Unvarnished Answers to Global Warming

The New York Times ran a piece a little over a year ago about short answers to hard questions about climate science. I am presenting my answers to these questions (questions in red), based on extensive research of climate articles, science and research papers.

1. How much is the planet heating up?

First, we have to decide which temperature set to use. There are several. Do we want raw or adjusted numbers?

Second, we have to decide what to do when values are missing. What method do we use to interpolate the values? What is the uncertainly in those measurement?

Third, we must decide how the average is to be calculated. Do we grid the data? Do we use anomalies from a base period? If so, which base period?

After all these decisions are made, we can give an answer. There will be many different answers, depending on what values are used and methodology is used. Which is correct? All of them and none of them. That is the wonder of statistics. All will most likely be increasing in value or remaining more or less level.

Most of the warming since 1950 is due to humans, according to the article. Why 1950? It has been warming since the 1880s or before at rates similar to after 1950. Suddenly, in 1950 humans jumped in and start to raise the temperature? Mostly, as far as is ascertainable, 1950 is used because it fits the theory. The year 1950 fits the theory and the theory shows 1950 is when warming by humans began. That is called “circular reasoning”–using your conclusion to prove your theory. It’s logically invalid. It proves nothing.

2. How much trouble are we in?

None or apocalyptic. It depends entirely on how much faith one puts in the calculations, models and the theory itself. Al Gore made a comment about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second added energy. This would be 2 billion Hiroshima bombs since 1998 if we stop at 2014. One calculation found on the website NoTricksZone shows this amount of energy would raise the temperature of the ocean .024° 1

While Al Gore makes things sound very, very scary, physics says there’s not a reason to panic.

What will the increase mean? No one can say. There’s a lot of “may” “could” “might”. However, when pressed, climate science says it cannot predict local changes. Local changes are what affects people. If those changes are unknown, then we know nothing useful about the future of climate. People live locally, not globally.

We have the ability to move goods everywhere on the planet, so local droughts and floods should not have the devastating effect they had in the past. People can more inland or elsewhere if oceans rise.

Will things change? Of course, whether or not CO2 continues to rise. There is no way to hold the climate level.

3. Is there anything I can do?

A tiny bit, maybe. You can drive a fuel-efficient car, replace your appliances with energy-efficient ones (ONLY when your current one stops working. Otherwise, you’re filling landfills for no reason and requiring more manufacturing of replacement appliances), you have no choice but to use CFL and LED light bulbs (LED’s are BRIGHT! My lamp now points at the ceiling to avoid the extreme brightness.), use water wisely (growing a water-intensive lawn in a drought area is just foolish. Forget the “save the earth” factor). The New York Times says take fewer airline trips. Maybe people should try writing Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio and let them know they are NOT helping. Forget carbon offsets. They are pretend accounting that does nothing except serve to advertise how virtuous you think you are. Climate is not affected by displays of virtue.

4. What’s the optimistic scenario?

We as humans do what we do best–adapt. We resist the “end-of-the-world” wailing and figure out how to deal with a changing climate, as we always have. We don’t kill every eagle, condor and bat trying to make electricity like they did decades ago. We do not panic and start doing “something”. Doing “something” with no clue as to the outcome or based on fear is no better than doing nothing. There is little chance humans control the climate. There’s virtually no chance of getting everyone to agree on solutions to a global climate change. Adapting is the best option, done locally.

5. Will reducing meat in my diet help?

No. It will, however, mostly make many people very cranky and increase interpersonal conflicts. The idea behind reducing meat does not hold up to scrutiny.

6. What is the worst case scenario?

In an effort to circumvent the reality that humans are not likely to be the major driver of climate, a world-wide dictatorship is established and millions or billions die due to lack of affordable energy.

7. Will a tech breakthrough help us?

No one knows.

8. How much will the seas rise?

No one knows. People can and will move away from the coast. Whether they do it matter-of-factly or wailing and moaning depends on how people are taught to deal with change.

9. Are the predictions reliable?

No one knows. Predictions 100 years in the future are science fiction. Probably even at 50 years.

What do we call “reliable”? It warms up? That’s possible with or without human input. It warms faster? Define “faster”. If it warms 2° based on whatever method we chose back in #1, by 2100, is the prediction is reliable? The effects of that increase are unknowable, of course, and verification of accuracy is decades out. It’s a useless prediction/projection.

10. Why do people question climate change?

Because that’s what is involved in science–questioning, testing and learning. To not question is to not be scientific. The methodology and data manipulation found in climate science seems to fit the definition of “bad science” and needs to be called out.

Then there’s the favorites:

a. Oil companies pay people to question the science. No, oil companies love global warming. All that money they make on useless turbines and solar panels via subsidies and tax breaks can be used to build the required natural gas backup for these plants at a much lower cost to the company. There is also zero evidence that oil companies have paid off anyone. If it is true, oil companies have better public relations people than the government, universities and Hollywood. These people would have to be super geniuses and majorly talented to exceed the combined efforts of those big hitters.

b. Politics is blamed. Conservatives and libertarians tend to question the theory. The same is true of progressives as far as blindly accepting the theory If conservatives don’t believe in global warming because it’s in line with their political beliefs, it holds that progressives believe in global warming for exactly the same reason. Translation: This idea clearly indicates climate change belief is NOT about science at all, but is indeed a political battle. It’s about political ideology. It cannot be settled by science since none is involved.

11. Is crazy weather tied to climate change?

No one knows.

12. Will anyone benefit from climate change?

It stands to reason some will some won’t, just as is true with most everything else in life. It was a pointless question.

13. Is there any reason for hope?

More and more countries are realizing how politically motivated so-called solutions to all of the alleged manmade climate change is. Countries and individuals are more willing to refuse to join in the “solutions” that cause damage, costs trillions and have little or no hope of success. Rational discussions of the topic are slower coming.

14. How does agriculture affect climate change?

No one knows. If we drop our agricultural practices and return to hunter/gather lifestyles, millions will perish. The best we can do is work at making food growing as efficient as possible and avoid practices like deforestation whenever practicable.

It should also be asked how wind turbines and solar panels destroy the landscape and may affect climate. We know turbines increase the surface temperature below the turbines by mixing air, much like the fans in citrus groves that are used to fight against frost.

How do skyscrapers affect climate? How do primitive villages affect climate? How does the migration of humans from one area to another affect climate?

One can go on all day with these hypotheticals. No one knows. It is generally believed that most actions in some way affect climate, but to what degree is not known and may never be known. Climate is a very complex chaotic system.

15. Will the seas rise evenly?

Unlikely. Geography and tectonics and gravity indicate it will probably be uneven. We can’t predict the pattern, so we adapt as the rise occurs.

16. Is it really about “carbon”?

NO, it’s about CO2. “Carbon” is shorter, so media people and others have taken to using that term. It is extremely unscientific, however. Carbon is an element, CO2 is a compound. Carbon is found in many, many things on Earth. This “shortcut” is another indication of the lack of science in the discussions of climate change/global warming. It’s intellectual laziness. It does make a great marking catch-phrase. It’s truly sad “science’ has sunk this low.

1 http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/22/sks-hiroshima-bomb-heat-clock-fraud-claim-2-1-billion-climate-ground-zeros-yet-cant-find-a-single-one-of-them/#sthash.bc5IIopa.dpuf

What if

What if Einstein and Heisenberg behaved as climate scientists do?

Einstein: Heisenberg, I see some possible flaws in your uncertainty principle.

Heisenberg: Excuse me. There are no flaws. 97% of physicists agree with my analysis.

E: But God does not throw dice.

H: There’s no god and those dice exist only because we observe them.

E: That seems a catch 22. How do we know the dice weren’t there if when we observe them, they magically appear?

H: You’ve been palling around with that idiot Schroedinger and his cat thing, haven’t you?

E: I think he may have a point.

H: No-he’s an idiot. Everyone knows that. He’s just being mean and obnoxious because he’s too stupid to understand my theory.

E: But he’s a physicist. So am I.

H: You don’t work in the field. You don’t publish. You’re all theory and no publishing.

E: What does that mean?

H: It means you are not an expert and you should learn to respect experts.

E: Seriously?

H: Yes, seriously. My calculations show specifically and certainly that particles do not exist until they are observed.

E: That makes no sense. Your calculations must be off.

H: Science denier! My calculations are absolutely accurate.

E: Can I see them?

H: NO! You’re a science denier. You’re just trying to ruin my theory because it explains more than yours.

E: I just want to check.

H: NEVER! My calculations have been checked by my peers and they agree with my conclusions.

E: Science is about verification.

H: You said my theory was a catch 22—not verifiable. You lose. I win. Now, nor more denier talk about God or dice. GOT IT?


I cant’ take it anymore……

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)

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

Antiscience? Not.

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

WtD currently (as of 10 AM today) has an article on anti-science and some psychobabble about “stages of denial”. Again, it’s based on the 97% of scientists with the appropriate degree who publish in the proper peer-reviewed journals agreeing AGW is real. As I have noted, the qualifications can be waived if scientists agree with AGW and write an article that will help the cause (as in Cook, Lewendoski and Marcott). This appears to be central to the entire theory—the “in” crowd agrees and so should you.

First, psychology and consensus have NOTHING to do with the truth or falsity of a scientific hypothesis/theory. Psychology and consensus are employed to “sell” something. For example—4 out of 5 dentists recommend “Brand X” toothpaste. Unless the dentists are doing this based on scientific evidence that brand X is best (and can produce the research to prove it), it’s nothing more than a toothpaste popularity contest.

There used to be commercials stating more hospitals used Tylenol than any other pain reliever. There was also a report that Tylenol was cutting the hospitals a great deal on the cost of the Tylenol. Today, Tylenol no longer advertises this way—it turned out the “safe” painkiller used by more hospitals was actually toxic in large doses. The medication was added to narcotic painkillers and combination medications, resulting in unintentional overdosing. It was not the “safe, trusted” painkiller that was endorsed by hospitals. Hospitals agreed—consensus existed. Tylenol was safe….but then it wasn’t.

Had someone actually questioned why there was agreement, perhaps the reality of the lack of safety in Tylenol would have come out sooner. Research and experience had always shown acetaminophen was toxic in large doses, due to liver damage. If there had been inquiries into the research and hospitals were asked to prove the safety and usefulness of the product, perhaps fewer overdoses would have occurred. The manufacturer of Tylenol later had commercials saying it was safe IF used as directed, a much more honest statement. At least safety was conditional.

Scientific truth is not determined by endorsement or consensus. It is determined by data, how well any models used predict and match reality, how much data exists versus how much is modeling (hint: the word “model” is prevalent in most AGW research.) A computer model is not a FACT. It’s not real. It’s at best an hypothesis, at worst, a fantasy. So not believing AGW is actually not putting faith in computer models and statistical probability. It is recognition of the limits of statistics and the use of modeling in trying to predict complex phenomena. It is the recognition of the validity of research based on its actual content and not who wrote. It is not a denial of science, scientific method or actual facts in evidence.

This may explain the shift from science in AGW to psychobabble and non-scientific terms like “extreme weather” (There was a study that tried to quantify this without a lot of success—I do give them credit for at least trying.)  If you can’t prove something with actual data, dazzle ’em with psychobabble and scare ’em with “extreme”.

Additional ideas

Today’s posting is links to articles I have found interesting:

NEW PAPER: ARCTIC WAS UP TO 3.8°C WARMER ~3000 YEARS AGO A paper published on 4 March in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs Arctic temperatures in Kamchatka, USSR over the past 4,500 years and finds the highest reconstructed temperatures were about 3.8°C warmer than modern temperatures. The authors find ”the highest reconstructed temperature reaching 16.8 °C between 3700 and 2800 years before the present,” about 3.8°C above “modern temperatures (13 °C).”

continued: http://www.thegwpf.org/paper-arctic-3-8c-warmer-3000-years/

For a further look at the use of the term “denier”, an older post from Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/05/definative-denier.html

One more:

Changing sun, changing climate by Bob Carter, Willie Soon & William Briggs March 8, 2013 Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5000 years.Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records, and noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, celebrated astronomer William Herschel, the first to observe Uranus, noted that when there were fewer spots the price of wheat soared. He surmised that less “light and heat” from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.


Six Aspects of Climate Belief

Six Aspects of Climate Belief  (in response to Six Aspects of Denial on “whatchingthedeniers”)

1.  Never question the science.  Just state you and everyone who is not a climate science cannot understand.  This then becomes “taking it on faith” or believing in something you cannot prove or do not understand because certain people deemed smarter than you said it’s true.  Stick with the “consensus” line and hope the listener will be bullied into going along.  Intimidation is what science is about.

2.  Maintain blind faith in the motives and integrity of climate scientists.  This appears to be a somewhat naive view.  Do we have evidence being a scientist makes you moral or holy, above the temptations of the world?  These are humans beings, but treat them as gods and maybe others will go along with the idea.

3.  Ignore any scientist who speaks out against climate change.  Denounce him as “not qualified”, even if he has credentials identical to your climate scientist.  Few people will check.

4.  Ignore the cost of “remediation” for climate change.  Accept that the only solution for climate change is stopping industrialization.  Repeat often that humans can NOT adapt.

5.  Appeal to “the greater good”.  Emphasize sacrificing comfort, the economy and anything else required for the cause.  Emphasize “do as we say, not do as we do” should any deniers mention the globetrotting nature of climate change conferences.  Remind individuals we all sacrifice at different levels.

6.  Acceptance reinforces the believers key philosophy.  Climate change is to socialists as cat nip is to cats–they get high on it.  It elevates scientists to the omniscient level of gods, allowing no dissent in one’s move to save the world and make it a socialist utopia.  Wealth and industry threaten this dream and must be stopped at all costs.  Most importantly, people need to be told what is good for them and what they need to do.  The are not smart enough to be trusted with saving the world on their own.

What are the watchers watching?

“Watching the deniers” website has a plethora of photos of Australia burning. As expected, there are no photos of Siberia and Alaska breaking cold records in 2011 and 2012, Russians buried in snow and freezing, etc. New news articles of this, either. In the interest of fairness, I am presenting a few of the stories the climate people left out.







Anyone notice Makiko’s name? This would be the guy who’s entire life is now spent getting his face on any television show he can. Not a scientist.



Alaska had a record cold summer 2012 after record cold 2011-2012 winter. The cold continues this winter. In Russia, the cold continues with hundreds freezing to death. One article noted the number of dead would be reported weekly instead of daily. It was unclear if this was a positive development.

Problems with claims of the watchers:

First, the use of photos showing fires, etc is a MARKETING tactic. No scientist uses photos in place of actual data. Any time you see photos—as with al Gore (the tax and enviro sell out championed by climate change people) it’s not about science, it’s about marketing.

Second failure to include new record lows show a fundamental lack of knowledge—or a deliberate lie—on the part of the speaker. Climate change is postulated on changes in the Global Mean Temperature. How do we calculate this? We add together all the data values from our thermometers and divide by the number of stations. We can look at average highs, average lows, etc. For the moment, we will ignore “corrections” that are usually applied.

Say in 2012 Australia’s new high temperature was +2 degrees over the previous record. Then let’s assume Alaska’s new “high” temperature was -2 degrees over the previous record. When calculating the mean, the +2 cancels out the -2. Colder temperatures count and leaving them out is unacceptable.

Averages are fascinating statistics. Consider the following example of average temperatures (which are made up for this example):

Year one Year two Year three Year four Year five
Jan 25 15 30 0 35
Mar 55 50 60 65 40
July 90 100 105 105 85
Sept 70 75 55 70 80
Average 60 60 60 60 60

Scan 5

In all cases, the average is 60 degrees. Year one seems pretty “normal”. Years two through four are going to be called “hot”. Year three may break a previous temperature high. Year four may set a record low. These graphs show weather/climate are always changing. Which graph represents “extreme” weather?

Another sign of the lack of science in climate change is the use of terms like “horrendous” “catastrophic” “megastorm” and so forth. Wait—why is that not science? Because these terms lack a precise meaning—yesterdays’ storm can be tomorrow’s megastorm if the news machine needs a crisis. There is no standardized definition of these terms which is not acceptable in science. The terms are great for SyFy movies and the like—or at least SyFy seems to love such titles, but that’s about it. The terms are also useful if you are trying to frighten/intimidate people into believing climate change is a crisis.

How would a scientist report the temperatures in Australia? (Again, using made up numbers here)

Jan 1                            Jan 2                               Jan 3                                   Jan 4

41 degrees                 42 degrees                  40 degrees                            41 degrees

breaks record

If asked what Jan 2 setting a new record means, the scientist would answer: Based on the data presented, Jan 2 had a temperature higher than any recorded in the past for that day.

If asked about what breaking multiple records or all previous records, the scientist would say: Based on available data, the temperature exceeded all past recorded temperatures.

If pushed to give a “better” answer in response to the question about record-breaking, the scientist replies: This is all we know—it’s hotter today than it has been in the past.”

Should the questioner persist, it should be pointed out that the temperature record set in 1960 broke an all-time high as well. What did that mean? That it was hot. Nothing more.

Adding an additional color to the temperature map just means our current classification system needed revised. There is no magic to the colored charts used to show temperatures. Generally, the charts replace data because data is boring and pretty colors on maps are interesting.

The watchers have no proof in their latest posting that the world is getting hotter and people did it–science is no where to be found.