alternatives? If the end-point is “now”, either I pick the starting point, or you do... somebody has to pick the starting point... So, then, what is the point in labelling a data series (that has the current point at one end) "Cherry Picking”? The current month is taken as the starting point -no cherry picking- and the root-mean-square, linear regression analysis is computed, going back in time, as far as possible, such that the trend is COOLING. The slope, as returned by the linear regression analysis, is negative. Some temperature time-series do not support any cooling at all. If the data supports the conclusion, then IT IS COOLING. You may argue about the length of the trend, as many are short; or about the statistical significance, because temperature series tend not to be significant, but if the data support the conclusion, IT IS COOLING.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Ah, the Great El Niño ... but that "blip" isn't the "cause" of the COOLING trend... this was done according to the above procedure, starting now, working backwards, but avoiding the Great El Niño - End result? A negative slope. A COOLING trend.

    ReplyDelete
  107. It is perfectly relevant to what Peter pointed out, "Since Public awareness is what actually influences political change" ...
    Public Awareness is - low priority. Dead last, priority.

    ReplyDelete
  108. There are more normal+cool areas, than there are, hot areas.

    ReplyDelete
  109. There are more black areas than red areas... and if one adds COOL to NORMAL, it eclipses the warm areas...

    ReplyDelete
  110. That is truly the epitome of rejecting science and conducting cherry picking. By definition, the black areas are neither cool nor warm. Using your logic, you can just as easily include them in the warm areas, i.e., there are more normal to warm area and they easily eclipse the cool ones. Your very own logic shows the fallacy of your arguments. Please do better.

    ReplyDelete
  111. This topic has been addressed and discussed ad naseum. You have been making the very argument to prove it isn't real. Who says a natural variation has to be a warming one, why can't it be a cooling one? In fact, the natural cycles right now are for a cooling cycle, not a warming one. So, if nature wants to get cooler, but the world is actually getting warmer, we can conclude the difference is due to manmade emissions. There is, of course, a lot more to this argument, but this suffices to make the point.

    ReplyDelete
  112. There are more normal+warm areas than cool ones. You have made my point, thank you. The world is warming.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Science is not dependent on public opinion. The world will do what it does, with, or without, our permission or understanding. This is clear since your lack of understanding, and the understanding of people like you, of the science has not influenced global warming,

    ReplyDelete
  114. Really, still cherry picking? And, why you're at it, where is the ocean heat content? Why are you ignoring 93% of all warming? I guess you just want to pick out as much as you can to justify your rejection of science. Good job on showing deniers have zero credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  115. That is a lovely way to justify rejecting science. And math, too, while you're at it.

    ReplyDelete
  116. There is no science in this at all. So, why is this relevant? The fact that you have cherry picked a statement and taken it out of context only shows you cherry pick everything and reject anything you don't like. The reality of global warming has not changed with, or without, this quote. So, why are your fixating on it in your arguments? Maybe because you have no science to support you?

    The argument is most definitely about distributing the world's wealth. Right now, the fossil fuel industry is taking and everyone else is giving. The fossil fuel billionaires are thriving, and everyone else, including you, ironically, are having their standard of living reduced. Do you really think that is appropriate? And, don't you think the seven billion people in the world who are suffering at the hands of the fossil fuel industry have a right to stand up for their own benefit? I certainly do.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Again, there is no science, so why are your bringing this up in a science topic? If you have science to support your claims, let's hear it. Otherwise, stop with the strawman crap. The reality of global warming and climate change will not go away with, or without, quotes like this.

    And, the truth is, this statement is accurate. A few fossil fuel billionaires are causing the rest of the world to suffer. I think it's time for the other seven billion people in the world to do something about that. We've put up with it for 150 years (actually, much more than that), so they have enjoyed themselves long enough.

    ReplyDelete
  118. You're right - that is the rub. We consider science. You don't.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Really? You just demonstrated how little science you understand and how much you reject it. If your claim was true, how do you explain Berkeley Earth? This was a group of people that set out to prove global warming was false, used an extensive data set completely different from the traditional ones, was funded by Heartland Institute, and hailed by Watts Up With That? Then, they came up with the same results. Ooops! That's embarrassing for deniers.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Ahhh! Cherry picking your data. You want to measure warming relative to the Little Ice Age. That would actually make your arguments even more obviously false, so why would you insist on doing that? Bad denier logic on display!

    We can, and do, remove the natural cycles from the calculations and what we find is the only way we can get the calculations to match the measured data is to include manmade effects. This is particularly true since the natural cycle is for a cooling phase, not a warming one. So, if it's all just natural cycles, why are we warming?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Ignore the blip or not, every year post 1997 is above the pre-1997 trend. Warming has surged not paused. (Thanks Tamino.)
    https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/uah.jpg?w=750&h=407

    ReplyDelete
  122. Boy, has he really cluttered up your site. This page was getting pretty long as it was. I wouldn't blame you at all if you removed some of these bad jokes.

    ReplyDelete
  123. He is paid and he lies, same as you. I admit that correlation does not prove causality.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Constant GardenerMay 19, 2015 at 10:36 PM

    This is an art piece? You've embodying Poe's law or something?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Constant GardenerMay 19, 2015 at 10:43 PM

    If you like mathematical analysis, you'll love Tamino. But will you understand?

    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar/

    ReplyDelete
  126. Constant GardenerMay 19, 2015 at 10:47 PM

    Skeptics? Balderdash! Skeptics go with the data. Richard Muller is a skeptic. Russel Seitz is a skeptic. The ICCC offers only fantasists and deniers.

    ReplyDelete
  127. So you're paid to do that. Big deal.

    Tom didn't watch the video, At least he made no comment on it. Instead he created a big straw man whine about how mistreated he was and distracted the entire conversation, when he simply could have nipped Christopger's accusation in the bud by making a single comment on the video,

    ReplyDelete
  128. I've thought about it, but I think I'll let everything stay as long as it is at least moderately civil.

    ReplyDelete
  129. For UAH, I used the Version 6.0 beta. The Tamino is the old version.

    ReplyDelete
  130. What does Berkeley Earth have to do with Dr
    Carl Mears, of Remote Sensing Systems? Dr Mears is a "believer", yet the RSS data shows the most COOLING.

    ReplyDelete
  131. "we find is the only way we can get the calculations to match the measured data is to include manmade effects."

    ReplyDelete
  132. "if it's all just natural cycles, why are we warming?"
    We're not. After warming to a peak, we have a slight, 17-year COOLING trend.

    We have warmed back up to the average for the Holocene (ignoring the DO event) ... Still not as warm as other portions of the Holocene (there goes your "unprecedented" argument)... And of the warmed-up portion, since the Little Ice Age, ”about a quarter of the claimed global warming since 1900 is actually an artifact of adjustments.”


    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/how-much-have-adjustments-contributed-to-global-warming/

    ReplyDelete
  133. Rejecting science and math? Your "nine of the ten hottest years ever recorded" is completely without a mathematical basis. Linear regression analysis properly assigns "weight" to each temperature reading (monthly) - by "least squares" - and assigned a trend line that is universally regarded as "best fit" for a line.


    So what "science" is rejected by NOAA satellites measurement of Lower Troposphere Temperature by oxygen brightness?

    ReplyDelete
  134. It isn't picking cherries - it is mathematical. Start with the current data, work backwards, using RMS Linear Regression, determine just how far back in the record you can go, with a negative slope. The left end is determined mathematically, the right end is "now" - so I don't get to pick anything, so: no cherries. You want to do it to the older version of UAH? Fine, here it is:

    ReplyDelete
  135. "A few fossil fuel billionaires are causing the rest of the world to suffer."

    Governments make more, from the sale of coal, oil, gas, gasoline, diesel - than the sum of producers+refiners+retailers.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I am refuting Christopher's claim that the IPCC "was established to evaluate ... climate science ... it's evaluations and decisions are based on peer-reviewed science .. It considers all valid science presented

    I refuted that by pointing out two quotes by high-up leaders of the IPCC making public statements of a highly-political nature, unsupported by science or published papers...

    Christopher said that I "cherry picked a statement and taken it out of context"

    Please, tell me the full context of "we redistribute ... the worlds' wealth" and "nothing to do with environmental policy anymore" ... Tell me how that is a scientific decision, backed by peer reviewed, published papers.... Or, admit that the IPCC is a bureaucratic organization with an agenda to redistribute wealth and eliminate capitalism...

    ReplyDelete
  137. Christopher said I should "stop with the strawman crap."

    A straw-man arugment is one where I put words in someone else's mouth, or that I declare that their position is "X" - and then I refute the words I placed, or refute the position of "X", and then declare that I have defeated the person, who never said those words, or upheld the position "X" at all.

    When I exactly quote a person, as I did of Maurice Strong and Christiana Figueres, then I did not put words in their mouths ... So, how is that a straw man argument?

    Recall that investors business daily said, of Figueres, that her position is that "the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism." So, since IBD said that, how is it MY logical fallacy of a straw man argument?

    Christopher, I think you didn't understand what a "straw man" argument was, based upon your use of the words, in reply to me. Perhaps you were just grasping at straws?

    ReplyDelete
  138. Christopher, your rejection of science is manifested by rejecting the NOAA data processed by UAH. That "only shows you cherry pick everything and reject anything you don't like."

    ReplyDelete
  139. "You want to measure warming relative to the Little Ice Age"
    No, I want to measure 1960-1990 against the average temperature of the Holocene (minus the DO excursion). By that standard, the earth is below normal.

    ReplyDelete
  140. So, to see if I understand your position, Christopher, are you saying that the temperature at the exit of the Little Ice Age is where the earth should remain - the ideal temperature - and the earth has risen 0.60°C ? Or 0.80°C? (you provide the figure) ... and that, had it not been for Mannkind's emissions, the temperature rise would have been, say -0.50C?

    ReplyDelete
  141. That won't make any difference. Maybe one or two points close to the red line will be pushed slightly below it, but the rest will remain well above the trend. Tamino performed the same exercise with six different datasets -- HadCRUT4, NCDC, NASA GISS, Cowtan & Way, RSS and UAH -- and except for one or two points, the results were the same with all of them -- NO PAUSE. And look how close UAH v6 Beta is to UAH v5.6 and RSS. NO PAUSE.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yIO-yOEvCL4/VUDxh20iavI/AAAAAAAAJMk/burIFs5NrPg/s1600/UAH%2Bv6beta%2Bv5.6%2Band%2BRSS%2BLower%2BTroposphere%2BTemperature.png

    ReplyDelete
  142. On second thought, replying that it is impossible to know anything would still contradict the NIPCC document, wouldn't it? I think you're right. Tom has put himself between two rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  143. The problem, Tom, is you have had your hands dirty every step of the way. You worked for as the operations director for a fossil fuel lobbying group, but claim you're not a fossil fuel lobbyist. You now work for a group that was funded by fossil fuel interests and, in turn, funded a fossil fuel interests. But, you say you are not funded by fossil fuel. You worked for a company that promoted the tobacco industry and are strongly aligned with the Heartland Institute, which promotes the tobacco industry interests (taking money from them, giving speeches at their events and being listed on their website as one of their 'experts') and yet, you claim you are not a tobacco industry supporter.

    It would be so much easier to think you aren't a liar if your track record didn't say, repeatedly, that you are.

    So, the question remains, why are you so adamant about lying about all of this? After all, you didn't break any laws by being paid by the fossil fuel industry or supporting tobacco, so why insist otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Considering how much time and effort you have spent here misleading people, it's pretty clear you do care. So, why not just come clean?

    ReplyDelete