Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,
The amount of climate scaremongering in the past few weeks is stunning. And it's all pure bullshit.
Check out these headlines.
A participant in the IPCC, who resigned, atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He is noted for his work in dynamic meteorology, atmospheric tides, ozone photochemistry, quasi-biennial oscillation, and the Iris hypothesis. Lindzen is certainly qualified to talk about the physics of the atmosphere, where the greenhouse effect occurs. Several key points of the talk are summarized below.
The amount of climate scaremongering in the past few weeks is stunning. And it's all pure bullshit.
 |
| Excelsior! |
Wall Street Journal: U.N. Panel Warns Drastic Action Needed to Stave Off Climate Change
New York Times: Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040
The Intercept: FOSSIL FUELS ARE A THREAT TO CIVILIZATION, NEW U.N. REPORT CONCLUDES
Earther: We Have a Decade to Prevent a Total Climate Disaster
MarketWatch: Drastic action needed to prevent climate catastrophe, U.N. panel warns
Daily Caller: AL GORE: ‘WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME’ ON GLOBAL WARMING
Q&A
Q.What do all of those headline have in common?
A. They are all based on the same study. The study is riddled with huge numbers of blatant errors making the study for lack of better words, pure bullshit.
Riddled With Errors
Watts Up With That reports BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors-
Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are
obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent
three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees
C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a
month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average”
temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island,
was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
-
Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but
some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km
inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the
open ocean.
-
The dataset starts in 1850 but for just over two years at the start
of the record the only land-based data for the entire Southern
Hemisphere came from a single observation station in Indonesia. At the
end of five years just three stations reported data in that hemisphere.
Global averages are calculated from the averages for each of the two
hemispheres, so these few stations have a large influence on what’s
supposedly “global”.
-
According to the method of calculating coverage for the dataset, 50%
global coverage wasn’t reached until 1906 and 50% of the Southern
Hemisphere wasn’t reached until about 1950.
-
In May 1861 global coverage was a mere 12% – that’s less than
one-eighth. In much of the 1860s and 1870s most of the supposedly global
coverage was from Europe and its trade sea routes and ports, covering
only about 13% of the Earth’s surface. To calculate averages from this
data and refer to them as “global averages” is stretching credulity.
-
When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment
assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete
and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in
slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880,
old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes
can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.
-
Data prior to 1950 suffers from poor coverage and very likely
multiple incorrect adjustments of station data. Data since that year has
better coverage but still has the problem of data adjustments and a
host of other issues mentioned in the audit.
-
Another implication is that the proposal that the Paris Climate
Agreement adopt 1850-1899 averages as “indicative” of pre-industrial
temperatures is fatally flawed. During that period global coverage is
low – it averages 30% across that time – and many land-based
temperatures are very likely to be excessively adjusted and therefore
incorrect.
Complex Systems Reduced to Single Variable
Also consider Watts Up With That Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup 331.A participant in the IPCC, who resigned, atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He is noted for his work in dynamic meteorology, atmospheric tides, ozone photochemistry, quasi-biennial oscillation, and the Iris hypothesis. Lindzen is certainly qualified to talk about the physics of the atmosphere, where the greenhouse effect occurs. Several key points of the talk are summarized below.
-
“Nature has numerous examples of autonomous variability, including
the approximately 11-year sunspot cycle and the reversals of the Earth’s
magnetic field every couple of hundred thousand years or so. In this
respect, the climate system is no different from other natural systems.
-
“Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system.
The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just
one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily
controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a
single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable
importance.
-
“This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that
borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been
widely accepted, even among many sceptics.
-
“Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They
endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable. And although
mankind’s CO2 contributions are small — compared to the much larger but
uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere —
they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement
in order to control CO2 levels.”
-
Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for
hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In
order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger
increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known
that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by
tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with
both tectonics and land use.
-
The small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in
temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used
by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it
would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide,
and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the
past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made
climate change does not appear to be a serious problem. However, this
hardly stops ignorant politicians from declaring that the IPCC’s claim
of attribution is tantamount to unambiguous proof of coming disaster
-
Cherry picking is always an issue. Thus, there has been a recent
claim that Greenland ice discharge has increased, and that warming will
make it worse. Omitted from the report is the finding by both NOAA and
the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of Greenland has
actually been increasing. In fact both these observations can be true,
and, indeed, ice build-up pushes peripheral ice into the sea.
- Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence.
we were all taught in high school chemistry that results cannot exceed the accuracy of the data inputs.
if your measuring cup was graduated (labeled) to 5 ml increments, then taking the average of 3 or more readings using this container cannot be scientifically expressed with more accuracy than the 5ml increments, ie. you cannot have an average of 36ml and certainly not 36.7 ml
But we are supposed to believe climate change is real going back to 1850 because "science" says we can "prove" 0.7 or 1.7 degrees (or some other number with a decimal) of temperature change worldwide?
Total hogwash, the instruments were not 0.1 accurate. were likely not all properly calibrated together, and many other REQUIREMENTS for measurements to be properly taken according to scientific rules. These climate "scientists",simply had to throw out all the rules for data gathering and reporting to arrive and these 0.x numbers. fact.
NEXT more CO2 makes plants grow better, ask the indoor cannabis growers. in turn this results in higher oxygen level, benefiting animal life. This is believed to be the reason past life forms could become so much larger than today, higher oxygen concentrations allowed larger life forms, especially true with insect, but proven true in studies of fish, where they grew super sized piranhas.