Why I haven't bought into the "global warming" hysteria...and neither has Duke University!

[healthmyths]

Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

• Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
• It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
• Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
• These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

Global warming has slowed but our climate models are WRONG Daily Mail Online

Now that a respected University has entered the fray here are several reasons I've not bought into the
global warming hysteria, the religious fervor that warming advocates so fervently exhibit!

Why was 12.5% of the Earth's land mass NOT included in the 60 years of temperature readings?
When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

Remember... before computers, satellites in the last 30 years.. temperatures at the 10,000+ weather recording stations depended on:
1) human eyeballs distinguishing a mercury thermometer where the scale was NOT in tenths but whole degrees.
So pretend you are out in the sweltering heat reading the mercury thermometer 50 years and sweat running into your eyes and you see this:

2) you have to write with a sweaty palm on to a piece of paper the reading.

3) The reading gets transcribed to a central source and what was originally 78 degrees now
transcribed 79 degrees.

Again... these were the procedures before computers/satellites...
and the BASIS for extrapolating the globe has warmed over the last 132 years averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers - PDF). Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most. In the Northern Hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is located, the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years, according to the IPCC.

So based on my simplistic observation that 12.5% of the land mass skewed the readings coupled with before satellites,etc. eyeball observations with penciled transcribe methods give rise to human error..especially when the temperature has changed 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012!

 

[mamooth]

The Daily Mail is a tabloid. The actual study said nothing like what the Daily Mail headline claimed. So, you're going with a crazy tabloid headline over the actual science.

Back in reality, the "natural cycles!" models do not explain the observed stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave, or the the increase in backradiation. Therefore, the "natural cycles" models are proven to be wrong. Only AGW theory explains the observed physical data.

 

[william the wie]

It's even simpler than that even though your point is sufficient.

The math being used was disproven more than half a century ago in two different ways one by Mandelbrot (power law distribution) and the other by Lorenz (Chaos theory).

Even Wikileaks hacks to get the original data and did so again this week.

Climate change methodology makes astrology look like very hard science.

 

[healthmyths]

The Daily Mail is a tabloid. The actual study said nothing like what the Daily Mail headline claimed. So, you're going with a crazy tabloid headline over the actual science.

Back in reality, the "natural cycles!" models do not explain the observed stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave, or the the increase in backradiation. Therefore, the "natural cycles" models are proven to be wrong. Only AGW theory explains the observed physical data.

OK...Global Warming Progressing Slower Than We Thought Environment Nature World News
Global warming is progressing slower than we thought, at least compared to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), according to a new study.

But the point of my simplistic observation STILL for all your "expertise"... you've not addressed!

Newsflash.... there were no computers/satellites 100 years ago did you know that???
People kept track of temperatures by eyeballing and hand writing the results.
I'm sure that the 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012 is REALLY accurate!

Tell me... can you discern 1.53°F difference on this ?

 

[healthmyths]

These "scientists" are NOT part of the CONSENSUS!!!!

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[18][19][20][21]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [22][23]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[24][25]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[26][27][28][29]
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[30][31][32][33][34][35]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[36][37]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[38][39]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[40][41][42][43]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[44][45]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[46][47]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [48][49]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[50][51]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[52][53]
• Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
  
  Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanicemissions.[54]
  These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
  
  • Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[55][56]
  • Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[57][58][59]
  • Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[60][61]
  • Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[62][63]
  • Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[64][65]
  • Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[66][67]
  • David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[68][69]
  • Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[70][71]
  • William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[72][73]
  • William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[74][75]
  • Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[76][77]
  • Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[78][79]
  • William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[80][81]
  • David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[82][83]
  • Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[84][85]
  • Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[86][87]
  • Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[88][89][90]
  • Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[91][92]
  • Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[93][94]
  • Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University[95][96]
  • Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[97][98][99]
  • Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[100][101]
  • Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[102][103]
  • Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[104][105][106][107]
  • Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[108][109]
  • Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[110][111]
  • Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[112][113]
  • George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[114][115]
  • Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[116][117]
  Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
  These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
  
  • Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[118][119]
  • Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[120][121]
  • Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[122][123]
  • John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[124][125][126]
  • Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[127][128]
  • David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[129][130]
  • Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.[131][132]
  • Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[133][134]
  • Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[135][136]
  • Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[137][138]
  Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
  These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
  
  • Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [139][140]
  • Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[141][142]
  • Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[143][144]

 

[Mr. H.]

So, let me get this straight - we are expected to spend tens of trillions of dollars at the cost of tens of millions of jobs in order to achieve.... what?

A .4 degree temperature differential?

 

[healthmyths]

Something the computer models could not consider...

Particles emitted during major volcanic eruptions cool the atmosphere due to a 'parasol' effect that reflects sunlight. The direct impact of these particles in the atmosphere is fairly short, lasting two to three years. However, they alter for more than 20 years the North Atlantic Ocean circulation, which connects surface and deep currents and influences the climate in Europe.
Volcanic eruptions found to durably impact climate through alterations to North Atlantic Ocean circulation -- ScienceDaily
Now this week...
Calbuco erupted twice this week -- once on Wednesday and again on Thursday -- and Chile's national geology and mining service also warned people to prepare for a possible third and "even more aggressive eruption."
Chile Volcano Eruption Hiker Witnesses Exact Moment Calbuco Erupts - ABC News

 

[Wildman]

psssst ! hey gobal warming/climate change/the world is ending freaky geek liberdummies, Earth has been warming/climate changing since BEFORE the last "Ice Age".., , THAT, is why the ice sheet/glaciers melted and caused dry land in some places to become islands, e.g., Florida Keys, Everglades.

 

[FactFinder]

"Why I haven't bought into the "global warming" hysteria"
Perhaps you are a thinking person and not swayed by popular or political opinion.

 

[MaryL]

Really. Must be why my water bills are constantly going up for landscaping. I must be a total liberal lackey for noticing the warming and the less rain here. Sorry guys, I totally NOTICE. Over 40 years I have noticed this.

 

[FactFinder]

Really. Must be why my water bills are constantly going up for landscaping. I must be a total liberal lackey for noticing the warming and the less rain here. Sorry guys, I totally NOTICE. Over 40 years I have noticed this.

40 years, heh? Maybe you should get out more. I live in New England and we just had one of the most brutal winters of all time. I damned freaking wish there was some freaking "global warming".

 

[MaryL]

Really. Must be why my water bills are constantly going up for landscaping. I must be a total liberal lackey for noticing the warming and the less rain here. Sorry guys, I totally NOTICE. Over 40 years I have noticed this.

40 years, heh? Maybe you should get out more. I live in New England and we just had one of the most brutal winters of all time. I damned freaking wish there was some freaking "global warming".

Ditto. We have just have the weakest winter...I know you are dead serious...So am I.

 

[mamooth]

The denier cult acolytes literally don't care that the real world data directly contradicts their cult's "natural cycles!" theory. Religious cultists are like that. They take it as a point of pride that they can't be pushed off ThePathOfTrueBelief by facts and evidence.

Again, the stratospheric cooling, decrease in outgoing longwave IR, and increase in backradiation are smoking guns for global warming theory. If anyone have another theory that explains such observations, they should present it and collect their Nobel Prize. So far, the only theory that does explain the observed data is global warming theory, which is why the whole planet accepts that theory.

 

[dilloduck]

So, let me get this straight - we are expected to spend tens of trillions of dollars at the cost of tens of millions of jobs in order to achieve.... what?

A .4 degree temperature differential?

Make that tens of trillions of dollars to certain people who are pushing this scam for their personal financial gain.

 

[dilloduck]

The denier cult acolytes literally don't care that the real world data directly contradicts their cult's "natural cycles!" theory. Religious cultists are like that. They take it as a point of pride that they can't be pushed off ThePathOfTrueBelief by facts and evidence.

Again, the stratospheric cooling, decrease in outgoing longwave IR, and increase in backradiation are smoking guns for global warming theory. If anyone have another theory that explains such observations, they should present it and collect their Nobel Prize. So far, the only theory that does explain the observed data is global warming theory, which is why the whole planet accepts that theory.

It's the only one so it has to be the right one ? That sounds like something cult acolytes have has pounded in their heads. Really ? ----The only one so it's the right one ??

 

[Old Rocks]

Ok, you have your list. Yet every Scientfic Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Duke to Lima UN Climate Change Negotiations Practicum 2014

Global Problem, Global Solution… Right?
December 21, 2014Uncategorizedcarbon pricing, climate, climate change,international agreement, nations, subnational actionRebekah Givens


One would think that if you have a global problem that there is always (and perhaps only) a global solution. But that way of looking at climate change has become naive and does not allow you to see the entire picture. So often we see states, provinces, and other subnational entities leading the charge with innovative climate policy and initiatives while the national governments sit back arguing over whether or not climate change is really even a problem. Despite the annual COPs, the UNFCCC stage for negotiations, and bilateral discussions (such as the one between US and China), national and international policies are very behind what these subnational actors have been doing for years.

I am not saying that climate change can be solved by a few states in America by creating an Emissions Trading Scheme. If only a few subnational actors make moves to combat climate change, the emissions reductions will never be large enough to solve our problem. But, what I am saying is that someone has to begin to make moves or we won’t ever see a solution. And, historically, it hasn’t been the national governments (or international agreements) that have taken the first steps towards a solution to climate change – it has been the subnational actors. To name just a few:

• British Columbia has implemented a carbon tax in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and are a part of the Pacific Coast Collaborative Agreement with four other subnational parties.
• California has consistently established itself as a leader in environmental protection, as it has much to lose from the effects of climate change. California has many standards and programs in place, but the most notable is likely the cap-and-trade program established by Assembly Bill 32, and recent linkage with Quebec. These linked programs just successfully held their first joint auction preceding COP20.
• China has begun implementing pilot cap-and-trade programs in certain provinces, and if successful, might lead to a national cap-and-trade program in 2016.

Looks like Duke has the same opinion as the other major Universities. The OP is a purposeful mininterpritation of the article.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models Duke Environment

e » About » Recent News » Global Warming More Moderate Than Worst-Case Models
Recent News

• Dukenvironment Magazine

• News Clips

• News Archives

Wenhong Li

• Patrick Brown

Contact:
Tim Lucas, 919-613-8084, [email protected]

NOTE to Editors: Patrick Brown is available for additional comment at (612) 723-1602 or[email protected]. Wenhong Li is available at (919) 684-5015 or[email protected].

DURHAM, N.C. – A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “But this could change.”

The Duke-led study shows that natural variability in surface temperatures -- caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors -- can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade.

More moderate than worse case models. Now that is a vast amount of differance from what the OP implied.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Daily Mail is a tabloid. The actual study said nothing like what the Daily Mail headline claimed. So, you're going with a crazy tabloid headline over the actual science.

Back in reality, the "natural cycles!" models do not explain the observed stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave, or the the increase in backradiation. Therefore, the "natural cycles" models are proven to be wrong. Only AGW theory explains the observed physical data.

Maybe it is sweetie but the research it is identifying is real...............dummy. The reason AGW hasn't resonated in the real world is because its theory.

The regular media is NEVER going to cover this because it is all in on the established narrative of the AGW bozo's!!

 

[skookerasbil]

PS......you don't eliminate the middle class due to 1 degree.

 

[ralfy]

Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

• Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
• It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
• Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
• These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

Global warming has slowed but our climate models are WRONG Daily Mail Online

Now that a respected University has entered the fray here are several reasons I've not bought into the
global warming hysteria, the religious fervor that warming advocates so fervently exhibit!

Why was 12.5% of the Earth's land mass NOT included in the 60 years of temperature readings?
When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

Remember... before computers, satellites in the last 30 years.. temperatures at the 10,000+ weather recording stations depended on:
1) human eyeballs distinguishing a mercury thermometer where the scale was NOT in tenths but whole degrees.
So pretend you are out in the sweltering heat reading the mercury thermometer 50 years and sweat running into your eyes and you see this:
View attachment 40300
2) you have to write with a sweaty palm on to a piece of paper the reading.

3) The reading gets transcribed to a central source and what was originally 78 degrees now
transcribed 79 degrees.

Again... these were the procedures before computers/satellites...
and the BASIS for extrapolating the globe has warmed over the last 132 years averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers - PDF). Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most. In the Northern Hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is located, the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years, according to the IPCC.

So based on my simplistic observation that 12.5% of the land mass skewed the readings coupled with before satellites,etc. eyeball observations with penciled transcribe methods give rise to human error..especially when the temperature has changed 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012!

The content of the article is the opposite of the title of the article, as the former shows that climate models are actually right as they are supposed to give forecasts for multi-decade trends, and that variances from decade to decade go up or down.