What is this “early winter” nonsense?

I just left a blog where the writer said the weather was a month ahead of the start of winter, December 21st.  Have people become so ignorant that they do not understand that weather does NOT follow a calendar?  It would seem so.

Winter starts when winter starts, just as summer, fall and spring.  Our calendar has zero effect on what weather we get.  It was bad enough when we determined that we were killing the planet with CO2 (The “It’s not warming, It’s dying” campaign), now we are upset because the foolish weather cannot follow a calendar.  It’s becoming more and more clear how global warming sells.  There is a complete lack of understanding of, or caring about, what actual weather is and does.

So, for those who don’t get it:  Weather is NOT bound by any human creation, certainly not a calendar.  It’s cold and snowing now because it is.  It could September, it could be May.  The weather DOES NOT CARE.

Scientific badger cannot take it some days…...

Scientific badger cannot take it some days……

And now the NEW theory on global warming

“So within about a decade the effect of adding the thicker ‘blanket’ has been cancelled by the warmer body emitting more energy, the experts explained.

In the longer term, the study and its computer models show that the Earth will begin to absorb more shortwave radiation – the high-energy rays coming directly from the sun.
Experts have previously shied away from talking about shortwave radiation because clouds can reflect this visible light back to space and clouds remain one of the big unknowns under climate change.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2828910/Global-warming-SPEED-pause-scientists-warn.html#ixzz3ImkSgaOY

Now the SUN is going to heat us up due to ?????  If I recall correctly, it’s NOT the sun.  Skeptics were ridiculed mercilessly for suggesting it was the sun.  Now global warming advocates have respun the narrative and created a way for the sun to heat us up due to the CO2.  These people should write novels.

 

(Note:  This is a news article and may not represent the actual science, just the propaganda that the scientists stand silent as the misrepresentaions are dumped on society.  Will update if I find the silent scientists are not actually in agreement with this article.)

Watch the language

I have written on why I use “global warming” and not “climate change”.  I ran across another statement that is frequently made that makes skeptics look, to put it bluntly, stupid.  “They want us all to stop breathing”.  This was concerning the goal of an agency (NAS) saying emissions must be reduced to zero to save the planet from dangerous warming.

This statement does NOT mean they want people to stop breathing.  Breathing takes in CO2 already existing in the air and puts it right back where it came from.  There is no net change in the concentration of the CO2.  The proper response is:

“You mean you want to shut down all of modern society—stop all fossil fuel usage and concrete manufacture.  You want the evil fossil fuel barons who are rich and unfairly so (wait, where did Al Gore get his money?—sorry, I digress) to lose their ill-gotten gains and we will all live in squalor the way God intended.”

Of course, the speaker will then deny the charge, which can then lead to asking how else can this turn out, etc.  Many global warming advocates do not see this as needing to go to zero, but for those who do, the proper discussion is the hellhole people will end up living in if we actually were to follow their advice.

 

Another story I noted popping up was that Denmark would be “off fossil fuels” by 2020.  This may or may not be true, especially if part of their grid is covered by nations that do burn coal.  To be 100% true, Denmark would have to produce all their on energy, alone, and not tie into the grid.  That won’t happen.  Also, this cannot be applied to any other nation if:

1.  The nation is larger than Denmark.  Scale does matter.

2.  The nation has a different grid setup.  Infrastructure matters.

3.  The nation has an economy based on manufacturing, etc.

Denmark also is not “off fossil fuels” because they buy products from countries that use fossil fuels.  You are lying if you say you don’t use fossil fuels and then buy from someone who does.  It’s a very common lie and one few people ever really seem to catch.  So, Denmark will NOT be off fossil fuels by 2020 unless their grid and their economy is  100% self-contained or any trade is with another 100% renewable country.  You will NOT see this, of that I am certain.  There can also be no diesel generators, no batteries unless manufactured with ONLY renewables……As you can see, the claims are just outright lies.

Correctly put, Denmark may not be using any fossil fuels by 2020 but will continue to reap the benefits of others using them for many, many years thereafter.

Not that Certain

A new paper (A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes–Kokic, Crimp, Howden) states a 99.999% certainty humans are causing the warming on the planet, IF the model contains all factors with significant (ie measurable and large enough to affect the outcome) influence on climate.

The model only has four factors: CO2 (GHG as measured by Kyoto Protocol), ENSO, TSI, and volcanoes. It’s highly unlikely that there are not more factors–for example oceans storing heat, albedo of arctic and antarctic ice, back radiation, convection currents, etc, just to name a few I have read about on various sites. If any of these have a large effect, the model does not match reality and any outcome or prediction may be useful by chance but most probably useless other than to grab headlines.

Also, if the measurements of any of the factors is not accurate, the conclusion is void. That does not mean the conclusion is not true–it means the models and statistics used to create the model and certainty are invalid. In other words, the model is back to an unproven hypothesis. It is possible for an incomplete model might be useful in some ways, but the 99.999% certainty is most certainly exaggerated and should be scrapped. A four factor model of climate that shows this kind of “certainty” is very unlikely to be accurate or even useful.

The modeler’s use a bootstrap calculation, something that seems to be used more and more in the studies I have been reading. In theory, the bootstrap yields multiple data sets to increase the likelihood that the model cover all data. (Correct me if my explanation of this is poorly stated. I am sometimes not very good at explaining statistics so it makes sense to readers.) They ran the bootstrap 100,000 times both leaving in and leaving out GHG. From this, they reached the incredible (or perhaps not-so-credible) 99.999% number.

There is no information on whether or not the model was run eliminating other factors one at a time in the same fashion as GHG. This is vital to gauge whether something else may have just as strong an effect.

The model B also indicated only an approximate 25% of 304 months of continuous record breaking temperatures, but that was one of the original questions in the model–how likely are 304 months of record breaking temperatures without human influence? That would seem to indicate the model missed the mark. Model E also showed only about a 53% chance of this temperature streak happening. Why can’t the model reproduce the 304 months of record setting temperatures? With 99.999 % certainty, one would expect nothing less.

An interesting thing that did show up in the study was the prediction of periods of flat or colling temperatures and the number of periods of cooling was closer to observed in the runs with GHG left in than those without. The number was still not matching actual recoded data but was closer with GHG.

What does this tell us about humans, GHG and certainty? IF the models are sufficiently accurate, there could be a strong case for humans causing warming. However, the small number of variable in the model call into question whether all significant factors have been included. Without a 99.999% certainty that these are the only factors needed the conclusion is not valid. If any measurements of input variables are even slightly off, the conclusion does not hold.

All in all, the study, while it addressed some interesting points fell far short of being definitive proof of humans causing climate change. The certainty is far over stated when one compares reality to the model and its conclusions.

And the hypocrisy continues

Interesting email today from one of the “advocates” of climate change.  Said advocate noted he does not read this blog because he can’t take the face-painting and head-banging (I think he has me confused with some other site, but who knows?).  Now, if I recall correctly (and I do because I have all kinds of backup material), one of the objections to skeptics is that they don’t read the actual science pages, only their own pages, to avoid learning anything new.  WOW, now I get confirmation that advocates do EXACTLY THE SAME THING.  Isn’t that most interesting?  Apparently advocates are afraid of the truth, right?  I mean, that’s their interpretation of people who avoid opposing views, so it’s not like I made it up.  It’s their standard.  Okay, it’s been known for years and there’s really no way to fix it, but I do feel obligated to point out that climate science really isn’t about the science and only about agreement whenever evidence drops in.

As an aside, there are some awesome mammatus clouds this morning, but it’s too dark yet to get picture.

 

Another thing I should address is people who disagree with me telling me to take a class in science presuming that if I had taken science I would immediately recognize how indisputable their position is.  I will list the classes I have taken and if you have one that isn’t on the list, I will consider it.  For those of you who change the subject or tell someone else to take a science or physics class, I can’t reach someone who ignores his/her own requirements.

High school—chemistry, physics, geometry, trigonometry, algebra

College—general chemistry, analytical chemistry, organic chemistry, instrumental chemistry, physical chemistry, statistics for non-science majors, statistics for science majors, calculus  (several biology classes also)

Online—science based course on climate change from MIT

As for those saying to “read a research paper”, been there, done that too.  I am always open for suggestions on what papers I could read.

 

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

Statistical significance and climate change

I am linking to a blog post on statistical significance that may help explain why I am such a skeptic on the whole “human caused warming” claim:

Here’s an excerpt:

“Which is to say that according to my real, genuine, mathematically legitimate, scientifically fabricated scientific statistical scientific model (calculated on a computer), I was able to produce statistical significance and reject the “null” hypothesis of no cooling. Therefore there has been cooling. And since cooling is the opposite of warming, there is no more global warming. Quod ipso facto. Or something.

I was led to this result because many (many) readers alerted me to a fellow named Lord Donoughue, who asked Parliament a question which produced the answer that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant.” Is this right?

Not according to my model. So who’s model, the Met Office’s or mine, is right?

Well, that’s the beauty of statistics. Neither model has to be right; plus, anybody can create their own.”

Read on: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8061

The post explains very clearly, at least to me, why statistical significance may not be significant at all.  Another important excerpt:

“His model, which is frankly absurd, is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature. (Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair, I despair.)”  (Bold is mine)

Proxies cannot possibly yield the accuracy required for the claims made by climate science concerning warming.  They simply lack the degree of accuracy needed.  We really can’t even measure the accuracy except in very modern times.  Perhaps if we gave the proxy to 25 unrelated scientists and had them all give their interpretation of the proxy, it would become apparent that this is not an accurate measurement.  If you lack accurate measurements, then your conclusion cannot be said to be accurate based on those measurements.  There are too many assumptions and too much use of “estimated” and proxy data to give any kind of accurate result, except by random chance.  We simply do not have the data for these types of claims.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

Why consensus research is flawed

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97#comments

This site has a very detailed write-up on Cook and further back, some on Lewandowsky.  He’s quite thorough in his explanation about why the research is bad.

(Note:  Yes, I know he says he “believes” there is a consensus, and he believes that some of AGW is valid.   It is not necessary to agree with every argument a person puts forward.  His treatment of the psychology aspect of the consensus is very good and worth reading.)