Climate Change Heterodoxy

Years of reading mainstream tech journalism has often been a painful experience. My own research - and the conclusions drawn by myself and others - have led me to seriously doubt the claims of the Global Warming / Climate Change / We're All Going to Die mainstream view. A friend of the Yawfle - though he may not yet be aware of it, as we are so new - had this to say just this morning:

8 years ago on this blog:

So, a major government climate data set is adjusting recent years temperature reading upward, at an increasing rate. This implies that the data as collected at the sensors is getting increasingly inaccurate - after all, we're seeing adjustments on the order of 0.5°F for the 1990s, so the sensors are clearly reading almost half a degree cold.

Does this make any sense? And notice how the sensors are "running cold", never hot, despite the fact that cities have grown much larger since 1960, and many once-rural weather stations are now surrounded by hot asphalt parking lot, rather than cooler meadow? Does that make any sense?

Peer-reviewed Science™ this week:

ABSTRACT

The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes.

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU. As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments,that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming.

Eight years later, we're actually seeing peer-reviewed scientific papers answering my question: Does this make any sense?

Their peer-reviewed answer: no.

"The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality." Yet the indications of warming taken from these and similarly inflated temperature sets are the basis for policy recommendations that would have a staggeringly negative impact on the lives of ordinary people.

Another take on that same study, by Michael Bastasch writing at Watts Up With That?:

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

IMAGE(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/adjustocene_scr.jpg?w=720&h=474)
cartoon by Josh at cartoonsbyjosh.com

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

Sounds damning enough. But reading those two articles, you'd think, and not without some justification, that perhaps there is something screwy with the whole climate change alarmism movement. Yet if you read and believed - just to pick one at random - Ars Technica, you'd have a different view. Also this morning, Ars published an article claiming that the satellite record, which had long and rather obstinately been diverging from the surface record, is actually orthodox after all:

The most important part of the update, however, is a tweak to their method for correcting the time-of-day drift problem. The solution they had been using was to run a climate model to figure out how big the daily temperature cycle is around the world. That allows you to calculate the difference between 3:00pm measurements and 5:00pm measurements, for example, and subtract it from the actual data.

So, use a model to adjust your temps (ever upwards, of course) and then feed the corrupted adjusted data back into your models. It's a self-licking ice cream cone.

Three Months of Climate Coverage

Just to give you a sample, here's the first page of search results on Ars using the term, "climate":

Calculating when your climate will start to seem weird

Climate change isn't just a century for now. It's right now.

State-by-state climate analysis shows warming hits some harder than others

If you take a glance at the URL for that one, you'll notice an odd thing: "in-the-us-as-in-the-world-climate-change-will-hit-poor-hardest". World ends, poor, minorities hardest hit. Self-parody, at best. And see if you can deect the irony here:

Getting empirical

To generate the future temperatures, the researchers worked with the IPCC's emissions scenarios. They then used a set of simplified climate models to produce temperature and precipitation estimates for each month at the end of this century.

Rick Perry says carbon dioxide is not a primary driver of climate change

The point of that article seemed to be, "Let's see how close we can get to calling Rick Perry stupid, without actually using the word stupid."

EPA intends to form “red team” to debate climate science

Diversity of opinion is not the same as other, better diversities. Note the superscript to the title, "PLAYING FOSSIL’S ADVOCATE". The article states, "But in between wrongly claiming that climate scientists just don’t know how much of a contribution humans make to recent global warming (answer: roughly 100 percent), they have also been parroting a new line—that climate science needs a “red team” to take on the scientific consensus." Assuming the sale works in sales, but not so much in science.

Trump stands with climate change deniers, withdraws from Paris Agreement

Again a significant discrepancy between URL and title: "trump-to-pull-historys-biggest-polluter-from-global-climate-agreement". Well, we're still the greatest! Abdicating leadership on climate change as this one suggests would necessarily be a step away from greatness.

Anti-climate science think tank trying to get textbooks into US schools

Ars included an infographic for this one, which I think provides all the commentary we need:

IMAGE(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/climate-800x600.jpg)

These people want you to know climate change isn’t just for liberals

Which of course means that yes, totally, it is.

Lamar Smith claims climate scientists not following scientific method

Here we have an even better title superscript: "HATE ON SCIENCE".

Smith singled out climate projections such as those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), saying that any predictions made to the end of this century are simply not credible.

"Alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild guesses," he said."

Well, what's the problem with that statement?

I almost choked on this, though. The Mike Mann, the artist responsible for creating the famed Hockey Stick, is described as "the sole representative of mainstream scientific views".

By 2100, we could be recreating a 50 million-year-old climate

Again with the models. Of course, our ability to accurately reconstruct the climate of 50 million years ago might mean we have to give this one a flyer - they might be right.

An Unrelenting Drumbeat

When you've read the studies, and you know the shortcomings of computer models, the unceasing, hysterical certainty of the climate orthodoxy becomes amusing. Or would be, if it were not at the same time galling. Look for more coverage of a broader spectrum of climate science here in the future. OUR MODELS PREDICT IT.

The Yawfle stares and stares and stares... at tech news, without the SJW shenanigans