Climate Distortion

[Quantum Windbag]

I am sure the usual idiots are going to pop in here and accuse me of saying something else, but there are some facts we need to get straight.

1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are having an impact on that change.
3. Hanson is going to destroy all credibility if people think he is representative of the science.

This week, with great fanfare, NASA scientist James Hansen and associates released a paper "The Perception of Climate Change" in the journal PNAS that claims that recent heat waves and droughts were caused by human-induced climate change. To quote their abstract:

" It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small."

This paper (found here) has been quoted in hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets and newspapers and has garnered the praise of many environmental advocacy groups.

The problem? Their conclusions are demonstrably false and their characterization of the science and statistics are deceptive at best.

Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Climate Distortion

 

[flacaltenn]

Why can't these clowns just FORECAST doom for next Thurs? Why does it have to be the start of the end of the world today?

 

[skookerasbil]

These climate k00ks............they are losing in such epic fashion its beyond words frankly. And its an amazing story..........for all the years of bomb throwing, in the last 3-4 years, they are actually going backwards. Its become like the talk of the nutty-ass uncle that nobody wants at the party. Those hard core environmentalist radicals are viewed as total mental cases by the majority of the American people, much like the 9/11 Truthers. People hear these people and if they have even half a brain they are saying to themselves, "Oh shit........one of these nuts!!"


Yet they call the denier folks "retards"!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. You have a blog for your science, the rest of us have a PNAS publication. As well as peer reviewed articles like those from this source;

AGW Observer

 

[flacaltenn]

I am sure the usual idiots are going to pop in here and accuse me of saying something else, but there are some facts we need to get straight.

1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are having an impact on that change.
3. Hanson is going to destroy all credibility if people think he is representative of the science.

This week, with great fanfare, NASA scientist James Hansen and associates released a paper "The Perception of Climate Change" in the journal PNAS that claims that recent heat waves and droughts were caused by human-induced climate change. To quote their abstract:

" It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small."

This paper (found here) has been quoted in hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets and newspapers and has garnered the praise of many environmental advocacy groups.

The problem? Their conclusions are demonstrably false and their characterization of the science and statistics are deceptive at best.

Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Climate Distortion

At least we agree to 2 out of 3....

 

[Oddball]

OK. You have a blog for your science, the rest of us have a PNAS publication. As well as peer reviewed articles like those from this source;

AGW Observer

Peer review is a joke.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK. You have a blog for your science, the rest of us have a PNAS publication. As well as peer reviewed articles like those from this source;

AGW Observer

You obviously did not read the blog. The person who wrote it is a meteorologist in the Pacific Northwest and insists that anthropomorphic driven climate change is a fact. The fact that you are willing to reject him simply because he doesn't agree with Hanson proves how much you care about science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am sure the usual idiots are going to pop in here and accuse me of saying something else, but there are some facts we need to get straight.

1. The climate is changing.
2. Humans are having an impact on that change.
3. Hanson is going to destroy all credibility if people think he is representative of the science.

This week, with great fanfare, NASA scientist James Hansen and associates released a paper "The Perception of Climate Change" in the journal PNAS that claims that recent heat waves and droughts were caused by human-induced climate change. To quote their abstract:

" It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small."

This paper (found here) has been quoted in hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets and newspapers and has garnered the praise of many environmental advocacy groups.

The problem? Their conclusions are demonstrably false and their characterization of the science and statistics are deceptive at best.

Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Climate Distortion

At least we agree to 2 out of 3....

At least you are 66% right.

 

[RollingThunder]

OK. You have a blog for your science, the rest of us have a PNAS publication. As well as peer reviewed articles like those from this source;

AGW Observer

You obviously did not read the blog. The person who wrote it is a meteorologist in the Pacific Northwest and insists that anthropomorphic driven climate change is a fact. The fact that you are willing to reject him simply because he doesn't agree with Hanson proves how much you care about science.

I read the "blog" and the dude's analysis is full of holes. He is a meteorologist, not a published climate scientist. Here's his main mistake.

"Let me prove to you now that Dr. Hansen's claims are deceptive. Consider the heat wave in Texas/Oklahoma last year. Below you will find the mean temperatures for July and August over the U.S. (top panels), while below are the differences (anomalies) from normal (or climatology). The anomalies were over 8F in July and over 7F in August.

How big could the global warming signal be? And particularly the warming due to mankind's emission of greenhouse gases? The IPCC is the world scientific body that has examined such questions. They note that human influence should have become significant somewhere in the mid-70s and the generally accepted estimated of the warming of the Northern Hemisphere since then is roughly 1F or C

So I think you can see that the global warming signal due to human-emitted gases could not possibly be more than 1F, and is probably much less. Yet the heat wave last summer, expressed as monthly anomalies, reached 7-8F over large portions of Texas and Oklahoma. What can you conclude? Something other than global warming produced the lion's share of the heat wave..."

He seems to want to assume that extra heat due to anthropogenic global warming is somehow being passed into the environment equally everywhere but that is very clearly not the case. The Arctic region is warming much faster than the rest of the world. The heat added by AGW is causing climate instabilities and more extreme local weather, in some places more than others. Taking the average temperature rise for the whole planet, which Mass claims, rather bizarrely, is "roughly 1F or C" ('C' is not the same as 'F') and making the assumption that any temperature increases in some particular locality that are over one degree must be due only to natural causes is idiotic and fraudulent.

It's a blog!!! HIS blog!!! Let's see him get his dissenting opinions published in a valid and respected peer-reviewed science journal and maybe they will get some consideration in the climate science community. Scientific debate and dispute takes place and gets resolved in the science journals, not on some weatherman's blog.

 

[Old Rocks]

But that is the problem with all too many of the people here. They cannot differantiate between the validity of a blog or an obese junkie on the radio and what is published in peer reviewed journals. Not just in this nation but all over the world.

I really didn't realize that there were this many people that lived in some alternative reality in the stunted minds in this nation. Sad.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK. You have a blog for your science, the rest of us have a PNAS publication. As well as peer reviewed articles like those from this source;

AGW Observer

You obviously did not read the blog. The person who wrote it is a meteorologist in the Pacific Northwest and insists that anthropomorphic driven climate change is a fact. The fact that you are willing to reject him simply because he doesn't agree with Hanson proves how much you care about science.

I read the "blog" and the dude's analysis is full of holes. He is a meteorologist, not a published climate scientist. Here's his main mistake.

"Let me prove to you now that Dr. Hansen's claims are deceptive. Consider the heat wave in Texas/Oklahoma last year. Below you will find the mean temperatures for July and August over the U.S. (top panels), while below are the differences (anomalies) from normal (or climatology). The anomalies were over 8F in July and over 7F in August.

How big could the global warming signal be? And particularly the warming due to mankind's emission of greenhouse gases? The IPCC is the world scientific body that has examined such questions. They note that human influence should have become significant somewhere in the mid-70s and the generally accepted estimated of the warming of the Northern Hemisphere since then is roughly 1F or C

So I think you can see that the global warming signal due to human-emitted gases could not possibly be more than 1F, and is probably much less. Yet the heat wave last summer, expressed as monthly anomalies, reached 7-8F over large portions of Texas and Oklahoma. What can you conclude? Something other than global warming produced the lion's share of the heat wave..."

He seems to want to assume that extra heat due to anthropogenic global warming is somehow being passed into the environment equally everywhere but that is very clearly not the case. The Arctic region is warming much faster than the rest of the world. The heat added by AGW is causing climate instabilities and more extreme local weather, in some places more than others. Taking the average temperature rise for the whole planet, which Mass claims, rather bizarrely, is "roughly 1F or C" ('C' is not the same as 'F') and making the assumption that any temperature increases in some particular locality that are over one degree must be due only to natural causes is idiotic and fraudulent.

It's a blog!!! HIS blog!!! Let's see him get his dissenting opinions published in a valid and respected peer-reviewed science journal and maybe they will get some consideration in the climate science community. Scientific debate and dispute takes place and gets resolved in the science journals, not on some weatherman's blog.

What makes you think he isn't published?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But that is the problem with all too many of the people here. They cannot differantiate between the validity of a blog or an obese junkie on the radio and what is published in peer reviewed journals. Not just in this nation but all over the world.

I really didn't realize that there were this many people that lived in some alternative reality in the stunted minds in this nation. Sad.

I know more about peer reviewed journals than you know about tying your shoe. Not only can I differentiate between a blog and a peer reviewed journal, I know that peer review happens after the paper is published, not before. You think the fact that it got published proves it is true, all it proves is it was published. In other words, it is just as good as a blog.

By the way, do you have any idea why the BEST study funded by the Koch brothers is not being published in a peer reviewed journal?

 

[flacaltenn]

You obviously did not read the blog. The person who wrote it is a meteorologist in the Pacific Northwest and insists that anthropomorphic driven climate change is a fact. The fact that you are willing to reject him simply because he doesn't agree with Hanson proves how much you care about science.

I read the "blog" and the dude's analysis is full of holes. He is a meteorologist, not a published climate scientist. Here's his main mistake.

He seems to want to assume that extra heat due to anthropogenic global warming is somehow being passed into the environment equally everywhere but that is very clearly not the case. The Arctic region is warming much faster than the rest of the world. The heat added by AGW is causing climate instabilities and more extreme local weather, in some places more than others. Taking the average temperature rise for the whole planet, which Mass claims, rather bizarrely, is "roughly 1F or C" ('C' is not the same as 'F') and making the assumption that any temperature increases in some particular locality that are over one degree must be due only to natural causes is idiotic and fraudulent.

The forcing function in question (that of the energy blanket due to GHG) IS UNIFORM and evenly distributed about the surface of the earth. There is NO equivocation about that as fact. And what's being implied here -- is that CLIMATE IS NOT GLOBAL but is dominated by Regional Climate Sensistivities that convert the CO2 forcing function (in W/m2) to regionally varying temperature anomalies..

All this while we still are trying to derive a GLOBAL Climate Sensitivity constant to use in the models. If the climate sensitivity of the Arctic is DOUBLE what it is at moderate lattitudes, then you also have to consider that the forcing function from a 1W/m2SOLAR increase since the 1700s is LIKELY to be a much bigger factor in Arctic climate also.

Or there IS no Global or Regional Climate Sensitivity conversion number and the whole concept is DYNAMIC and dependent on complicated temporal changes in albedo and energy absorption..

Hmmmmm.. All this fuss about single GLOBAL numbers like Mean Annual Surface Temp and Global Climate Sensitivity and POW --- it's more complicated than that. Who would of thunk that? Well -- I never believed that one single number like MASTemp was the answer to anything... Did YOU????

 

[RollingThunder]

You obviously did not read the blog. The person who wrote it is a meteorologist in the Pacific Northwest and insists that anthropomorphic driven climate change is a fact. The fact that you are willing to reject him simply because he doesn't agree with Hanson proves how much you care about science.

I read the "blog" and the dude's analysis is full of holes. He is a meteorologist, not a published climate scientist. Here's his main mistake.

"Let me prove to you now that Dr. Hansen's claims are deceptive. Consider the heat wave in Texas/Oklahoma last year. Below you will find the mean temperatures for July and August over the U.S. (top panels), while below are the differences (anomalies) from normal (or climatology). The anomalies were over 8F in July and over 7F in August.

How big could the global warming signal be? And particularly the warming due to mankind's emission of greenhouse gases? The IPCC is the world scientific body that has examined such questions. They note that human influence should have become significant somewhere in the mid-70s and the generally accepted estimated of the warming of the Northern Hemisphere since then is roughly 1F or C

So I think you can see that the global warming signal due to human-emitted gases could not possibly be more than 1F, and is probably much less. Yet the heat wave last summer, expressed as monthly anomalies, reached 7-8F over large portions of Texas and Oklahoma. What can you conclude? Something other than global warming produced the lion's share of the heat wave..."

He seems to want to assume that extra heat due to anthropogenic global warming is somehow being passed into the environment equally everywhere but that is very clearly not the case. The Arctic region is warming much faster than the rest of the world. The heat added by AGW is causing climate instabilities and more extreme local weather, in some places more than others. Taking the average temperature rise for the whole planet, which Mass claims, rather bizarrely, is "roughly 1F or C" ('C' is not the same as 'F') and making the assumption that any temperature increases in some particular locality that are over one degree must be due only to natural causes is idiotic and fraudulent.

It's a blog!!! HIS blog!!! Let's see him get his dissenting opinions published in a valid and respected peer-reviewed science journal and maybe they will get some consideration in the climate science community. Scientific debate and dispute takes place and gets resolved in the science journals, not on some weatherman's blog.

What makes you think he isn't published?

What makes you think he is? Or are you just blowing smoke, as usual.

In any case, the faulty thesis he posts on his blog has not been published and never will be. If even I can spot his errors on first reading, any real experts are going to reject his nonsense out of hand.

 

[RollingThunder]

But that is the problem with all too many of the people here. They cannot differantiate between the validity of a blog or an obese junkie on the radio and what is published in peer reviewed journals. Not just in this nation but all over the world.

I really didn't realize that there were this many people that lived in some alternative reality in the stunted minds in this nation. Sad.

I know more about peer reviewed journals than you know about tying your shoe. Not only can I differentiate between a blog and a peer reviewed journal, I know that peer review happens after the paper is published, not before.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such a lying retard, Fartbag. You obviously know nothing about the peer review process. Not too surprising, given what a scientific ignoramus you've shown yourself to be. Peer review happens before the paper is published, not after, you flaming nitwit.

Scientific Peer Review Process

There is a great deal of information out there on scientific topics, but what can be trusted? The key question to ask is: Has it been peer reviewed?

The peer review process is a system designed to ensure scientific information is trustworthy and that research is carried out rigorously. It also makes the results of research permanently accessible to other scientists so they can repeat the work or use it to inform their own research.

Peer review works in the following way:

After completing a piece of research, scientists write an article about it, describing areas such as the background and purpose of the research, the methods used, the results they obtained and their interpretations of them.

They then submit the article to the editor of a scientific journal. There are hundreds of scientific journals published worldwide and scientists choose a journal appropriate for their research topic. Some of the more well-known overseas examples include Science, Nature and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). A New Zealand example is the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand (JRSNZ).

The editor then sends the article out to referees, who are experts in the subject the article is about. The referees read the paper and comment on aspects such as the quality of the research, any inaccuracies or shortcomings they see, and whether it is worthy of publication.

The editor then reads the referees’ comments and decides whether the paper should be published in their journal.

If you would like to learn more about the peer review process, go to Sense About Science, Sense about Science

You think the fact that it got published proves it is true, all it proves is it was published. In other words, it is just as good as a blog.

Demonstrating once again that you are scientifically ignorant and extremely retarded.

By the way, do you have any idea why the BEST study funded by the Koch brothers is not being published in a peer reviewed journal?

There are five separate BEST papers and they are almost certainly going to be published in a peer reviewed journal after the peer review process is completed, which hasn't happened yet. I know you dingbat crazy denier cultists have some myths about the BEST papers going around already but you seem to have nothing substantial to back them up.

In any case, the BEST papers only confirm what the entire rest of the climate science community had known for twenty years and they really add very little that is new to the body of scientific information on this subject. It was only especially newsworthy because the study was partially funded by the Koch brothers and because Watts claimed he would accept the results before they came out and then changed his tune when the results offered further proof that the surface station temperature records were not inaccurate and biased as he has claimed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I read the "blog" and the dude's analysis is full of holes. He is a meteorologist, not a published climate scientist. Here's his main mistake.

"Let me prove to you now that Dr. Hansen's claims are deceptive. Consider the heat wave in Texas/Oklahoma last year. Below you will find the mean temperatures for July and August over the U.S. (top panels), while below are the differences (anomalies) from normal (or climatology). The anomalies were over 8F in July and over 7F in August.

How big could the global warming signal be? And particularly the warming due to mankind's emission of greenhouse gases? The IPCC is the world scientific body that has examined such questions. They note that human influence should have become significant somewhere in the mid-70s and the generally accepted estimated of the warming of the Northern Hemisphere since then is roughly 1F or C

So I think you can see that the global warming signal due to human-emitted gases could not possibly be more than 1F, and is probably much less. Yet the heat wave last summer, expressed as monthly anomalies, reached 7-8F over large portions of Texas and Oklahoma. What can you conclude? Something other than global warming produced the lion's share of the heat wave..."

He seems to want to assume that extra heat due to anthropogenic global warming is somehow being passed into the environment equally everywhere but that is very clearly not the case. The Arctic region is warming much faster than the rest of the world. The heat added by AGW is causing climate instabilities and more extreme local weather, in some places more than others. Taking the average temperature rise for the whole planet, which Mass claims, rather bizarrely, is "roughly 1F or C" ('C' is not the same as 'F') and making the assumption that any temperature increases in some particular locality that are over one degree must be due only to natural causes is idiotic and fraudulent.

It's a blog!!! HIS blog!!! Let's see him get his dissenting opinions published in a valid and respected peer-reviewed science journal and maybe they will get some consideration in the climate science community. Scientific debate and dispute takes place and gets resolved in the science journals, not on some weatherman's blog.

What makes you think he isn't published?

What makes you think he is? Or are you just blowing smoke, as usual.

In any case, the faulty thesis he posts on his blog has not been published and never will be. If even I can spot his errors on first reading, any real experts are going to reject his nonsense out of hand.

I suggest you go back and study how debate works. You made a claim that the author of the blog I linked to, who happens to be a professor at the University of Washington, isn't published. I asked you to back that up. You do not get to turn that around and demand I disprove your claim.

For the record, he has published numerous papers, has an actual PhD in climatology, and edits more than one scientific journal.

Go play in the street, he outclasses you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But that is the problem with all too many of the people here. They cannot differantiate between the validity of a blog or an obese junkie on the radio and what is published in peer reviewed journals. Not just in this nation but all over the world.

I really didn't realize that there were this many people that lived in some alternative reality in the stunted minds in this nation. Sad.

I know more about peer reviewed journals than you know about tying your shoe. Not only can I differentiate between a blog and a peer reviewed journal, I know that peer review happens after the paper is published, not before.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such a lying retard, Fartbag. You obviously know nothing about the peer review process. Not too surprising, given what a scientific ignoramus you've shown yourself to be. Peer review happens before the paper is published, not after, you flaming nitwit.

Scientific Peer Review Process

There is a great deal of information out there on scientific topics, but what can be trusted? The key question to ask is: Has it been peer reviewed?

The peer review process is a system designed to ensure scientific information is trustworthy and that research is carried out rigorously. It also makes the results of research permanently accessible to other scientists so they can repeat the work or use it to inform their own research.

Peer review works in the following way:

After completing a piece of research, scientists write an article about it, describing areas such as the background and purpose of the research, the methods used, the results they obtained and their interpretations of them.

They then submit the article to the editor of a scientific journal. There are hundreds of scientific journals published worldwide and scientists choose a journal appropriate for their research topic. Some of the more well-known overseas examples include Science, Nature and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). A New Zealand example is the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand (JRSNZ).

The editor then sends the article out to referees, who are experts in the subject the article is about. The referees read the paper and comment on aspects such as the quality of the research, any inaccuracies or shortcomings they see, and whether it is worthy of publication.

The editor then reads the referees’ comments and decides whether the paper should be published in their journal.

If you would like to learn more about the peer review process, go to Sense About Science, Sense about Science

You think the fact that it got published proves it is true, all it proves is it was published. In other words, it is just as good as a blog.

Demonstrating once again that you are scientifically ignorant and extremely retarded.

By the way, do you have any idea why the BEST study funded by the Koch brothers is not being published in a peer reviewed journal?

There are five separate BEST papers and they are almost certainly going to be published in a peer reviewed journal after the peer review process is completed, which hasn't happened yet. I know you dingbat crazy denier cultists have some myths about the BEST papers going around already but you seem to have nothing substantial to back them up.

In any case, the BEST papers only confirm what the entire rest of the climate science community had known for twenty years and they really add very little that is new to the body of scientific information on this subject. It was only especially newsworthy because the study was partially funded by the Koch brothers and because Watts claimed he would accept the results before they came out and then changed his tune when the results offered further proof that the surface station temperature records were not inaccurate and biased as he has claimed.

Almost certainly?

 

[Oddball]

But that is the problem with all too many of the people here. They cannot differantiate between the validity of a blog or an obese junkie on the radio and what is published in peer reviewed journals. Not just in this nation but all over the world.

I really didn't realize that there were this many people that lived in some alternative reality in the stunted minds in this nation. Sad.

I know more about peer reviewed journals than you know about tying your shoe. Not only can I differentiate between a blog and a peer reviewed journal, I know that peer review happens after the paper is published, not before.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such a lying retard, Fartbag. You obviously know nothing about the peer review process. Not too surprising, given what a scientific ignoramus you've shown yourself to be. Peer review happens before the paper is published, not after, you flaming nitwit.

Scientific Peer Review Process

There is a great deal of information out there on scientific topics, but what can be trusted? The key question to ask is: Has it been peer reviewed?

Peer review is a popcorn fart.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my, ol' Oddie once more demostrating his idiocy.

 

[Oddball]

Blablabla..

The warmerists got caught stacking the deck and cooking the books, by their own auditing agency no less, and all you can do is smear the messenger.

Beyond pathetic.