Climate Change Denialism from Fox News (and CNN) in One Picture
Australia Smaustralia, California Drought! Heck we had record cold in Buffalo. And ice in ATLANTA!!! So anthropogenic climate change is obviously a myth!
(And since Clarence Thomas never saw racism in the 60’s South when he was a boy that is an obvious Lie-Beral myth too)
Shorter FAUX News. To save you ‘al the bandwidth.
Bruce frames the question of anthropogenic climate change as weather. (Read his examples.) Yes, CA has droughts. AU, primarily a desert country, is hot. While here in the US we have had a cold and snowy Winter.
While we’re at it, EU has been warmer than normal and the UK has had floods, AL has been warmer than normal, all of this is WEATHER. Weather occurs because of temperature differentials. If one area is warmer than usual then another will experience cold. Amazed yet?
US Progressive politicians are desperate to change the subject from their current record of failures. Therefore, we see the emphasis on Climate Change. It will be worse loser, because it is just not supported by the data.
This: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png is what has happened during the Holocene, the current interglacial . This is what is happening now: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/detrend:-0.0735/offset:-0.080/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
And this is why Climate Alarmists do not discuss the Holocene graphs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uif1NwcUgMU ,but concentrate on the Average Surface Temperature Measurements: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1998/trend and more importantly on the period from 1979 through 1998.
But it you just look at the data there are sinusoidal cycles, and the period from 1979 through 1998, a warm period of one of the cycles, was when the Climate Change theory gained momentum.
We are entering a cooling cycle, that some scientists think will last for several decades, due to solar reduction, and ocean cooling cycles in the Pacific and the Atlantic. The pacific cycle has already started. The Solar cycle is already one of the lowest in many decades and the Atlantic cycle is near its turning point.
The last time this happened for an extended period it was called the Little Ice Age, and didn’t bode well for mankind. Be worried about cooling! Warming is actually good for us and the planet.
I loved that cover!!
A better and more telling one would be from the view point of San Francisco. In that one the end of the known world would stop at the crest of the Sierras.
Wait until the ice melts. See if that SUV can float.
Some things ya can’t fix. I’m thinking Fox News is one of those things.
Dilbert your real San Fransciscan sees the world as stopping at the Caldecott Tunnel. And the super die-hards where the Bay Bridge enters the tunnel at Yerba Buena Island. They do accept Marin County and Atherton as part of their world and understand that you can visit the Wine Country of Sonoma/Napa without a visa and maybe that Tahoe and Yosemite exist. But I am afraid that for most ‘The Big Valley’ is just an old western and not an actual place where people live and grow their food.
It is not a coincidence that long time residents of the SF Bay Area call SF ‘The City’. As if there is no other.
CoRev’s predictable comment got stuck in moderation. I approved it and it should show up sometime. But it ignores the whole point.
If this was a dispute over data as such it would be fine, but until or unless the idiots on Fox News stop takng every new sub-zero temperature reading on the East Coast as ‘proof’ that Global Warming is a myth then you can save me those tired ol’ hockey stick links.
CoRev you have over the last ten years laid down with morons and like a good soldier repeated every talking point from Iraq to Climate Change while never for a second accepting counter evidence and still demand to be taken seriously. Because ‘Links!’ Or something. Give it a rest.
Bruce, lost in moderation???? For those wondering about the “Boo” comment, now you know.
Bruce, there is NO ARGUMENT over mankind’s impact(s) on local climate. It is adjusted for in the average surface temperature calculations. But, the amount of their influence is questioned, and current DATA shows it to be minimal and over ridden by NATURAL influences, and the at is the crux of the argument.
You rant at anyone disputing your own comments, but fail to accept the DATA?????? That’s denial.
It is not “the data”, it is “your data”.
EM claims I have my own set of Average Surface Temperature Measurement data. Really? does that mean using the SkS and/or the Wood For Tree tool and the data they have listed makes the data mine? Does it mean that using the Prof Alley GISP (Greenland Ice Core) or Vostok Antarctic ice core data in a graph makes it my data?
Grasping at straws is not making an argument.
Bruce, you have not show what Fox News claimed. Only your own interpretation/opinion of what it was is in your article. BTW, how far in their cheek was their tongue while laughing at the AGW religion. Because it sure isn’t strong science. Kerry’s latest rant is evidence of how deep is the religion.
All, not some.
Here is how it works.
You take a graph and make up what it means(that is the Enron part). Funnier is that you take a graph from a renowned climate scientist who would laugh at your fiction, unless he was too insulted to laugh.
“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores (which demonstrate that the GISP2 record is quite good and reproducible), and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount.
> More sunshine from orbital changes produces warming. The magnitude looks consistent with our understanding of the climate system.
> Some of the “wiggles” in temperature (such as the Little Ice Age signal) correlate with changes in solar output. The beryllium-10 record provides an imperfect but useful estimate of the past variations of solar output, after correction for effects of magnetic-field variation on beryllium-10 production. The resulting solar fluctuations have been small over the times of good climate records, with small climate response, as expected. Again, there is no solid evidence for any weirdness, special sensitivity of climate to the sun, or large solar variations, but instead a generally good match to expected behavior of the climate system. (I’m among those who have looked very hard to find weirdness, too.)
> Nothing else really weird appears in forcings of climate change. No major changes are found in space dust, which remains rare enough that it cannot have been very important. Large changes in cosmic rays are documented in response to magnetic-field variations (the Laschamp event of about 40,000 years ago is especially prominent) with no corresponding change in climate, so any cosmic-ray influence on the climate must be very small (a weak correlation can be obscured by noise; a strong control is almost always visible “by eye,” and clearly is absent). Volcanic eruptions and local climate response are recorded, and again appear consistent with expectations of climate science. There may be small but interesting time-variations in eruptions, but the record is almost entirely one of “noise”–if volcanoes could get organized they could be very important agents of climate change, but they aren’t organized. (The recent work of Huybers and Langmuir suggests that on ice-age time scales, the loading and unloading of the planet by ice growth/shrinkage and sea-level fall/rise may weakly organize the volcanoes, but not a lot, and with nothing interesting for our time.)
Climate is surely a lot of things. The data show that the sun’s variations have been small over the times we care about, the climate responds to variations in sunshine caused by orbital changes, but these are slow. CO2 matters a lot. Volcanoes make “noise.” With those in your pocket, you’re a long way to understanding changes in Earth’s climate—not done, but well on your way.
The abrupt-climate-change story remains interesting, though. Today, the salty north Atlantic waters sink before they freeze in the winter. The data indicate that at times in the past, the north Atlantic was fresher so the waters froze before they sank. The resulting wintertime cooling in the north Atlantic was rather severe, and the influences far from the north Atlantic included a general southward shift of the tropical circulations and drying of monsoonal and northern-tropical regions where billions now live. The IPCC gives >90% chance that the melting of Greenland’s ice and other changes in the future will not be fast enough to trigger such a discontinuity over the next century, but >90% is not necessarily 100%. The implications, that slowing down or stopping the melting may buy insurance against a rare but catastrophic outcome, are interesting.
So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response. ”
Dr. Richard Alley
EM, What is your understanding of what Alley is saying? I have my own take aways: Alley said this in the above comment: “So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.” And I agree. No one, as I said earlier, is saying warming hasn’t happened since the LIA. Alley’s own data shows that warming similar to today’s and even higher has occurred several times in the Holocene.
And my other take away is: ” With those in your pocket, you’re a long way to understanding changes in Earth’s climate—not done, but well on your way. ” Which indicates there are holes in the ?SETTLED? science of climatology.
What the (not my) data shows is that one of those holes is in the understanding of GHG/CO2 and the failures in the Climate Models’ temperature predictions further shows that they over emphasize warming from them. With their recent failings in your pocket it is easy to then question the understanding of Anthropogenic influence on the Green House Effect, the assumed major driver in climate.
If there are serious questions in the current science, and if the science is not questioned/questionable as Bruce implies, then its adherents have taken it beyond science to a religious belief.
“First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world.”
” Thirdly, demonstration that there have been large climate changes in the past without humans in no way demonstrates that humans are not now responsible. Many people have died naturally but murder still exists; it is up to the police to learn whether a given mortality was natural or not, and up to climate science to learn what is causing ongoing changes”
“So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”
Dr. Richard Alley
A must watch for people who want to know.
EM, I see you persist on using Alley as your source for all climate knowledge, but ignore his own data. Let me show it even again: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Let me remind you that I also showed the several Vostok Ice Core graphs showing similar trends on both HEMISPHERES. Not a single point, but worse, even the Marcott proxy study of last year covering many sites around the world showed a similar trend. mtrcott’s study went off the tracks when he tried to reinforce the hockey stick with specious data and statistics.
I repeat my question: who is disputing global warming? Certainly not I. I do seriously question exactly what Ally claims is the “control knob” since that pesky hiatus and the failure of the climate model predictions disproves that.
Science is hard. Understanding the nuances within it takes more than blind faith. So far that is what we are left with from the alarmist community.
You are taking Alley’s data and making it into something it is not. As he states at best your thoughts and others like you are “surely not scientifically sensible.”
Your “models are inaccurate” inanity is surely another case of taking the evidence you like and ignoring the rest. You should try to figure out what models are. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/
Then look at the runs of all of the IPCC models overlaid with actual observations.
EM, I know you are a true believer. You prove it every time we have a discussion, but at least stay current with the science, and read what you present. Your now quite old RC articles states this: ” Isn’t science precisely the quantification of observations into a theory or model and then using that to make predictions? Yes. And are those predictions in different cases then tested against observations again and again to either validate those models or generate ideas for potential improvements?”
Let’s test those predictions against current REAL observations: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png. These are TWO versions newer than your CMIP3-based comment and compares them against EIGHT years later/longer observations. They are still diverging just as was the insert in your referenced graph.
Repeating the same arguments does not add value. Repeating the graphs of the ACTUAL DATA does add value, and you still have not addressed the data. That is except to claim it is MY DATA?
Both your comment sources are wrong and outdated.
You also claim using Alley’s data to indicate there is a Holocene-long trend, and then ignoring the subject (argue against global warming) of his phrase “surely not scientifically sensible.” actually refutes the trend in his data? I showed you the tools in the last go round. Use them and learn instead of desperately Googling to find supporting evidence to your belief.
It is not the trend in the data, it is the limitation of the data. Think global. It is what scientists do.
Linking to a senile imbecile shows your POV. Two climate science papers. Both so full of errors as to be comical, except one was so bad it almost had to be intentionally full of errors. And you somehow feel comfortable in linking to such.
Of course I am googling to find evidence. I am not a scientist by any stretch.
The funny part is you say so to cast aspersions, while undoubtedly doing the same.
Take your comment on modeling over to RealClimate. I am sure they would love to see the “updated” info you are presenting.
Aren’t you embarrassed by showing a graph with Spencer’s UAH measurements? Y’know, the ones laughed at by all scientists?
Sigh! you repeat your exceptional claims of Spencer being laughed at by ALL scientists. Not just limited to CLIMATE scientists, but ALL scientists?
S if he is laughed at, do you think his UAH data would be used in one of the PREMIER alarmist site, Skeptical Science? If you can support such an absurd claim, then show us all your many, many references, especially those outside the core alarmist climate science blogosphere.
Moreover, since his reputation is so tarnished, his many ongoing congressional, and open debate testimonies should have dried up. I mean who would want to be associated with such buffoonery?
Speaking of which, the quality of your responses is going down hill fast.
What is funny, for all the times I have called a denialist on this blog, alarmists are the ones in DENIAL of the DATA. Funny that.
EM, since you believe the UAH data must be so bad, here is a graph of the available WFT datasets: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1978/to:2014/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/to:2014/plot/rss/from:1978/plot/gistemp/from:1978/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1978
Remember WFT? Its one of those tools available on the internet to analyze and graph the OFFICIAL surface temperature datasets.
Your task is the answer why I picked 1978 as the start date?
And, why there is a difference between the data shown in th3e trends, but almost no difference in the trends.
BTW, that might provide a hint as to the quality of Spencer laughably terrible, awful data. 🙂
Keep working. Your Googling should eventuate in YOU finding the arguments that work from the weak ones you continue to find.
I understand what WFT is, and what some people use it for.
I also understand that Spencer is an imbecile, and though it took ten years, he admitted it himself. Though he continues with his bs, just like you.
“utting aside the problems with their energy budget equation, Dessler looks at the values Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi use for their calculations. Rather than examine the data for two of the terms in their equation (heating of the climate by the ocean & change in cloud cover allowing heat to escape to space), Lindzen and Spencer approximate them from other observations, and their results rely heavily on assumptions about the size of these values.
Rather than rely on assumptions, Dessler uses other observational data (such as surface temperature measurements and ARGO ocean temperature) to estimate and corroborate these values. Dessler finds that, in contrast to Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi, the change in cloud cover is far too small to explain the short-term changes in surface temperature, explaining only a few percent of surface temperature change. In fact, the heating of the climate system through ocean heat transport is approximately 20 times larger than the change in top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy flux due to cloud cover changes. Lindzen and Choi assumed the ratio was close to 2, while Spencer and Braswell assumed it was close to 0.5.
Dessler finds that the short-term changes in surface temperature are related to exchanges of heat to and from the ocean – which tallies well with what we know about El Niño and La Niña, and their atmospheric warming/cooling cycles.
In order to claim that the climate models differ from observations when comparing the surface temperature and energy leaving the Earth at TOA with the lead-lag between them, Spencer/Braswell cherrypick observational data and model results that show the greatest mismatch (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Dessler (2011) reconstruction of Spencer & Braswell’s figure 3, showing relationship between top-of-atmosphere (TOA) net flux and surface temperature, as a function of lag between them. The blue line is the observational data chosen by Spencer and Braswell. The red lines show other available observational data. The shading represents the two-sigma uncertainty of two of the data sets. The black lines show climate model results. The black lines with crosses show the climate model runs chosen by Spencer and Braswell in their paper.
The blue line in Figure 1 is the TOA and Hadley Centre surface temperature data chosen by Spencer/Braswell, and the red includes other datasets of the surface temperature. The black lines are the 13 climate model runs, with the ‘crosses’ indicating 5 of the 6 models analysed by Spencer/Braswell. Although Spencer/Braswell analyzed 14 models, they only plotted the 3 with highest and 3 with lowest equilibrium climate sensitivities.
In the process, Spencer and Braswell excluded the three climate model runs which best matched the observational data. Dessler found that these three model runs were also the ones which are among the best at simulating El Niño and La Niña, which is not surprising, given that much of the temperature change over 2000-2010 was due to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Thus Dessler concludes that
“since most of the climate variations over this period were due to ENSO, this suggests that the ability to reproduce ENSO is what’s being tested here, not anything directly related to equilibrium climate sensitivity.”
And take your “hiatus” or “pause” and shove it
You may have heard climate scientists, myself included, state that “global warming” has indeed continued with little interruption over the past 10-15 years, but that more of the heat trapped in the climate system by greenhouse gases has been “going into the ocean”.
Change in energy content of different components of the climate system (IPCC, 2013)
This is not the rhetoric of irrational climate alarmists. This is what the measurements show.
The human enhancement of the greenhouse effect has reduced the outgoing radiation to space and increased the energy content of the climate system, as is shown on the graph to the right.
The best known manifestation of this energy budget change is the warming of the lower atmosphere: that excess radiant energy being converted into warmer air temperatures. However, in terms of the change in total energy, the famous change in the atmosphere (purple) pales in comparison to that of the oceans (light and dark blue).
It makes physical sense: the oceans are a big deep reservoir of a liquid with high heat capacity. A change in average ocean temperatures requires a lot more heat than an equivalent change in average surface air temperatures.
The graph shows that >90% of the excess heat generated by enhancement of the greenhouse effect has gone into the oceans. Now, suppose that decade-scale natural variability in ocean circulation marginally increases the fraction going into the ocean (dark blue), say from 92% to 93%, at the expense of the atmosphere. You’d barely see it on the above graph, because the ocean slice is so big and the atmosphere slice is so small. But it would cause a noticeable change in the rate of atmospheric temperature increase.
The ocean data suggests that has happened over the past 10-15 years. The next graph, from Trenberth and Fasullo (2013), depicts the change in ocean heat content only, expressed for the upper ocean (light blue) and the total depth of the ocean (purple).
This graph shows that in the late 1990s, right after the last strong El Nino event, ocean heat storage increased in part because ocean depths below 700 m began accumulating heat. The change in where heat is being accumulated was probably driven by the decade-scale variability in Pacific Ocean conditions.
Had this bump in ocean heat uptake happened when human activity was not warming the climate system overall, the global average surface air temperatures would have declined. The fact that the global surface temperature trend has been slightly positive since the late 1990s is a testament to the fact that human activity has been warming the whole climate system.
I see you found climatecrocks, a site written by someone with a similar personality as yours, but your reference actually does not support your contention: “being laughed at by ALL scientists.”
This climate Scientist, Dr R Pielke, Sr, did an analysis, not of the Dressler paper, but of its printing cycle. My conclusion from his article was that Spencer and Brasswell must have hit a home run. Putting the orthodox climate community on its ear. Article here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/comments-on-the-dessler-2011-grl-paper-cloud-variations-and-the-earths-energy-budget/
Since when does a difference between scientific views foster the ridicule you and climatecrocks demonstrate? I think only when they do not support the orthdoxy.
Your 2nd reference we’ve already talked about. It changes the metric from Average Measured Surface Temperature to Ocean Heat Content. Changing the metric does not prove anything. it like saying look, this apple and that tractor tire are both round, so installing the apple on the tractor is just fine.
You might find this latest Spencer article interesting. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/
With practice your getting better, but your bias still blinds you to alternative sites.
No, my bias blinds me from reading people I think are dishonest and/or uneducated in the field.
That is Pielke..
Unless you think the oceans are not warming ,Arctic sea ice is not melting and sea level is not rising.
All of those Pielke has said.
Let me know when you have proof he is does not meet one or both of my biases.
BTW, the animus shown to Spencer and his bud was not because of different views, but because Spencer looked at 14 models but thought it made sense to only use 6 for his findings.
Geez, wonder why?
EM, Pielke is uneducated in climate science. Please, please look before you make a bigger fool of yourself. Pielke like Spencer, Curry and many others on the “hate list” is a PFD in the science, well written, and actually a luke warmer.
Speaking of Spencer, I have yet to read the comments, but he had what was obviously a controversial blog article just yesterday. It blew up to close to 400 comments, many times his norm, within 24 hours. Its here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/