Climate catastrophe is not language of science

[HollandAmerica]

Where is the proof that shows that climate change is caused by people? Is it really bad that CO2 is going up? How big is our impact on the climate and how big is the margin of error on that impact?

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/

I am still looking for the undenying proof that shows that world temperatures are rising because of the impact of people. Furthermore I am not even convinced that world temperatures will be rising in the next 50 years.

Please show me the proof.

[BOB G]

THIS JUST IN...

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale

 James Delingpole

24 Nov 2015

A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.

The most commonly used ones were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities both with the way they were sited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.

Britain’s Paul Homewood is also on NASA GISS’s case. Here he shows the shocking extent of the adjustments they have made to a temperature record in Brazil which has been altered so that a cooling trend becomes a warming trend.

 Unadjusted temperature record: shows cooling trend.

Adjusted temperature record: shows warming trend.

[David van Harn]

More claptrap from hard-core anti-AGW denialists who are not climate scientists and whose non-peer-reviewed ramblings do not stand up to scrutiny. That bit on the Brazilian temp data is a notorious piece of cherry picking - a very small regional dataset that was obviously full of problems.  And of course, it does not reflect the global temperature trend.  Adjustments are not spurious - they are very obviously needed and done with great care and backed with solid science and statistics.  If you want some real,defensible science on the GLOBAL datasets - look here LINK.

From Scientific American on"Why Climate Skeptics are Wrong!: LINK

Consensus science is a phrase often heard today in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Is there a consensus on AGW? There is. The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real. Why?

It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all, science is not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” The answer is that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. This they have not done...

“There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” [Dana] Nuccitelli concluded in an August 25, 2015, commentary in the Guardian. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.” For example, one skeptical paper attributed climate change to lunar or solar cycles, but to make these models work for the 4,000-year period that the authors considered, they had to throw out 6,000 years' worth of earlier data.

Such practices are deceptive and fail to further climate science when exposed by skeptical scrutiny, an integral element to the scientific process.

 

[BOB G]

If anyone happens to remember the southern stand-up comic, Brother Dave Gardner, you may recall that he had an album with the title "It's All In How You Look at It."  That came to mind as I was thinking about the presentation of statistics in graph form and how that can be pretty misleading.  Sometimes the old saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" comes into play.  See this little video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQqPQ0i_fl0

[Birdy of Paradise]

I often hear him on a comedy station on XM radio.

[HollandAmerica]

What do cows think about climate change? Watch the video:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2015/jul/24/cows-clima...

[Jim Tosch]

This idea of 100 percent should be repudiated. You buy car insurance, you buy health insurance, it's called risk management. If there is a reasonable chance that man made climate change will cause devestation then this one hundred percent crap is just game playing
If there is a ten percent chance of man made universal devestation then action must be taken. This hundred percent proof is mathematically, logically and pragmatically stupid.

[HollandAmerica]

So, what's the chance that global temps go up by 2 degrees or whatever IPCC claims? Insurance companies are experts at calculating the chances of you getting sick, you having an accident.

If there is a 10% chance then I would want to know the cost. You would not pay $100,000 for your health insurance every year, right? It's about likelihood and cost!

[David van Harn]

The latest IPCC report says, "there is high confidence that Equililbrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.")

However, recent research on Pliocene Era (2.3 - 3.3 million years ago) indicates that the recent studies indicating a lower climate sensitivity may be wrong, and that is is actually higher. 

From Phys.org:  (LINK) 

New evidence showing the level of atmospheric CO2 millions of years ago supports recent climate change predications from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A multinational research team, led by scientists at the University of Southampton, has analysed new records showing the CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere between 2.3 to 3.3 million years ago, over the Pliocene.

During the Pliocene, the Earth was around 2ºC warmer than it is today and atmospheric CO2 levels were around 350-400 parts per million (ppm), similar to the levels reached in recent years.

By studying the relationship between CO2 levels and climate change during a warmer period in Earth's history, the scientists have been able to estimate how the climate will respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide, a parameter known as 'climate sensitivity'.

The findings, which have been published in Nature, also show how climate sensitivity can vary over the long term.

"Today the Earth is still adjusting to the recent rapid rise of CO2 caused by human activities, whereas the longer-term Pliocene records document the full response of CO2-related warming," says Southampton's Dr Gavin Foster, co-author of the study.

"Our estimates of climate sensitivity lie well within the range of 1.5 to 4.5ºC increase per CO2 doubling summarized in the latest IPCC report. This suggests that the research community has a sound understanding of what the climate will be like as we move toward a Pliocene-like warmer future caused by human greenhouse gas emissions."

[Leroy Johnson]

[HollandAmerica]

All of this is based on a theory that the rapidly increased Co2 is caused by humans and causes the temp to increase. However, NOAA says its unclear what cause and effect is between temps and co2.

Now what we do know (real science) is that when temps rise in the atmosphere, pressure increases in the atmosphere. When pressure rises in the atmosphere liquids will absorb  more gas or emit less.

Law of Gay-Lussac - higher temp increases pressure. (Eg when you boil water in a pressure cooker)

Henry's law- increased pressure above a liquid means the liquid will emit less or absorb more gas (Eg when you open a soda bottle, pressure releases and bubbles get emitted by the drink)

So what does this mean? When temps increase the oceans and all other water resources (think lakes and moisture droplets in the sky) will absorb less co2 and thus more of it will stay in the atmosphere.