Learning To Think Like A Climate Scientist

Posted on April 30, 2015 by Tony Heller

Last time CO2 was this high, Boston was very warm.  Therefore CO2 is the control knob.

APTOPIX Winter Weather Aftermath

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Learning To Think Like A Climate Scientist

  1. Jon Lonergan says:
    April 30, 2015 at 9:05 pm

    Shouldn’t the Headline read –
    Learning To “Think” Like A Climate Scientist – ?

    Reply
  2. Cashman says:
    April 30, 2015 at 9:05 pm

    Imagine that mound as BullS***. And you have a perfect picture of the AGW theory.

    Reply
  4. richard clenney says:
    April 30, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    Well—-on a lighter note; my first thought when I saw the picture, was that the dog was waiting
    for the dude to uncover a fire hydrant.

    Reply
  5. Gail Combs says:
    April 30, 2015 at 9:38 pm

    I am so glad I no longer live north west of Boston!

    Reply
  7. omanuel says:
    April 30, 2015 at 10:51 pm

    Steven, your great sense of humor is an extremely effective response to BS disguised as Nobel Prize-winning, 97%-consensus science!

    Reply
  8. chick20112011 says:
    April 30, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    Good grief, this article from discover on extinction caused by global warming. The last paragraph is priceless (for it’s alarmism).
    One in Six Species Could Go Extinct With Climate Change
    By Kiona Smith-Strickland | April 30, 2015 1:00 pm

    Urban told Discover, “These predictions need not be realized if greenhouse gas emissions are controlled and we do not follow the current trajectory in global temperatures — or if conservation measures are put in place that are effective at limiting losses.”

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/04/30/species-extinct-climate-change/#.VUK04ZOm34J

    Reply
  9. Dave N says:
    April 30, 2015 at 11:20 pm

    Ironic that the person who made that claim would use the term “knob”. He still cannot explain what the difference is between now, and then.

    Reply
    • gator69 says:
      April 30, 2015 at 11:33 pm

      It is nearly identical to a term with which alarmists are closely associated…

      nob
      British slang term for the penis. Typically used as an excellent cheap insult. Used in jest (above “moron”, just below “twat”, and well below “c*nt”), or used to describe someone who is doing something you think is annoying or a bit crap.

      Reply
  10. OrganicFool says:
    May 1, 2015 at 12:26 am

    Now CO2 is the cause of earthquakes

    “Newsweek is not the first publication to tie global warming to earthquakes. On Monday, Countercurrents.org published a piece by Dr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava, an assistant professor at India’s Kanpur University, blaming warming on the massive quakes that rocked Nepal over the weekend.

    “It now appears that there exists a clear relationship between the global warming and earthquakes and other under earth activities,” Srivastava wrote.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/28/scientists-say-global-warming-will-cause-deadly-earthquakes/

    They ignore the sun’s role. Ben Davidson of Suspicious0bservers issued an enhanced warning of earthquake activity based on his solar research.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIv0lpB2zjI

    Reply
  11. Andrew M. says:
    May 1, 2015 at 4:43 am

    This is what you’re saying:
    http://i.imgur.com/A7ws8P6.jpg
    Global warming, real or not, was never a claim that Boston would tectonically drop in latitude and cease experiencing Winter.

    Surely if you warm the surface and cool the stratosphere, more evaporation and more of the vapour freezing to snow is just what you’d expect. The temperature where it falls is not the temperature of where it evaporated.

    There are plenty of good arguments against CAGW. No need to resort to absurdity.

    Reply
    • Andrew M. says:
      May 1, 2015 at 4:55 am

      And before anyone chimes in with David Viner’s infamous prediction about snow, that only shows Viner was a paid-up catastrophist, it doesn’t argue against an accelerated greenhouse generally. The only way snow can never form is if moist air never rises above an altitude where freezing occurs. How on earth can you ever rule that out? The air only has to be less dense than the surrounding air to rise, so it only has to be warmer, regardless of water vapour content.

      Reply
        • Andrew M. says:
          May 2, 2015 at 4:32 am

          What warming? The warming in the sea surface temperature, which has continued until this year.
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/mean:36/from:1950/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000/trend
          The satellites don’t measure surface temperature, just read Roy Spencer’s blog posts on that topic. They integrate over a range of altitudes which includes 1000hPa, but the value of the channel weighting function is close to zero at low altitudes. See fig 4 of http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-Braswell-97-BAMS.pdf
          There is a good reason the satellites are cross-checked against weather balloons and not surface temperature stations. Satellites don’t measure surface temperature. Global warming is a proposition of both surface warming and stratospheric cooling.

          Your graph of relative humidity is irrelevant to your conclusion. If warming increases the theoretical moisture carrying capacity faster than the absolute humidity increases, then relative humidity decreases even while absolute humidity increases.
          In fact, absolute humidity does have a positive trend of about 0.08g/kg/decade : http://hadobs.metoffice.gov.uk/hadcruh/index.html
          Their data (CRU) can also be downloaded via KNMI Climate Explorer, and KNMI show only CRU as a source of absolute humidity data, no other sources are offered.

          It’s these sorts of bogus arguments from the hoi polloi that StevenGoddard attracts when he strays from the firm foundation of data adjustments, WV feedback suppositions, failed models, rigged peer review, adaptability, and natural weather precedents, and just launches into snowflake silliness.

          The Paris treaties are only 7 months away. It’s way overdue for genuine climate skeptics to clean their house of hollow punditry. We have good reasons to be skeptical of the IPCC position on CAGW. Stick to the good arguments and skip the fallacious ones.

        • gator69 says:
          May 2, 2015 at 10:55 am

          What warming? The warming in the sea surface temperature, which has continued until this year.

          The claimed SST warming is less than the error range of the sensors. Then of course there is the data torturing, but we’ll get to that later.

          Cooling waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean appear to be a major factor in dampening global warming in recent years, scientists said on Wednesday.

          Their work is a big step forward in helping to solve the greatest puzzle of current climate change research – why global average surface temperatures, while still on an upward trend, have risen more slowly in the past 10 to fifteen years than previously.

          Waters in the eastern tropical regions of the Pacific have been notably cooler in recent years, owing to the effects of one of the world’s biggest ocean circulatory systems, the Pacific decadal oscillation.

          Many people are aware of the El Niño and La Niña weather systems, which affect the Pacific and bring hotter and stormier or cooler weather in cycles of just a few years, and can have a strong effect on global weather. But few are aware that both of these systems are just part of the much bigger Pacific decadal oscillation, which brings warmer and cooler weather over decades.

          http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/28/cooling-pacific-dampened-global-warming

          Personally, I don’t take either claims of warming or cooling oceans seriously, as we have only recently started using Argo buoys, and are still deploying them. The satellites are again more consistent and reliable.

          http://cornellsailing.com/2015/04/ordinary-act-deployment-pacific-drifter-buoys-argo-floats-2/

          The marine data are taken from the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set, ICOADS, from 1973 to 1997 and from the NCEP-GTS from 1998 to the present. The marine component of HadCRUH is produced by taking in-situ measurements of T and dewpoint T from ships, marine platforms and drifting buoys, and converting q and RH. Observations undergo quality checks for internal consistency, spatial consistency and outliers and the remaining values are converted to anomalies by subtracting climatological means based on the period 1974 to 2003. The anomaly values are then averaged over a 5° by 5° monthly mean grid.

          Wow! That sure is alot of fiddling. But you are OK with that, apparently.

          I’ve been suspicious about sea surface temperatures since the bizarro Unisys incident a few weeks ago, when they suddenly replaced cold North Atlantic temperatures with warm ones, based on a completely incoherent explanation.
          The claims of record 2014 heat are based on sea surface temperatures, which don’t make any sense. Look at the strip between Greenland and Iceland – they show sea surface temperatures about 6C above normal.

          https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/sst_anom.gif?w=640&h=480

          Now look at the sea ice map. Ice extends all the way from Greenland to Iceland – far above normal.

          https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/n_daily_extent-1.png?w=640

          It is simply not credible that the seas between Greenland and Iceland are 6C above normal, and have excess ice. The excess ice indicates that sea surface temperatures there are below normal. Something is seriously amiss.

          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/something-is-very-rotten-in-denmark/

          Everything you present to counter my claims is based upon fudged data, and therefore is an artifact of analysis at best, and fraud at worst.

          da·ta ?dad?,?d?d?/ noun
          1- facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

          ar·ti·fact ?ärd?fakt/ noun
          1- an object made by a human being…

          fraud ?fro?d\ noun 1- the crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable from another person, a copy of something that is meant to look like the real thing in order to trick people

          Bernie Madoff went to jail for this very thing.

          If warming increases the theoretical moisture carrying capacity faster than the absolute humidity increases, then relative humidity decreases even while absolute humidity increases.

          Again, what warming?

          As Tony has repeatedly pointed out, the surface temps are warming (UHI and fiddling) while the more reliable satellite data shows no warming for 20 years now.

          https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/screenhunter_253-jan-22-11-02.gif

          ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt

          data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

          And now RSSS and UAH data are a close match.

          https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/image_thumb50.png?w=663&h=441

          Version 6 of the satellite data shows faster warming in the early part of the satellite record, which stretches from Dec. 1978 to March. 2015, but shows reduced, or even eliminated, warming in the latter part of the record, wrote climatologists Roy Spencer, John Christy and William Braswell. UAH Version 6 satellite data now shows a decreased warming trend of 0.114 degrees Celsius per decade, compared to Version 5.6’s 0.140 degree trend.
          “This is partly due to our new diurnal drift adjustment, especially for the NOAA-15 satellite,” the scientists added. “Even though our approach to that adjustment (described later) is empirical, it is interesting to see that it gives similar results to the RSS approach, which is based upon climate model calculations of the diurnal cycle in temperature.
          Version 6 also shows that land areas have warmed faster than ocean areas. Land areas have warmed at a rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade while ocean areas have only warmed at 0.08 degrees per decade — both of these, however, are below warming trends shown by surface thermometer data.

          Children are not allowed to ‘adjust’ report cards to gain favor with their parents, or alter history to improve their history exam scores.But ‘scientists’ are allowed to constantly change historic temps and contemporary data to fit their agendas?

          https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/gissus19992014.gif?w=640

          You just keep ingesting the ever changing artifacts, bow to your masters when they tell you the MWP never happened, and that we must eliminate the 1940’s blip.

          https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/screenhunter_7839-mar-10-09-25.gif?w=640

          From: Tom Wigley
          To: Phil Jones
          Subject: 1940s
          Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
          Cc: Ben Santer
          It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

          You present nothing but nonsense. You certainly do not sound like a skeptic to me, but rather a troll sent here to sow confusion.

          Go buy some carbon credits.

        • Me says:
          May 2, 2015 at 4:37 am

          Suck your own bullshit. Leave the rest of us out of it.

        • Me says:
          May 2, 2015 at 5:14 am

          I’m serious, go to north korea, and live there, or china and live there. Unelss you are the example that they want the world to see, then you are no better than them. Or go live in the middle east then?

      • Gail Combs says:
        May 1, 2015 at 10:42 am

        WHAT POLAR VORTEX? —– OOOPS!

        North America
        http://www.cosmographicresearch.org/Images/glacial_maximum_map2.jpg
        Wisconsin Ice Age Glacial Maximum – Artist’s rendition

        http://www2.nau.edu/rcb7/namQ.jpg
        Wisconsin Ice Age Glacial Maximum – geologist’s rendition

        Eurasia during most extreme part of full glacial conditions (17,000-15,000 14C y.a.). – geologist’s rendition
        http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/euras(2_.gif

        “This map concentrates on the time window slightly after the LGM, when aridity seems to have reached its most extreme point. Only slightly moister conditions prevailed for most of the period 22,000-14,000 14C y.a. (25,000-15,000 calendar years ago). A large area of extreme desert conditions existed across central Asia (dark red), surrounded by semi-desert (light red), under conditions much colder than the present-day. In the north, Siberia was colder and much more arid, with steppe-tundra (pink) and polar desert (grey). Ice masses (light grey) were present in north-western Siberia. In China, colder more arid conditions caused a retreat of forests, with grasslands (yellow) and open woodlands (medium green) in southern China and Japan. Forest steppe (violet) and conifer forest (blue green) may have predominated elsewhere. In south Asia, rainforest (darkest green) retreated and was replaced by grasslands (yellow) and monsoon forests and woodlands (lime-green). Scrub and open woodland (lighest green) probably existed in presently moist forest climates of Bangladesh and SW China.”
        …….

        Seems the Wisconsin Ice Age and the present weather system had the meridional pattern jet stream (negative Arctic Oscillation) in common! —OOOPS!

        http://frontierscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/JetStream_Meridional.jpg

        “The Polar jet stream is pictured in this screencap of NASA video “Aerial Superhighway”. This image portrays a meridional jet stream, with winds meandering more slowly, predominantly north-to-south. The fastest winds are colored red; slower winds are blue. / Courtesy NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Goddard Space Flight Center”

        http://frontierscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/JetStream_ArcticOscillation.jpg

        Reply
    • Neal S says:
      May 1, 2015 at 3:24 pm

      Andrew M says “There are plenty of good arguments against CAGW. No need to resort to absurdity.” Perhaps Andrew might like to start his own blog and show us how it is done.

      It turns out there really isn’t any good evidence for macro-evolution. In a way similar to how AGW is being uncritically taught to a generation, many have been incorrectly taught that there was good evidence for macro-evolution. See

      http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics.htm
      and
      http://www.detectingdesign.com/

      Reply
  12. Timw says:
    May 1, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    The best humor is one that cuts to the truth. Absurdities like warming causes snow and cold (current theory) explains why 50% of youth do not believe in CAGW. Unfortunately 50% still do! Since alarmists won’t look at the science, keep up with the humor! It’s better than the ad-homenim attacks and name calling that alarmists resort to.

    Reply
  14. Gail Combs says:
    May 1, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/environment_update

    December 2014
    Global Warming is Primarily Caused By…
    Human activity…. Planetary Trends …. Other Reason
    42% ……………………… 42% ……………………. 7%

    Looks like either an even split or CAGW is only 42%.

    Reply
    • Timw says:
      May 1, 2015 at 3:35 pm

      Thanks for the link. Similar poll. Same result. Neck and neck.

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        May 1, 2015 at 4:24 pm

        The propaganda is not working the way they had hoped it would.

        Even worse, those who do think “Global Warming is Primarily Caused By Human activity” are suffering from adrenal fatigue and just don’t care any more. In other surveys Global Warming comes in near last or dead last on the list of concerns.

        In 2013 it was found 76% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck

        …Roughly three-quarters of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, with little to no emergency savings, according to a survey released by Bankrate.com Monday.

        Fewer than one in four Americans have enough money in their savings account to cover at least six months of expenses, enough to help cushion the blow of a job loss, medical emergency or some other unexpected event, according to the survey of 1,000 adults. Meanwhile, 50% of those surveyed have less than a three-month cushion and 27% had no savings at all….

        Even more disappointing; The savings rates have barely changed over the past three years, even though a larger percentage of consumers report an increase in job security, a higher net worth and an overall better financial situation…..

        So why aren’t Americans saving more?

        Last week, online lender CashNetUSA said 22% of the 1,000 people it recently surveyed had less than $100 in savings to cover an emergency, while 46% had less than $800. After paying debts and taking care of housing, car and child care-related expenses, the respondents said there just isn’t enough money left over for saving more.…

        Do you think those people want to see their electric bills and fuel costs sky rocket?

        Barack Obama: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily sky rocket.”
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

        June 1, 2014 Promise Made, Promise Kept: “Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket”

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *