Main Menu
Google Search
Google
Current GWH News
Global Warming Hoax News From Around the Web

World Climate Report

» A Classic Tale of Global Warming Alarmism

» More Evidence Against a Methane Time Bomb

» Agriculture: Tropical Cyclones are Welcome Visitors

» Sea Level Acceleration: Not so Fast

» Hansen Is Wrong

» Earth’s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing

» Wild Speculation on Climate and Polar Bears

» Illiteracy at NASA

» The Heat Was On—Before Urbanization and Greenhouse Gases

» What’s to Blame for the Rains on the Plains?

***
NewsBusters - Global Warming

» CNN's Blitzer: 'I Don't Remember' Biden's Law School Plagiarism

» CNN's Chetry: 'Please Tell Me It's Not Lipstick Again'

» MRC Report Asks: Why No Fairness Doctrine for PBS?

***

***

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group

» Roger Pielke Sr. is now on Twitter!

» 2012 Climate Science Weblog in Review by Dallas Jean Staley – A Guest Post

» The Weblog Is Retiring

» Publication Of “Reply to “Comment On ‘Ocean Heat Content And Earth’s Radiation Imbalance. II. Relation To Climate Shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli Et Al. By Douglass and Knox 2012

» Q&A From A Group Of Retired NASA Personnel And Associates

» The Importance of Land Use/Land Practices On Climate – A Perspective From Jon Foley

» Interview With James Wynn In The English Department At Carnegie Mellon University

» University Of Alabama At Huntsville October 2012 Lower Tropospheric Temperature Analysis

» USA Election Day 2012

» New Paper “Climatic Variability Over Time Scales Spanning Nine Orders of Magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch Cycles With Hurst–Kolmogorov Dynamics” By Markonis And Koutsoyiannis

***


» How dependent are GISTEMP trends on the gridding radius used?

» Centenary of the End of the Battle of the Somme

» The Destruction of Huma Abedin’s Emails on the Clinton Server and their Surprise Recovery

» Was early onset industrial-era warming anthropogenic, as Abram et al. claim?

» Re-examining Cook’s Mt Read (Tasmania) Chronology

» Esper et al 2016 and the Oroko Swamp

» Gergis and Law Dome

» Joelle Gergis, Data Torturer

» Gergis

» Are energy budget TCR estimates biased low, as Richardson et al (2016) claim?

***

***

Global Warming News

» SJW-day at COP22

» Clean Power Plan: EPA’s Updated Base Case Now Tallies with EIA Data

» Clean Power Plan Oral Argument Transcript Available Here!

» President Obama and Chinese President Xi will officially join the Paris Climate Treaty on 3rd September

» South China Morning Post reports: China and US to ratify landmark Paris climate deal ahead of G20 summit, sources reveal

» Posting: Little-Known Documents Pertinent to Assessing the Legality of EPA’s Clean Energy Incentive Program

» Kyoto-Financed Cook Stoves Fail as Health/Climate “Intervention”

» CEQ Finalizes NEPA Guidance for Greenhouse Gases: Will Pointless Keystone XL Controversy Become ‘New Normal’?

» Democratic Platform Vows To Meet Climate Challenge with Good-Paying Jobs, Cheaper Energy from Green Sources, and National Mobilization

» Cognitive Dissonance Among Elected Climate Alarmists

***

***


***


***


***


***


***

More Global Warming Hoax News Feeds

---
Since Exxon Hasn't Sent Us Our First Million Dollars Yet You're Welcome To Help Pay Our Bills Until They Do.









Unable to save raw data in database.

O:9:\"MagpieRSS\":22:{s:6:\"parser\";i:0;s:12:\"current_item\";a:0:{}s:5:\"items\";a:10:{i:0;a:14:{s:5:\"title\";s:78:\"My Climate Plan, Wherein a Climate Skeptic Actually Advocates for A Carbon Tax\";s:4:\"link\";s:121:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2016/03/my-climate-plan-wherein-a-climate-skeptic-actually-advocates-for-a-carbon-tax.html\";s:8:\"comments\";s:130:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2016/03/my-climate-plan-wherein-a-climate-skeptic-actually-advocates-for-a-carbon-tax.html#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:20:20 +0000\";s:2:\"dc\";a:1:{s:7:\"creator\";s:5:\"admin\";}s:8:\"category\";s:41:\"CO2 AbatementCross-posted from CoyoteBlog\";s:4:\"guid\";s:38:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=2467\";s:11:\"description\";s:331:\"I am always amazed at how people like to draw conclusions about what I write merely from the title, without actually reading everything I wrote.  This is cross-posted from Coyote Blog, where I already am getting accusations of selling out.  Please read before judging.  I have proposed a carbon tax in a way that would […]\";s:7:\"content\";a:1:{s:7:\"encoded\";s:15102:\"

I am always amazed at how people like to draw conclusions about what I write merely from the title, without actually reading everything I wrote.  This is cross-posted from Coyote Blog, where I already am getting accusations of selling out.  Please read before judging.  I have proposed a carbon tax in a way that would be a net economic benefit even if one totally dismisses the threat of man-made global warming.

While I am not deeply worried about man-made climate change, I am appalled at all the absolutely stupid, counter-productive things the government has implemented in the name of climate change, all of which have costly distorting effects on the economy while doing extremely little to affect man-made greenhouse gas production.  For example:

Even when government programs do likely have an impact of CO2, they are seldom managed intelligently.  For example, the government subsidizes solar panel installations, presumably to reduce their cost to consumers, but then imposes duties on imported panels to raise their price (indicating that the program has become more of a crony subsidy for US solar panel makers, which is typical of these types of government interventions).  Obama’s coal power plan, also known as his war on coal, will certainly reduce some CO2 from electricity generation but at a very high cost to consumers and industries.  Steps like this are taken without any idea of whether this is the lowest cost approach to reducing CO2 production — likely it is not given the arbitrary aspects of the program.

For years I have opposed steps like a Federal carbon tax or cap and trade system because I believe (and still believe) them to be unnecessary given the modest amount of man-made warming I expect over the next century.  I would expect to see about one degree C of man-made warming between now and 2100, and believe most of the cries that “we are already seeing catastrophic climate changes” are in fact panics driven by normal natural variation (most supposed trends, say in hurricanes or tornadoes or heat waves, can’t actually be found when one looks at the official data).

But I am exhausted with all the stupid, costly, crony legislation that passes in the name of climate change action.   I am convinced there is a better approach that will have more impact on man-made CO2 and simultaneously will benefit the economy vs. our current starting point.  So here goes:

The Plan

Point 1:  Impose a Federal carbon tax on fuel.

I am open to a range of actual tax amounts, as long as point 2 below is also part of the plan.  Something that prices CO2 between $25 and $45 a ton seems to match the mainstream estimates out there of the social costs of CO2.  I think methane is a rounding error, but one could make an adjustment to the natural gas tax numbers to take into account methane leakage in the production chain.   I am even open to make the tax=0 on biofuels given these fuels are recycling carbon from the atmosphere.

A Pigovian tax on carbon in fuels is going to be the most efficient possible way to reduce CO2 production.   What is the best way to reduce CO2 — by substituting gas for coal?   by more conservation?  by solar, or wind?  with biofuels?  With a carbon tax, we don’t have to figure it out.  Different approaches will be tested in the marketplace.  Cap and trade could theoretically do the same thing, but while this worked well in some niche markets (like SO2 emissions), it has not worked at all in European markets for CO2.   There has just been too many opportunities for cronyism, too much weird accounting for things like offsets that is hard to do well, and too much temptation to pick winners and losers.

Point 2:  Offset 100% of carbon tax proceeds against the payroll tax

Yes, there are likely many politicians, given their incentives, that would love a big new pool of money they could use to send largess, from more health care spending to more aircraft carriers, to their favored constituent groups.  But we simply are not going to get Conservatives (and libertarians) on board for a net tax increase, particularly one to address an issue they may not agree is an issue at all.   So our plan will use carbon tax revenues to reduce other Federal taxes.

I think the best choice would be to reduce the payroll tax.  Why?  First, the carbon tax will necessarily be regressive (as are most consumption taxes) and the most regressive other major Federal tax we have are payroll taxes.  Offsetting income taxes would likely be a non-starter on the Left, as no matter how one structures the tax reduction the rich would get most of it since they pay most of the income taxes.

There is another benefit of reducing the payroll tax — it would mean that we are replacing a consumption tax on labor with a consumption tax on fuel.  It is always dangerous to make gut-feel assessments of complex systems like the economy, but my sense is that this swap might even have net benefits for the economy — ie we might want to do it even if there was no such thing as greenhouse gas warming.   In theory, labor and fuel are economically equivalent in that they are both production raw materials.  But in practice, they are treated entirely differently by the public.   Few people care about the full productive employment of our underground fuel reserves, but nearly everybody cares about the full productive employment of our labor force.   After all, for most people, the primary single metric of economic health is the unemployment rate.  So replacing a disincentive to hire with a disincentive to use fuel could well be popular.

Point 3:  Eliminate all the stupid stuff

Oddly enough, this might be the hardest part politically because every subsidy, no matter how idiotic, has a hard core of beneficiaries who will defend it to the death — this the the concentrated benefits, dispersed cost phenomena that makes it hard to change many government programs.  But never-the-less I propose that we eliminate all the current Federal subsidies, mandates, and prohibitions that have been justified by climate change.  Ethanol rules and mandates, solar subsidies, wind subsidies, EV subsidies, targeted technology investments, coal plant bans, pipeline bans, drilling bans — it all should go.  The carbon tax does the work.

States can continue to do whatever they want — we don’t need the Feds to step on states any more than they do already, and I continue to like the 50 state laboratory concept.  If California wants to continue to subsidize wind generators, let them do it.  That is between the state and its taxpayers (and for those who think the California legislature is crazy, that is what U-Haul is for).

Point 4:  Revamp our nuclear regulatory regime

As much as alternative energy enthusiasts would like to deny it, the world needs reliable, 24-hour baseload power — and wind and solar are not going to do it (without a change in storage technology of at least 2 orders of magnitude in cost).  The only carbon-free baseload power technology that is currently viable is nuclear.

I will observe that nuclear power suffers under some of the same problems as commercial space flight — the government helped force the technology faster than it might have grown organically on its own, which paradoxically has slowed its long-term development.  Early nuclear power probably was not ready for prime time, and the hangover from problems and perceptions of this era have made it hard to proceed even when better technologies have existed.   But we are at least 2 generations of technology past what is in most US nuclear plants.  Small air-cooled thorium reactors and other technologies exist that could provide reliable safe power for over 100 years.  I am not an expert on nuclear regulation, but it strikes me that a regime similar to aircraft safety, where a few designs are approved and used over and over makes sense.  France, which has the strongest nuclear base in the world, followed this strategy.  Using thorium could also have the advantage of making the technology more exportable, since its utility in weapons production would be limited.

Point 5: Help clean up Chinese, and Asian, coal production

One of the hard parts about fighting CO2 emissions, vs. all the other emissions we have tackled in the past (NOx, SOx, soot/particulates, unburned hydrocarbons, etc), is that we simply don’t know how to combust fossil fuels without creating CO2 — CO2 is inherent to the base chemical reaction of the combustion.  But we do know how to burn coal without tons of particulates and smog and acid rain — and we know how to do it economically enough to support a growing, prosperous modern economy.

In my mind it is utterly pointless to ask China to limit their CO2 growth.  China has seen the miracle over the last 30 years of having almost a billion people exit poverty.  This is an event unprecedented in human history, and they have achieved it in part by burning every molecule of fossil fuels they can get their hands on, and they are unlikely to accept limitations on fossil fuel consumption that will derail this economic progress.  But I think it is reasonable to help China stop making their air unbreathable, a goal that is entirely compatible with continued economic growth.  In 20 years, when we have figured out and started to build some modern nuclear designs, I am sure the Chinese will be happy to copy these and start working on their CO2 output, but for now their Maslov hierarchy of needs should point more towards breathable air.

As a bonus, this would pay one immediate climate change benefit that likely would dwarf the near-term effect of CO2 reduction.  Right now, much of this soot from Asian coal plants lands on the ice in the Arctic and Greenland.  This black carbon changes the albedo of the ice, causing it to reflect less sunlight and absorb more heat.  The net effect is more melting ice and higher Arctic temperatures.  A lot of folks, including myself, think that the recent melting of Arctic sea ice and rising Arctic temperatures is more attributable to Asian black carbon pollution than to CO2 and greenhouse gas warming (particularly since similar warming and sea ice melting is not seen in the Antarctic, where there is not a problem with soot pollution).

Final Thoughts

At its core, this is a very low cost, even negative cost, climate insurance policy.  The carbon tax combined with a market economy does the work of identifying the most efficient ways to reduce CO2 production.   The economy benefits from the removal of a myriad of distortions and crony give-aways, while also potentially benefiting from the replacement of a consumption tax on labor with a consumption tax on fuel.  The near-term effect on CO2 is small (since the US is only a small part of the global emissions picture), but actually larger than the near-term effect of all the haphazard current programs, and almost certainly cheaper to obtain.  As an added benefit, if you can help China with its soot problem, we could see immediate improvements in probably the most visible front of man-made climate change:  in the Arctic.

Postscript

Perhaps the hardest thing to overcome in reaching a compromise here is the tribalism of modern politics.  I believe this is  a perfectly sensible plan that even those folks who believe man-made global warming is  a total myth ( a group to which I do not belong) could sign up for.  The barrier, though, is tribal.  I consider myself to be pretty free of team politics but my first reaction when thinking about this kind of plan was, “What?  We can’t let those guys win.  They are totally full of sh*t.  They are threatening to throw me in jail for my opinions.”

It was at this point I was reminded of a customer service story at my company.  I had a customer who was upset call me, and I ended up giving them a full-refund and a certificate to come back and visit us in the future.  I actually suspected there was more to the story, but I didn’t want a bad review.  The customer was happy, but my local manager was not.  She called me and said, “That was a bad customer!  He was lying to you.  How can you let him win like that?”   Does this sound familiar?  I think we fall into this trap all the time in modern politics, worried more about preventing the other team from winning than about doing the right thing.

\";}s:3:\"wfw\";a:1:{s:10:\"commentrss\";s:126:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2016/03/my-climate-plan-wherein-a-climate-skeptic-actually-advocates-for-a-carbon-tax.html/feed\";}s:5:\"slash\";a:1:{s:8:\"comments\";s:1:\"6\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:331:\"I am always amazed at how people like to draw conclusions about what I write merely from the title, without actually reading everything I wrote.  This is cross-posted from Coyote Blog, where I already am getting accusations of selling out.  Please read before judging.  I have proposed a carbon tax in a way that would […]\";s:12:\"atom_content\";s:15102:\"

I am always amazed at how people like to draw conclusions about what I write merely from the title, without actually reading everything I wrote.  This is cross-posted from Coyote Blog, where I already am getting accusations of selling out.  Please read before judging.  I have proposed a carbon tax in a way that would be a net economic benefit even if one totally dismisses the threat of man-made global warming.

While I am not deeply worried about man-made climate change, I am appalled at all the absolutely stupid, counter-productive things the government has implemented in the name of climate change, all of which have costly distorting effects on the economy while doing extremely little to affect man-made greenhouse gas production.  For example:

Even when government programs do likely have an impact of CO2, they are seldom managed intelligently.  For example, the government subsidizes solar panel installations, presumably to reduce their cost to consumers, but then imposes duties on imported panels to raise their price (indicating that the program has become more of a crony subsidy for US solar panel makers, which is typical of these types of government interventions).  Obama’s coal power plan, also known as his war on coal, will certainly reduce some CO2 from electricity generation but at a very high cost to consumers and industries.  Steps like this are taken without any idea of whether this is the lowest cost approach to reducing CO2 production — likely it is not given the arbitrary aspects of the program.

For years I have opposed steps like a Federal carbon tax or cap and trade system because I believe (and still believe) them to be unnecessary given the modest amount of man-made warming I expect over the next century.  I would expect to see about one degree C of man-made warming between now and 2100, and believe most of the cries that “we are already seeing catastrophic climate changes” are in fact panics driven by normal natural variation (most supposed trends, say in hurricanes or tornadoes or heat waves, can’t actually be found when one looks at the official data).

But I am exhausted with all the stupid, costly, crony legislation that passes in the name of climate change action.   I am convinced there is a better approach that will have more impact on man-made CO2 and simultaneously will benefit the economy vs. our current starting point.  So here goes:

The Plan

Point 1:  Impose a Federal carbon tax on fuel.

I am open to a range of actual tax amounts, as long as point 2 below is also part of the plan.  Something that prices CO2 between $25 and $45 a ton seems to match the mainstream estimates out there of the social costs of CO2.  I think methane is a rounding error, but one could make an adjustment to the natural gas tax numbers to take into account methane leakage in the production chain.   I am even open to make the tax=0 on biofuels given these fuels are recycling carbon from the atmosphere.

A Pigovian tax on carbon in fuels is going to be the most efficient possible way to reduce CO2 production.   What is the best way to reduce CO2 — by substituting gas for coal?   by more conservation?  by solar, or wind?  with biofuels?  With a carbon tax, we don’t have to figure it out.  Different approaches will be tested in the marketplace.  Cap and trade could theoretically do the same thing, but while this worked well in some niche markets (like SO2 emissions), it has not worked at all in European markets for CO2.   There has just been too many opportunities for cronyism, too much weird accounting for things like offsets that is hard to do well, and too much temptation to pick winners and losers.

Point 2:  Offset 100% of carbon tax proceeds against the payroll tax

Yes, there are likely many politicians, given their incentives, that would love a big new pool of money they could use to send largess, from more health care spending to more aircraft carriers, to their favored constituent groups.  But we simply are not going to get Conservatives (and libertarians) on board for a net tax increase, particularly one to address an issue they may not agree is an issue at all.   So our plan will use carbon tax revenues to reduce other Federal taxes.

I think the best choice would be to reduce the payroll tax.  Why?  First, the carbon tax will necessarily be regressive (as are most consumption taxes) and the most regressive other major Federal tax we have are payroll taxes.  Offsetting income taxes would likely be a non-starter on the Left, as no matter how one structures the tax reduction the rich would get most of it since they pay most of the income taxes.

There is another benefit of reducing the payroll tax — it would mean that we are replacing a consumption tax on labor with a consumption tax on fuel.  It is always dangerous to make gut-feel assessments of complex systems like the economy, but my sense is that this swap might even have net benefits for the economy — ie we might want to do it even if there was no such thing as greenhouse gas warming.   In theory, labor and fuel are economically equivalent in that they are both production raw materials.  But in practice, they are treated entirely differently by the public.   Few people care about the full productive employment of our underground fuel reserves, but nearly everybody cares about the full productive employment of our labor force.   After all, for most people, the primary single metric of economic health is the unemployment rate.  So replacing a disincentive to hire with a disincentive to use fuel could well be popular.

Point 3:  Eliminate all the stupid stuff

Oddly enough, this might be the hardest part politically because every subsidy, no matter how idiotic, has a hard core of beneficiaries who will defend it to the death — this the the concentrated benefits, dispersed cost phenomena that makes it hard to change many government programs.  But never-the-less I propose that we eliminate all the current Federal subsidies, mandates, and prohibitions that have been justified by climate change.  Ethanol rules and mandates, solar subsidies, wind subsidies, EV subsidies, targeted technology investments, coal plant bans, pipeline bans, drilling bans — it all should go.  The carbon tax does the work.

States can continue to do whatever they want — we don’t need the Feds to step on states any more than they do already, and I continue to like the 50 state laboratory concept.  If California wants to continue to subsidize wind generators, let them do it.  That is between the state and its taxpayers (and for those who think the California legislature is crazy, that is what U-Haul is for).

Point 4:  Revamp our nuclear regulatory regime

As much as alternative energy enthusiasts would like to deny it, the world needs reliable, 24-hour baseload power — and wind and solar are not going to do it (without a change in storage technology of at least 2 orders of magnitude in cost).  The only carbon-free baseload power technology that is currently viable is nuclear.

I will observe that nuclear power suffers under some of the same problems as commercial space flight — the government helped force the technology faster than it might have grown organically on its own, which paradoxically has slowed its long-term development.  Early nuclear power probably was not ready for prime time, and the hangover from problems and perceptions of this era have made it hard to proceed even when better technologies have existed.   But we are at least 2 generations of technology past what is in most US nuclear plants.  Small air-cooled thorium reactors and other technologies exist that could provide reliable safe power for over 100 years.  I am not an expert on nuclear regulation, but it strikes me that a regime similar to aircraft safety, where a few designs are approved and used over and over makes sense.  France, which has the strongest nuclear base in the world, followed this strategy.  Using thorium could also have the advantage of making the technology more exportable, since its utility in weapons production would be limited.

Point 5: Help clean up Chinese, and Asian, coal production

One of the hard parts about fighting CO2 emissions, vs. all the other emissions we have tackled in the past (NOx, SOx, soot/particulates, unburned hydrocarbons, etc), is that we simply don’t know how to combust fossil fuels without creating CO2 — CO2 is inherent to the base chemical reaction of the combustion.  But we do know how to burn coal without tons of particulates and smog and acid rain — and we know how to do it economically enough to support a growing, prosperous modern economy.

In my mind it is utterly pointless to ask China to limit their CO2 growth.  China has seen the miracle over the last 30 years of having almost a billion people exit poverty.  This is an event unprecedented in human history, and they have achieved it in part by burning every molecule of fossil fuels they can get their hands on, and they are unlikely to accept limitations on fossil fuel consumption that will derail this economic progress.  But I think it is reasonable to help China stop making their air unbreathable, a goal that is entirely compatible with continued economic growth.  In 20 years, when we have figured out and started to build some modern nuclear designs, I am sure the Chinese will be happy to copy these and start working on their CO2 output, but for now their Maslov hierarchy of needs should point more towards breathable air.

As a bonus, this would pay one immediate climate change benefit that likely would dwarf the near-term effect of CO2 reduction.  Right now, much of this soot from Asian coal plants lands on the ice in the Arctic and Greenland.  This black carbon changes the albedo of the ice, causing it to reflect less sunlight and absorb more heat.  The net effect is more melting ice and higher Arctic temperatures.  A lot of folks, including myself, think that the recent melting of Arctic sea ice and rising Arctic temperatures is more attributable to Asian black carbon pollution than to CO2 and greenhouse gas warming (particularly since similar warming and sea ice melting is not seen in the Antarctic, where there is not a problem with soot pollution).

Final Thoughts

At its core, this is a very low cost, even negative cost, climate insurance policy.  The carbon tax combined with a market economy does the work of identifying the most efficient ways to reduce CO2 production.   The economy benefits from the removal of a myriad of distortions and crony give-aways, while also potentially benefiting from the replacement of a consumption tax on labor with a consumption tax on fuel.  The near-term effect on CO2 is small (since the US is only a small part of the global emissions picture), but actually larger than the near-term effect of all the haphazard current programs, and almost certainly cheaper to obtain.  As an added benefit, if you can help China with its soot problem, we could see immediate improvements in probably the most visible front of man-made climate change:  in the Arctic.

Postscript

Perhaps the hardest thing to overcome in reaching a compromise here is the tribalism of modern politics.  I believe this is  a perfectly sensible plan that even those folks who believe man-made global warming is  a total myth ( a group to which I do not belong) could sign up for.  The barrier, though, is tribal.  I consider myself to be pretty free of team politics but my first reaction when thinking about this kind of plan was, “What?  We can’t let those guys win.  They are totally full of sh*t.  They are threatening to throw me in jail for my opinions.”

It was at this point I was reminded of a customer service story at my company.  I had a customer who was upset call me, and I ended up giving them a full-refund and a certificate to come back and visit us in the future.  I actually suspected there was more to the story, but I didn’t want a bad review.  The customer was happy, but my local manager was not.  She called me and said, “That was a bad customer!  He was lying to you.  How can you let him win like that?”   Does this sound familiar?  I think we fall into this trap all the time in modern politics, worried more about preventing the other team from winning than about doing the right thing.

\";s:14:\"date_timestamp\";i:1458318020;}i:1;a:14:{s:5:\"title\";s:88:\"Come See My Climate Talk on Wednesday Evening, February 24, at Claremont-McKenna College\";s:4:\"link\";s:130:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2016/02/come-see-my-climate-talk-on-wednesday-evening-february-24-at-claremont-mckenna-college.html\";s:8:\"comments\";s:139:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2016/02/come-see-my-climate-talk-on-wednesday-evening-february-24-at-claremont-mckenna-college.html#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:12:45 +0000\";s:2:\"dc\";a:1:{s:7:\"creator\";s:5:\"admin\";}s:8:\"category\";s:17:\"Skeptic Summaries\";s:4:\"guid\";s:38:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=2464\";s:11:\"description\";s:301:\"I am speaking on Wednesday night at the Athenaeum at Claremont-McKenna College near Pomona on Wednesday, February 24.  It is open to the public and is free.  Come by a say hi if you are in the area.  You can just walk in to the presentation which begins at 6:45 but if you want to attend […]\";s:7:\"content\";a:1:{s:7:\"encoded\";s:1104:\"

I am speaking on Wednesday night at the Athenaeum at Claremont-McKenna College near Pomona on Wednesday, February 24.  It is open to the public and is free.  Come by a say hi if you are in the area.  You can just walk in to the presentation which begins at 6:45 but if you want to attend the pre-dinner at 5:30, there is a $20 charge and you need to reserve a spot by calling 909-621-8244.

I really hope if you are in the LA area you will come by.  The presentation is about 45 minutes plus a Q&A afterwards.

\"athmap_3\"

\";}s:3:\"wfw\";a:1:{s:10:\"commentrss\";s:135:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2016/02/come-see-my-climate-talk-on-wednesday-evening-february-24-at-claremont-mckenna-college.html/feed\";}s:5:\"slash\";a:1:{s:8:\"comments\";s:1:\"1\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:301:\"I am speaking on Wednesday night at the Athenaeum at Claremont-McKenna College near Pomona on Wednesday, February 24.  It is open to the public and is free.  Come by a say hi if you are in the area.  You can just walk in to the presentation which begins at 6:45 but if you want to attend […]\";s:12:\"atom_content\";s:1104:\"

I am speaking on Wednesday night at the Athenaeum at Claremont-McKenna College near Pomona on Wednesday, February 24.  It is open to the public and is free.  Come by a say hi if you are in the area.  You can just walk in to the presentation which begins at 6:45 but if you want to attend the pre-dinner at 5:30, there is a $20 charge and you need to reserve a spot by calling 909-621-8244.

I really hope if you are in the LA area you will come by.  The presentation is about 45 minutes plus a Q&A afterwards.

\"athmap_3\"

\";s:14:\"date_timestamp\";i:1456297965;}i:2;a:14:{s:5:\"title\";s:40:\"US Average Temperature Trends in Context\";s:4:\"link\";s:84:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2016/02/us-average-temperature-trends-in-context.html\";s:8:\"comments\";s:93:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2016/02/us-average-temperature-trends-in-context.html#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Thu, 04 Feb 2016 20:07:17 +0000\";s:2:\"dc\";a:1:{s:7:\"creator\";s:5:\"admin\";}s:8:\"category\";s:19:\"Temperature History\";s:4:\"guid\";s:38:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=2461\";s:11:\"description\";s:341:\"Cross-posted from Coyoteblog. There was some debate a while back around about a temperature chart some Conservative groups were passing around. Obviously, on this scale, global warming does not look too scary.  The question is, is this scale at all relevant?  I could re-scale the 1929 stock market drop to a chart that goes from […]\";s:7:\"content\";a:1:{s:7:\"encoded\";s:4375:\"

Cross-posted from Coyoteblog.

There was some debate a while back around about a temperature chart some Conservative groups were passing around.

\"\"

Obviously, on this scale, global warming does not look too scary.  The question is, is this scale at all relevant?  I could re-scale the 1929 stock market drop to a chart that goes from Dow 0 to, say, Dow 100,000 and the drop would hardly be noticeable.  That re-scaling wouldn’t change the fact that the 1929 stock market crash was incredibly meaningful and had large impacts on the economy.  Kevin Drum wrote about the temperature chart above,

This is so phenomenally stupid that I figured it had to be a joke of some kind.

Mother Jones has banned me from commenting on Drum’s site, so I could not participate in the conversation over this chart.  But I thought about it for a while, and I think the chart’s author perhaps has a point but pulled it off poorly.  I am going to take another shot at it.

First, I always show the historic temperature anomaly on the zoomed in scale that you are used to seeing, e.g.  (as usual, click to enlarge)

\"click

The problem with this chart is that it is utterly without context just as much as the previous chart.  Is 0.8C a lot or a little?  Going back to our stock market analogy, it’s a bit like showing the recent daily fluctuations of the Dow on a scale from 16,300 to 16,350.  The variations will look huge, much larger than either their percentage variation or their meaningfulness to all but the most panicky investors.

So I have started including the chart below as well.  Note that it is in Fahrenheit (vs. the anomaly chart above in Celsius) because US audiences have a better intuition for Fahrenheit, and is only for the US vs. the global chart above.  It shows the range of variation in US monthly averages, with the orange being the monthly average daily maximum temperature across the US, the dark blue showing the monthly average daily minimum temperature, and the green the monthly mean.  The dotted line is the long-term linear trend

\"click

Note that these are the US averages — the full range of daily maximums and minimums for the US as a whole would be wider and the full range of individual location temperatures would be wider still.   A couple of observations:

  • It is always dangerous to eyeball charts, but you should be able to see what is well known to climate scientists (and not just some skeptic fever dream) — that much of the increase over the last 30 years (and even 100 years) of average temperatures has come not from higher daytime highs but from higher nighttime minimum temperatures.  This is one reason skeptics often roll their eyes as attribution of 15 degree summer daytime record heat waves to global warming, since the majority of the global warming signal can actually be found with winter and nighttime temperatures.
  • The other reason skeptics roll their eyes at attribution of 15 degree heat waves to 1 degree long term trends is that this one degree trend is trivial compared to the natural variation found in intra-day temperatures, between seasons, or even across years.  It is for this context that I think this view of temperature trends is useful as a supplement to traditional anomaly charts (in my standard presentation, I show this chart scale once and the standard anomaly chart scale further up about 30 times, so that utility has limits).
\";}s:3:\"wfw\";a:1:{s:10:\"commentrss\";s:89:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2016/02/us-average-temperature-trends-in-context.html/feed\";}s:5:\"slash\";a:1:{s:8:\"comments\";s:1:\"3\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:341:\"Cross-posted from Coyoteblog. There was some debate a while back around about a temperature chart some Conservative groups were passing around. Obviously, on this scale, global warming does not look too scary.  The question is, is this scale at all relevant?  I could re-scale the 1929 stock market drop to a chart that goes from […]\";s:12:\"atom_content\";s:4375:\"

Cross-posted from Coyoteblog.

There was some debate a while back around about a temperature chart some Conservative groups were passing around.

\"\"

Obviously, on this scale, global warming does not look too scary.  The question is, is this scale at all relevant?  I could re-scale the 1929 stock market drop to a chart that goes from Dow 0 to, say, Dow 100,000 and the drop would hardly be noticeable.  That re-scaling wouldn’t change the fact that the 1929 stock market crash was incredibly meaningful and had large impacts on the economy.  Kevin Drum wrote about the temperature chart above,

This is so phenomenally stupid that I figured it had to be a joke of some kind.

Mother Jones has banned me from commenting on Drum’s site, so I could not participate in the conversation over this chart.  But I thought about it for a while, and I think the chart’s author perhaps has a point but pulled it off poorly.  I am going to take another shot at it.

First, I always show the historic temperature anomaly on the zoomed in scale that you are used to seeing, e.g.  (as usual, click to enlarge)

\"click

The problem with this chart is that it is utterly without context just as much as the previous chart.  Is 0.8C a lot or a little?  Going back to our stock market analogy, it’s a bit like showing the recent daily fluctuations of the Dow on a scale from 16,300 to 16,350.  The variations will look huge, much larger than either their percentage variation or their meaningfulness to all but the most panicky investors.

So I have started including the chart below as well.  Note that it is in Fahrenheit (vs. the anomaly chart above in Celsius) because US audiences have a better intuition for Fahrenheit, and is only for the US vs. the global chart above.  It shows the range of variation in US monthly averages, with the orange being the monthly average daily maximum temperature across the US, the dark blue showing the monthly average daily minimum temperature, and the green the monthly mean.  The dotted line is the long-term linear trend

\"click

Note that these are the US averages — the full range of daily maximums and minimums for the US as a whole would be wider and the full range of individual location temperatures would be wider still.   A couple of observations:

  • It is always dangerous to eyeball charts, but you should be able to see what is well known to climate scientists (and not just some skeptic fever dream) — that much of the increase over the last 30 years (and even 100 years) of average temperatures has come not from higher daytime highs but from higher nighttime minimum temperatures.  This is one reason skeptics often roll their eyes as attribution of 15 degree summer daytime record heat waves to global warming, since the majority of the global warming signal can actually be found with winter and nighttime temperatures.
  • The other reason skeptics roll their eyes at attribution of 15 degree heat waves to 1 degree long term trends is that this one degree trend is trivial compared to the natural variation found in intra-day temperatures, between seasons, or even across years.  It is for this context that I think this view of temperature trends is useful as a supplement to traditional anomaly charts (in my standard presentation, I show this chart scale once and the standard anomaly chart scale further up about 30 times, so that utility has limits).
\";s:14:\"date_timestamp\";i:1454616437;}i:3;a:11:{s:5:\"title\";s:77:\"Revisiting (Yet Again) Hansen’s 1998 Forecast on Global Warming to Congress\";s:4:\"link\";s:116:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2016/01/revisiting-yet-again-hansens-1998-forecast-on-global-warming-to-congress.html\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:54:19 +0000\";s:2:\"dc\";a:1:{s:7:\"creator\";s:5:\"admin\";}s:8:\"category\";s:17:\"Warming Forecasts\";s:4:\"guid\";s:38:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=2453\";s:11:\"description\";s:339:\"I want to briefly revisit Hansen’s 1998 Congressional forecast.  Yes, I and many others have churned over this ground many times, but I think I now have a better approach.   The typical approach has been to overlay some actual temperature data set on top of Hansen’s forecast (e.g. here).  The problem is that with […]\";s:7:\"content\";a:1:{s:7:\"encoded\";s:3860:\"

I want to briefly revisit Hansen’s 1998 Congressional forecast.  Yes, I and many others have churned over this ground many times, but I think I now have a better approach.   The typical approach has been to overlay some actual temperature data set on top of Hansen’s forecast (e.g. here).  The problem is that with revisions to all of these data sets, particularly the GISS reset in 1999, none of these data sets match what Hansen was using at the time.  So we often get into arguments on where the forecast and actuals should be centered, etc.

This might be a better approach.  First, let’s start with Hansen’s forecast chart (click to enlarge).

\"hansen

Folks have argued for years over which CO2 scenario best matches history.  I would argue it is somewhere between A and B, but you will see in a moment that it almost does not matter.    It turns out that both A and B have nearly the same regressed slope.

The approach I took this time was not to worry about matching exact starting points or reconciling difference anomaly base periods.  I merely took the slope of the A and B forecasts and compared it to the slope over the last 30 years of a couple of different temeprature databases (Hadley CRUT4 and the UAH v6 satellite data).

The only real issue is the start year.  The analysis is not very sensitive to the year, but I tried to find a logical start.  Hansen’s chart is frustrating because his forecasts never converge exactly, even 20 years in the past.  However, they are nearly identical in 1986, a logical base year if Hansen was giving the speech in 1988, so I started there.  I didn’t do anything fancy on the trend lines, just let Excel calculate the least squares regression.  This is what we get (as usual, click to enlarge).

\"click

I think that tells the tale  pretty clearly.   Versus the gold standard surface temperature measurement (vs. Hansen’s thumb-on-the-scale GISS) his forecast was 2x too high.  Versus the satellite measurements it was 3x too high.

The least squares regression approach probably under-estimates that A scenario growth rate, but that is OK, that just makes the conclusion more robust.

By the way, I owe someone a thanks for the digitized numbers behind Hansen’s chart but it has been so many years since I downloaded them I honestly forgot who they came from.

\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:339:\"I want to briefly revisit Hansen’s 1998 Congressional forecast.  Yes, I and many others have churned over this ground many times, but I think I now have a better approach.   The typical approach has been to overlay some actual temperature data set on top of Hansen’s forecast (e.g. here).  The problem is that with […]\";s:12:\"atom_content\";s:3860:\"

I want to briefly revisit Hansen’s 1998 Congressional forecast.  Yes, I and many others have churned over this ground many times, but I think I now have a better approach.   The typical approach has been to overlay some actual temperature data set on top of Hansen’s forecast (e.g. here).  The problem is that with revisions to all of these data sets, particularly the GISS reset in 1999, none of these data sets match what Hansen was using at the time.  So we often get into arguments on where the forecast and actuals should be centered, etc.

This might be a better approach.  First, let’s start with Hansen’s forecast chart (click to enlarge).

\"hansen

Folks have argued for years over which CO2 scenario best matches history.  I would argue it is somewhere between A and B, but you will see in a moment that it almost does not matter.    It turns out that both A and B have nearly the same regressed slope.

The approach I took this time was not to worry about matching exact starting points or reconciling difference anomaly base periods.  I merely took the slope of the A and B forecasts and compared it to the slope over the last 30 years of a couple of different temeprature databases (Hadley CRUT4 and the UAH v6 satellite data).

The only real issue is the start year.  The analysis is not very sensitive to the year, but I tried to find a logical start.  Hansen’s chart is frustrating because his forecasts never converge exactly, even 20 years in the past.  However, they are nearly identical in 1986, a logical base year if Hansen was giving the speech in 1988, so I started there.  I didn’t do anything fancy on the trend lines, just let Excel calculate the least squares regression.  This is what we get (as usual, click to enlarge).

\"click

I think that tells the tale  pretty clearly.   Versus the gold standard surface temperature measurement (vs. Hansen’s thumb-on-the-scale GISS) his forecast was 2x too high.  Versus the satellite measurements it was 3x too high.

The least squares regression approach probably under-estimates that A scenario growth rate, but that is OK, that just makes the conclusion more robust.

By the way, I owe someone a thanks for the digitized numbers behind Hansen’s chart but it has been so many years since I downloaded them I honestly forgot who they came from.

\";s:14:\"date_timestamp\";i:1454021659;}i:4;a:14:{s:5:\"title\";s:50:\"Matt Ridley: What the Climate Wars Did to Science\";s:4:\"link\";s:92:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2015/07/matt-ridley-what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.html\";s:8:\"comments\";s:101:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2015/07/matt-ridley-what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.html#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:32:04 +0000\";s:2:\"dc\";a:1:{s:7:\"creator\";s:5:\"admin\";}s:8:\"category\";s:40:\"Climate Science ProcessSkeptic Summaries\";s:4:\"guid\";s:38:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=2450\";s:11:\"description\";s:374:\"I cannot recommend Matt Ridley’s new article strongly enough.  It covers a lot of ground be here are a few highlights. Ridley argues that science generally works (in a manner entirely parallel to how well-functioning commercial markets work) because there are generally incentives to challenge hypotheses.  I would add that if anything, the incentives tend […]\";s:7:\"content\";a:1:{s:7:\"encoded\";s:6342:\"

I cannot recommend Matt Ridley’s new article strongly enough.  It covers a lot of ground be here are a few highlights.

Ridley argues that science generally works (in a manner entirely parallel to how well-functioning commercial markets work) because there are generally incentives to challenge hypotheses.  I would add that if anything, the incentives tend to be balanced more towards challenging conventional wisdom.  If someone puts a stake in the ground and says that A is true, then there is a lot more money and prestige awarded to someone who can prove A is not true than for the thirteenth person to confirm that A is indeed true.

This process breaks, however when political pressures undermine this natural market of ideas and switch the incentives for challenging hypotheses into punishment.

Lysenkoism, a pseudo-biological theory that plants (and people) could be trained to change their heritable natures, helped starve millions and yet persisted for decades in the Soviet Union, reaching its zenith under Nikita Khrushchev. The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly.

What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate. Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence. It’s tosh that scientists always try to disprove their own theories, as they sometimes claim, and nor should they. But they do try to disprove each other’s. Science has always been decentralised, so Professor Smith challenges Professor Jones’s claims, and that’s what keeps science honest.

What went wrong with Lysenko and dietary fat was that in each case a monopoly was established. Lysenko’s opponents were imprisoned or killed. Nina Teicholz’s book  The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press….

This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science.

This is one example of the consequences

Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on “ Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report.

Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range.  When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”. No wonder a highly sceptical ecologist I know is very reluctant to break cover.

He also goes on to lament something that is very familiar to me — there is a strong argument for the lukewarmer position, but the media will not even achnowledge it exists.  Either you are a full-on believer or you are a denier.

The IPCC actually admits the possibility of lukewarming within its consensus, because it gives a range of possible future temperatures: it thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the “probability density functions” of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end.

What is more, in the small print describing the assumptions of the “representative concentration pathways”, it admits that the top of the range will only be reached if sensitivity to carbon dioxide is high (which is doubtful); if world population growth re-accelerates (which is unlikely); if carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans slows down (which is improbable); and if the world economy goes in a very odd direction, giving up gas but increasing coal use tenfold (which is implausible).

But the commentators ignore all these caveats and babble on about warming of “up to” four degrees (or even more), then castigate as a “denier” anybody who says, as I do, the lower end of the scale looks much more likely given the actual data. This is a deliberate tactic. Following what the psychologist Philip Tetlock called the “psychology of taboo”, there has been a systematic and thorough campaign to rule out the middle ground as heretical: not just wrong, but mistaken, immoral and beyond the pale. That’s what the word denier with its deliberate connotations of Holocaust denial is intended to do. For reasons I do not fully understand, journalists have been shamefully happy to go along with this fundamentally religious project.

The whole thing reads like a lukewarmer manifesto.  Honestly, Ridley writes about 1000% better than I do, so rather than my trying to summarize it, go read it.

\";}s:3:\"wfw\";a:1:{s:10:\"commentrss\";s:97:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2015/07/matt-ridley-what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.html/feed\";}s:5:\"slash\";a:1:{s:8:\"comments\";s:1:\"1\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:374:\"I cannot recommend Matt Ridley’s new article strongly enough.  It covers a lot of ground be here are a few highlights. Ridley argues that science generally works (in a manner entirely parallel to how well-functioning commercial markets work) because there are generally incentives to challenge hypotheses.  I would add that if anything, the incentives tend […]\";s:12:\"atom_content\";s:6342:\"

I cannot recommend Matt Ridley’s new article strongly enough.  It covers a lot of ground be here are a few highlights.

Ridley argues that science generally works (in a manner entirely parallel to how well-functioning commercial markets work) because there are generally incentives to challenge hypotheses.  I would add that if anything, the incentives tend to be balanced more towards challenging conventional wisdom.  If someone puts a stake in the ground and says that A is true, then there is a lot more money and prestige awarded to someone who can prove A is not true than for the thirteenth person to confirm that A is indeed true.

This process breaks, however when political pressures undermine this natural market of ideas and switch the incentives for challenging hypotheses into punishment.

Lysenkoism, a pseudo-biological theory that plants (and people) could be trained to change their heritable natures, helped starve millions and yet persisted for decades in the Soviet Union, reaching its zenith under Nikita Khrushchev. The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly.

What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate. Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence. It’s tosh that scientists always try to disprove their own theories, as they sometimes claim, and nor should they. But they do try to disprove each other’s. Science has always been decentralised, so Professor Smith challenges Professor Jones’s claims, and that’s what keeps science honest.

What went wrong with Lysenko and dietary fat was that in each case a monopoly was established. Lysenko’s opponents were imprisoned or killed. Nina Teicholz’s book  The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press….

This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science.

This is one example of the consequences

Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on “ Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report.

Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range.  When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”. No wonder a highly sceptical ecologist I know is very reluctant to break cover.

He also goes on to lament something that is very familiar to me — there is a strong argument for the lukewarmer position, but the media will not even achnowledge it exists.  Either you are a full-on believer or you are a denier.

The IPCC actually admits the possibility of lukewarming within its consensus, because it gives a range of possible future temperatures: it thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the “probability density functions” of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end.

What is more, in the small print describing the assumptions of the “representative concentration pathways”, it admits that the top of the range will only be reached if sensitivity to carbon dioxide is high (which is doubtful); if world population growth re-accelerates (which is unlikely); if carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans slows down (which is improbable); and if the world economy goes in a very odd direction, giving up gas but increasing coal use tenfold (which is implausible).

But the commentators ignore all these caveats and babble on about warming of “up to” four degrees (or even more), then castigate as a “denier” anybody who says, as I do, the lower end of the scale looks much more likely given the actual data. This is a deliberate tactic. Following what the psychologist Philip Tetlock called the “psychology of taboo”, there has been a systematic and thorough campaign to rule out the middle ground as heretical: not just wrong, but mistaken, immoral and beyond the pale. That’s what the word denier with its deliberate connotations of Holocaust denial is intended to do. For reasons I do not fully understand, journalists have been shamefully happy to go along with this fundamentally religious project.

The whole thing reads like a lukewarmer manifesto.  Honestly, Ridley writes about 1000% better than I do, so rather than my trying to summarize it, go read it.

\";s:14:\"date_timestamp\";i:1436387524;}i:5;a:14:{s:5:\"title\";s:44:\"Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record\";s:4:\"link\";s:88:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2015/02/manual-adjustments-in-the-temperature-record.html\";s:8:\"comments\";s:97:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2015/02/manual-adjustments-in-the-temperature-record.html#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:37:18 +0000\";s:2:\"dc\";a:1:{s:7:\"creator\";s:5:\"admin\";}s:8:\"category\";s:23:\"Temperature Measurement\";s:4:\"guid\";s:38:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=2447\";s:11:\"description\";s:335:\"I have been getting inquiries from folks asking me what I think about stories like this one, where Paul Homewood has been looking at the manual adjustments to raw temperature data and finding that the adjustments actually reverse the trends from cooling to warming.  Here is an example of the comparisons he did: Raw, before […]\";s:7:\"content\";a:1:{s:7:\"encoded\";s:10752:\"

I have been getting inquiries from folks asking me what I think about stories like this one, where Paul Homewood has been looking at the manual adjustments to raw temperature data and finding that the adjustments actually reverse the trends from cooling to warming.  Here is an example of the comparisons he did:

Raw, before adjustments;

\"puertoraw\"

 

After manual adjustments

\"puertoadj2\"

 

I actually wrote about this topic a few months back, and rather than rewrite the post I will excerpt it below:

I believe that there is both wheat and chaff in this claim [that manual temperature adjustments are exaggerating past warming], and I would like to try to separate the two as best I can.  I don’t have time to write a well-organized article, so here is just a list of thoughts

  1. At some level it is surprising that this is suddenly news.  Skeptics have criticized the adjustments in the surface temperature database for years.
  2. There is certainly a signal to noise ratio issue here that mainstream climate scientists have always seemed insufficiently concerned about.  For example, the raw data for US temperatures is mostly flat, such that the manual adjustments to the temperature data set are about equal in magnitude to the total warming signal.  When the entire signal one is trying to measure is equal to the manual adjustments one is making to measurements, it probably makes sense to put a LOT of scrutiny on the adjustments.  (This is a post from 7 years ago discussing these adjustments.  Note that these adjustments are less than current ones in the data base as they have been increased, though I cannot find a similar chart any more from the NOAA discussing the adjustments)
  3. The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend.  These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained.  In fact, they have not really be explained at all, and have only been detected by skeptics who happened to archive old NOAA charts and created comparisons like the one below.  Here is the before and after animation (pre-2000 NOAA US temperature history vs. post-2000).  History has been cooled and modern temperatures have been warmed from where they were being shown previously by the NOAA.  This does not mean the current version  is wrong, but since the entire US warming signal was effectively created by these changes, it is not unreasonable to act for a detailed reconciliation (particularly when those folks preparing the chart all believe that temperatures are going up, so would be predisposed to treating a flat temperature chart like the earlier version as wrong and in need of correction. \"1998changesannotated\"
  4. However, manual adjustments are not, as some skeptics seem to argue, wrong or biased in all cases.  There are real reasons for manual adjustments to data — for example, if GPS signal data was not adjusted for relativistic effects, the position data would quickly get out of whack.  In the case of temperature data:
    • Data is adjusted for shifts in the start/end time for a day of measurement away from local midnight (ie if you average 24 hours starting and stopping at noon).  This is called Time of Observation or TOBS.  When I first encountered this, I was just sure it had to be BS.  For a month of data, you are only shifting the data set by 12 hours or about 1/60 of the month.  Fortunately for my self-respect, before I embarrassed myself I created a spreadsheet to monte carlo some temperature data and play around with this issue.  I convinced myself the Time of Observation adjustment is valid in theory, though I have no way to validate its magnitude  (one of the problems with all of these adjustments is that NOAA and other data authorities do not release the source code or raw data to show how they come up with these adjustments).   I do think it is valid in science to question a finding, even without proof that it is wrong, when the authors of the finding refuse to share replication data.  Steven Goddard, by the way, believes time of observation adjustments are exaggerated and do not follow NOAA’s own specification.
    • Stations move over time.  A simple example is if it is on the roof of a building and that building is demolished, it has to move somewhere else.  In an extreme example the station might move to a new altitude or a slightly different micro-climate.  There are adjustments in the data base for these sort of changes.  Skeptics have occasionally challenged these, but I have no reason to believe that the authors are not using best efforts to correct for these effects (though again the authors of these adjustments bring criticism on themselves for not sharing replication data).
    • The technology the station uses for measurement changes (e.g. thermometers to electronic devices, one type of electronic device to another, etc.)   These measurement technologies sometimes have known biases.  Correcting for such biases is perfectly reasonable  (though a frustrated skeptic could argue that the government is diligent in correcting for new cooling biases but seldom corrects for warming biases, such as in the switch from bucket to water intake measurement of sea surface temperatures).
    • Even if the temperature station does not move, the location can degrade.  The clearest example is a measurement point that once was in the country but has been engulfed by development  (here is one example — this at one time was the USHCN measurement point with the most warming since 1900, but it was located in an open field in 1900 and ended up in an asphalt parking lot in the middle of Tucson.)   Since urban heat islands can add as much as 10 degrees F to nighttime temperatures, this can create a warming signal over time that is related to a particular location, and not the climate as a whole.  The effect is undeniable — my son easily measured it in a science fair project.  The effect it has on temperature measurement is hotly debated between warmists and skeptics.  Al Gore originally argued that there was no bias because all measurement points were in parks, which led Anthony Watts to pursue the surface station project where every USHCN station was photographed and documented.  The net result was that most of the sites were pretty poor.  Whatever the case, there is almost no correction in the official measurement numbers for urban heat island effects, and in fact last time I looked at it the adjustment went the other way, implying urban heat islands have become less of an issue since 1930.  The folks who put together the indexes argue that they have smoothing algorithms that find and remove these biases.  Skeptics argue that they just smear the bias around over multiple stations.  The debate continues.
  5. Overall, many mainstream skeptics believe that actual surface warming in the US and the world has been about half what is shown in traditional indices, an amount that is then exaggerated by poorly crafted adjustments and uncorrected heat island effects.  But note that almost no skeptic I know believes that the Earth has not actually warmed over the last 100 years.  Further, warming since about 1980 is hard to deny because we have a second, independent way to measure global temperatures in satellites.  These devices may have their own issues, but they are not subject to urban heat biases or location biases and further actually measure most of the Earth’s surface, rather than just individual points that are sometimes scores or hundreds of miles apart.  This independent method of measurement has shown undoubted warming since 1979, though not since the late 1990’s.
  6. As is usual in such debates, I find words like “fabrication”, “lies”,  and “myth” to be less than helpful.  People can be totally wrong, and refuse to confront their biases, without being evil or nefarious.

To these I will add a #7:  The notion that satellite results are somehow pure and unadjusted is just plain wrong.  The satellite data set takes a lot of mathematical effort to get right, something that Roy Spencer who does this work (and is considered in the skeptic camp) will be the first to tell you.  Satellites have to be adjusted for different things.  They have advantages over ground measurement because they cover most all the Earth, they are not subject to urban heat biases, and bring some technological consistency to the measurement.  However, the satellites used are constantly dieing off and being replaced, orbits decay and change, and thus times of observation of different parts of the globe change [to their credit, the satellite folks release all their source code for correcting these things].   I have become convinced the satellites, net of all the issues with both technologies, provide a better estimate but neither are perfect.

\";}s:3:\"wfw\";a:1:{s:10:\"commentrss\";s:93:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2015/02/manual-adjustments-in-the-temperature-record.html/feed\";}s:5:\"slash\";a:1:{s:8:\"comments\";s:1:\"4\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:335:\"I have been getting inquiries from folks asking me what I think about stories like this one, where Paul Homewood has been looking at the manual adjustments to raw temperature data and finding that the adjustments actually reverse the trends from cooling to warming.  Here is an example of the comparisons he did: Raw, before […]\";s:12:\"atom_content\";s:10752:\"

I have been getting inquiries from folks asking me what I think about stories like this one, where Paul Homewood has been looking at the manual adjustments to raw temperature data and finding that the adjustments actually reverse the trends from cooling to warming.  Here is an example of the comparisons he did:

Raw, before adjustments;

\"puertoraw\"

 

After manual adjustments

\"puertoadj2\"

 

I actually wrote about this topic a few months back, and rather than rewrite the post I will excerpt it below:

I believe that there is both wheat and chaff in this claim [that manual temperature adjustments are exaggerating past warming], and I would like to try to separate the two as best I can.  I don’t have time to write a well-organized article, so here is just a list of thoughts

  1. At some level it is surprising that this is suddenly news.  Skeptics have criticized the adjustments in the surface temperature database for years.
  2. There is certainly a signal to noise ratio issue here that mainstream climate scientists have always seemed insufficiently concerned about.  For example, the raw data for US temperatures is mostly flat, such that the manual adjustments to the temperature data set are about equal in magnitude to the total warming signal.  When the entire signal one is trying to measure is equal to the manual adjustments one is making to measurements, it probably makes sense to put a LOT of scrutiny on the adjustments.  (This is a post from 7 years ago discussing these adjustments.  Note that these adjustments are less than current ones in the data base as they have been increased, though I cannot find a similar chart any more from the NOAA discussing the adjustments)
  3. The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend.  These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained.  In fact, they have not really be explained at all, and have only been detected by skeptics who happened to archive old NOAA charts and created comparisons like the one below.  Here is the before and after animation (pre-2000 NOAA US temperature history vs. post-2000).  History has been cooled and modern temperatures have been warmed from where they were being shown previously by the NOAA.  This does not mean the current version  is wrong, but since the entire US warming signal was effectively created by these changes, it is not unreasonable to act for a detailed reconciliation (particularly when those folks preparing the chart all believe that temperatures are going up, so would be predisposed to treating a flat temperature chart like the earlier version as wrong and in need of correction. \"1998changesannotated\"
  4. However, manual adjustments are not, as some skeptics seem to argue, wrong or biased in all cases.  There are real reasons for manual adjustments to data — for example, if GPS signal data was not adjusted for relativistic effects, the position data would quickly get out of whack.  In the case of temperature data:
    • Data is adjusted for shifts in the start/end time for a day of measurement away from local midnight (ie if you average 24 hours starting and stopping at noon).  This is called Time of Observation or TOBS.  When I first encountered this, I was just sure it had to be BS.  For a month of data, you are only shifting the data set by 12 hours or about 1/60 of the month.  Fortunately for my self-respect, before I embarrassed myself I created a spreadsheet to monte carlo some temperature data and play around with this issue.  I convinced myself the Time of Observation adjustment is valid in theory, though I have no way to validate its magnitude  (one of the problems with all of these adjustments is that NOAA and other data authorities do not release the source code or raw data to show how they come up with these adjustments).   I do think it is valid in science to question a finding, even without proof that it is wrong, when the authors of the finding refuse to share replication data.  Steven Goddard, by the way, believes time of observation adjustments are exaggerated and do not follow NOAA’s own specification.
    • Stations move over time.  A simple example is if it is on the roof of a building and that building is demolished, it has to move somewhere else.  In an extreme example the station might move to a new altitude or a slightly different micro-climate.  There are adjustments in the data base for these sort of changes.  Skeptics have occasionally challenged these, but I have no reason to believe that the authors are not using best efforts to correct for these effects (though again the authors of these adjustments bring criticism on themselves for not sharing replication data).
    • The technology the station uses for measurement changes (e.g. thermometers to electronic devices, one type of electronic device to another, etc.)   These measurement technologies sometimes have known biases.  Correcting for such biases is perfectly reasonable  (though a frustrated skeptic could argue that the government is diligent in correcting for new cooling biases but seldom corrects for warming biases, such as in the switch from bucket to water intake measurement of sea surface temperatures).
    • Even if the temperature station does not move, the location can degrade.  The clearest example is a measurement point that once was in the country but has been engulfed by development  (here is one example — this at one time was the USHCN measurement point with the most warming since 1900, but it was located in an open field in 1900 and ended up in an asphalt parking lot in the middle of Tucson.)   Since urban heat islands can add as much as 10 degrees F to nighttime temperatures, this can create a warming signal over time that is related to a particular location, and not the climate as a whole.  The effect is undeniable — my son easily measured it in a science fair project.  The effect it has on temperature measurement is hotly debated between warmists and skeptics.  Al Gore originally argued that there was no bias because all measurement points were in parks, which led Anthony Watts to pursue the surface station project where every USHCN station was photographed and documented.  The net result was that most of the sites were pretty poor.  Whatever the case, there is almost no correction in the official measurement numbers for urban heat island effects, and in fact last time I looked at it the adjustment went the other way, implying urban heat islands have become less of an issue since 1930.  The folks who put together the indexes argue that they have smoothing algorithms that find and remove these biases.  Skeptics argue that they just smear the bias around over multiple stations.  The debate continues.
  5. Overall, many mainstream skeptics believe that actual surface warming in the US and the world has been about half what is shown in traditional indices, an amount that is then exaggerated by poorly crafted adjustments and uncorrected heat island effects.  But note that almost no skeptic I know believes that the Earth has not actually warmed over the last 100 years.  Further, warming since about 1980 is hard to deny because we have a second, independent way to measure global temperatures in satellites.  These devices may have their own issues, but they are not subject to urban heat biases or location biases and further actually measure most of the Earth’s surface, rather than just individual points that are sometimes scores or hundreds of miles apart.  This independent method of measurement has shown undoubted warming since 1979, though not since the late 1990’s.
  6. As is usual in such debates, I find words like “fabrication”, “lies”,  and “myth” to be less than helpful.  People can be totally wrong, and refuse to confront their biases, without being evil or nefarious.

To these I will add a #7:  The notion that satellite results are somehow pure and unadjusted is just plain wrong.  The satellite data set takes a lot of mathematical effort to get right, something that Roy Spencer who does this work (and is considered in the skeptic camp) will be the first to tell you.  Satellites have to be adjusted for different things.  They have advantages over ground measurement because they cover most all the Earth, they are not subject to urban heat biases, and bring some technological consistency to the measurement.  However, the satellites used are constantly dieing off and being replaced, orbits decay and change, and thus times of observation of different parts of the globe change [to their credit, the satellite folks release all their source code for correcting these things].   I have become convinced the satellites, net of all the issues with both technologies, provide a better estimate but neither are perfect.

\";s:14:\"date_timestamp\";i:1423503438;}i:6;a:14:{s:5:\"title\";s:43:\"Mistaking Cyclical Variations for the Trend\";s:4:\"link\";s:87:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/12/mistaking-cyclical-variations-for-the-trend.html\";s:8:\"comments\";s:96:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/12/mistaking-cyclical-variations-for-the-trend.html#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:45:50 +0000\";s:2:\"dc\";a:1:{s:7:\"creator\";s:5:\"admin\";}s:8:\"category\";s:47:\"Cross-posted from CoyoteBlogTemperature History\";s:4:\"guid\";s:38:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=2444\";s:11:\"description\";s:383:\"I titled my very first climate video “What is Normal,” alluding to the fact that climate doomsayers argue that we have shifted aspects of the climate (temperature, hurricanes, etc.) from “normal” without us even having enough historical perspective to say what “normal” is. A more sophisticated way to restate this same point would be to […]\";s:7:\"content\";a:1:{s:7:\"encoded\";s:4900:\"

I titled my very first climate video “What is Normal,” alluding to the fact that climate doomsayers argue that we have shifted aspects of the climate (temperature, hurricanes, etc.) from “normal” without us even having enough historical perspective to say what “normal” is.

A more sophisticated way to restate this same point would be to say that natural phenomenon tend to show various periodicities, and without observing nature through the whole of these cycles, it is easy to mistake short term cyclical variations for long-term trends.

A paper in the journal Water Resources Research makes just this point using over 200 years of precipitation data:

We analyze long-term fluctuations of rainfall extremes in 268 years of daily observations (Padova, Italy, 1725-2006), to our knowledge the longest existing instrumental time series of its kind. We identify multidecadal oscillations in extremes estimated by fitting the GEV distribution, with approximate periodicities of about 17-21 years, 30-38 years, 49-68 years, 85-94 years, and 145-172 years. The amplitudes of these oscillations far exceed the changes associated with the observed trend in intensity. This finding implies that, even if climatic trends are absent or negligible, rainfall and its extremes exhibit an apparent non-stationarity if analyzed over time intervals shorter than the longest periodicity in the data (about 170 years for the case analyzed here). These results suggest that, because long-term periodicities may likely be present elsewhere, in the absence of observational time series with length comparable to such periodicities (possibly exceeding one century), past observations cannot be considered to be representative of future extremes. We also find that observed fluctuations in extreme events in Padova are linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation: increases in the NAO Index are on average associated with an intensification of daily extreme rainfall events. This link with the NAO global pattern is highly suggestive of implications of general relevance: long-term fluctuations in rainfall extremes connected with large-scale oscillating atmospheric patterns are likely to be widely present, and undermine the very basic idea of using a single stationary distribution to infer future extremes from past observations.

Trying to work with data series that are too short is simply a fact of life — everyone in climate would love a 1000-year detailed data set, but we don’t have it.  We use what we have, but it is important to understand the limitations.  There is less excuse for the media that likes to use single data points, e.g. one storm, to “prove” long term climate trends.

A good example of why this is relevant is the global temperature trend.  This chart is a year or so old and has not been updated in that time, but it shows the global temperature trend using the most popular surface temperature data set.  The global warming movement really got fired up around 1998, at the end of the twenty year temperature trend circled in red.

\"click

 

They then took the trends from these 20 years and extrapolated them into the future:

\"click

But what if that 20 years was merely the upward leg of a 40-60 year cyclic variation?  Ignoring the cyclic functions would cause one to overestimate the long term trend.  This is exactly what climate models do, ignoring important cyclic functions like the AMO and PDO.

In fact, you can get a very good fit with actual temperature by modeling them as three functions:  A 63-year sine wave, a 0.4C per century long-term linear trend  (e.g. recovery from the little ice age) and a new trend starting in 1945 of an additional 0.35C, possibly from manmade CO2.\"Slide52\"

In this case, a long-term trend still appears to exist but it is exaggerated by only trying to measure it in the upward part of the cycle (e.g. from 1978-1998).

 

\";}s:3:\"wfw\";a:1:{s:10:\"commentrss\";s:92:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/12/mistaking-cyclical-variations-for-the-trend.html/feed\";}s:5:\"slash\";a:1:{s:8:\"comments\";s:2:\"11\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:383:\"I titled my very first climate video “What is Normal,” alluding to the fact that climate doomsayers argue that we have shifted aspects of the climate (temperature, hurricanes, etc.) from “normal” without us even having enough historical perspective to say what “normal” is. A more sophisticated way to restate this same point would be to […]\";s:12:\"atom_content\";s:4900:\"

I titled my very first climate video “What is Normal,” alluding to the fact that climate doomsayers argue that we have shifted aspects of the climate (temperature, hurricanes, etc.) from “normal” without us even having enough historical perspective to say what “normal” is.

A more sophisticated way to restate this same point would be to say that natural phenomenon tend to show various periodicities, and without observing nature through the whole of these cycles, it is easy to mistake short term cyclical variations for long-term trends.

A paper in the journal Water Resources Research makes just this point using over 200 years of precipitation data:

We analyze long-term fluctuations of rainfall extremes in 268 years of daily observations (Padova, Italy, 1725-2006), to our knowledge the longest existing instrumental time series of its kind. We identify multidecadal oscillations in extremes estimated by fitting the GEV distribution, with approximate periodicities of about 17-21 years, 30-38 years, 49-68 years, 85-94 years, and 145-172 years. The amplitudes of these oscillations far exceed the changes associated with the observed trend in intensity. This finding implies that, even if climatic trends are absent or negligible, rainfall and its extremes exhibit an apparent non-stationarity if analyzed over time intervals shorter than the longest periodicity in the data (about 170 years for the case analyzed here). These results suggest that, because long-term periodicities may likely be present elsewhere, in the absence of observational time series with length comparable to such periodicities (possibly exceeding one century), past observations cannot be considered to be representative of future extremes. We also find that observed fluctuations in extreme events in Padova are linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation: increases in the NAO Index are on average associated with an intensification of daily extreme rainfall events. This link with the NAO global pattern is highly suggestive of implications of general relevance: long-term fluctuations in rainfall extremes connected with large-scale oscillating atmospheric patterns are likely to be widely present, and undermine the very basic idea of using a single stationary distribution to infer future extremes from past observations.

Trying to work with data series that are too short is simply a fact of life — everyone in climate would love a 1000-year detailed data set, but we don’t have it.  We use what we have, but it is important to understand the limitations.  There is less excuse for the media that likes to use single data points, e.g. one storm, to “prove” long term climate trends.

A good example of why this is relevant is the global temperature trend.  This chart is a year or so old and has not been updated in that time, but it shows the global temperature trend using the most popular surface temperature data set.  The global warming movement really got fired up around 1998, at the end of the twenty year temperature trend circled in red.

\"click

 

They then took the trends from these 20 years and extrapolated them into the future:

\"click

But what if that 20 years was merely the upward leg of a 40-60 year cyclic variation?  Ignoring the cyclic functions would cause one to overestimate the long term trend.  This is exactly what climate models do, ignoring important cyclic functions like the AMO and PDO.

In fact, you can get a very good fit with actual temperature by modeling them as three functions:  A 63-year sine wave, a 0.4C per century long-term linear trend  (e.g. recovery from the little ice age) and a new trend starting in 1945 of an additional 0.35C, possibly from manmade CO2.\"Slide52\"

In this case, a long-term trend still appears to exist but it is exaggerated by only trying to measure it in the upward part of the cycle (e.g. from 1978-1998).

 

\";s:14:\"date_timestamp\";i:1420040750;}i:7;a:14:{s:5:\"title\";s:23:\"Typhoons and Hurricanes\";s:4:\"link\";s:67:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/12/typhoons-and-hurricanes.html\";s:8:\"comments\";s:76:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/12/typhoons-and-hurricanes.html#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:03:52 +0000\";s:2:\"dc\";a:1:{s:7:\"creator\";s:5:\"admin\";}s:8:\"category\";s:18:\"Effects of Warming\";s:4:\"guid\";s:38:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=2436\";s:11:\"description\";s:363:\"(Cross-posted from Coyoteblog) The science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes some warming is hard to dispute.  The science that Earth is dominated by net positive feedbacks that increase modest greenhouse gas warming to catastrophic levels is very debatable.  The science that man’s CO2 is already causing an increase in violent and severe […]\";s:7:\"content\";a:1:{s:7:\"encoded\";s:5124:\"

(Cross-posted from Coyoteblog)

The science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes some warming is hard to dispute.  The science that Earth is dominated by net positive feedbacks that increase modest greenhouse gas warming to catastrophic levels is very debatable.  The science that man’s CO2 is already causing an increase in violent and severe weather is virtually non-existent.

Seriously, of all the different pieces of the climate debate, the one that is almost always based on pure crap are the frequent media statements linking manmade CO2 to some severe weather event.

For example, Coral Davenport in the New York Times wrote the other day:

As the torrential rains of Typhoon Hagupit flood thePhilippines, driving millions of people from their homes, the Philippine government arrived at a United Nationsclimate change summit meeting on Monday to push hard for a new international deal requiring all nations, including developing countries, to cut their use of fossil fuels.

It is a conscious pivot for the Philippines, one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies. But scientists say the nation is also among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and the Philippine government says it is suffering too many human and economic losses from the burning of fossil fuels….

A series of scientific reports have linked the burning of fossil fuels with rising sea levels and more powerful typhoons, like those that have battered the island nation.

It is telling that Ms. Davenport did not bother to link or name any of these scientific reports.  Even the IPCC, which many skeptics believe to be exaggerating manmade climate change dangers, refused in its last report to link any current severe weather events with manmade CO2.

Roger Pielke responded today with charts from two different recent studies on typhoon activity in the Phillipines.  Spot the supposed upward manmade trend.  Or not:

\"kubotachan2009\"

\"c2789-wpac-50-10-weinkleetal\"

 

I am not a huge fan of landfalling cyclonic storm counts because whether they make landfall or not can be totally random and potentially disguise trends.  A better metric is the total energy of cyclonic storms, land-falling or not, where again there is no trend.

Via the Weather Underground, here is Accumulated Cyclonic Energy for the Western Pacific (lower numbers represent fewer cyclonic storms with less total strength):

\"ace-west-pacific\"

 

And here, by the way, is the ACE for the whole globe:

\"ace-global\"

Remember this when you see the next storm inevitably blamed on manmade global warming.  If anything, we are actually in a fairly unprecedented (in the last century and a half) hurricane drought.

\";}s:3:\"wfw\";a:1:{s:10:\"commentrss\";s:72:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/12/typhoons-and-hurricanes.html/feed\";}s:5:\"slash\";a:1:{s:8:\"comments\";s:1:\"4\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:363:\"(Cross-posted from Coyoteblog) The science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes some warming is hard to dispute.  The science that Earth is dominated by net positive feedbacks that increase modest greenhouse gas warming to catastrophic levels is very debatable.  The science that man’s CO2 is already causing an increase in violent and severe […]\";s:12:\"atom_content\";s:5124:\"

(Cross-posted from Coyoteblog)

The science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes some warming is hard to dispute.  The science that Earth is dominated by net positive feedbacks that increase modest greenhouse gas warming to catastrophic levels is very debatable.  The science that man’s CO2 is already causing an increase in violent and severe weather is virtually non-existent.

Seriously, of all the different pieces of the climate debate, the one that is almost always based on pure crap are the frequent media statements linking manmade CO2 to some severe weather event.

For example, Coral Davenport in the New York Times wrote the other day:

As the torrential rains of Typhoon Hagupit flood thePhilippines, driving millions of people from their homes, the Philippine government arrived at a United Nationsclimate change summit meeting on Monday to push hard for a new international deal requiring all nations, including developing countries, to cut their use of fossil fuels.

It is a conscious pivot for the Philippines, one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies. But scientists say the nation is also among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and the Philippine government says it is suffering too many human and economic losses from the burning of fossil fuels….

A series of scientific reports have linked the burning of fossil fuels with rising sea levels and more powerful typhoons, like those that have battered the island nation.

It is telling that Ms. Davenport did not bother to link or name any of these scientific reports.  Even the IPCC, which many skeptics believe to be exaggerating manmade climate change dangers, refused in its last report to link any current severe weather events with manmade CO2.

Roger Pielke responded today with charts from two different recent studies on typhoon activity in the Phillipines.  Spot the supposed upward manmade trend.  Or not:

\"kubotachan2009\"

\"c2789-wpac-50-10-weinkleetal\"

 

I am not a huge fan of landfalling cyclonic storm counts because whether they make landfall or not can be totally random and potentially disguise trends.  A better metric is the total energy of cyclonic storms, land-falling or not, where again there is no trend.

Via the Weather Underground, here is Accumulated Cyclonic Energy for the Western Pacific (lower numbers represent fewer cyclonic storms with less total strength):

\"ace-west-pacific\"

 

And here, by the way, is the ACE for the whole globe:

\"ace-global\"

Remember this when you see the next storm inevitably blamed on manmade global warming.  If anything, we are actually in a fairly unprecedented (in the last century and a half) hurricane drought.

\";s:14:\"date_timestamp\";i:1418227432;}i:8;a:14:{s:5:\"title\";s:55:\"Those Who Follow Climate Will Definitely Recognize This\";s:4:\"link\";s:99:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/12/those-who-follow-climate-will-definitely-recognize-this.html\";s:8:\"comments\";s:108:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/12/those-who-follow-climate-will-definitely-recognize-this.html#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:38:25 +0000\";s:2:\"dc\";a:1:{s:7:\"creator\";s:5:\"admin\";}s:8:\"category\";s:23:\"Temperature Measurement\";s:4:\"guid\";s:38:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=2434\";s:11:\"description\";s:324:\"This issue will be familiar to anyone who has spent time with temperature graphs.  We can ask ourselves if 1 degree of global warming is a lot, when it is small compared to seasonal variations, or even intra-day variation, you would find in most locations.  That is not a trick question.  It might be important, […]\";s:7:\"content\";a:1:{s:7:\"encoded\";s:3797:\"

This issue will be familiar to anyone who has spent time with temperature graphs.  We can ask ourselves if 1 degree of global warming is a lot, when it is small compared to seasonal variations, or even intra-day variation, you would find in most locations.  That is not a trick question.  It might be important, but certainly how important an audience  considers it may be related to how one chooses to graph it.  Take this example form an entirely unrelated field:

Last spring, Adnan sent me a letter about … something, I can’t even remember exactly what. But it included these two graphs that he’d drawn out in pencil. With no explanation. There was just a Post-it attached to the back of one of the papers that said: “Could you please hold these 2 pages until we next speak? Thank you.”

Here’s what he sent:

\"as_tea_graph_2_cropped\"
Price of tea at 7-11 

\"as_tea_graph1_crop_0\"
Price of tea at C-Mart 

This was curious. It crossed my mind that Adnan might be … off his rocker in some way. Or, more excitingly, that these graphs were code for some top-secret information too dangerous for him to send in a letter.

But no. These graphs were a riddle that I would fail to solve when we next spoke, a couple of days later.

Adnan: Now, so would you prefer, as a consumer, would you rather purchase at a store where prices are consistent or items from a store where the prices fluctuate?

Sarah: I would prefer consistency.

Adnan: That makes sense. Especially in today’s economy. So if you had to choose, which store would you say has more consistent prices?

Sarah: 7-11 is definitely more consistent.

Adnan: As compared to…?

Sarah: As compared to C-Mart, which is going way up and down.

Look again, Adnan said. Right. Their prices are exactly the same. It’s just that the graph of C-Mart prices is zoomed way in — the y-axis is in much smaller cost increments — so it looks like dramatic fluctuations are happening. And he made the pencil lines much darker and more striking in the C-Mart graph, so it looks more…sinister or something.

\";}s:3:\"wfw\";a:1:{s:10:\"commentrss\";s:104:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/12/those-who-follow-climate-will-definitely-recognize-this.html/feed\";}s:5:\"slash\";a:1:{s:8:\"comments\";s:1:\"4\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:324:\"This issue will be familiar to anyone who has spent time with temperature graphs.  We can ask ourselves if 1 degree of global warming is a lot, when it is small compared to seasonal variations, or even intra-day variation, you would find in most locations.  That is not a trick question.  It might be important, […]\";s:12:\"atom_content\";s:3797:\"

This issue will be familiar to anyone who has spent time with temperature graphs.  We can ask ourselves if 1 degree of global warming is a lot, when it is small compared to seasonal variations, or even intra-day variation, you would find in most locations.  That is not a trick question.  It might be important, but certainly how important an audience  considers it may be related to how one chooses to graph it.  Take this example form an entirely unrelated field:

Last spring, Adnan sent me a letter about … something, I can’t even remember exactly what. But it included these two graphs that he’d drawn out in pencil. With no explanation. There was just a Post-it attached to the back of one of the papers that said: “Could you please hold these 2 pages until we next speak? Thank you.”

Here’s what he sent:

\"as_tea_graph_2_cropped\"
Price of tea at 7-11 

\"as_tea_graph1_crop_0\"
Price of tea at C-Mart 

This was curious. It crossed my mind that Adnan might be … off his rocker in some way. Or, more excitingly, that these graphs were code for some top-secret information too dangerous for him to send in a letter.

But no. These graphs were a riddle that I would fail to solve when we next spoke, a couple of days later.

Adnan: Now, so would you prefer, as a consumer, would you rather purchase at a store where prices are consistent or items from a store where the prices fluctuate?

Sarah: I would prefer consistency.

Adnan: That makes sense. Especially in today’s economy. So if you had to choose, which store would you say has more consistent prices?

Sarah: 7-11 is definitely more consistent.

Adnan: As compared to…?

Sarah: As compared to C-Mart, which is going way up and down.

Look again, Adnan said. Right. Their prices are exactly the same. It’s just that the graph of C-Mart prices is zoomed way in — the y-axis is in much smaller cost increments — so it looks like dramatic fluctuations are happening. And he made the pencil lines much darker and more striking in the C-Mart graph, so it looks more…sinister or something.

\";s:14:\"date_timestamp\";i:1417714705;}i:9;a:14:{s:5:\"title\";s:49:\"Layman’s Primer on the Climate Skeptic Position\";s:4:\"link\";s:90:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/11/laymans-primer-on-the-climate-skeptic-position.html\";s:8:\"comments\";s:99:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/11/laymans-primer-on-the-climate-skeptic-position.html#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Thu, 13 Nov 2014 05:30:59 +0000\";s:2:\"dc\";a:1:{s:7:\"creator\";s:5:\"admin\";}s:8:\"category\";s:25:\"Skeptic Summariesfeatured\";s:4:\"guid\";s:38:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=2409\";s:11:\"description\";s:398:\"I am a “lukewarmer”, which means a skeptic that agrees that man-made CO2 is incrementally warming the Earth but believes that the amount of that warming is being greatly exaggerated.  In addition, I believe that the science behind evidence of current “climate change” is really poor, with folks in the media using observations of tail-of-the-distribution weather […]\";s:7:\"content\";a:1:{s:7:\"encoded\";s:982:\"

I am a “lukewarmer”, which means a skeptic that agrees that man-made CO2 is incrementally warming the Earth but believes that the amount of that warming is being greatly exaggerated.  In addition, I believe that the science behind evidence of current “climate change” is really poor, with folks in the media using observations of tail-of-the-distribution weather effects to “prove” climate change rather than relying on actual trend data (which tend to show no such thing).

I have written two articles at Forbes.com summarizing this position and the debate.

Understanding the Global Warming Debate

Denying the Catastrophe: The Science of the Climate Skeptic’s Position

\";}s:3:\"wfw\";a:1:{s:10:\"commentrss\";s:95:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2014/11/laymans-primer-on-the-climate-skeptic-position.html/feed\";}s:5:\"slash\";a:1:{s:8:\"comments\";s:1:\"1\";}s:7:\"summary\";s:398:\"I am a “lukewarmer”, which means a skeptic that agrees that man-made CO2 is incrementally warming the Earth but believes that the amount of that warming is being greatly exaggerated.  In addition, I believe that the science behind evidence of current “climate change” is really poor, with folks in the media using observations of tail-of-the-distribution weather […]\";s:12:\"atom_content\";s:982:\"

I am a “lukewarmer”, which means a skeptic that agrees that man-made CO2 is incrementally warming the Earth but believes that the amount of that warming is being greatly exaggerated.  In addition, I believe that the science behind evidence of current “climate change” is really poor, with folks in the media using observations of tail-of-the-distribution weather effects to “prove” climate change rather than relying on actual trend data (which tend to show no such thing).

I have written two articles at Forbes.com summarizing this position and the debate.

Understanding the Global Warming Debate

Denying the Catastrophe: The Science of the Climate Skeptic’s Position

\";s:14:\"date_timestamp\";i:1415856659;}}s:7:\"channel\";a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:15:\"Climate Skeptic\";s:4:\"link\";s:30:\"http://www.climate-skeptic.com\";s:13:\"lastbuilddate\";s:31:\"Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:20:20 +0000\";s:8:\"language\";s:5:\"en-US\";s:2:\"sy\";a:2:{s:12:\"updateperiod\";s:6:\"hourly\";s:15:\"updatefrequency\";s:1:\"1\";}s:9:\"generator\";s:30:\"https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.5\";s:7:\"tagline\";N;}s:9:\"textinput\";a:0:{}s:5:\"image\";a:0:{}s:9:\"feed_type\";s:3:\"RSS\";s:12:\"feed_version\";s:3:\"2.0\";s:8:\"encoding\";s:5:\"utf-8\";s:16:\"_source_encoding\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"ERROR\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"WARNING\";s:0:\"\";s:19:\"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS\";a:6:{i:0;s:7:\"content\";i:1;s:7:\"summary\";i:2;s:4:\"info\";i:3;s:5:\"title\";i:4;s:7:\"tagline\";i:5;s:9:\"copyright\";}s:16:\"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS\";a:3:{i:0;s:5:\"UTF-8\";i:1;s:8:\"US-ASCII\";i:2;s:10:\"ISO-8859-1\";}s:5:\"stack\";a:0:{}s:9:\"inchannel\";b:0;s:6:\"initem\";b:0;s:9:\"incontent\";b:0;s:11:\"intextinput\";b:0;s:7:\"inimage\";b:0;s:13:\"current_field\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"current_namespace\";b:0;}
Headlines

»UN REPORT: Courts Are An ‘Important Tool’ To Impose Global Warming Laws
A United Nations report published Wednesday highlights the legal risks that opponents say President ...
»Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘The case for nixing the Paris Agreement’ – ‘CO2 is a benefit to humanity’
Happer: “Heretical,” off-message science has been ruthlessly suppressed to reassure policymakers tha ...
»Chris Horner: ‘Send the Paris climate deal to die in the Senate’
Staying in UN Paris deal 'would concede to a global pressure campaign to make U.S. energy policies i ...
»Greenland Ice Mass Increases To Near Record – Arctic Ice Reaches Normal Range
The vast majority area of Greenland has seen surface snow and ice gain over the past 9 months. ...
»Arctic Sea Ice Extent Is Normal
»TRUMP’S BUDGET ELIMINATES FUNDING FOR UN GLOBAL WARMING PROGRAMS
The Trump administration has proposed eliminating nearly $1.6 billion in international programs aime ...
»‘Global warming’ is not about the science – UN Admits: ‘Climate change policy is about how we redistribute the world’s wealth’
»SENATOR RAND PAUL: SAY AU REVOIR TO PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT
»Political science: EPA employees try to sabotage GOP efforts to cut EPA funding?
»Mulvaney: Trump budget pulls back from ‘crazy’ climate stuff


Date published: Thu, 25 May 2017 00:54:29 +0000
Details

»UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2017: +0.27 deg. C
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2017 was +0.27 ...
»People’s Climate March on Saturday…through Snow
You would think that since it’s almost May that one could plan a march against global warming ...
»UAH Shooting Investigation Update, and Thanks
John Christy met with the chief of police at UAH today, and I’m happy to report that, contrary ...
»Update on Possible Ecoterror Attack at UAH
Ecoterrorism. Eco-terrorism is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as “the use or t ...
»Shots Fired into the Christy/Spencer Building at UAH
A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) buil ...
»Time Lapse of Asteroid 2014 JO25
Despite some clouds, I was able to capture time lapse video of Asteroid 2014 JO25 passing by last ni ...
»Half-mile Wide Asteroid Close Approach on Wednesday
An asteroid capable of destroying Washington D.C. and New York City at the same time will be making ...
»Why United is in Legal Trouble Over Removing a Passenger
By now, most people have heard of the passenger on a United Express flight that was bloodied and for ...
»UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2017: +0.19 deg. C
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2017 was +0.19 ...
»Trump’s Rollback of EPA Overreach: What No One is Talking About
President Trump’s actions yesterday to rein in the EPA on a number of fronts involves the usua ...


Date published: Mon, 01 May 2017 12:55:25 +0000
Details

»My Climate Plan, Wherein a Climate Skeptic Actually Advocates for A Carbon Tax
I am always amazed at how people like to draw conclusions about what I write merely from the title, ...
»Come See My Climate Talk on Wednesday Evening, February 24, at Claremont-McKenna College
I am speaking on Wednesday night at the Athenaeum at Claremont-McKenna College near Pomona on Wednes ...
»US Average Temperature Trends in Context
Cross-posted from Coyoteblog. There was some debate a while back around about a temperature chart so ...
»Revisiting (Yet Again) Hansen’s 1998 Forecast on Global Warming to Congress
I want to briefly revisit Hansen’s 1998 Congressional forecast.  Yes, I and many others have c ...
»Matt Ridley: What the Climate Wars Did to Science
I cannot recommend Matt Ridley’s new article strongly enough.  It covers a lot of ground be he ...
»Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record
I have been getting inquiries from folks asking me what I think about stories like this one, where P ...
»Mistaking Cyclical Variations for the Trend
I titled my very first climate video “What is Normal,” alluding to the fact that climate ...
»Typhoons and Hurricanes
(Cross-posted from Coyoteblog) The science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes some warming is h ...
»Those Who Follow Climate Will Definitely Recognize This
This issue will be familiar to anyone who has spent time with temperature graphs.  We can ask oursel ...
»Layman’s Primer on the Climate Skeptic Position
I am a “lukewarmer”, which means a skeptic that agrees that man-made CO2 is incrementall ...


Date published: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:20:20 +0000
Details

»Top Ten Reasons Why Trump Should Dump The Paris Agreement
By Elmer Beauregard 1. The Globe Isn’t Warming. In fact the earth has cooled by almost 1 degre ...
»Hearing- Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method
Dr. Judith Curry President, Climate Forecast Applications Network; Professor Emeritus, Georgia Insti ...
»EPA chief Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming
CNBC.com Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believ ...
»Elmer’s PowerPoint Presentation – Confessions of a Graphic Designer
By Elmer Beauregard I decided to put part of my PowerPoint presentation online. As a Graphic designe ...
»Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
By Daily Rose, DailyMail.com The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisa ...


Date published: Mon, 01 May 2017 19:00:13 +0000
Details

»How dependent are GISTEMP trends on the gridding radius used?
A guest post by Nic Lewis Introduction Global surface temperature (GMST) changes and trends derived ...
»Centenary of the End of the Battle of the Somme
November 18 marks the centenary of the end of the Battle of the Somme, an event that passed essentia ...
»The Destruction of Huma Abedin’s Emails on the Clinton Server and their Surprise Recovery
Despite extraordinarily intense coverage of all aspects of Hillary Clinton’s emails, all comme ...
»Was early onset industrial-era warming anthropogenic, as Abram et al. claim?
A guest post by Nic Lewis Introduction A recent PAGES 2k Consortium paper in Nature, Abram et al., t ...
»Re-examining Cook’s Mt Read (Tasmania) Chronology
In today’s post, I’m going to re-examine (or more accurately, examine de novo) Ed Cook ...
»Esper et al 2016 and the Oroko Swamp
Jan Esper, prominent in early Climate Audit posts as an adamant serial non-archiver, has joined with ...
»Gergis and Law Dome
In today’s post, I’m going to examine Gergis’ dubious screening out of the Law Dom ...
»Joelle Gergis, Data Torturer
In 2012, the then much ballyhoo-ed Australian temperature reconstruction of Gergis et al 2012 myster ...
»Gergis
redirect to here
»Are energy budget TCR estimates biased low, as Richardson et al (2016) claim?
A guest post by Nic Lewis   Introduction and Summary In a recently published paper (REA16), Mar ...


Date published: Thu, 25 May 2017 01:43:43 +0000
Details




Date published: not known
Details

»Peak rain over Brisbane urban region
Another of these cases where rain could have been enhanced by urban areas.
»NSW Deputy Premier proposes debate around nuclear power
Just when you thought most politicians are way far GreenLeft – up pops an exception – Th ...
»Lithgow coal mine water pipeline holdup threatens electricity grid
Coal supplies to the 1400MW Mount Piper Power Station are under threat according to this ABC report ...
»Huge week long wind drought South Eastern Australia
Renewable energy spruikers are always silent about how their future green carbon free grid could run ...
»Adelaide International Kite Festival 2017
A kite enthusiast correspondent has told me about this. Pic from Google. ABC reports.
»BoM April rain Outlook disaster
Main predicted dry core of Outlook exactly wrong – gotta love those Outlooks. Forecast rain at ...
»Amazing NZ Govt funding for hundreds of groups claiming the coast and seas
A Kiwi sent me these stunning details of funding available through NZ Dept of Justice to pay for Hig ...
»How can they spin “global warming” into this?
‘Dragon skin ice’ filmed off Antarctica as scientists study winter behaviour of region ...
»Microsoft want my credit card number to reactivate Skype
I only used Skype person to person text chat at odd times – have not used it for best part of ...
»Now 550+ legal claims on New Zealand coast and seas by Maori organizations
I got an email about the large number(~55) of these Public Notices in the NZ Herald relating to coas ...


Date published: Fri, 19 May 2017 02:47:59 +0000
Details
Latest Forum Posts
Posted by Anonymous
Have a look here: https://docs.com/nuri-gupta/3389[more ...]
05/23 04:08

Posted by Anonymous
The above article presents a very simple and clear[more ...]
05/19 15:08

Posted by Anonymous
Very easy to understand the material! Thanks to th[more ...]
05/19 15:07

Posted by Anonymous
Interesting article! Thank you for sharing them! I[more ...]
05/17 02:35

Posted by ravi
hi
05/17 01:29

Posted by Anonymous
Hello, this $1 web hosting deal is most use in h[more ...]
05/17 01:20

Posted by kayerjenkins
No matter what the reason is, when you manage to g[more ...]
05/16 23:52

Posted by Anonymous
Have a look here: https://windowsdatarecoverytool.[more ...]
05/15 06:25

Posted by Anonymous
Thanks for the information you brought to us. They[more ...]
05/15 03:08

Posted by Anonymous
Interesting article! Thank you for sharing them! I[more ...]
05/14 21:51

Relevant Sponsors

Donations
Any Amount helps support improvements





* or *


Advertise on this site

Road Gear

License Plate Frames
Support the Truth

Skeptic License Plate Frame
"SKEPTIC"

It's Natural License Plate Frame
"It`s Natural"

Liberty License Plate Frame
"Liberty"

* MORE *
Strong and durable metal license plate holder. Uses full color high resolution images. UV and Water Protection. Satisfaction Guaranteed
RSS Feeds
Our comments can be syndicated by using these rss feeds.
rss1.0
rss2.0
rdf
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Mobile Version
e107mobileYou can now visit us on your mobile phone! Simply goto http://GlobalWarmingHoax.com on your mobile phone or PDA to get started!


You must be logged in to make comments on this site - please log in, or if you are not registered click here to signup
Translate to: French German Italian Spanish Portuguese GTM_LAN_DUTCH Russian Chinese Arabic Korean English