Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[B. W.]

More asked to leave because he is a crank and his shoddy work/cherry picking on sea levels can't stand replication believes in dowsing and conspiracy theory.

And yet, before he disagreed with their actions the IPCC considered him, as a highly credentialed scientist, to be the perfect person to head up that committee.

Meanwhile, another highly credentialed scientist speaks out against computer models based on manipulated data and explains why they come up wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ

[Genava]

Lets go back to my earlier point that is:

...your NASA + NOAA references we know have been tampered with the data & are therefore STILL false/unreliable...
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/...tipping-point/

???
You are the same person than B.W.?

(Because he posted the same link before. Is it your earlier point or you were speaking more generally)

And I gave an answer before:

The datasheet is build with the data from the meteorological stations only. Their datasheet in the Google Drive is however not clear about the 2019 version they are using and this is where there are the discrepancies. In contrary with the others versions listed in the datasheet, the 2019 does not have its own sheet with the details. They only put the values they are using and not the full dataset, which make it complicated to understand which data they have downloaded. And this is exactly where I found discrepancies. Here their data and here the data downloaded from NASA:



Here the figures I made with the dataset. Clearly I do not have the same conclusion.


And mines are matching the own comparison made by the NASA, so it seems I am correct and that I downloaded the correct dataset. If the guys in the blog downloaded a different dataset, it could explain why they see such an important difference. Maybe they are comparing apples with oranges.


From here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

[Daruwind]

And yet, before he disagreed with their actions the IPCC considered him, as a highly credentialed scientist, to be the perfect person to head up that committee.

Meanwhile, another highly credentialed scientist speaks out against computer models based on manipulated data and explains why they come up wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ

It is year old....so that´s pretty old.

https://skepticalscience.com/patrick...ate-wrong.html
highly credentialed scientist... Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong Okey, so we discard this one? Neeeeext!

EDIT: I just wanted to show that what you consider highly credential is considered pretty low by others...perhaps. And yeah, this is pretty low level argumenting. I´m just trolling your style B.W. as you put similar low effort into your random shoutouts...

[conon394]

And yet, before he disagreed with their actions the IPCC considered him, as a highly credentialed scientist, to be the perfect person to head up that committee.

Meanwhile, another highly credentialed scientist speaks out against computer models based on manipulated data and explains why they come up wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ

"Highly Credentialed scientist - one. And how other highly credentialed are on the other side?

Let's see Heisenberg I think you will agree he was highly credential as a scientist. And there he was in charge of the German Atomic program during WW2, along will a team of other notable scientists. While they were very good scientists they were collectively fantastically bad at figuring out how to make and Atomic bomb and more or less concluded it altogether not feasible in any military applicable way. Yo the extent Manhattan project scientists who listened to them talking after the war in custody were stunned by how crude their conceptual work was.

The problem with this guy an his theories or the previous paper you cited are basically that they cherry pick data and produce models that tend to be not reproducible by anyone else and wave away contrary data - you did not both to review i cited that examined the 2% non consensus work did you?

[B. W.]

It is year old....so that´s pretty old.

https://skepticalscience.com/patrick...ate-wrong.html
highly credentialed scientist... Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong Okey, so we discard this one? Neeeeext!

EDIT: I just wanted to show that what you consider highly credential is considered pretty low by others...perhaps. And yeah, this is pretty low level argumenting. I´m just trolling your style B.W. as you put similar low effort into your random shoutouts...

Well since there has technically been no global warming since 1996, it could be argued that he was right. As far as the AGW scientists record on climate predictions, they haven't done any better:

A new ice age and worldwide starvation: In the 1960s and ’70s, top mainstream media outlets, such as Newsweek above, hyped the imminent global-cooling apocalypse. Even as late as the early 1980s, prominent voices still warned of potential doomsday scenarios owing to man-made cooling, ranging from mass starvation caused by cooling-induced crop failures to another “Ice Age” that would kill most of mankind.
Among the top global-cooling theorists were Obama’s current “science czar” John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, which predicted mass starvation worldwide. In the 1971 textbook Global Ecology, the duo warned that overpopulation and pollution would produce a new ice age, claiming that human activities are “said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend.” The pair fingered “jet exhausts” and “man-made changes in the reflectivity of the earth’s surface through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts” as potential triggers for his new ice age. They worried that the man-made cooling might produce an “outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap” and “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”
Holdren predicted that a billion people would die in “carbon-dioxide induced famines” as part of a new “Ice Age” by the year 2020.
Ehrlich, a professor at Stanford University, similarly claimed in a 1971 speech at the British Institute for Biology, “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.” He added, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.”
To stave off the allegedly impending ecological disasters, the two alarmists demanded the implementation of “solutions.” In the book Ecoscience, the duo pushed a “planetary regime” to control resources, as well as forced abortions and sterilization to stop overpopulation, including drugging water and food supplies with sterilizing agents.
Countless other scientists have offered similar cooling warnings. Fortunately, the alarmists were dead wrong, and none of their “solutions” was implemented. Not only did “billions” of people not die from cooling-linked crop failures, but the globe appears to have warmed slightly since then, probably naturally, and agricultural productivity is higher than it ever has been. Now, though, the boogeyman is anthropogenic global warming, or AGW.
Global warming — temperature predictions: Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.
The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature data*sets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work.

"Highly Credentialed scientist - one. And how other highly credentialed are on the other side?

Let's see Heisenberg I think you will agree he was highly credential as a scientist. And there he was in charge of the German Atomic program during WW2, along will a team of other notable scientists. While they were very good scientists they were collectively fantastically bad at figuring out how to make and Atomic bomb and more or less concluded it altogether not feasible in any military applicable way. Yo the extent Manhattan project scientists who listened to them talking after the war in custody were stunned by how crude their conceptual work was.

The problem with this guy an his theories or the previous paper you cited are basically that they cherry pick data and produce models that tend to be not reproducible by anyone else and wave away contrary data - you did not both to review i cited that examined the 2% non consensus work did you?

See above.

[conon394]

Well since there has technically been no global warming since 1996, it could be argued that he was right. As far as the AGW scientists record on climate predictions, they haven't done any better:

Ha Ha that's funny maybe you can email that to my wife so she stops adapting grain to deal warmer growing seasons where its planted (or more irregular ones as per rapid warming ). I sure its all a fantastic mistake her and her government colleges and those in industry are making.

Obama’s current “science czar” John

Umm Obama is appointing people wow he's good a coup and Trump failed to notice.

You problem remains so two scientists made a mistake (although notably in books where you can always go to town on your most extreme theories or are writing to make a noise). Its no more a useful point than digging up a Patrick Michaels now (even less so if you read anyone else's link and followed the sub links you would see there was no published consensus that global cooling was a thing when John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich flirted with it. Recall there main point was a population based degradation of the planet. And in longer term they have something of a point a lot people are effectively malnourished and chronically underfed and the agricultural methods feeding them are more precarious than most people realize.. What if no one child policy in China for example.

In any case the study you ignored you know the one that found no cooling consensus?

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

"THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS BY THOMAS C. PETERSON, WILLIAM M. CONNOLLEY, AND JOHN FLECK "

[Stario]

???
You are the same person than B.W.?

(Because he posted the same link before. Is it your earlier point or you were speaking more generally)

And I gave an answer before:

Yet another round of spectacular data tampering by NASA..."cooling the past and warming the present". NASA graphs are unreliable- NASA tampered with the data.
PLEASE stop posting the same unreliable NASA/NOAA graphs you've already posted in earlier posts.
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/...tipping-point/

[Genava]

This paper was just published and it refutes the IPCC report on climate change. AWG warming is only 0.01C.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

CLAIM: "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice... During the last hundred years the temperature is increased [sic] about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C."

Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new study. In reality, there is no new published study. The claim comes from a six-page document uploaded to arXiv, a website traditionally used by scientists to make manuscripts available before publication. This means that this article has not been peer-reviewed, so there is no guarantee to its credibility.

If the blogs that covered this as a new study had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility.

As the scientists who examined this claim explained, the document relies on circular reasoning to claim that cloud cover and relative humidity have caused the change in global temperature, and ignores many additional factors affecting global temperature—including aerosol pollution, volcanic eruptions, and natural ocean oscillations. The published, peer-reviewed scientific research on this topic clearly shows that human activities are responsible for climate change.

Review by several scientists here:
https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/

[B. W.]

And yet another perspective on climate change. It seems Antarctica was much, much warmer in the past:

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/ant...d-life-was-ok/

[conon394]

"Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
This text may look like a scientific article to a lay-person, but I would not accept it as a bachelor thesis. "

That made me laugh because I ran that BW link past my wife and she looked at me quizzically and asked if it was it a hoax or just a failed bachelors thesis. No methods section, data annex, discussion, self citing of unpublished manuscripts (that's a knock even in history or women's studies) on top of self citing from minor journals (sure go ahead if you got something in Nature but...).

[Genava]

Yet another round of spectacular data tampering by NASA..."cooling the past and warming the present". NASA graphs are unreliable- NASA tampered with the data.
PLEASE stop posting the same unreliable NASA/NOAA graphs you've already posted in earlier posts.
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/...tipping-point/

Well, this seems a bogus argument. Why the NASA and the NOAA would be tampering the data while they are publishing the changes in their website and publishing their methods in peer-reviewed papers? Everybody is seeing that they are making changes. Their website even allows the user to compare each versions with another. NASA's scientists are smarts but not that much to hide their evil tricks? Actually, they gave good arguments for these changes and everything is transparent and free to access. The changes by each versions are not consistent with the purpose of increasing the warming trend since even older values get warmer (which is actually reducing the warming trend). In fact, it seems that the website you are relying on is actually the source of deceptive arguments and manipulation. Their dataset is comparing two different types of data to make you believe that the changes are very high (going up to 0.4°C while they are less than 0.15°C with a correct dataset comparison). And their perpetual recall to the figure of Hubert Lamb made in 1965 as a proof of manipulation is not only deceptive, this is as well really stupid.

At the end, your argumentation from all your messages in this thread looks like this:

You are saying that the dataset from the NASA, an American independent agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the NOAA, an American government agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the MetOffice, a British government agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the JMA, a Japanese government agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the Berkeley Earth, an American independent non-profit organization, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), an American state-supported research university, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), an American private research company, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the ECMWF, an independent intergovernmental organisation supported by 34 states, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

Etc.






Scientists Find Observed Satellite Temperature Data Sets from Three Independent Research Groups Have Less Than a One-in-3.5 Million Chance of Occurring in the Absence of Human-Induced Global Warming
http://www.rescuethatfrog.com/scient...lobal-warming/

Recent global warming as confirmed by AIRS
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/aafd4e

[RandomPerson2000]

Various newsites and blogs are now claiming that along with the arXig pre-print/manuscript, a paper from Kobe University published on Nature, disproves man-made global warming. Showing that cosmic rays do affect the Earth's climate by forming clouds which traps heat, except that the paper is actually looking at this effect during the last geomagnetic reversal which was over 700,000 years ago, not during the current global warming. It appears that much of the information various articles are getting about it are not from the paper itself, but from news releases about it such as this article from the Kobe University website or from ScienceDaily as this Zerohedge article uses it, where the author calls the news agreggator a science journal.

Links
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8#
http://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_..._07_03_01.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0703121407.htm
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...exist-practice

At the end, your argumentation from all your messages in this thread looks like this:

You are saying that the dataset from the NASA, an American independent agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the NOAA, an American government agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the MetOffice, a British government agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the JMA, a Japanese government agency, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the Berkeley Earth, an American independent non-profit organization, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), an American state-supported research university, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), an American private research company, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

You are saying that the dataset from the ECMWF, an independent intergovernmental organisation supported by 34 states, is manipulated to create a warming trend.

Etc.

Because it always has to be a globalist conspiracy that's going to impose the new world order, no matter how flimsy the evidence for it actually existing.

[Genava]

Various newsites and blogs are now claiming that along with the arXig pre-print/manuscript, a paper from Kobe University published on Nature, disproves man-made global warming. Showing that cosmic rays do affect the Earth's climate by forming clouds which traps heat, except that the paper is actually looking at this effect during the last geomagnetic reversal which was over 700,000 years ago, not during the current global warming. It appears that much of the information various articles are getting about it are not from the paper itself, but from news releases about it such as this article from the Kobe University website or from ScienceDaily as this Zerohedge article uses it, where the author calls the news agreggator a science journal.

Links
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8#
http://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_..._07_03_01.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0703121407.htm
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...exist-practice

Same kind of situation with the paper from Zharkova, including huge astronomical mistakes in its calculations:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...lobal-warming/
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inq...7b7dbbf87e6491
https://pubpeer.com/publications/341...7A2E6A44847C24
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...tific-reports/

[B. W.]

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

CLAIM: "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice... During the last hundred years the temperature is increased [sic] about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C."

Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new study. In reality, there is no new published study. The claim comes from a six-page document uploaded to arXiv, a website traditionally used by scientists to make manuscripts available before publication. This means that this article has not been peer-reviewed, so there is no guarantee to its credibility.

If the blogs that covered this as a new study had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility.

As the scientists who examined this claim explained, the document relies on circular reasoning to claim that cloud cover and relative humidity have caused the change in global temperature, and ignores many additional factors affecting global temperature—including aerosol pollution, volcanic eruptions, and natural ocean oscillations. The published, peer-reviewed scientific research on this topic clearly shows that human activities are responsible for climate change.

Review by several scientists here:
https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/

Peer review? Peer review is a joke. It is simply a means for academia to maintain the status quo. The history of academia in regards to peer review is dismal. The list of careers ruined by peer review is long and disgraceful. These are the same people who would have us believe that roving bands of Clovis people wiped out 14 million mammoths in the Pleistocene.

Further, the IPCC is very select in publishing its reports and simply do not publish any credible reports that contradict its preordained conclusions. I noticed that the IPCC chart you published did not mention any data compiled by the UA in Huntsville specifically because it contradicts the IPCC data. I wish I had more time, but at the moment I'm too busy to go into further detail at the moment.

[Daruwind]

Peer review? Peer review is a joke. It is simply a means for academia to maintain the status quo. The history of academia in regards to peer review is dismal. The list of careers ruined by peer review is long and disgraceful. These are the same people who would have us believe that roving bands of Clovis people wiped out 14 million mammoths in the Pleistocene.

Further, the IPCC is very select in publishing its reports and simply do not publish any credible reports that contradict its preordained conclusions. I noticed that the IPCC chart you published did not mention any data compiled by the UA in Huntsville specifically because it contradicts the IPCC data. I wish I had more time, but at the moment I'm too busy to go into further detail at the moment.

So basically what you are saying is...all public institutions are corrupted, all data tampred with, they are focusing to undermine any other opinion and we have to believe those outlaws, who cannot get peer review, who has to do all the data themselves as they have no finances nor resources and capabilities and who are being harrassed and kept away from spotlight so they are looking like shaddy figures by those public almighty organizations?

You know what was my first idea?
“If the government is covering up knowledge of aliens, they are doing a better job of it than they do at anything else.”
― Stephen Hawking

[conon394]

Peer review? Peer review is a joke. It is simply a means for academia to maintain the status quo.

The first line from somebody who can't make the cut. Again BW peer review is why that pathetic paper you cited (#389)is unpublished because it not credible science. Peer review is not perfect but it does work and not some bizarre conspiracy. Just as the journal system is not perfect either since there are poor journals that do a bad job of looking at submitted work and poor job of getting (or caring to get) the correct review panel or finding somebody to pre review the work and return it for lacking things like a methods section. The system is not perfect but when journalist can cite the paper in 389 and not see the fact its not even a good passing paper from a MA student that you at least need to admit you need to propose an alternative not just tossing crap on the web.

[Genava]

I noticed that the IPCC chart you published did not mention any data compiled by the UA in Huntsville specifically because it contradicts the IPCC data

Check yourself their website:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/


UAH satellite data is similar to the RSS data, so I see no contradiction with IPCC data. There is a slight difference between ground measurements (measuring a few meters above ground) and satellite measurements (averaging the temperature signal on a few kilometers above ground) but in the end the conclusion is the same: Earth is warming.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[B. W.]

So basically what you are saying is...all public institutions are corrupted, all data tampred with, they are focusing to undermine any other opinion and we have to believe those outlaws, who cannot get peer review, who has to do all the data themselves as they have no finances nor resources and capabilities and who are being harrassed and kept away from spotlight so they are looking like shaddy figures by those public almighty organizations?

You know what was my first idea?
“If the government is covering up knowledge of aliens, they are doing a better job of it than they do at anything else.”
― Stephen Hawking

That's laughable! When the people doing the peer review have their personal reputations or theories at stake the result is preordained. It's happened to many times in the past. The only way it could be credit is if the peer reviewers do not have a dog in the hunt...and that is rare.

That's the problem.

Check yourself their website:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/


UAH satellite data is similar to the RSS data, so I see no contradiction with IPCC data. There is a slight difference between ground measurements (measuring a few meters above ground) and satellite measurements (averaging the temperature signal on a few kilometers above ground) but in the end the conclusion is the same: Earth is warming.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The devil is in the details. here's an example. It doesn't show any temperature anomaly over central Africa and in fact shows cooler temperatures in the Nile delta, etc.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/Gl...ULY%202005.png

[Daruwind]

That's laughable! When the people doing the peer review have their personal reputations or theories at stake the result is preordained. It's happened to many times in the past. The only way it could be credit is if the peer reviewers do not have a dog in the hunt...and that is rare.

That's the problem.

Cool. So we as nuclear physicist should start doing peer review for meteorology and they will do voodoo magic with our field theories and detector calibration? Come on, we have enough own problems with cables and data...

EDIT: anybody remembering https://www.nature.com/news/neutrino...-light-1.10249 Point is, mistakes happen. That is natural part of research, no conspiracy needed..

The devil is in the details. here's an example. It doesn't show any temperature anomaly over central Africa and in fact shows cooler temperatures in the Nile delta, etc.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/Gl...ULY%202005.png

Pardon me, but you are again showing complete lack of understanding of the materials...global map is showing local results for July 2019, graph is showing average per month. Just look at map of 2019...there is more yellowish stuff than there is blueish. So result must be overall in red...What you say would be truth only if the graph was labeled like local over Central Africa/Nile Delta..

[conon394]

That's laughable! When the people doing the peer review have their personal reputations or theories at stake the result is preordained. It's happened to many times in the past. The only way it could be credit is if the peer reviewers do not have a dog in the hunt...and that is rare.

I got no ideal what you are talking about. You have a list of peer reviews that killed careers and that some reviewer was shown to malicious not just pointing out defects in a paper please link away... So what is you alternative BW? How would validate the quality of a paper before allowing to be published as a worthwhile addition to the body of science?