A Surprising Accord

Michael Mann is a well known scientist for folks following the science behind climate change policies.  He is lauded by people that endorse rigorous government responses to curb carbon dioxide emissions.  He is held in somewhat lower esteem by people that are skeptical on the issue.

I would fall into that latter group, FWIW.

However, I remain committed to giving credit where credit is due.

In 2015, NOAA "updated" their temperature records and insisted that there had been no "pause" in the increasing temperatures of the planet.  Two of the many reasons for my skepticism are the regular fiddling with the temperature records that go on from time to time and the documented pause in global warming that began in 1998.

While there are many legitimate reasons to adjust the recorded temperature data (i.e. change in recording equipment/location, etc.) it seems that there have been other adjustments to the record that are less legitimate.  In this case, the NOAA "update" was timed to coincide with the Paris climate conference.  Such a coincidence inspires the suspicion that this particular adjustment was done to provide a media opportunity in support of additional carbon restrictions.

There have been other examples of "adjustments" that are questionable as well.  For example, there were questionable changes made to 20th century data collected from long term sites in Australia.

As I know someone will misconstrue this, let me reiterate: there are many legitimate reasons for adjusting the temperature record.  And those legitimate adjustments can and will push the recorded data higher.

The pause in global warming is important because it was not predicted by the many models used by scientists to evaluate the impact of carbon dioxide on our environment.  Skeptics, like me, point to that oversight and respectfully suggest that the models may not accurately reflect the actual functioning of the environment.

Do you know who happens to agree with me?  Michael Mann and a host of other scientists that have published a letter in Nature Climate Change.  This summary by Scientific American is also helpful.

Now I think it is fair to say that Mr. Mann still believes that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant problem that is worthy of immediate government action.

My perspective on government action is a bit complex.  I think there are things we could do to reduce CO2 emissions that would benefit humanity even if science inevitably discovers that the climate isn't very susceptible to those emissions.  Things like promoting power via nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and various biofuels come to mind.  I think there are things that we could do that would devastate humanity such as the various carbon tax proposals.

However, I also believe in giving credit where it is due.  In this case, Mr. Mann participated in countering a flawed process and insisted on doing the hard scientific work to make the models accurately reflect our world.  Getting it right matters.  On that subject, I agree with Michael Mann.

Global Warming And Asteroids

Via Newsbusters comes the story about a CNN anchor that asked Bill Nye (the theoretically "science" guy) if the recent near visit by an asteroid was the result of "global warming".

And folks wonder why I don't trust the media when it comes to the science of climate change.

For the record, Mr. Nye avoided addressing the obvious error in the young lady's question.

And They Care About MY Carbon Footprint??

As Glenn Reynolds is fond of saying, I don't want to hear one damned thing about my carbon footprint until those that complain about global climate change start behaving as if there really is a crisis.

The latest example being Derek Jeter of baseball fame.  I'm not bothered as much about his issue advocacy as I am by the ostentatious home that he lives in.  If carbon consumption really matters that much to him, then perhaps he ought to lead by example.

Sadly, hypocrites like Mr. Jeter do not lack for the company of like minded a similar acting individuals.  Before we pass anything like a carbon tax on fuel, these folks need to move into a 3 or 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom ranch in the suburbs and abandon their more tony confines.

Weather Vs. Climate

The news has infrequently indicated that our friends in Europe and Asia are having a brisk winter this year.  This is in stark contrast with the constant news reports about 2012 being the warmest year on record for the continental United States.

Since late November the country has shivered at an average of minus 3.8 degrees Celsius, 1.3 degrees colder than the previous average, and the chilliest in 28 years, state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday, citing the China Meteorological Administration.

So what is my point?  Simply that our media tends to focus on weather stories that support their general narrative.  In this case, stories that support the narrative that human activity are the primary force behind increasing global temperatures get pushed to the top of the heap.  These stories are prominently placed regardless of whether or not the weather they report really has anything to do with the larger issues of climate science.

Conversely, those that undermine the narrative are pushed aside.

What does it mean when the U.S. has the warmest year on record, but Asia and Europe go through a colder than normal winter?  Beats me.  We had a warm one.  They are in the midst of a cold one.  You suppose they might cancel one another out on a global basis?  I suppose they might.

But the better conclusion is that it is far more important to get news in a complete context.

Getting Better All On Our Own

There has been a modest amount of buzz about recent reports that the U.S. has reduced carbon emissions more than any other country.  I think it is important to keep in mind that we lead the world in carbon emissions.

At least until China catches up in a few years.

So it should be the easiest for us to make reductions.  Sort of like when an obese person goes on a diet.  Those first few pounds are pretty easy to lose.

Most of the reductions came due to recent progress in natural gas mining and recovery.  Natural gas produces far less CO2 when compared with other fossil fuels.

Knowing When To Hold My Tongue

I think I am a reasonably bright guy.  But I also think that I generally know when I am in the company of people that are truly gifted. This is such at time.

A collection of former astronauts and the NASA employees that put them in space have signed an open letter calling on NASA to stop endorsing/encouraging opinions that suggest that we are on the cusp of catastrophic global warming. 

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

The letter is longer, but the above gets right to the point.  Climatology has been inhabited by pseudo-scientists for far too long.  The computer models that such folks have developed have invariably predicted temperature changes that have far exceed reality.

Traditional scientists would have sought to adjust their theories...as expressed by their models...to fit the facts.  The more extreme and vocal climatologists do not follow such a traditional scientific method.

The former astronauts and NASA employees do not say that global warming isn't happening.  They do not say that CO₂ isn't a factor.  They do not say that humanity isn't responsible.

They are saying that process of studying the climate has deviated from the strong scientific basis that used to be the hallmark of NASA endeavors.

Now? Really?

Megan McArdle has all the details...you...might...want..about the recent dump of documents from the Heartland Institute.  And I want to point out that on the subject of human induced global warming, Ms. McArdle is a believer.

But the tidbit I want to focus is from Mr. Gleick's mea culpa.

Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

...

I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed.

But we have been told that the debate is over.  We have been told that the only "rational" scientists are those that enthusiastically endorse the theory of human induced climate change that results in a global catastrophe.

Only now that this guy's boy-parts are in a vise does he find it necessary to talk about a "rational public debate" and "facts".

He could have had that without shredding his credibility if he'd be willing to have an adult conversation with people that are of a different point of view.

Baby It's Cold Outside

One of the most significant reasons for my skepticism regarding human induced global warming is data.  More specifically, that there is data that suggests that our climate is less sensitive to changes in CO₂ than the more pessimistic climate models suggest.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years.

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

One of the other reasons for my skepticism is the evident lack of "science" being practiced by some of the more vocal "scientists" that are hyping the potential impact of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  The seem to prefer dismissing legitimate skepticism rather than to offer a serious response.

Carbon Dioxide May Not Have As Much Influence As Originally Thought

You don't say.

The climate may be less sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought – and temperature rises this century could be smaller than expected. That's the surprise result of a new analysis of the last ice age. However, the finding comes from considering just one climate model, and unless it can be replicated using other models, researchers are dubious that it is genuine.

Folks, the science, she ain't settled. Ignore the charlatans masquerading as scientists that suggest otherwise.

Inquisting Minds Want To Know...

We Learned Something New

It is no large secret that I am a skeptic regarding the theory that human activity is the sole/primary/major force behind the changes in our climate over the last 150 years. 

Any fool looking at the data can see that things have gotten warmer over that time frame.  What few elect to recall is that a miniature ice age that correlates with the Maunder Minimum ended about 150 years ago.  In reality, we have been warming from an unusually cold condition back towards a more usual climate.

In any case, one of the primary reasons for my skepticism is the non-scientific manner used to express theories concerning the influence of human activity in that general warming trend.  The science of those theories has been "settled".  Or so they tell us.

But that isn't science.  Scientific theories take not just decades, but often centuries before we know enough to call them anything close to "settled".

Albert Einstein presented his general theory of relativity in 1916.  Since then there have been many discoveries and refinements.  There continue to be hypotheses about exceptions to Mr. Einstein's theory that have yet to be proved or disproved.  It may take a while before we know all we can know about the implications of the theory of relativity.

Sir Isaac Newton presented his theory of gravity in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica which was published in 1687.  It wasn't until 350 years later that we began to understand that gravity throughout the universe was not constant.  And it took almost another 50 years before that understanding was fully developed.

So what is new in the field of climatology?  We have a report from CERN regarding the link between cosmic rays emanating from the sun being closely tied with the formation of clouds in the atmosphere.

Another source of my skepticism is the rather simplistic manner in which some individuals have presumed a direct, primary, causal relationship between CO₂ and climate change to the near total exclusion of other reasonable factors.  It is my opinion that solar forcings have been understated in climate models in favor of anthropogenicy.  The one true fact is that we do not know what we know.  We do not know what we do not know either.  We do not fully understand all of the intricacies associated with how the climate changes over time.

We have learned a few things over the years.  And we are developing a better understanding of the various factors involved in our climate.  Responsible scientists qualify their remarks to point out the wide range of predicted future temperatures.  They also suggest that there are significant factors beyond human activity that are at work.

As we move forward, I am confident that our understanding will be revised and refined again and again.  My opinion is that along with learning more about our climate, we will probably discover that we have an over-sized collective ego.  The earth has been around for a very long time.  While humanity is able to affect significant micro-scale changes, our impact on something as massive and complicated as the atmosphere is less significant than some alarmist pseudo-scientists would have us believe.

Albert Gore Jr. - Hypocrite

Questionable science aside, my first objection to proposed carbon emission limitations, and other "global warming" associated policies is the behavior of those that stridently urge those policy changes.

But you cannot be a leading environmentalist who hopes to lead the general public into a long and difficult struggle for sacrifice and fundamental change if your own conduct is so flagrantly inconsistent with the green gospel you profess.  If the heart of your message is that the peril of climate change is so imminent and so overwhelming that the entire political and social system of the world must change, now, you cannot fly on private jets.  You cannot own multiple mansions.  You cannot even become enormously rich investing in companies that will profit if the policies you advocate are put into place.

It is not enough to buy carbon offsets (aka “indulgences”) with your vast wealth, not enough to power your luxurious mansions with exotic low impact energy sources the average person could not afford, not enough to argue that you only needed the jet so that you could promote your earth-saving film.

You are asking billions of people, the overwhelming majority of whom lack many of the basic life amenities you take for granted, people who can’t afford Whole Foods environmentalism, to slash their meager living standards.  You may well be right, and those changes may be necessary — the more shame on you that with your superior insight and knowledge you refuse to live a modest life.  There’s a gospel hymn some people in Tennessee still sing that makes the point:  “You can’t be a beacon if your light don’t shine.”

St. Francis of Assisi understood the point well.  Taken by the Pope on a tour to see the treasures of the Vatican, St. Francis was notably unimpressed.  “Peter can no longer say, ‘silver and gold have I none,’” smiled the Pontiff, referring to the story in the Book of Acts that recounts what St. Peter said to a crippled beggar asking him for alms.

“Neither can he say, ‘rise up and walk.’” replied St. Francis — quoting what St. Peter said as he miraculously cured the beggar of his affliction.

You can sit on ivory chairs with kings in their halls of gold, participating in the world of politics as usual, or you can live with the prophets and visionaries in the wilderness, voices of a greater truth and higher meaning that challenge the smug certainties and false assumptions of the comfortable, business as usual elites.  You cannot do both.

Al Gore cannot say “silver and gold have I none and no excess carbon do I spew,” and neither can he say to the paralyzed global green movement “rise up and walk.”  He speaks, he writes, he speaks again, and the movement lies on the ground, crippled and inert.

...

What this tells the skeptics is that Vice President Gore doesn’t really believe the gospel he proclaims.  That profits from his environmental advocacy enable his affluent lifestyle only deepens their skepticism of the messenger and therefore of the message.  And when they see that the rest of the environmental movement accepts this flagrant contradiction, they conclude, naturally enough, that the other green leaders aren’t as worried as they claim to be.  Al Gore’s lifestyle is a test case for the credibility of his gospel — and it fails. The tolerance of Al Gore’s lifestyle by the environmental leadership is a further test — and that test, too, the greens fail.

The average citizen is all too likely to conclude that if Mr. Gore can keep his lifestyle, the average American family can keep its SUV and incandescent bulbs.  If Gore can take a charter flight, I don’t have to take the bus.  If Gore can have many mansions, I can use the old fashioned kind of shower heads that actually clean and toilets that actually flush.  Al Gore looks to the average American the way American greens look to poor people in the third world: hypocritically demanding that others accept permanently lower standards of living than those the activists propose for themselves.

 It's way past time for Mr. Gore to get religion.

When Faced With Questions Most Serious, What Does One Do?

If you are an old school scientist, one who has swam in the deep waters of rigorous science, and one who sees those same waters being polluted with influences that undermine the cause of science?  You pen a letter that will carry the weight of a battleship anchor with those similarly focused on the rigors of science and the weight of a feather for those who are willing to compromise their profession for wealth and relative fame.

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence---it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists.


....


So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind---simply to bring the subject into the open.


To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.


As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.


APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?


....


I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

I hope they remain friends, too.  For apparently the APS is no longer concerned with being scientists.

Lack Of Facts Undermine A Theory

The more we dig, the less substance we find.  In this case we have partisan speculation that is part of a fund raising campaign that gets sucked into a formal international report as "peer reviewed" evidence.  That formal report is then presented as the ultimate proof of an urgent crisis; documented, peer reviewed, above reproach "proof".

When called on the error, the people that published the report acknowledge that they have no data but continue to suggest that the chances of the phenomenon occurring are "very high".

And people wonder why folks like me are skeptical regarding the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

This is not the first time that a closer look at "the science" has indicated a lack of rigorous "science".

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is two to three feet a year and most are far lower.

Climategate......Questions Remain Unanswered

Some time ago, an anonymous individual released emails and computer model coding that suggested that climate researchers that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit had been less than "scientific" in their research.  Investigating committees were appointed.  The results are out....and disappointing.

When the Climategate e-mails were released last year, the evidence of misconduct by the scientists involved was so strong that the climate establishment was forced to commission a series of tribunals. Yet the conclusions of those inquiries are as specious as the science they were supposed to investigate. By asking the wrong questions -- or not asking them at all -- they have failed to advance the climate debate one iota.


...


Yet the hearings did not include testimony from the most severe critics of the hockey stick graphic, such as Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who could have explained exactly why the e-mails did suggest impropriety.


...


Further, the inquiry failed to ask the most basic questions of the CRU scientists, such as whether Professor Phil Jones had actually deleted inconvenient e-mails. Britain's freedom of information office said that the Cimategate e-mails provided the most cogent evidence imaginable that there had been efforts to avoid FOI requirements, yet the Muir Russell review did not investigate this appropriately.

Those Traitors! Enemies Of The State!!

Number 3 on the list is a member of the National Academy of Sciences,  a fellow of the Royal Society, and part of the Institute for Advanced Study.  He is one of the creators of the relativistic quantum field theory.

Number 4 is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a professor at MIT.

Number 6 is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a professor at Princeton.

Number 38 is a professor of mathematical physics at Tulane.

And this guy comes in at number 1.

They must be stopped before they can act again?

Their crime?  Skepticism regarding the cause and extent of global warming over the last 150 years or so.

Notice that I am not saying that there has been no warming, just that the available raw data that I’ve personally been able to check do not show it. Until all the raw temperature data are placed online, so the data can be checked by anybody, a rational person has to suspend belief in global warming, to say nothing of AGW.


The official government adjusted data for these sites do show a warming trend. All the warming is in the “corrections.” Sorry, I don’t buy it. Especially from “scientists” who are known to “correct’ their raw data to “hide the decline.”


There have been calls to silence the 496 scientists on the list. Besides “climate deniers,’ we have been called “traitors.” We all know the penalty for treason.


So far, no federal agents have come to pick me up. But nowhere in Mein Kampf does Adolf Hitler call for the extermination of the Jews. Hitler does repeatedly refer to the Jews as “tuberculosis bacilli.”  What does one want to do with tuberculosis bacilli?

Emphasis in the original.

Generally, we see the existence of an 'enemies list' as an indication of a problem.  A problem that exists wholely with the person or people that created the list in the first place.

The answer is in the data.  What is needed, IMHO, is a transparent process by which the data is adjusted to account for human activity and its affect on the climate in either the micro or macro scales.  That begins with non-adjusted data.  It proceeds with a review of the measuring devices with an eye towards siting that would unreasonably impact the recorded measurements.  It continues with the transparent application of mutually agreeable and peer reviewed adjustments to accommodate the influence of human activity. 

None of which will happen while lists of "traitors" and "deniers" are still being compiled.

I am a little disappointed that I didn't make the list.