by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,
amount of climate scaremongering in the past few weeks is
stunning. And it's all pure bullshit.
out these headlines.
Street Journal: U.N.
Panel Warns Drastic Action Needed to Stave Off Climate Change
York Times: Major
Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as
FUELS ARE A THREAT TO CIVILIZATION, NEW U.N. REPORT CONCLUDES
Have a Decade to Prevent a Total Climate Disaster
action needed to prevent climate catastrophe, U.N. panel warns
GORE: ‘WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME’ ON GLOBAL WARMING
do all of those headline have in common?
They are all based on the same study. The
study is riddled with huge numbers of blatant errors making
the study for lack of better words, pure bullshit.
Up With That reports BOMBSHELL:
audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors
no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are
obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in
Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily
temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped
out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at
minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a
full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was
recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but
some measurements come from ships which are logged at
locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly
representative of the open ocean.
dataset starts in 1850 but for just over two years at the
start of the record the only land-based data for the entire
Southern Hemisphere came from a single observation station in
Indonesia. At the end of five years just three stations
reported data in that hemisphere. Global averages are
calculated from the averages for each of the two hemispheres,
so these few stations have a large influence on what’s
to the method of calculating coverage for the dataset, 50%
global coverage wasn’t reached until 1906 and 50% of the
Southern Hemisphere wasn’t reached until about 1950.
May 1861 global coverage was a mere 12% – that’s less than
one-eighth. In much of the 1860s and 1870s most of the
supposedly global coverage was from Europe and its trade sea
routes and ports, covering only about 13% of the Earth’s
surface. To calculate averages from this data and refer to
them as “global averages” is stretching credulity.
a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment
assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by
concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming
probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that
likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially
cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole
century of artificial warming trends.
prior to 1950 suffers from poor coverage and very likely
multiple incorrect adjustments of station data. Data since
that year has better coverage but still has the problem of
data adjustments and a host of other issues mentioned in the
implication is that the proposal that the Paris Climate
Agreement adopt 1850-1899 averages as “indicative” of
pre-industrial temperatures is fatally flawed. During that
period global coverage is low – it averages 30% across that
time – and many land-based temperatures are very likely to be
excessively adjusted and therefore incorrect.
Systems Reduced to Single Variable
consider Watts Up With That Weekly
Climate and Energy News Roundup 331.
participant in the IPCC, who resigned, atmospheric physicist
Richard Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at
MIT. He is noted for his work in dynamic meteorology,
atmospheric tides, ozone photochemistry, quasi-biennial
oscillation, and the Iris hypothesis. Lindzen is certainly
qualified to talk about the physics of the atmosphere, where the
greenhouse effect occurs. Several key points of the talk are
has numerous examples of autonomous variability, including the
approximately 11-year sunspot cycle and the reversals of the
Earth’s magnetic field every couple of hundred thousand years
or so. In this respect, the climate system is no different
from other natural systems.
here is the currently popular narrative concerning this
system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be
summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged
temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2%
perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable –
carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable
is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that
borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative
that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics.
politicians and learned societies go even further: They
endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable. And
although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small — compared to
the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the
oceans and the biosphere — they are confident that they know
precisely what policies to implement in order to control CO2
level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for
hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with
it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that
predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical
matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations,
changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are
primarily due to changes in land level associated with both
tectonics and land use.
small change in global mean temperature (actually the change
in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the
computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all
this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with
low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only
claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60
years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made
climate change does not appear to be a serious problem.
However, this hardly stops ignorant politicians from declaring
that the IPCC’s claim of attribution is tantamount to
unambiguous proof of coming disaster
picking is always an issue. Thus, there has been a recent
claim that Greenland ice discharge has increased, and that
warming will make it worse. Omitted from the report is the
finding by both NOAA and the Danish Meteorological Institute
that the ice mass of Greenland has actually been increasing.
In fact both these observations can be true, and, indeed, ice
build-up pushes peripheral ice into the sea.
exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much
covers all the so-called evidence.
speech is much needed and worth reading. Simply
because the IPCC names its process as science, does not make it