Global Warming is a Scam

[Heissonear]

We have heard many state that 2014 will be "the warmest year ever"

But how real is the "warmest ever"? Or is this statement and news essentially propaganda?

Judith is a Professor of Climatology at Georgia Tech.

Spinning the ‘warmest year’ | Climate Etc.

The spin

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) issued a Press Release on 3 Dec: 2014 on course to be one of the hottest, possibly hottest, on record. Excerpts:

WMO’s provisional statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2014 indicated that the global average air temperature over land and sea surface for January to October was about 0.57° Centigrade (1.03 Fahrenheit) above the average of 14.00°C (57.2 °F) for the 1961-1990 reference period, and 0.09°C (0.16 °F) above the average for the past ten years (2004-2013).

If November and December maintain the same tendency, then 2014 will likely be the hottest on record, ahead of 2010, 2005 and 1998. This confirms the underlying long-term warming trend. It is important to note that differences in the rankings of the warmest years are a matter of only a few hundredths of a degree, and that different data sets show slightly different rankings.

“The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “There is no standstill in global warming,” he said.

“What we saw in 2014 is consistent with what we expect from a changing climate. Record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods destroyed livelihoods and ruined lives. What is particularly unusual and alarming this year are the high temperatures of vast areas of the ocean surface, including in the northern hemisphere,” he said.

“Record-high greenhouse gas emissions and associated atmospheric concentrations are committing the planet to a much more uncertain and inhospitable future. WMO and its Members will continue to improve forecasts and services to help people cope with more frequent and damaging extreme weather and climate conditions,” said Mr Jarraud.

The provisional statement was published to inform the annual climate change negotiations taking place in Lima, Peru. WMO also updated its acclaimed Weather Reports for the Future series, with scenarios for the weather in 2050 based on the Fifth Assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, which is co-sponsored by WMO and the UNEP. Newly added reports are for Peru, France, Viet Nam, Spain, Canada and Norway, painting a compelling picture of what life could be like on a warmer planet.

Matt Ridley has a subsequent article in The Times: Beware the corruption of science. Subtitle: Environmental researchers are increasingly looking for evidence that fits their ideology rather than seeking the truth. Excerpts (from the GWPF article):

Second example: last week, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a supposedly scientific body, issued a press release stating that this is likely to be the warmest year in a century or more, based on surface temperatures. Yet this predicted record would be only one hundredth of a degree above 2010 and two hundredths of a degree above 2005 — with an error range of one tenth of a degree. True scientists would have said: this year is unlikely to be significantly warmer than 2010 or 2005 and left it at that.

 

[Heissonear]

The "spin" Professor Curry was referring to about "warmist ever". Yes, it is being pushed, it is propaganda.

November in Books; 2014 On Pace for Hottest Year | Climate Central

With November’s temperature numbers in the books, 2014 is on track to be the hottest year ever recorded, newly released data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show.

During the month, the patterns that have been in place for much of the year held fast: While the eastern U.S. was plunged into a deep freeze, the world as a whole continued warming, fueled by the rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Stated as factual and alarming. Stated as "fueled" or induced by CO2 increase in earths atmosphere.

That is the agenda.

 

[Mainframes]

An agenda where the facts are stated and everyone is informed about the science behind the facts....
Damn them!

 

[Heissonear]

An agenda where the facts are stated and everyone is informed about the science behind the facts....
Damn them!

.

Cannot see "the spin" others have produced in the past month?

Spinning the ‘warmest year’ | Climate Etc.

Real time exposure as they are produced.
.

 

[Heissonear]

As mentioned several times before - over the past two years there have been many climatologists publications finding how the Modern Warming Period continues to be from natural climate cycles observations.

The paper below was presented yesterday (Dec 17) at the 2014 AGU.

GC33H-07Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature trends and variations, 1900-2012

Over the past century, northeast Pacific coastal sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and land-based surface air temperatures (SATs) display multidecadal variations associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, in addition to a warming trend of ~0.5 to 1°C. Using independent records of sea-level pressure (SLP), SST and SAT, this study investigates NE Pacific coupled atmosphere-ocean variability from 1900 to 2012, with emphasis on the coastal areas around North America. We use a linear stochastic time series model to show that the SST evolution around the NE Pacific coast can be explained by a combination of regional atmospheric forcing and ocean persistence, accounting for 63% of nonseasonal monthly SST variance (r = 0.79) and 73% of variance in annual means (r = 0.86).

We show that SLP reductions and related atmospheric forcing led to century-long warming around the NE Pacific margins, with strongest trends observed from 1910-20 to 1940. NE Pacific circulation changes are estimated to account for more than 80% of the 1900-2012 linear warming in coastal NE Pacific SST and US Pacific northwest (Washington, Oregon and northern California) SAT. An ensemble of climate model simulations run under the same historical radiative forcings fails to reproduce the observed regional circulation trends. These results suggest that natural, internally-generated changes in atmospheric circulation were the primary cause of coastal NE Pacific warming from 1900 to 2012, and demonstrate more generally that regional mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also extend to century time scales.

The Pacific Ocean at the equator spans half of the earth's surface. It is well know in climatology that the oceans have ~90% influence over earth's climates: global and regional. Those who think that the atmosphere controls the oceans state that the tail wags the dog.

.

 

[fargonic]

The Pacific Ocean at the equator spans half of the earth's surface. It is well know in climatology that the oceans have ~90% influence over earth's climates: global and regional. Those who think that the atmosphere controls the oceans state that the tail wags the dog.
.

As stated numerous times already it is usually the oceanographers who are on the leading edge of the AGW science.

But further there are a couple of things overlooked by this simplification that since the oceans play a major role on climate is the following:

1. The ocean is also a heat sink, so if the surface temperatures increase it can be expected that much of that energy is pumped into the ocean.

2. In addition if the atmosphere has an increase in CO2 it will result in a change in the chemistry of the oceans, not least among this being, a change in pH which is what we are seeing.

The oceans are very good at redistributing the energy within the system but that doesn't mean that the atmosphere is without any role in the science. In fact this is why the modern models are ocean-atmosphere coupled models.

The ocean has a limited capability to handle excess CO2 as well.

In addition we have data from earth's history that times of high atmospheric CO2 in the past have also correlated with increased overall warmth.

 

[Heissonear]

Have "Policymakers" been using "climate computer models data"?

Well, more "new information" is being brought forth showing the models are seriously unskillful and advise against there use.

A poster paper this week at the 2014 AGU meeting presents graphs of the serious discrepancies from observed data verses model data.


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/agu_2014_fall_poster_michaels_knappenberger.pdf

Abstract states:

“We conclude that at the global scale, this suite of climate models has failed. Treating them as mathematical hypotheses, which they are, means that it is the duty of scientists to, unfortunately, reject their predictions in lieu of those with a lower climate sensitivity.

Unless (or until) the collection of climate models can be demonstrated to accurately capture observed characteristics of known climate changes, policymakers should avoid basing any decisions upon projections made from them. Further, those policies which have already be established using projections from these climate models should be revisited. ”

 

[fargonic]

Have "Policymakers" been using "climate computer models data"?

Well, more "new information" is being brought forth showing the models are seriously unskillful and advise against there use.

A poster paper this week at the 2014 AGU meeting presents graphs of the serious discrepancies from observed data verses model data.


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/agu_2014_fall_poster_michaels_knappenberger.pdf

Abstract states:

Obviously there is still investigation on climate sensitivity of CO2. This was discussed HERE in early 2014 which gives a bit more nuanced discussion.

Too low a climate sensitivity and the paleo data don't make any sense. The range the IPCC has put out is 1.5 to 4.5deg C. Schurer et al 2013 (HERE) seem to support a midpoint about 3deg C.

It will be interesting to see how climate scientists respond to the Libertarian Cato Institute Think Tank's analysis holds up.

 

[Heissonear]

Hype and more hype over man induced CO2 in the atmosphere.

God made a limit in what each factor that controls earths temperature can contribute, and CO2 is no different and made to be balanced by other climate factors. It is called controlling equilibrium factors.

Some really think that it's like God didn't know what He was doing when making the world, even for the end times conditions we find ourselves in.

What additional released CO2 will do to warming the earth is near its maximum ALREADY. Of course Alarmists have not told you this, and the IPCC over promoted the IR saturation factor by including forcing positive feedback procussions through hypothetical assumptions. It's in their models. They cannot hide it.


https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/201...increasing-carbon-dioxide-co2-on-temperature/

https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/screen-shot-2014-08-10-at-11-33-54.png?w=659&h=244

 

[hurste1951]

Hype and more hype over man induced CO2 in the atmosphere.

God made a limit in what each factor that controls earths temperature can contribute, and CO2 is no different and made to be balanced by other climate factors. It is called controlling equilibrium factors.

Did God likewise allow global warming to wipe out about 95% of the earth's lifeforms at the end of the Permian?

Extreme Global Warming May Have Caused Largest Extinction Ever

What additional released CO2 will do to warming the earth is near its maximum ALREADY. Of course Alarmists have not told you this

AGAIN with the misrepresentation of truth. CO2 is known to have a logarithmic response on warming! IPCC THEMSELVES even discuss this in the TAR (Third Assessment) YEARS ago!

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm

, and the IPCC over promoted the IR saturation factor by including forcing positive feedback procussions through hypothetical assumptions. It's in their models. They cannot hide it.

And remember that as long as people like Heissonear try to tell people there is nothing to worry about we will not significantly moderate our release of CO2 which will only grow and grow and grow. Depending on the scenario for how we respond we could dramatically increase our CO2 levels.

But let's look at the CO2 "saturation" claim.

The earth's atmospheric greenhouse gases not only absorb IR but the atmosphere RELEASES heat at the top as well. Increased greenhouse gas concentration forces the altitude of energy release further and further up.

As you go higher and higher in the atmosphere it gets thinner, including thinner with regards to how many greenhouse gas molecules are up there. At a certain altitude all the heat can re-radiate back out into space. The amount of heat released is also a function of the temperature of the atmosphere at that level. Colder atmosphere radiates less heat.

Add more greenhouse gas means the atmosphere has to be thinner and higher up to radiate the heat back out into space.

Harries 2001 (HERE) ran a test on the amount of OUTGOING IR RADIATION between 1970 and 1996. They did a "Difference spectrum" which shows any DECREASES in outgoing IR radiation as a function of wavelength and absorption band. This is what they found:

What this shows is that over that 26 year period we see a DECREASE in outgoing IR radiation in CO2 and CH4 bands....both greenhouse gases.

More absorption of the IR with time.

There's more detail also around the absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere as indicated by the IPCC reference (which Heissonear tells you is something no one on the AGW side talks about) which relates to the shape of the absorption coefficient of CO2 which changes due to pressure and "doppler broadening" causing an initally narrowing and then splitting of the absorption band. This splitting of the roto-vibrational spectrum allows for increased CO2 to continue heating the atmosphere.

Don't be duped. The truth is more detailed that what people get on simplified denialist blogs.

 

[Heissonear]

From the blog of Professor Judith Curry we find:

Climate Etc’s greatest ‘hits’

At the end of each year, I take a look at the WordPress function that allows you to compile statistics on blog post ‘hits’. In looking at the stats for 2014, there were some surprises. Here is the list of top Climate Etc. posts for 2014:


Nate Silvers’ 538: inconvenient statistics

Mann versus Steyn

Causes and implications of the pause

Steyn et al. versus Mann

Understanding adjustments to temperature data

My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown

Fraudulent(?) hockey stick

APS reviews its Climate Change Statement

The 50-50 argument

The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later

Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty

Spinning the ‘warmest year’

IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW

.
2014 ? 2015 | Climate Etc.


The CAGW movement charades of off-balanced science is being exposed real-time. It will continue in 2015.

 

[Heissonear]

New climate technical publications are being released which do not follow the AGW Bandwagon.

Many have stated that GHG "traps" heat within earth's atmosphere. However, they state such phenomenon as an independent factor. Such approach is over simplistic, and does not place the aspect of GHG as factors integrated into the earths climate system.

Conduction, convection, expansion, rotation and tilt of the earth daily and seasonally cooling factors, interactions of the oceans-atmosphere and ocean gyre/polewards current circulations, and the like all are integrated factors which make up the climate on earth and how it varies over time.

The adiabatic gradient of the earth's atmosphere is another natural factor integrated by atmospheric mass, temperature convection, pressure convection, and gravity.

Below is a recent publication showing how GHG when adiabatic process is integrated, create cooling rather than warming by thermodynamic expansion, rising, and cooling, rather than "warming".

Do Increasing Contents of Methane and Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Cause Global Warming?

The authors clearly show how GHG can induce atmospheric cooling.

The GAGW "climate scientists" are going to have to get use to research generated out of their bias interpretations, even science that exposes their charade of Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming promotion.

 

[Loudmouth]

New climate technical publications are being released which do not follow the AGW Bandwagon.

Many have stated that GHG "traps" heat within earth's atmosphere. However, they state such phenomenon as an independent factor. Such approach is over simplistic, and does not place the aspect of GHG as factors integrated into the earths climate system.

It is simple thermodynamics. When you trap more heat in the atmosphere, where do you think it goes? Does it just disappear?

 

[Heissonear]

CAGW scientists now state that the "current reason" why the earth has stopped warming (stating it as a Pause and a Hiatus) is the result of many small volcanos - their ash, sulfates, etc. REFLECTING SOLAR RADIATION from reaching the earth.

Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change - Ridley - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

“The fact that these volcanic signatures are apparent in multiple independently measured climate variables really supports the idea that they are influencing climate in spite of their moderate size,” said Mark Zelinka, another Livermore author. “If we wish to accurately simulate recent climate change in models, we cannot neglect the ability of these smaller eruptions to reflect sunlight away from Earth.”

A question: the sophisticated Climate Models used by Alarmists to this point did not factor in "small volcanic activity"? These highly complex Climate Models did not factor naturally occurring negative feedback from small volcanos? Computer models that did not simulate the real world?

 

[Heissonear]

Are we being told that the negative feedback effect from small volcanos can overcome the effects of Alarmists claim of Catastrophic Manmade CO2 Induced Global Warming?

Isn't it CO2 that is the Control Knob that controls earths temperature? But now we are being told it's small volcanos?

 

[Loudmouth]

Are we being told that the negative feedback effect from small volcanos can overcome the effects of Alarmists claim of Catastrophic Manmade CO2 Induced Global Warming?

Are you an ill-informed anti-science bumpkin that can't be honest about the state of the science?

 

[Heissonear]

.

In "modern climate science" they have names for those who want to prove predictions and hypothesis by observations =

"Deniers", "Doubters", "Against Science", "The Minority", "Uninformed", and the list goes on.

The view from history, however, is showing that the "Scientists" that push and promote Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (James Hansen, Mikey Manning, etc.) as those who create deviation from the Scientific Method.

Return of Medieval Scholasticism:

German physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke offers penetrating analysis of current climate science, as exemplified by the IPCC and its adherents, with its dependence on global climate models. He equates the IPCC science with medieval Western European Scholasticism, which was dominant before Galileo, and Galileo’s emphasis on measurement and testing hypotheses with experiments and observations. If the hypotheses fail, they are to be modified or discarded. Richard Feynman clearly explained this approach in lectures, available on the internet. All too often those engaged in hypothesis testing are accused of “cherry-picking”, indicating the accuser confuses hypothesis testing with hypothesis advocacy. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

.

Some people do not follow the CAGW Bandwagon.

There is a reason CO2 is called a "pollutant" and nothing good can be said about increased CO2 in earth's atmosphere.

.

 

[holingragged]

I knew an employee once where I used to work.

He was terminated because he once saved the company from burning down by catching a fire in its early stage and putting it out.

Turned out he was the one who lit it.

Great job by him..

 

[Loudmouth]

.

In "modern climate science" they have names for those who want to prove predictions and hypothesis by observations =

"Deniers", "Doubters", "Against Science", "The Minority", "Uninformed", and the list goes on.

Kettle, meet pot.

Your one act pony show is to accuse real scientists of being "Alarmists" in a bid to discredit them without ever dealing with the science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nothing else really needs to be said about mythical man-made "global Warming"

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Daily Mail Online

First it was "paused" to justify why it didn't match predictions. While in reality it's all downhill from here. Tried to tell you people two years ago we were reaching the max height of that sine curve. But in 3 - 5 years when crops begin to suffer major losses due to early or late cold spells, don't complain because food prices soar. Had you quit playing political and economic games long ago when it was obvious, people might have been able to prepare for reality. Those worldwide deaths from starvation and riots that will occur, you can chalk up to your accounts.

Just why do you think Russia is so intent on getting Ukraine back? It was their major wheat growing area in times of cold - and their warm water port.

Alaskans alarmed at Russian specter of 'global cooling' | Alaska Dispatch

Is there global cooling? The answer might not be what you expected. - Home

The smart countries that know what past cool periods have done are preparing - will you be ready?

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5456/9032116954_6fe5a37604_z.jpg

http://www.thehappyexplorer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/IMG_2785.jpg