Genghis Kush
Active member
doesn't understand the scientific method
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
doesn't understand the scientific method
TROLL ALERT--DON'T FEED THE TROLL--and maybe he will go away!
TROLL ALERT--DON'T FEED THE TROLL--and maybe he will go away!
TROLL ALERT--DON'T FEED THE TROLL--and maybe he will go away!
FUCK OFF GK!
doesn't understand the scientific method
rationally explain how 2017 is yet a record
????
when we're barely halfway through.
...
the record was for the maximum ice extent of the winter 2016/2017
there are 2 potential record points each year, the minimum and the maximum
the maximum is normally in March, though it has been creeping down into February recently
And with the record rain, brings record watershed--and with all this surplus water means, ahem...the permanent drought arguments that have long been part of the "climate change" discussions will now have to take a back seat--or, I guess they will change the meaning of "drought" to something else.
You know, like the phenomena many of us refer to as "weather" and "four seasons"....that today, others call it "climate change"....which I believe was originally named "global cooling" before they renamed it "global warming". New words every generation or so for the same thing...right?
Same meaning--just new words? Or is it "new meanings" with "old words"?
You know, like the phenomena many of us refer to as "weather" and "four seasons"....that today, others call it "climate change"....which I believe was originally named "global cooling" before they renamed it "global warming". New words every generation or so for the same thing...right?
Same meaning--just new words? Or is it "new meanings" with "old words"?
what you have is a very complex system
observations made, analysis performed, new theories proposed and tested
science can change over time, kind of the point, we learn new things
not all care for the new findings, it's a slow process
unfortunately i don't think we have the luxury of time
Genghis Kush
Active member
is anybody actually against regulations on air pollution?
Apparently there are, as Don the Con and his merry band of goons have just started doing away with many of our environmental protections on water and air.
Genghis Kush
Active member
Im sorry, I actually meant real human beings.
anybody out there who doesn't financially benefit from pollution actually support the right to destroy the air quality for everyone else?
anybody out there who doesn't financially benefit from pollution actually support the right to destroy the air quality for everyone else?
What happens when bad data is packaged and sold as "snake oil"--
What happens when bad data is packaged and sold as "snake oil"--
Ahh....I agree almost. Science does change over time--new things/relationships are identified while old traditional ideas are disproved. And we can agree that "science" is dependent on historical data and observations to predict the future. But what happens when the original historical data is replaced with "new data"? New results...right? What if the data is faulty? Garbage in...garbage out, right?
What if the "new" faulty data is changed to further a particular political argument (in Paris)...then we certainly have "science" married to "politics". Then maybe the "urgency" of time is not as bad as we are told...maybe luxury of time is on our side. Who really knows?
Let's start with this article--https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04012017/climate-change-denial-oceans-warming-lamar-smith
Already Debunked Global Warming 'Hiatus' Gets Another Dunking
New research of ocean temperatures shows they have warmed consistently over the past 50 years, further disproving the 'pause' climate deniers use as argument.
By Bob Berwyn, InsideClimate News
Jan 4, 2017
Because every tenth of a degree of global warming matters not just to the planet but also in the highly charged political debate over climate change [1], researchers once again have analyzed ocean temperature readings over the past 75 years. Their findings refute the already debunked contention that warming paused from 1998-2012.
Using a global network of buoys, robotic floats and satellites to trace the rise of sea surface temperatures, the study, published Jan. 4 [2] in Science Advances, shows there was no slowdown in the pace of global warming. The scientists concluded that oceans have warmed consistently over the previous 50 years, at about 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade, nearly twice as fast as previous estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius.
The so-called hiatus was widely reported and used by climate science deniers [3] to bolster their political opposition to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
But in 2015, a study led by scientists [4] with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that the supposed pause was based on an inconsistency—between ocean temperature measurements collected by ships over the past 100 years and more accurate data collected by modern instruments designed for climate monitoring.
The NOAA researchers found that modern buoys show more ocean warming than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. The study recalculated global ocean temperatures based on that finding.
Shortly after it was released, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology led by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) subpoenaed documents related to the NOAA report. Some Republican committee members accused NOAA of doctoring the climate numbers for political purposes. NOAA released the raw data but refused to turn over other documents. Critics of the probe, including ranking Democratic members of the committee, characterized the investigation as a "witch hunt" [6] aimed at intimidating climate scientists.
The House Science Committee did not respond to requests for comment about the new study.
"Our results verify the NOAA study. They weren't cooking the books," said Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group, the new study's lead author. "It was just due to a bias in the ship records...the slowdown never happened."
Hausfather said that in 1990, 95 percent of the data came from ship observations. Now, 90 percent of the data comes from buoys. (More than 7,000 buoys and robotic Argo floats are now deployed worldwide.) "The rate of warming we see in buoys is much higher than from the ship readings," he said.
The study was carried out by researchers from the University of York in the UK, the University of California, Berkeley, and Berkeley Earth, a non-profit research institute, as well as NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology. The research was funded by Berkeley Earth.
The new results provide more support for NOAA's findings, which suggest that recent warming rates had been underestimated, said Tim Osborn, research director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit [7].
"It's also a nice example of how policy-relevant scientific findings should be evaluated," said Osborn, who was not involved in the latest study. "There is much more potential for progressing our scientific understanding by careful analysis of scientific data than by trying to subpoena emails between scientists."
Osborn said the new research will help explain whether variations in the rate of global warming are due to natural variability or other factors like changes in the way the data is collected. Approaching the issue with a "binary choice of 'slowdown' or 'no slowdown' is counterproductive for science communication," he said.
Accurately assessing ocean temperatures is important because two-thirds of the Earth's surface is water, and the oceans suck up more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by human greenhouse gases emissions, according to University of York climate researcher and co-author Kevin Cowtan.
"So if we don't include the oceans, we miss a lot of the heat," Cowtan said. "The oceans give us a clearer picture, as they don't show the weather extremes we see over land.
"Science is hard," he said. "We don't expect to get it right the first time, and so scientists seldom trust the first study to show a result...It's only when multiple groups get the same result by multiple methods that we generally accept a result."
Cowtan said the "manufactured" political controversy around the NOAA paper was a strong motivation for the new research effort.
Another dataset from the Japan Meteorological Agency published in 2014 [8], meanwhile, showed similar results, also concluding that there was no slowdown in the rate of ocean warming in recent years.
Then across the pond from Daily Mail--http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html?utm_content=bufferdb7f6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.
The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.
A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.
The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.
Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.
Some scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project future warming were ‘running too hot’.
However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause, it concluded, ‘was no longer valid’.
The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.
One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on sceptics.
Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the basis of the evidence.’
The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.
Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’
ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’
Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.
The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.
This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.
In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.
This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.
However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.
Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.
Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr Karl had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.
Mr Holdren was also a strong advocate of robust measures to curb emissions. Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron claimed at the conference that ‘97 per cent of scientists say climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed’ and called for ‘a binding legal mechanism’ to ensure the world got no more than 2C warmer than in pre-industrial times.
President Obama stressed his Clean Power Plan at the conference, which mandates American power stations to make big emissions cuts.
President Trump has since pledged he will scrap it, and to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
Whatever takes its place, said Dr Bates, ‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.
‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’
He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.
Dr Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’
Professor Curry, now the president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said last night: ‘Large adjustments to the raw data, and substantial changes in successive dataset versions, imply substantial uncertainties.’
It was time, she said, that politicians and policymakers took these uncertainties on board.
Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’
He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.
As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the UK Met Office’s – which were wrong, because they understated global warming and were ‘biased too low’. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.NOAA declined to comment.
Dr John Bates’s disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the ‘Pausebuster’ paper is the biggest scientific scandal since ‘Climategate’ in 2009 when, as this paper reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a ‘trick’ to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.
Both scandals suggest a lack of transparency and, according to Dr Bates, a failure to observe proper ethical standards.
Because of NOAA ’s failure to ‘archive’ data used in the paper, its results can never be verified.
Like Climategate, this scandal is likely to reverberate around the world, and reignite some of science’s most hotly contested debates.
Has there been an unexpected pause in global warming? If so, is the world less sensitive to carbon dioxide than climate computer models suggest?
And does this mean that truly dangerous global warming is less imminent, and that politicians’ repeated calls for immediate ‘urgent action’ to curb emissions are exaggerated?
Moral of the story: If you make a bullshit claim, THEN make sure you destroy the data used so the results can never be verified. Settled Science?--hmmmm.
What happens when bad data is packaged and sold as "snake oil"--
Ahh....I agree almost. Science does change over time--new things/relationships are identified while old traditional ideas are disproved. And we can agree that "science" is dependent on historical data and observations to predict the future. But what happens when the original historical data is replaced with "new data"? New results...right? What if the data is faulty? Garbage in...garbage out, right?
What if the "new" faulty data is changed to further a particular political argument (in Paris)...then we certainly have "science" married to "politics". Then maybe the "urgency" of time is not as bad as we are told...maybe luxury of time is on our side. Who really knows?
Let's start with this article--https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04012017/climate-change-denial-oceans-warming-lamar-smith
Already Debunked Global Warming 'Hiatus' Gets Another Dunking
New research of ocean temperatures shows they have warmed consistently over the past 50 years, further disproving the 'pause' climate deniers use as argument.
By Bob Berwyn, InsideClimate News
Jan 4, 2017
Because every tenth of a degree of global warming matters not just to the planet but also in the highly charged political debate over climate change [1], researchers once again have analyzed ocean temperature readings over the past 75 years. Their findings refute the already debunked contention that warming paused from 1998-2012.
Using a global network of buoys, robotic floats and satellites to trace the rise of sea surface temperatures, the study, published Jan. 4 [2] in Science Advances, shows there was no slowdown in the pace of global warming. The scientists concluded that oceans have warmed consistently over the previous 50 years, at about 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade, nearly twice as fast as previous estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius.
The so-called hiatus was widely reported and used by climate science deniers [3] to bolster their political opposition to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
But in 2015, a study led by scientists [4] with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that the supposed pause was based on an inconsistency—between ocean temperature measurements collected by ships over the past 100 years and more accurate data collected by modern instruments designed for climate monitoring.
The NOAA researchers found that modern buoys show more ocean warming than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. The study recalculated global ocean temperatures based on that finding.
Shortly after it was released, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology led by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) subpoenaed documents related to the NOAA report. Some Republican committee members accused NOAA of doctoring the climate numbers for political purposes. NOAA released the raw data but refused to turn over other documents. Critics of the probe, including ranking Democratic members of the committee, characterized the investigation as a "witch hunt" [6] aimed at intimidating climate scientists.
The House Science Committee did not respond to requests for comment about the new study.
"Our results verify the NOAA study. They weren't cooking the books," said Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group, the new study's lead author. "It was just due to a bias in the ship records...the slowdown never happened."
Hausfather said that in 1990, 95 percent of the data came from ship observations. Now, 90 percent of the data comes from buoys. (More than 7,000 buoys and robotic Argo floats are now deployed worldwide.) "The rate of warming we see in buoys is much higher than from the ship readings," he said.
The study was carried out by researchers from the University of York in the UK, the University of California, Berkeley, and Berkeley Earth, a non-profit research institute, as well as NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology. The research was funded by Berkeley Earth.
The new results provide more support for NOAA's findings, which suggest that recent warming rates had been underestimated, said Tim Osborn, research director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit [7].
"It's also a nice example of how policy-relevant scientific findings should be evaluated," said Osborn, who was not involved in the latest study. "There is much more potential for progressing our scientific understanding by careful analysis of scientific data than by trying to subpoena emails between scientists."
Osborn said the new research will help explain whether variations in the rate of global warming are due to natural variability or other factors like changes in the way the data is collected. Approaching the issue with a "binary choice of 'slowdown' or 'no slowdown' is counterproductive for science communication," he said.
Accurately assessing ocean temperatures is important because two-thirds of the Earth's surface is water, and the oceans suck up more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by human greenhouse gases emissions, according to University of York climate researcher and co-author Kevin Cowtan.
"So if we don't include the oceans, we miss a lot of the heat," Cowtan said. "The oceans give us a clearer picture, as they don't show the weather extremes we see over land.
"Science is hard," he said. "We don't expect to get it right the first time, and so scientists seldom trust the first study to show a result...It's only when multiple groups get the same result by multiple methods that we generally accept a result."
Cowtan said the "manufactured" political controversy around the NOAA paper was a strong motivation for the new research effort.
Another dataset from the Japan Meteorological Agency published in 2014 [8], meanwhile, showed similar results, also concluding that there was no slowdown in the rate of ocean warming in recent years.
Then across the pond from Daily Mail--http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html?utm_content=bufferdb7f6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
- The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
- It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
- America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
- The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.
The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.
A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.
The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.
Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.
Some scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project future warming were ‘running too hot’.
However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause, it concluded, ‘was no longer valid’.
The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.
One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on sceptics.
Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the basis of the evidence.’
The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.
Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’
ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’
Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.
The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.
This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.
In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.
This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.
However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.
Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.
Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr Karl had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.
Mr Holdren was also a strong advocate of robust measures to curb emissions. Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron claimed at the conference that ‘97 per cent of scientists say climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed’ and called for ‘a binding legal mechanism’ to ensure the world got no more than 2C warmer than in pre-industrial times.
President Obama stressed his Clean Power Plan at the conference, which mandates American power stations to make big emissions cuts.
President Trump has since pledged he will scrap it, and to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
Whatever takes its place, said Dr Bates, ‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.
‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’
He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.
Dr Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’
Professor Curry, now the president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said last night: ‘Large adjustments to the raw data, and substantial changes in successive dataset versions, imply substantial uncertainties.’
It was time, she said, that politicians and policymakers took these uncertainties on board.
Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’
He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.
As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the UK Met Office’s – which were wrong, because they understated global warming and were ‘biased too low’. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.NOAA declined to comment.
Dr John Bates’s disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the ‘Pausebuster’ paper is the biggest scientific scandal since ‘Climategate’ in 2009 when, as this paper reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a ‘trick’ to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.
Both scandals suggest a lack of transparency and, according to Dr Bates, a failure to observe proper ethical standards.
Because of NOAA ’s failure to ‘archive’ data used in the paper, its results can never be verified.
Like Climategate, this scandal is likely to reverberate around the world, and reignite some of science’s most hotly contested debates.
Has there been an unexpected pause in global warming? If so, is the world less sensitive to carbon dioxide than climate computer models suggest?
And does this mean that truly dangerous global warming is less imminent, and that politicians’ repeated calls for immediate ‘urgent action’ to curb emissions are exaggerated?
Moral of the story: If you make a bullshit claim, THEN make sure you destroy the data used so the results can never be verified. Settled Science?--hmmmm.
Some of those NOAA/NASA emails...hmmm 1998 or 1934, so which year was the hottest?
Some of those NOAA/NASA emails...hmmm 1998 or 1934, so which year was the hottest?
Source: http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf
Some of those NOAA/NASA emails...hmmm 1998 or 1934, so which year was the hottest?
Source: http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf
Just saying--if we are going to spend a billion dollars or so each year to combat "climate change" we better get it right. Especially since a billion a year (100 billion in 100 years) would eliminate hunger world wide.
Hmmm...which is better? Eliminate hunger (a known issue with a known resolve)...or combat "man made climate change" (a potential issue with an unknown resolve).
Hmmm...which is better? Eliminate hunger (a known issue with a known resolve)...or combat "man made climate change" (a potential issue with an unknown resolve).
!
Agree...but here is the rub. If you review the NASA emails that I posted above--with an eye to "process"--the emails demonstrate deliberations/agreements/disagreements among "professional scientists". There were no "trade secrets" discussed--I mean, after all we are talking about data collection (temperatures)...and the computer modeling/algorithms used to predict missing data.
Now wouldn't be nice to see the ones from NOAA? Let me repeat 2 sentences from my long ass "cut & paste"--
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
And to this day...NOAA has refused to release the internal emails. But they eventually will, Judicial Watch has been a thorn in NOAA's side for many years now--
Judicial Watch Sues for Records between Key Obama Administration Scientists Involved In Global Warming Controversies
MARCH 27, 2017
Judicial Watch today announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to compel the U.S. Department of Commerce to turn over all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration’s climate change policy and its backing of the Paris Agreement (Judicial Watch v. Department of Commerce (No. 1:17-cv-00541)).
The suit was filed after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), a component of the Department of Commerce, failed to respond to a February 6 FOIA request seeking
All records of communications between NOAA scientist Thomas Karl and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren.
The FOIA request covers the timeframe of January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.
Karl, who until last year was director of the NOAA section that produces climate data, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), was the lead author of a landmark paper that was reported to have heavily influenced the Paris Agreement.
Holdren, a former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, director of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and long-time proponent of strong measures to curb emissions.
According to The Daily Mail, a whistleblower accused Thomas Karl of bypassing normal procedures to produce a scientific paper promoting climate alarmism:
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. …
But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
***
In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
(President Donald Trump vowed to scrap the Clean Power Plan and withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.)
“This new lawsuit could result in the release of emails that will help Americans understand how Obama administration officials may have mishandled scientific data to advance the political agenda of global warming alarmism,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Separately, Judicial Watch is suing for records of communications from NOAA officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models to justify the controversial findings in the “Pausebuster” study. The data documents had also been withheld from Congress. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)).
Judicial Watch previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, Judicial Watch obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.
Now I have connected the dots for everyone. The email thread is about the discussion between "smart guys" regarding the 1998 and 1934 flipflop.
Another dot--this should also demonstrate the smartest and brightest are not exempt of making mistakes and overstating the facts...and that politics can influence science.
Another dot--this probably means an "independent review" and public release of the data and methodology used to support Climate Change arguments...including the release of all written communications (emails too).
But I hear the cries--DocTim, leave it alone. The mistake causing the flip flopping of the two hottest years ever (1934 vs 1998) is ONLY a fraction of a degree.
To that I say, yeah--but one of the pinnacles for the argument that mankind is responsible for climate change is from the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--that announced since 1880, the Northern Hemisphere has warmed by 0.85 degrees Celsius. And 0.85 degrees Celsius over 137 years is about 0.0062043795620438 degrees per year....or fractions of a degree.
Now wouldn't be nice to see the ones from NOAA? Let me repeat 2 sentences from my long ass "cut & paste"--
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
And to this day...NOAA has refused to release the internal emails. But they eventually will, Judicial Watch has been a thorn in NOAA's side for many years now--
Judicial Watch Sues for Records between Key Obama Administration Scientists Involved In Global Warming Controversies
MARCH 27, 2017
Judicial Watch today announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to compel the U.S. Department of Commerce to turn over all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration’s climate change policy and its backing of the Paris Agreement (Judicial Watch v. Department of Commerce (No. 1:17-cv-00541)).
The suit was filed after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), a component of the Department of Commerce, failed to respond to a February 6 FOIA request seeking
All records of communications between NOAA scientist Thomas Karl and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren.
The FOIA request covers the timeframe of January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.
Karl, who until last year was director of the NOAA section that produces climate data, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), was the lead author of a landmark paper that was reported to have heavily influenced the Paris Agreement.
Holdren, a former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, director of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and long-time proponent of strong measures to curb emissions.
According to The Daily Mail, a whistleblower accused Thomas Karl of bypassing normal procedures to produce a scientific paper promoting climate alarmism:
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. …
But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
***
In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
(President Donald Trump vowed to scrap the Clean Power Plan and withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.)
“This new lawsuit could result in the release of emails that will help Americans understand how Obama administration officials may have mishandled scientific data to advance the political agenda of global warming alarmism,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Separately, Judicial Watch is suing for records of communications from NOAA officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models to justify the controversial findings in the “Pausebuster” study. The data documents had also been withheld from Congress. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)).
Judicial Watch previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, Judicial Watch obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.
Now I have connected the dots for everyone. The email thread is about the discussion between "smart guys" regarding the 1998 and 1934 flipflop.
Another dot--this should also demonstrate the smartest and brightest are not exempt of making mistakes and overstating the facts...and that politics can influence science.
Another dot--this probably means an "independent review" and public release of the data and methodology used to support Climate Change arguments...including the release of all written communications (emails too).
But I hear the cries--DocTim, leave it alone. The mistake causing the flip flopping of the two hottest years ever (1934 vs 1998) is ONLY a fraction of a degree.
To that I say, yeah--but one of the pinnacles for the argument that mankind is responsible for climate change is from the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--that announced since 1880, the Northern Hemisphere has warmed by 0.85 degrees Celsius. And 0.85 degrees Celsius over 137 years is about 0.0062043795620438 degrees per year....or fractions of a degree.
Maybe the science is not "settled".
Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet
Inevitably, when even satellite temperatures were showing 2016 as “the hottest year on record”, we were going to be told last winter that the Arctic ice was at its lowest extent ever. Sure enough, before Christmas, a report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was greeted with such headlines as “Hottest Arctic on record triggers massive ice melt”. In March we had the BBC trumpeting another study that blamed vanishing Arctic ice as the cause of weather which led to the worst-ever smog in Beijing, warning that it “could even threaten the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022”.
But last week we were brought back to earth by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), as charted by our friend Paul Homewood on his blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat, with the news that ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.
As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.
This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/another-arctic-ice-panic-world-temperatures-plummet/
Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet
Inevitably, when even satellite temperatures were showing 2016 as “the hottest year on record”, we were going to be told last winter that the Arctic ice was at its lowest extent ever. Sure enough, before Christmas, a report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was greeted with such headlines as “Hottest Arctic on record triggers massive ice melt”. In March we had the BBC trumpeting another study that blamed vanishing Arctic ice as the cause of weather which led to the worst-ever smog in Beijing, warning that it “could even threaten the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022”.
But last week we were brought back to earth by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), as charted by our friend Paul Homewood on his blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat, with the news that ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.
As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.
This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/another-arctic-ice-panic-world-temperatures-plummet/
!
Imagine what $15 trillion could do in feeding the hungry and put shelter on the less fortunate. Hmmmm, how many families could Al Gore could feed if he sold his fuel guzzling private jet and flew 1st class. Thousands I say, thousands of families.
Is it me, or are the optics of a dude landing in his personal jet so he alone can attend a climate change conference....appear rather hypocritical?
Is it me, or are the optics of a dude landing in his personal jet so he alone can attend a climate change conference....appear rather hypocritical?
LOL...a gift to me.
Obama Uses Private Jet, 14 Car Convoy to Get to European Climate Change Speech
Former President Barack Obama traveled to Italy this week to make a speech on climate change at the “Seed & Chips: The Global Food Innovation Summit” in the city of Milan.
It seems like Obama has taken a page out of Leonardo DiCaprio's book of “do as I say, not as I do” and took a private jet to Milan. Not only that, he had a 14 car convoy to get into the city, which also included protection from above with a helicopter.
It doesn't end there. According to The Daily Mail, 300 police officers were used to protect the former president.
The fleet of 14 included multiple SUVs, police cars, and sedans — not to mention a few motorcycles.
While in Milan, Obama also met with former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, who was a close partner during their respective times in office.
During his post-presidency vacation, Obama spent many weeks in French Polynesia on music mogul David Geffen's 450ft superyacht, which surely does not frugally sip fossil fuels like he wants the rest of the country to do.
Seems like President Obama's retirement is going well.
Source: http://ijr.com/2017/05/867816-obama-uses-private-jet-14-car-convoy-get-european-climate-change-speech/
Ahhh...the "do as I say, not as I do" game. Hmmm, a simple satellite broadcast would have costed what? And, imo--would probably have the same impact.
Obama Uses Private Jet, 14 Car Convoy to Get to European Climate Change Speech
Former President Barack Obama traveled to Italy this week to make a speech on climate change at the “Seed & Chips: The Global Food Innovation Summit” in the city of Milan.
It seems like Obama has taken a page out of Leonardo DiCaprio's book of “do as I say, not as I do” and took a private jet to Milan. Not only that, he had a 14 car convoy to get into the city, which also included protection from above with a helicopter.
It doesn't end there. According to The Daily Mail, 300 police officers were used to protect the former president.
The fleet of 14 included multiple SUVs, police cars, and sedans — not to mention a few motorcycles.
While in Milan, Obama also met with former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, who was a close partner during their respective times in office.
During his post-presidency vacation, Obama spent many weeks in French Polynesia on music mogul David Geffen's 450ft superyacht, which surely does not frugally sip fossil fuels like he wants the rest of the country to do.
Seems like President Obama's retirement is going well.
Source: http://ijr.com/2017/05/867816-obama-uses-private-jet-14-car-convoy-get-european-climate-change-speech/
Ahhh...the "do as I say, not as I do" game. Hmmm, a simple satellite broadcast would have costed what? And, imo--would probably have the same impact.
