THOUGHTS FOR WEDNESDAY

Over at WUWT, there’s an article on climate change making bird migrations more difficult to predict or maybe even impossible. Really? Sounds an awful lot like a CYA for scientists that can predict nothing, including things they used to be able to predict with accuracy. In fact, soon, moon eclipses will be predicted with psychics. A HUGE amount of climate change drivel is scientists trying to cover their own inadequacies. Keep that in mind when you read any of the nonsense climate research puts out all too frequently. To put it bluntly (and I always do), it’s mostly all garbage at this point trying to salvage the idea that science is God and knows everything. 

Wacky weather:

This is February 25, 2019. At 5:53 AM, the temperature was 31°F. One hour later, it was 2°F. A 29 degree drop in ONE hour. Awesome and very unexpected! Why did this happen?

You can see the cold dropping down into the US on this map from The Weather Channel. I watched where the front was for most of the day. It was quite interesting in that it was a very strong front and you could see exactly where it sat by the temperatures and how they rose and dropped.

Top graphic is from Wunderground Weather, showing the various stations available to get readings from. I am just north of the 8° station. So my temperature was about 8° and the “official temperature” was around 32° (official temperature is taken just to the left of where the graphic shows).

Bottom one shows the movement of the front south, where now you can see the airport symbol (official temperature location) and that the front is now crossing into Casper. Eventually, it completely covered Casper and points further south.

This also from Wunderground Weather and shows the front temperatures at 7:15 AM (approx).

If you scroll back up to the original listing, you will see that at 9:53 PM the temperature was 4°, then one hour later it was 36°. The front moved north and we warmed back up very, very quickly!

This is from Weather for You for the following day, February 26, 2019. The temperature dropped 22° between 3:53 and 4:53 pm, then all the way down to 4° five hours later. A 40° drop in about 6 hours. Not as dramatic as the 25th, but still quite noticeable!

Weather is fascinating, in that it can change in an instant. This is part of why “climate” is really not very useful a metric for discussing what is happening in an area or globally. Thirty degree drops in an hour get completely washed out in climate, but we still live in the weather that produces them, not the climate that “averages” them.

IPCC psychic predictions

The IPCC psychic predictions:

1. Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea-level rise.

Sea level is rising about 3 mm per year. In 100 years, you get 300mm of rise. The IPCC reportedly put a range of 28 to 98 cm by 2100. So 3 feet in 80 years. Don’t see people fleeing like refugees from that rate. Plus, there is a lot of uncertainty in the prediction.  Not to be a killjoy, but coastal zones are always hit with storms and flooding. Humans have lived near coasts and dealt with this for 100’s of years. With better technology and resources, it should be at least as doable as any other time in history.

2. Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding in some regions.

First, “in some areas” is just exactly what a psychic would use. Totally lacking in detail and will positively happen. With or without the AGW theory being correct. Note it does not say “increased risk”.

3. Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services.

Again, not statement of an “increase”, just “risks”. Humans have to deal with extreme weather all the time. If there’s more extreme weather, humans have dealt with it. We have managed even though more people are affected. Critical services and infrastructure are lost frequently. People cope. Should we make improvements to our infrastructure and homes–sure. Warming or no, the storms will keep coming.

4. Risk of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations and those working outdoors in urban or rural areas.

Interesting they say “working outdoors in urban or rural areas”. Climate change believers tend to be nitpickers on language and you would have thought they would have realized this actually reads that people in semi-rural or semi-urban areas are not included. How did that one get past the editor? Why not just say “outdoors”?
Extreme hot and extreme cold can kill, now and in the future. Cold kills fewer people in the US in part due to “snowbirds”–people who move from one climate to another, kind of like migratory birds, only the migration occurs in cars, rather than walking or flying. Perhaps people will improve on that system. Also, people who like hot gravitate to hot, same for people who like cold.
For centuries, people have worked outside in extreme heat and extreme cold.

5. Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes, particularly for poorer populations in urban and rural settings.

Again, nothing new. Drought and famine have existed for the entirety of human history. It has alway s been harder on the poor. They failed to mention cooling causes famine also–the Irish potato famine comes to mind. There is absolute certainty that some of these things will happen. No real predictions short of what has always happened will continue to happen.

6. Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.

I believe this describes the dust bowl–that pre-global warming disaster that changed the way we farm. Same old thing humans have always contended with. Only now we have more advanced technology and better ways to deal with this. Poorer nations will catch up as they always have.

7. Risk of loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.

The “risk” is that systems will change, not be lost. That is exactly what nature has always done–change, adapt. Is is fascinating that the same scientists who may heartily espouse evolution can be the same one shouting loudest that nothing should change or that the change can be “too fast”. As for livelihoods, buggy whip manufacturers were displaced by cars, furriers put out of much business by the PC animal rights crowds, machinery replaced humans in many areas. The world went on.

8. Risk of loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for livelihoods.
Loss and movement of water systems is nothing new. The ecosystems will change, not be lost (unless you argue that every time there is an evolutionary change, it’s bad because something is lost–that evolution is bad). Yes, some species will be lost, no matter if the planet warms or not. It’s call survival of the adequately fit. Nothing new.

The IPCC report reads like what a carnival psychic would say–vague predictions many of which are going to happen with or without AGW. It’s sad that pseudoscientific vague predictions have been called science when discussing the climate.

Several places I read on the report said:
“there is no new science in this report, which assesses recent science since the previous IPCC report in 2007”
No new science but an increase in likelihood that humans are causing climate change? How does that work? Same way a psychic does–by saying whatever you think someone wants to hear and hoping no one asks about the details.

Another interesting statement in the report:
“Attribution of observed impacts in the WGII AR5 generally links responses of natural and human systems to observed climate change, regardless of its cause.”
Translation: Nature or human caused, it matters not so far as what we try to scare you with. If we separated them, you might see that nature really is a lot more dominate than we admit. No need for those pesky details.

There is talk of adaptation in the document, but not in many of the press releases. It’s fascinating how science gets trampled all to death in the name of saving the planet, which we have little evidence needs saving. Perhaps they changed to the psychic method because actual predictions of melting glaciers, hotspots and Arctic ice were so problematic in the past. It appears there’s much, much more to learn about natural climate change, CO2 and modeling before we can move past the psychic predictions.

 

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

 

 

 

 

Exploit the dead–the ends justify the means

It had to happen. All crisis and human life lost must be blamed on humans causing climate change. And here it is: Mother Jones
One Reason It May Be Harder to Find Flight 370: We Messed Up the Currents.
It’s not enough that humans are soooo powerful they messed up the atmosphere, but they messed up the oceans too. Let’s see–tgdaily had this:
A new study by the University of Pennsylvania’s Irina Marinov and Raffaele Bernardello and colleagues from McGill University has found that recent climate change may be acting to slow down one of these conveyer belts, with potentially serious consequences for the future of the planet’s climate.
Read more at http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/91136-report-deep-ocean-current-may-slow-due-to-climate-change#sheKk39GBik3pe54.99
MAY be slowing. Not is, not will, not we are sure about this. Not anything but MAY BE.

Actually, ocean current exerts a great deal of influence on climate itself. I checked out aip.org on ocean and it’s part in global warming, but ran across the statement “What was much more certain was that the oceans were rapidly warming and growing more acidic” at which point I stopped. My new rule is if the writer is so scientifically illiterate that they do not know that a ph of 8.1 is BASIC and not acid, I will have to check everything they write due to their obvious lack of scientific knowledge. Does it matter they have a PhD in physics? Actually, how do you get a PhD when you’re too scientifically illiterate to know the difference between an acid and a base? This is just making me think “peer-review” and “degrees” are meaningless. Anyone with any real knowledge of science knows 8.1 is base. A base cannot become more “acidic” if it is not acidic to start with.  It is BASE until it drops below 7.  It is so amazing to me that people who claim to be brilliant can be so very, very lacking in scientific knowledge. In my class, people with PhD’s could not correctly identify the base/alkali nature of the ocean. It’s so incredibly wrong, wrong, wrong.  And it makes me question everything they say because if they don’t understand something this simple, how can they be trusted to understand something as complex as climate?

This constant lack of correct terminology and lying about chemical properties and who knows what else may in part explain why Mother Jones is fully willing to sensationalize a downed plane and use the dead as a banner for claiming climate change is the reason we couldn’t find the plane. It’s the most obnoxious, arrogant, and evil behaviour out there. Global warming is its own worst enemy, damning humans and caring nothing about lives unless they can be exploited.

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

Graph Wars

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger


A reader alerted me to the current exchanges between WtD (Watching the Deniers) and WUWT (Watts Up With That). Since the exchanges continue, at least at WtD, I may have to update as things develop.

The exchange appears to have started in WtD with a headline “Anthony Watts: it is necessary to use correct sea-ice graphs to avoid misleading the public.” The “misleading” part was the graph does not include the SD (standard deviation) shading. I am uncertain how many people actually understand or even notice the SD shading, but it appears that WtD feels this is essential.

Later the same day, another entry on WtD discussed what the blogger had learned from the WUWT incident. It is interesting that he describes “friendly debate” and couches the remainder of the article in language befitting an army general leading troops to war (science is now war?) He proceeds to analyze what he has learned about leading troops into battle and the only thing to fear from skeptics is “our own fear”. My best guess at the meaning of this is: “if we have no fear, they can’t hurt us”. In the real world, that philosophy has proven to not be true in many cases (Custer come to mind). It does make a great war cry, but that’s about it. One would have hoped more would have been learned in the exchange.

Next, he “outs” the scoundrel who ratted out the blog posting to WUWT. What?!?!? What is it in this climate change discussion that people write a blog on an extremely controversial topic and then complain about the controversy. Better yet, the scoundrel who ratted out WtD would have been allowed to return to commenting, but not anymore. Punishment for “telling on” the blogger was swift and sure. Do these people really have egos that big that forbidding someone to comment on a blog is considered retaliation or punishment? Never mind—that may be self-evident.

Now today, WtD “discovered” an inflammatory comment at WUWT and is demanding an apology (actually more or less whining and hoping that works). The blogger actually said he “occupies the moral high ground”. The only people who write statements like that are people NOT occupying the moral high ground who are hoping their declarations will fool you. He is angry about a comment that implies he is gay. WtD quickly notes that “gay is okay”, yet writes an entire entry on how insulting the comment was meant to be and why it should be removed. Double think? In actuality, I probably would have moderated the comment (removed or modified it) because it is a personal attack and has nothing to with the subject at hand. However, if WUWT allows personal attacks, I see no problem. If “gay is okay”, then it really wasn’t an insult anyway, but a reflection on the commenter.

What was WUWT doing throughout this exchange? There was a post concerning the accusation by WtD and a statement that the graph was not fabricated. The commenter from WtD stated he lodged a formal complaint concerning the matter with the Australian Press Council. I’m not sure how much good that does–there seems to be a large number of such claims from both sides, but perhaps it will help. WUWT also clearly posted links to the graph used—this is one of the “official “ graphs from NSIDC. There is one graph with SD and one without. There was no deception in the first place.

A similar objection was lodged by a commenter on this blog concerning a graph I posted a link to: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/global-warming-in-a-few-slides.php The graph does not match data from Rutger’s Climate lab. I have attempted to find the source of the graph, but to date have not been successful.

The objection, however, was to the graph using November to April, leaving out May, June, October and maybe more. Rutgers uses “spring”, “fall”, and “winter”, which I am guessing (and it’s just a guess) is that Rutgers means calendar periods, not the more generic use of the terms. The graph should have been labelled with actual dates for the data range in order to remove all doubt. Both sides truncate data to their advantage and use terms that work for them. We need to educate people to ask questions about the graphs and look at the data instead of fighting over what is and is not a “deliberate misrepresentation”. Another important problem with the graph was overlooked entirely: the Y axis has no label for the units used. The numbers are too large to be square miles or square kilometers based on the Rutgers graph. For now, I am labeling that graph as questionable on the blog entry.

One last note: WtD says “If the NSIDC has elected to present information in one format as their preferred means of communication, it is beholden to all of us to follow their model.” Science is not “Follow the Leader” or “Simon Says”. It is utterly unscientific to lock data into a specific format for graphing. It cripples the ability of scientists and readers to make comparisons in the graphing and to possibly discover new trends in the data . The statement is indicative of how very little science is found on WtD.

An Invalid Analogy

In our paper, a professor from our university claimed our congressional representative was ignoring the science on climate change.

He first makes the tired 97% agreement claim. Yes, 97% of the 79 people who wrote the most peer-reviewed articles in peer-reviewed journals. Translation: 97% of 79 people who’s fellow climate scientists agreed with what they wrote think climate science is true. Of course, consensus does not determine truth in science, so even if 99% of 3000 scientists agreed, it would not make the hypothesis or theory true. Only evidence and testing and open review can do that.

Then came the now standard “If you had cancer, you would go to an oncologist, right?” The clear implication is you must have a specialist or appropriate authority for scientific decisions. Thus, you need the IPCC (which is not science organization, but rather a political one that decides what the whole world needs to do) and James Hansen to tell you about climate change.

There is a serious flaw in this claim—or maybe it’s a deliberate slight. Yes, you do go to an oncologist for treatment of cancer, but very often a family doctor or even a dentist makes the referral. This means a non-specialist can recognize cancer or potential cancer. The understanding of what cancer is is present in these “non-specialists”, unlike climate science where anyone outside the elite peer-reviewed are often ignored or downright vilified. Can you imagine an oncologist refusing to see you because your lowly GP thinks you have cancer? Who is your GP to make a diagnosis like that? If the oncologist said you did not have cancer but your GP did, would you seek a second opinion or just go with the specialist who is the authority and ignore the non-authority GP?

There are many different ways of treating cancer and a recognition that there is much more to be learned. There is no consensus in what will work because consensus is not important—results are. Money is always being raised for new studies on cancer and treatments for it. It is not “settled” science.

The second problem with the comparison is oncologists success is measured by remission and cure rates. No one checks for how many articles the oncologist has published or is his cure rate is peer-reviewed. This is because there are concrete, testable practices in oncology. If a treatment fails, it is evident in a short period of time. Contrast this to climate change which is mostly mathematics and computer modeling. There is no immediate, concrete verification of the theory. Much of the damage is forecast decades out. How can a person have any idea if a theory that cannot be verified for 50 years is even close to accurate? To be science, the theory has to be testable and falsifiable. Climate change theory is neither. Oncology is.

If oncology worked like climate change, an oncologist would do a few tests of how you are feeling and feed the information into a computer program to produce a graph that show possible outcomes. He cannot use any empirical information outside of a biopsy to diagnose the cancer. Everything else is a CI or probability graph. If the graph says “treat now and agressively” and that translates to “cut the limb off or the cancer COULD spread”, you would have to amputate the limb because it COULD save your life.

In reality, an oncologist would do empirical tests, then give the patient choices for treatment. The patient may opt to go for amputating the limb to avoid the possibility that he could die if he does not. In oncology, that is a choice. In climate science, it is not. The treatment is prescribed for the world and there is NO discussion in any of it.
If your oncologist treated your cancer using computer models and decided FOR you the treatment, then and only then could going to an oncologist for treatment be somewhat comparable to going to an expert in climate science to get the diagnoses and treatment for the planet.

Empirical science is not the same as theoretical. Biopsies are not the same as inputting “average” temperatures from various places around the globe and manipulating the data, the declaring the earth is warming. The comparison is invalid and climate scientists should be looking for something that is similar if they want to get climate science questioners to consider their behaviour and analogies to be scientific.