Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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:
WMOs 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.
With Novembers 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.
.An agenda where the facts are stated and everyone is informed about the science behind the facts....
Damn them!
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.
.
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.
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:
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.
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.
.Climate Etcs 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
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.
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.
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?
.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 Galileos 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.
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.
.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?