Monthly Archives: October 2012

That 97% Solution, Again–Reboot


There are many—mostly non-scientists—that like to tell the public that 97% of the world’s climate scientists believe in the catastrophic man-made global warming theory.  If you disagree with their theory,  you are said to be one of the 3% who are “deniers”.  They also tell you that the “deniers” are heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry which makes them not only wrong on science but morally wrong for carrying the water for those evil oil and gas companies. In fact Oil and Gas provide more funds for alternative energy studies than funds provided to the skeptics. Most  skeptics are not funded at all. The winners of the funding wars are the believers of the man-made global warming theory. They get the large cash awards from Governments and Environmental organizations worldwide as long as they produce work that supports the man-made global warming theory. 
 
I set out to post the facts to demonstrate that the 97% claim is bogus.  I ran across the following National Post posting “That 97% Solution, Again”  by Larry Solomon and concluded I could not come up with anything that would surpass Solomon’s arguments on this topic.  So here is what he wrote:
 
That 97% Solution,Again.
Source:  National Post (Canada)
by Larry Solomon
 
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.
To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming – quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.
Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.
As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.
In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage.  They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.
Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings. Are you?
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
cbdakota
Advertisements

Hurricane Sandy-Does It Prove Man-Made Global Warming?


Sunday afternoon,  28 October 2012

We are directly in the line of the forecasted hurricane Sandy landfall, albeit about 6 miles away from the Delaware Bay.  For most of this day, there has been no wind and very little rain.  I guess that this is the often cited “calm before the storm”.   It is almost 5 pm EDT and the rain is picking up but there is still not much wind.   My concern is wind speed.  Homes in the Northeastern part of the US, excepting those on the beach, are not built for hurricane force winds.   We hope our roof stays on.

I expect that the media will go full-out on this hurricane calling it proof that man-made global warming caused it and that it is just the first of a deluge of more such storms.   They know this because their climate models told them.

Actual data suggests that this is not the case.  The measure of hurricane ( often called “cyclones” so as to include typhoons that occur in the Pacific) intensity takes into account the number of such storms and how powerful they are.  And it measures those that don’t make landfall too.  Wikipedia defines hurricane intensity as follows:

Accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) is a measure used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to express the activity of individual tropical cyclones and entire tropical cyclone seasons, particularly the North Atlantic hurricane season. It uses an approximation of the energy used by a tropical system over its lifetime and is calculated every six-hour period. The ACE of a season is the sum of the ACEs for each storm and takes into account the number, strength, and duration of all the tropical storms in the season.[1]

The chart below is a measure of intensity.  Observe that actual data shows that hurricane intensity does not correlate with atmospheric CO2 volume.  And that  overall intensities of hurricanes have fallen in recent years.  (click on the chart to improve clarity.)

Ryan Maue produced this chart and he describes as follows:

Last 4-decades of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE.

 But this is actual data and how could it possibly be correct if the models provide different predictions.(sarc)

cbdakota

Solar Cycle 24 Is Underperforming Its Predecessors


Solar Cycle 24 is underperforming its predecessors, Cycles 21, 22 and 23. The chart below, using sunspots as proxy for solar activity, shows the progress for Cycles 21, 22 and 23 over their nominal 11 year life cycle. Solar Cycle 24’s current progress is clearly less active than 21, 22 or 23. This level of activity, if it continues at its current pace, will be the least active Solar Cycle in the last 100 years.The chart maker is Solen. (Click on the chart for clarity.)

<am,.

How much longer will Cycle 24 go before its maximum activity occurs and quiets down? Experts are forecasting that in the first part of 2013. When the maximum occurs the Sun’s poles switch. So if you want to make your own guess, lets look at how close the poles are to switching right now. The chart below records the position of the North and South poles with time. The three previous Cycles polar locations are shown and you can see when the poles swapped sides. Cycle 24 poles are drawing near that now and it seems likely they will switch soon. If so, it will be a very weak–solar activity–Cycle. (Click chart for clarity.)


Solar Polar Field – Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) – 1976 to Present

Solar experts are predicting that Cycle 25 will be less active than 24. In the past, several Cycles with such low solar activity were associated with cooling global temperatures. The global temperature has plateaued for the past 15 to 16 years. The Warmers say that it has to go at least 20 years to disprove their CO2 man-made global warming theory. We may be heading for a period that will be much longer than 20 years of plateaued or even falling global temperatures. This should send the CO2 theory to the trash bin, but it does not necessarily bode well for mankind. Cooler global temperatures have not provided the era of plenty we now enjoy. Food production will likely be less than optimal and that can’t be a good thing with the continued growth of global population.
cbdakota

No Global Warming For 16 Years


On October 13, 2012 the UK’s Daily Mail posted:  Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it”.  My posting of several months ago (July 19, 2012) How Many Years Of No Global Warming Are Required To Disprove CO2 As The Primary Factor In Global Warming? reported this pause.  The Daily Mail’s posting is worth a read as it contains interviews with the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit,  Dr. Phil Jones and Professor Judith Curry from Georgia Tech. 

“Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed.  Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.”

Professor Curry’s statement about computer models is spot on.  Jones, however, is not about to give up the source of his income (climate research money) which requires that he and his colleagues continue to alarm and frighten people.

Several other excerpts from the Mail’s posting:

 “Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.”

 

The author of the posting, David Rose makes the following comment:

 Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.”

Solar Cycle 24 is indicating the least active Sun in the past 100 years.  Most solar scientists predict that Solar Cycle 25 will be even weaker than Cycle 24.  What does this mean?  Such performance in the past has resulted in “solar minimums” that coincided with significantly lower global temperatures. The correlation of solar activity (often indicated by number and size of the sunspots) and global temperatures has been very good over the centuries. 

To read more of the Daily Mail posting: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29U2Gb6uW

To read my posting “How Many Years Of No Global Warming Are Required To Disprove CO2 As The Primary Factor In Global Warming?” click here:https://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/how-many-years-of-no-global-warming-are-required-to-disprove-co2-as-the-primary-factor-in-global-warming/

cbdakota