Unbelievable (well, not really, but one would have hoped)


Al Jazeera’s Climate Activist Fans Don’t Care About The Network’s Ties To Oil-Rich Qatar
So now we find that oil company ties are only bad if they are to skeptics. Hypocrites. Definitive proof that the only goal is to spread the gospel of AGW, even if the people killing the planet are the ones financing the spread.

Also, you may officially laugh hysterically when the AGW advocates call you a “shill of the oil industry” and chant “al jazeera, al jazeera, al jazeera” with great glee. The complete and utter stupidity of this type of behaviour boggles the mind.

Note that this glee is based on the words of Al Jazeera, not any action whatsoever. Oil is still being drilled and sold. It will continue to be. All that counts is the endorsement of AGW, not any actions on anyone’s part. Just proclaim you agree, then continue to pillage the planet and burn those evil fossil fuels and the AGW crowd will kiss the ground you walk on. Can they get any more foolish-looking? One wonders how….And they call the skeptics deniers. This may actually rise to the pathological level of denial. Or at least the poster child for double-think.


Scientific badger

Scientific badger

And this is how climate change is 95% certain

Big headline over at WtD: We’re 95% certain. Did you ever ask yourself how they came to this conclusion? What empirical testing in the real world was done to verify this 95%? Or was it all based on models proving models (circular reasoning–you cannot prove a model with a model). More important, is 95% that huge a confidence level? Are two standard deviations from the mean (assuming we have a mean, it’s calculated correctly, etc) significant enough for something as important as climate change?

I found a blog article that answers some these questions very well:

95 percent confidence: in HEP vs IPCC
When I saw some reports about the IPCC’s 95 percent “certainty” that the global warming is mostly man-made, I couldn’t avoid thinking about the huge difference between hard sciences (such as particle physics) and soft sciences (such as the contemporary climatology).

Continue reading here:

For those of you who don’t do statistics, etc, thus far the hotspot in the troposphere has not been found (the statement there was “it’s not essential to the theory) and warming flattened off for over 15 years (now it moved to the ocean–or if you’re Kevin Trenbreth, he seems to have just thrown in the towel with: it will get hot some places and cold others). Climate change has been replaced with “extreme weather”–a term that is anything the media decides it will be, allowing any event to “prove” the predictions. If any of you have ever watched a “psychic” do their thing, when one prediction fails, the claim is the vision wasn’t quite clear but now they can say with confidence that “X is true” and will happen. They usually move the time frame forward (you know, like now the warming will be by the end of this century, at which time most of those predicting will be dead) and hope you will forget the original prediction. Climate change “science” has no better a record than a standard fortune teller, yet proudly proclaims 95% certainty.

The only thing we can predict with certainty is if we continue to allow people to think cheap predictions are somehow science, we will head back into the dark ages of superstition and psychics with nothing to stand in the way. Science will be buried. Maybe that’s preferable for some–it requires no thought, plus it’s faith-based so no one can counter it. Why let a little thing like reality ruined an otherwise perfect system?

If someone would like to explain in very clear statistical language how the IPCC came to the 95%, please, feel free to share. It would be helpful if you could show that actual data used and the statistical techniques, fully explaining the models, etc.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

It’s all about scary pictures and made-up “facts”

“The new normal–Tornadoes strike italy, hundreds dead in UK heatwave, Shanghai record breaking heatwave, Japan’s new national heat wave”

WtD is back on the tired “worst ever, sky is falling, we’re all going to die” track again. Interesting that he does not mention the COLD in England and how many people died from that weather phenomena. Oh, I forgot, only heat waves count.

The IPCC itself says tornadoes CANNOT be said to be a result of climate change but I guess WtD is not really interested in science or what the IPCC has been saying. Terrifying headlines are so much better and scare the daylights out of people. Facts just get in the way.

Heat waves–claimed to be the “WORST EVER” every year for as long as extreme weather became the new mantra of climate alarmists. Using only 30 years of data, as is the definition of climate, perhaps that can actually be claimed. So can extreme cold, increased snow, etc. Plus, picking countries that have heat waves while ignoring that the US has not had prolonged heat waves this year, is dishonest.

Another question here–Did the Southern Hemisphere vanish? As far as I can tell, other than Australia, there is no climate in the Southern Hemisphere. No land, no people, nothing. Well, there is Antarctica, but that gets ignored if it freezes up more than usual. It was a great tour for Al Gore to film ice calving off the land and claim climate change (It does that in the summer, which is when Al was there. Has something to do with mass and gravity, I think.) Can anyone tell me what happened to South America and Africa. After we found out the Himalayas were not going to lose all the glaciers, Africa vanished. Who redefined the Northern Hemisphere as global?

It’s just the same old pictures and scare tactics. Without facts, contradicting facts of their own advocates, etc. No wonder it’s losing followers.

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

As I have been saying

Today I found this:

Undoubtedly, it appears on many more blogs. The test of a theory is whether or not the evidence fits the theory. AGW is based on models that predict warming–which is not occurring in reality. Advocates may try to claim that the heat went into the oceans, but the models did not predict that starting in the late 1990’s the heat storage would shift to the oceans. Clearly the models cannot accurately predict and since the theory is based on the models, the entire theory is in need of a thorough reworking.

In addition, the models for the melting of Arctic Ice have made predictions that are virtually worthless. In this case, the models showed the melting far into the future, not now. Again, bad model, bad theory.

A true scientist, when confronted with this failure, would set about finding where the errors are and revising the theory. Should we take bets on whether or not AGW advocates publicly admit the failure and rethink the theory, looking for where the errors are, or if they return to name-calling, shrill cries of “Big Oil Conspiracy”, etc? Odds are very, very high the real science route will not be followed.

Get ready for mudslinging and desperate attempts to cover up the failure in the science. It’s going to get ugly.

 Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

Problem premises, misplaced blame

I was reading a paper by Hansen et al and found the term “known planetary energy imbalance”. This has always been an interesting term to me. It presupposes that:
(A) Balance is supposed to exist.
(B) We know every factor in the energy mix and it’s contribution to the overall balance

Without verification of these two premises, any conclusions that arise from these premises are not logically true. The conclusion may be true, but the arguments used to “prove” them do not lead to the conclusion and do not serve to verify the conclusion.

(A) How do we know a “balance” ever existed? Humans love balance, that I understand. Mathematical equations have to balance as a matter of definition. Then there are the laws of thermodynamics. Mathematically, we want all the parts to add up—same amount of energy in as out. Right now, the earth is absorbing more energy than it is releasing back into space. The energy is going into the oceans. This is interpreted to mean something is “wrong” and must be fixed.

The need for balance is seen in the use of the global mean temperature (a statistic that reduces thousands of readings to one easy number). Any variation from this temperature is an anomaly. If even the smallest change occurs, it has enormous implications. Should one point out that the temperature of the Earth has always varied, the shrill response is: “Not this much”! Everything must balance and thus must remain stable.

If there is an imbalance and the global mean temperature is going up, we must “fix” it. Fix it to what? The pre-industrial era? Was it in balance then? What about the warming after the LIA? Did that indicate a return to balance or a falling out of balance? Snowball earth—definitely out of balance? What about when snowball earth started to melt? The balance was definitely not present then. So what period in time was the energy in/energy out in balance? Why did it stop being in balance? Was it ever really in balance or are we looking at a system that works without the balance we demand and that system’s imbalance results in what we call “climate”? Is it the imbalance that is the “correct” state?

Hansen is now saying “natural” climate is holding the CO2 in check—El Nino, La Nina, and solar output. However , he continues to claim CO2 from humans is the “predominant forcing”. The 5 year mean (running average) has been flat for a decade, while CO2 continues to rise. I garden. The predominant factor in successful gardening is water. We have had 12 years of drought. For a while, my irrigation watering, fertilizing, etc produced some results. However, year after year, the crop became smaller and smaller. My ability to get enough water through sprinklers was limited by the drought, also. This year, my garden is ¼ the area of the past. This year, rain has been falling. The amount of produce from the smaller area is exceeding the yield from last year’s large area. Nothing I did could overcome the lack of rain. Rain is the predominant factor. It seems problematic that a factor so huge and planet-threatening as human-produced CO2 could be knocked down by natural factors. The claim that warming will return is still clung to, however. Nature will fail to retain it’s current domination and CO2 will again reign. In my case, I know the rain was the dominant factor because when it returned, so did the garden. Until now, that was nothing more than an hypothesis. Just as “the warming will return” is nothing more than an hypothesis until the warming does return. Even then, there is the serious question of how a climate driver the size of human-induced CO2 could be overwhelmed by any natural process.

Hansen’s theory also presumes there exists a dominant driver of climate and that it will remain dominant except for brief periods. It is equally possible, and may be probable, that there exists no single factor or single group of factors that rule climate. Many factors may rise to dominance for periods of time, then are overpowered by others. In other words, there are multiple drivers that move up and down in their level of influence.

(B)We know every factor in the balance and it’s part/percentage in the balance. This is obviously false. Until the temperatures “flattened”, natural forces were said to be completely overwhelmed by CO2—that CO2 is the driving factor. If we did know everything there is to know about climate, we would have realized that nature might be a very large part of climate changing and that our contribution was not large enough to rule the climate kingdom continually. Climate scientists would have been telling us that CO2 was one factor but there were many others, and that their current understanding was that CO2 was the major driver at the moment (plus forcings, of course). They would have clearly stated that leveling off was possible and that nature could prevail for at least short periods. This was not found in the narrative until the temperatures flattened and there arose questions about why the warming of the atmosphere had stopped or slowed. As far as I know, it is not found in the research papers either. The narrative and research say warming is primarily due to CO2. It is the questioners who suggest otherwise.

Climate scientists bemoan the fact that people do not believe or trust them. Statements are made to the effect that Fox News is having more influence over people’s beliefs than the scientists themselves. Fox News is spreading an anti-science message and damaging the climate scientists standing.

That is NOT the problem. This sudden “nature is stronger at the moment but we assure you it will get continue to get hot just like we said it would” is clearly viewed as a CYA statement. When scientists predict warming for years and then circle the wagons and put out CYA statements when the warming flattens, they look just like politicians. People don’t trust politicians—the same happens when scientists start to act like politicians: Distrust.

Problem premises and CYA tactics are why people distrust climate science. Try clearly stating the premise and backing it up with solid evidence, not a “trust me” from the people promoting the theory. Of course, you will need a theory that actually can be verified. When models fail, the theory fails. When the theory cannot account for changes in what warms and how much, the theory fails. It is this failure that is the problem. Pure and simple.

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

Wildfire propaganda

Big surprise–WtD has a post on the California wildfires. It features an article from the Los Angeles Time. Very scientific….

Why the fires? Something about sea surface warming, glaciers melting. and lakes warming. It was not at all clear how these have any effect on fires since all three involve water, the enemy of fire.

For those who missed the explanation for why fires are a problem in California and elsewhere:
1. The earth has a large amount of flammable material that can be ignited by both nature and humans (a subset of nature)
2. Humans tend to live in flammable housing.
3. They tend to put their flammable housing in flammable trees and brush.
4. Flammable housing in flammable trees often results in loss of homes when a fire occurs.
5. Failure to remove the flammable material around the flammable houses, also known as defensible space
6. Increase in the number of humans living in the flammable structures in an area (can result in more accidental fires and increases fire losses)
7. Increases in recreational activities that can produce accidental fires.
8. Arson–for the thrill or for money

All of these can be readily verified without adjustments, statistical analysis or models.

Hot weather, low humidity and wind increase the intensity of fires, but if the basic reasons for fire were addressed, the weather would not be such an issue. Until we admit that building flammable structures in flammable areas will cause losses when a fire does occur and until we admit humans are very bad about following the rules concerning fire safety and defensible space, no amount of the weather cooling will make a significant impact, short of a new ice age.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

Science is NOT about proof–from the mouth of Mann

“Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science,” Mann says. “Science works in evidence through best explanations, most credible theories…..”

View at Medium.com

This is what climate science is all about–who can sell the “best theory”. Of course, if you eliminate the need for proof, you can pretty much call any theory trash and your own the best. This is the insanity to which climate change has elevated. One supposes that if a “best” theory showed we arrived here via alien ships and all our technology is from the aliens–wait, there is a theory like that and it’s pretty comprehensive. If you just leave out the “need for proof”, it actually explains things as well or better than evolution. Maybe we should replace evolution with ancient aliens and see if that theory can be sold as “better”? Maybe the aliens run the government and are suppressing the theory or it would be recognized as best by all scientists? Maybe it’s the military complex holding it back? Who knows? The “best” theory is determined by ???? Vote? Most persecuted? Person claiming to hold the truth and claiming to be ethical (no proof needed)? Wait, then we get conflicting theories, catch 22….my head hurts….No, it can’t be that one.

The actual article with the quote is the medium.com one (warning: You may want to make sure you are firmly seated before reading the article. You possibly could injure yourself laughing at Mann’s claims he is bound by “truth”.). Yes, I did check to be sure the evil Heartland, shills of the oil industry, did not misrepresent Mr. Mann, shill of the socialists and government agendas. In an effort to be fair, I included links to both articles. You can decide if it’s a oil industry conspiracy like the advocates say (yes, advocates are conspiracy theory lovers, too, just different conspiracies) or if it’s a government/socialist conspiracy to suppress the truth as the questioners say. Of course, since no PROOF is needed, I suppose in the end we decide this by coin flip. Anyone have a quarter handy????

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

Arctic Ice

I have reached a point in my studies where I can present my conclusions on what a melting of arctic likely means. Is it a sign of the apocalypse, or a natural phenomena?

First, I note with interest that the National Snow and Ice data center will be updating the sea ice baseline from the currently used 1979 to 2000 to the 1981 to 2010 interval. This means 10 years of diminished ice cover will figure into the average used for comparisons. This should result in the ice extent anomaly becoming smaller—in other words, the melt will be closer to average. In July, the change will be implemented and I look forward to seeing the effects.

Where to start? Studying arctic ice proved enlightening. There are many hypotheses for what causes ice melt. Plus, forces acting on sea ice are not the same as that acting on land ice. Land ice melts in reaction to air temperature, wind, storms, snow cover. Sea ice melts mostly due to water temperature underneath the ice, wave motion and storms.

There are terms:
slp sea level pressure
AO Arctic Oscillation
NAO North Atlantic Oscillation
lfo low frequency oscillation
sst sea surface temperature
enso el Niño southern oscillation
smmr scanning microwave radiometer
ssmi special sensor/ microwave imager
first year ice
multiyear ice (important because the two types of ice have different melting rates)
Beaufort Gyre (a mean annual clockwise motion in the Western Atlantic)

Then the proxies:
Marine sediment records
sea floor sediments beneath the ice give the best information
resolution varies by location—central areas are low resolution with a long time scale
continental margins are high resolution with a shorter time scale
ice rafted sediments are the most direct proxies
skeletons of marine animals/organisms
coastal records, driftwood, whalebone
terrestrial vegetation, ice cores
historical records
the 18O/16O ratio
Use of multiple proxies is required to reduce the probability of errors.

According to Lora Koenig, (Goddard glaciologist) a melt similar to the current one occurs every 150 years and this one is right on time. For those of you on the advocate side, I give you: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/28/1114628/-NASA-Made-up-150-year-melt-cycles-NY-Times-Slammed-NASA-for-Unprecedented-Melt-Every-150-Years#
It is a political blog with unlabeled axes on the first graph, but it does provide an alternative point of view (she was pressured by politics—wait—that’s what the questioners say about advocates. Now advocates who rejected that explanation when it was used as an explanation of why climate scientists all stick together and don’t go against “consensus”, are using the argument themselves. Most interesting.) I did not find verification of her political motivation. I did find other articles that verified the 150 year cycles based on ice cores.

Another interesting item was an announcement from NSID that they would revise their algorithm for the Greenland Ice Sheet early. The adjustment resulted in fewer melt days. What is interesting is how measurements are not straightforward. It seems we have to mathematically adjust so many of the measurements. Since no direct measurement may exist, there’s really no way to verify the accuracy, nothing concrete to compare to. The best we can do is have independent calculation and verify the “close fit” or “way off” nature of each method. The change in the algorithm appears to have been
due to temperature records showing the temperature had not hit the melting point. This is as close to direct verification as we get, it seems. This also illustrates the lack of reliability in the science, especially if the melt gets a headline and the correction gets virtually no notice.

In Quaternary Science Reviews, there was an interesting study on the history of sea ice. It explains proxies and many aspects of researching ice. The conclusion was “unexplainable by any of the known natural variations.” The implication was that humans were the only possible cause, not nature. This is basically the exclusionary principle—nothing else explains the phenomena so it must be “x” (in this case, us). In the study, this is not stated but rather implied. The actual conclusion is the ice melt is anomalous. That conclusion is an actual scientific statement that refrains from over-reaching: the ice is melting at a rate outside our defined “normal”.

In researching arctic ice, I found an article with a study saying the record surface melting was caused by “unusual atmospheric circulation and jet stream GrIS. This event was the largest such event since the 70’s and maybe longer. The study involved using a computer model and satellite data. Based on the results, the melt’s main forcing was atmospheric—the NAO, GBI (Greenland Blocking Index—a high pressure system over Greenland) and the polar jet stream. Researchers note that in time we will know if the was anomalous or part of an emerging pattern. Patience before drawing conclusions is a very good practice. So is more data collection.

Sea ice decline is actually small: -2.24% per decade. Headlines such as “Why Arctic Sea Ice will vanish in 2013” are designed to lead people to thinking climate change is much faster and larger than the data would indicate (I’ll wait until September to see if the headline comes true. Also, this story states we have had a stable climate for the last 11,000 years. Any time I ask about a stable climate, I am told “the climate never was stable”. It’s headlines and stories like these that lead people to asking when was climate stable and doubting the accuracy of climate change science.) I also found a report that Peter Wadhams, review editor, IPCC Working Group I report says the arctic will melt by 2015, if not sooner. The exaggerations seem endless.

One of the proxies used for study is historical records. I’m including some here. While there will be an immediate “That’s not science” reaction from many, consider that internet marketing surveys are now being published in peer-reviewed journals. Old newspaper headlines are certainly as reliable a measure as internet marketing surveys.
From Climate Depot:
1922 Washington Post “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm, Seals Vanish and Iceberg Melt”
1923 “Radical Climate Change Melting Down the North Pole”
1935 “Russian Ship Sailed 500 miles from North Pole in Ice Free Water”
1947 “International Agency needed to Stop the Arctic Meltdown” (No word on how that would work)
1907 “Arctic Heat Record—Hottest Place in Europe
Some of these may have been “local” events but the belief in apocalyptic meltdown of the arctic is nothing new.
As you can see, there are many theories/hypothesis on arctic ice melt. What seems most apparent is we lack sufficient understanding at this point to draw accurate conclusions, especially long-range ones. In 2002, satellites from GRACE began detecting tiny variations in Earth’s gravity that indicate changes in mass distribution on earth, including the movement of ice into the ocean. These are detecting decreases, but with only a decade of data, its too soon to establish a pattern as climate change rather than short-term weather changes. Even if we do find a significant decline, we cannot simply jump to “human-caused”. We live on a dynamic planet that is always changing. Monitoring may help us prepare for the changes by alerting us sooner, much like radar for tornadoes and hurricanes. Just like the storm alerts, the knowledge can only warn, not prevent. We can study, learn and adapt, but in all probability, it’s not something we control nor something we can prevent.


Polyak, L., et al, History of sea ice in the Arctic, Quaternary Science Reviews (2010)

Click to access Liu_GRL31A.pdf


Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger