Smackdown: AMS Paper Exposes Media, Scientists As Falsely Hyping Human Attribution In Extreme Weather Events

Source: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2015.4/to:2017.1/plot/rss/from:2015.4/to:2017.1/trend

“Climate models are unable to predict extreme events because they lack spatial and temporal resolution. In addition, there is no clear evidence that sustained or worldwide changes in extreme events have occurred in the past few decades.”    —- IPCC AR4 (2007) Section 8.3.9.3  Page 232


According to no less of an authority than the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is a significant lack of evidence connecting anthropogenic global warming to changes in the frequencies or intensities of extreme weather events (such as storms, hurricanes, droughts, floods, and tornadoes).   In Chapter 2 of the most recent IPCC report (AR5, 2013), for example, we find these (7) conclusions affirming the the lack of clear observational evidence linking extreme weather events to human activity.


IPCC AR5, Chapter 2:

1. “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century”
2. “No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years”
3. “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale
4. “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados
5. “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms
6. “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.”
7. “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low


The IPCC conclusions summarized above are supported by references from the peer-reviewed scientific literature extending through 2013. Since the 5th IPCC report was released 3 years ago, many more scientific papers have been published that also endorse the position that there is not an established link between increases in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events and anthropogenic climate change.  For example:


van der Wiel et al., 2016       “[N]o evidence was found for changes in extreme precipitation attributable to climate change in the available observed record.”
Boos and Sterelvmo, 2016       “Thus, neither a physically correct theoretical model nor a comprehensive climate model support the idea that seasonal mean monsoons will undergo abrupt, nonlinear shifts in response to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol emissions, or land surface albedo.”
Guo et al., 2016       “[T]he combined spatial-temporal variability of U.S. tornado occurrence has remained nearly constant since 1950.”
Chang et al., 2016       “With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade.”
Chen et al., 2017       “[T]here is a close linkage between the weakening of cyclonic activity after the early 1990s and the nonuniform surface warming of the Eurasian continent.”
Sugi et al., 2015       “Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate.”
Chenoweth and Divine, 2014       “Our results suggest that nineteenth century [tropical cyclone] frequency is comparable to that for the same area during the entire satellite era from 1965–2012.”
Cheng et al., 2016       “The results thus indicate that the net effect of climate change has made agricultural drought less likely and that the current severe impacts of drought on California’s agriculture have not been substantially caused by long-term climate changes.”
Hoerling et al, 2016       “[A]ppreciable 35-yr trends in heavy daily precipitation can occur in the absence of forcing, thereby limiting detection of the weak anthropogenic influence at regional scales.”
Kundzewicz et al., 2014       It has not been possible to attribute rain-generated peak streamflow trends [floods] to anthropogenic climate change over the past several decades. … [P]resently we have only low confidence in numerical projections of changes in flood magnitude or frequency resulting from climate change.”
Benito et al., 2015       “[I]n most cases present flood magnitudes are not unusual within the context of the last millennium … [T]he frequency of extreme floods has decreased since the 1950s
Delworth et al., 2015       “In our simulations the tropical wind anomalies account for 92% of the simulated North American drought during the recent decade, with 8% from anthropogenic radiative forcing changes. This suggests that anthropogenic radiative forcing is not the dominant driver of the current drought
McCabe and Wolock, 2015       “[F]or the past century %drought has not changed, even though global PET [potential evapotranspiration] and temperature (T) have increased.”
van Wijngaarden and Syd, 2015       “Changes in annual precipitation over the Earth’s land mass [through 2013]… The trends for precipitation change together with their 95% confidence intervals were found for various periods of time. Most trends exhibited no clear precipitation change. … A change of 1% per century corresponds to a precipitation change of 0.09. mm/year.”
Cai et al., 2014       “Recent drought in 1993–2008 was still within the frame of natural climate variability based on the 306 yr PDSI reconstruction.”
Doerr and Santín, 2016       “[M]any consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.”

So although the science — indeed, the IPCC — is rather clear in documenting the lack of evidence affirming the anthropogenic global warming/extreme weather link, just about every day we are nonetheless barraged with claims that human-caused droughts will destroy all 888 million trees in the US Southwest by 2100, that we humans are causing “weather whiplash” with our CO2 emissions, or that this past year we humans caused eight 500- or 1000-year floods.    In other words, when it comes to advocating for the anthropogenic global warming cause, the observations and evidence contradicting the narrative that says humans have caused more frequent and severe floods, droughts, hurricanes, storms, tornadoes . . . is largely ignored.

Just as the leading temperature graph above illustrates, a warm temperature anomaly is, according to an alleged “consensus” of climate scientists, caused by humans, not natural factors (i.e., the 2015-’16 Super El Niño event).  A cooling temperature anomaly, on the other hand, is just called “natural variability.”   No need to substantively support this “explanation” of human vs. natural attribution with actual scientific evidence.   It is enough just to claim it is so.

Likewise, when severe drought conditions parch the US Southwest — or, as of today, “catastrophic flooding” deluges the very same region — all that needs to be reiterated is that we humans double drought frequencies and triple flood frequencies with our CO2 emissions — regardless of whether this reiteration is supported by observational evidence.  (It is not.)  This way, catastrophic floods and devastating droughts which occur at the same time and in the same place can be said to be human-caused, and each single event can necessarily be claimed to have been driven by anthropogenic climate change.  Those who question (or deny) the “truth” of these human attribution pronouncements deserve to be marginalized as “climate deniers” and “anti-science.”  This seems to be how modern-day “climate science” works.


A Wake-Up-Call Scientific Paper

Perhaps no paper found in a reputable journal (American Meteorological Society’s Weather, Climate, and Society) has been as openly critical of the narrative “science” of extreme weather human attribution as the one just published by University of Manchester’s Janković and Shultz (2017).   The authors pull no punches in boldly asserting that the brand of human attribution science as currently practiced by climate activists such as Michael Mann and Michael Oppenheimer “contradicts the scientific evidence and engenders a “massive oversimplification” or even “misstatement” of the “true state of the science.”  They further question the claims that a pre-industrial or “below 350 ppm [carbon dioxide]” climate is necessarily more benign or less affected by extreme weather, and they warn that “unachievable” CO2 emissions reduction policies are at risk of being classified as “ill advised, ineffective, and disingenuous” if and/or when the public eventually recognizes how flimsy the evidence is upon which these policies are based.

Janković and Shultz even dare to reference the late Dr. Stephen Schneider’s heartfelt rationalization for climate change advocacy by invoking his stated position that climate scientists must necessarily “offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have” so as to “capture the public’s imagination” by “getting loads of media coverage” as a means to advance the cause.  This, of course, is not science.  It is political activism.  Unfortunately, this is all too often the direction that modern “climate science” has been headed in recent years.

What follows are selected excerpts (all direct quotes) from the Janković and Shultz (2017) paper entitled, “Atmosfear: Communicating the Effects of Climate Change on Extreme Weather“.   Considering there were  500 papers supporting a skeptical position on global warming alarm published in scientific journals during 2016, perhaps the publication of wake-up-call, borderline-iconoclastic scientific papers such as this will become more and more commonplace in the near future.  For the sake of salvaging at least some credibility for what has come to be known as modern-day “climate science,” one can only hope.


Janković and Shultz (2017)

‘”[C]limate Change Means More Extreme Weather” Is A Massive Oversimplification—If Not Misstatement—Of The True State Of The Science’

In 2011, the nonprofit science and outreach organization Climate Communication—whose staff and science advisors include, among others, Richard Sommerville, Jerry Melillo, Ken Kaldeira, Kerry Emanuel, Michael Mann, and Michael Oppenheimer—issued the following statement:

As the climate has warmed, some types of extreme weather have become more frequent and severe in recent decades, with increases in extreme heat, intense precipitation, and drought. …  All weather events are now influenced by climate change because all weather now develops in a different environment than before.”

Yet, this statement, as well as numerous others in the popular literature and media stories, contradicts the scientific evidence.

[R]educing the complexity of climate change (as if a single outcome were known) into the soundbite of “climate change means more extreme weather” is a massive oversimplification—if not misstatement—of the true state of the science.

‘Policy Based On Attribution Claims … Run The Risk Of Being Ill Advised, Ineffective, And Disingenuous’

[A] preindustrial climate may remain a policy goal, but it is unachievable in reality.  … [A]ttribution science appears to have a unique potential to boost motivation for climate action because of its appeal to responsibility to prevent socioenvironmental impacts of the anthropogenically charged atmosphere…. [S]ome commentators resort to the language of human rights, government’s malfeasance, and corporate liability. …  [A]ttribution claims allow policy-makers to put forward a case for morally robust policies based on mitigation of greenhouse emissions. Weather extremes are proxies of climate crisis, dismantling the climate complexity into the simpler and more visible conventional idiom of atmospheric hazard. …  It is assumed that a new postanthropogenic atmosphere will be graced by a more benign weather than the anthropogenic one preceding it. … [I]t remains to be determined whether such [CO2 emission reduction] plans ought to be legitimized by a presumed rise in future weather extremes and whether a successful implementation of such plans would result in a demonstrable reduction of socioeconomic damages caused by supercharged weather. If neither of these results is justified, a policy based on attribution claims (and [fear]) runs the risk of being ill advised, ineffective, and disingenuous. 

‘Climate Change Is Not Manageable By A Policy Based On A Mere Scientific Consensus’

Scientists and policy-makers sometimes refer to the status of the unadulterated climate by the preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide, under the assumption that staying below 350 ppm would entail a climatically safer world characterized, among other things, by a decrease of anthropogenically driven extremes. Does a world under the 350-ppm limit (or any other limit) automatically translate into one characterized by a more favorable climate? …  Reducing carbon emissions, regardless of how effective, cannot of itself reduce weather impacts (e.g., Schultz and Janković 2014). …  Climate change is not a discrete problem independent of development imperatives, nor is it manageable by a policy based on a mere scientific consensus (Prins et al. 2010). [E]ven if anthropogenic climate change were effectively stopped, extreme weather would continue. Members of the public and governmental representatives who had been sold on the idea that “stopping climate change will reduce extreme weather events” would understandably question their bill of goods, reducing scientific credibility.

‘Uncritical Attribution Claims … Bolstered By The Cultural And Media Propensity For Hyping Extreme Events’

We believe that the weatherward rather than landward attention results in part from an uncritical adoption of attribution claims that, in turn, shape the perception of climate change as a long-term weirding of weather, bolstered by the cultural and media propensity for hyping extreme events (Leyda and Negra 2015). Attribution claims and atmosfear have helped to consolidate the representation of climate change as a material threat with origins in an adulterated atmosphere, safety from which must be sought in tackling that threat. As a result, in popular parlance, climate change is often represented as a carbon-driven entity (or agency) endowed with a causal power that alters social life and the natural environment (Fleming and Janković 2011; Hulme 2015).

With such events seemingly outside the expected natural range of possibilities, the media increasingly turned to blaming climate change for the severe weather (e.g., Janković 2006; Hulme 2014).

The good cause—one that most of us support—can all too readily corrupt the conduct of science, especially science informing public policy, because we prefer answers that support our political preferences, and find science that challenges them less comfortable (Kellow 2008).

In 1989, Stephen Schneider, one of the leading twentieth-century climate scientists, summarized the need for this particular form of scientific-cum-moral double engagement to Discover magazine.

“[W]e [scientists] are […] working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we [scientists] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

97 responses to “Smackdown: AMS Paper Exposes Media, Scientists As Falsely Hyping Human Attribution In Extreme Weather Events”

  1. SebastianH

    The graph at the top is missleading since it displays one a very short time period. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ (the seasonal mean temperature change graph at the bottom) to see what I mean.

    1. P Gosselin

      GISS dataset, many say, is fraud.

    2. Pethefin

      Sebastian, the graph you refer to is misleading since it displays one very short time period. See http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
      to see what I mean.

    3. DirkH

      SebastianH 9. January 2017 at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Reply
      “The graph at the top is missleading since it displays one a very short time period.”

      How is data misleading when it is labeled correctly?
      Warmunists HATE it when they don’t have total control over everything that is published.
      Fun fact: Ultra warmunist oligarch creep GRANTHAM got his ass kicked:
      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-09/iconic-investor-jeremy-granthams-gmo-loses-40-billion-aum-over-two-years
      GRANTHAM is the person who pays this warmunist attack dog.
      http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/profile/bob-ward/

  2. Ron Clutz
    1. sod

      so el nino, an effect that is based on a band of high ocean temperatures might be linked to water temperatures?

      you might be upon something there! keep investigating!

      1. AndyG55

        Nothing to do with CO2, that is for certain.

        El Nino is a release of pent up solar energy from the oceans, that causes a transient warming of the atmosphere..

        But it is actually a global ocean COOLING event.

        Haven’t you figured that out yet, sop..

        or are you destined to remain IGNORANT forever.

      2. Graeme No.3

        What does the p stand for?

        S is obviously for either stupid or maybe stubborn. O for obtuse.
        p= pathetic? pathological? psychiatric? panic?

        1. yonason

          The “s” could also stand for “scatterbrain.”
          The “d” for dolt or donkey or dimwit.

          Otherwise as you’ve written.

        2. SebastianH

          Is it normal that you guys/gals switch to ad hominem attacks if you feel your beliefs threatened?

          1. AndyG55

            Sop does not threaten any of what we know, neither do you.

            We just get sick of anti-science moronic twerps and their religious, unsubstantiated belief in AGW.

          2. SebastianH

            “We just get sick of anti-science moronic twerps and their religious, unsubstantiated belief in AGW.”

            Language! Sane people do not constantly insult others.

          3. yonason

            “Language! Sane people do not constantly insult others.” – SebastianH

            What is that, like a law of nature, or something?

            You should tell that to David Appell, who right after he writes something to that effect, immediately launches into name calling. (you two aren’t “related” are you?)

            You are long winded and lacking in detail. We give you factual material, and you give us vague warmunist nonsense. You haven’t addressed any of what I’ve shown you, at all.

            Just one illustration of your obfuscation.

            The Dr. Keen video I linked to goes into great detail about what is wrong with warmunist temperature reconstructions. The C3Headlines and Tony Heller links deal with a few specific cases.

            Your response to my posting the C3 and Heller links was…

            “So you are saying there is a large scale conspiracy changing historical measured temperatures and only climate sceptics are telling the truth about it?”

            I responded with Dr, Keen’s video, and you responded with… a wisecrack. Sorry, but while he is “only a climate skeptic” to you, he also happens to be a real climate scientist.

            Just because you don’t like him, you try to delegitimize him by refusing to call him a scientist, but instead a “climate skeptic,” …and then you tell us not to call names!!! You are as big an hypocritical @$$ as David Appell.

            You are impervious to reason, and contemptuous of us when we attempt to reach you with it. Not much left but ridicule of you and your phoniness at this point.

          4. AndyG55

            You are insulting us by bring your idiocy and ignorance here.

            Take it elsewhere and stop insulting our intelligence with your puerile nonsense.

          5. yonason

            “Is it normal that you guys/gals switch to ad hominem attacks if you feel your beliefs threatened?” – Sebastian

            I doubt anyone here feels threatened by you or the idiotic ideas you are pushing. Also, what’s “normal” is to view a dishonest troll with contempt.

            It’s only ad hom when that is ALL one does. If when we provide data you ignore and/or misrepresent it, than any attacks on you are no longer gratuitous, they are earned.

            Judith Curry explains what horrible people many warmists are.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8

            I have no respect for anyone who treats their colleagues so poorly, and that includes those like yourself who support them. As I pointed out before, you “call names” when you refer to climate scientists as “climate skeptics,” contemptuously dismissing their expertise. If you want respect, start acting like an adult instead of a spoiled child.

          6. David Appell

            Sebastian wrote:
            “Is it normal that you guys/gals switch to ad hominem attacks if you feel your beliefs threatened?”

            Sebastian, unfortunately it’s about the only response you’ll see on this blog.

            When they feel out of sorts, or bested, or they don’t understand your science, they respond like children.

            It shows how weak the denier movement actually is.

          7. AndyG55

            Seriously Appell.. you get more and more pathetic every day.

            You have NEVER bested anyone in anything except science fantasy.

            You are nothing but a petulant little brat bringing up the same DESTROYED fantasies day after day after day. Fantasies that you are NEVER able to back up with concrete evidence.

            That is how WEAK and PATHEIC your arguments are.

            You are like a two year old asking “are we there yet”, every 10 seconds ….. ad infinitum..

            …. and you wonder why everybody thinks you are a child-minded idiot.

  3. mothcatcher

    Short time period or not, it actually DOES illustrate the point being made quite well. That is, the choice of anthropogenic attribution vs. natural variation. It isn’t a comment on the immediacy of effect of CO2 variation, and supporting evidence can be found at all timescales.

    As usual, Kenneth has taken a lot of time and trouble to assemble evidence from the scientific community itself. One’s immediate hope is that this paper is startling enough to cause quite a few ripples in the climate-CO2 continuum. However (Kenneth will confirm this) papers expressing similar evidence or evidential summaries are by no means new (Seems that Jankovic has previously published quite similar) without really getting noticed.

    But, thanks Kenneth, please keep it up.

    1. David Appell

      Sorry — blog posts aren’t “papers.”

      The scientific community will pay zero (0) attention to this post, just as they do to all blog posts.

      Blog posts aren’t science.

      If you want to be noticed, publish in a respectable notice. I bet Kenneth is afraid to attempt that.

  4. ole jensen

    As usual, a very impressive article.
    And it seems like Germany is fudging the numbers, when it comes to the consumption of hard coal-anthracite :
    ” Germany used to produce a lot of hard coal, also known as anthracite. In fact, it produced around 60 million tons per year, all used for steel and power generation in the country. In order to fulfill the goal of reducing Germany’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal, the government decided to close down all the coal mines that were getting the anthracite out of the ground; the last operating mine is scheduled to close in 2019. Voila, Germany will then no longer emit “Germany-made” CO2 from coal.
    Believe it or not, the consumption of anthracite in Germany though will remain around 60 million tons per year – but that will no longer produce “German CO2.” Instead, Germany will get its anthracite from imports, mostly from the U.S., and the CO2 resulting from that is not accounted for in Germany’s CO2 emissions.
    Isn’t that a prime example of false accounting?”
    Link to the article here : https://www.iceagenow.info/avoid-crocs-crooks/
    In German : http://www.derwettermann.de/ruhmloser-abgesang-auf-den-steinkohlebergbau.html

    Ole

    1. SebastianH

      And this is what is widely called fake news nowadays. There is no such thing as “German CO2” or some kind of attribution to other countries if the coal was imported … That is ridiculous.

      1. AndyG55

        Yep, it IS TOTALLY RIDICULOUS that Germany thinks it can say it is reducing its CO2 emissions because it is IMPORTING coal, rather than using their own coal.

        But that is how FAKING-IT works in the anti-CO2 agenda.

        1. SebastianH

          Germany isn’t saying any of that.

          You can only reduce CO2 emissions locally by importing the resulting electricity from elsewhere (so emissions rise there and not at your place). Germany is exporting way more electricity as it is importing.

      2. yonason

        @SebastianH

        Are you aware of how they “adjust” their raw data? Funny thing about their “adjustments,” they ALWAYS result in warming the present and cooling the past.
        http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html

        https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

        There’s a lot more, but they should make you aware that a problem just might exist.

        1. SebastianH

          So you are saying there is a large scale conspiracy changing historical measured temperatures and only climate sceptics are telling the truth about it?

          1. Pethefin

            Sebastian you really do not seem to have any idea of what has being going in within the climate science:
            https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/gavin-schmidt-removing-the-1940s-blip/

          2. AndyG55

            There is certainly a group that is changing historical measured temperatures and certainly only climate sceptics are telling the truth about it.

            If you don’t know this, you are very obviously very ill-informed… as your posts show.

          3. yonason

            Large scale conspiracy?

            It would seem so, with politicians holding the purse strings and their accomplices in the field enforcing the faux orthodoxy by denying funding, lab space, access to publications and denying tenure, to any who dare question their lies.

            The only Climatologists who are able to speak out, because they are retired or have tenure, do so. Here’s one who exposes the climate b.s. that you uncritically believe.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

          4. SebastianH

            I do think someone here is uncritically believing something, and I don’t think it is me.

            So, in your eyes everything that is written on this website [1] is part of the conspiracy?

            P.S.: Don’t try to convince me with a video of someone using Comic Sans in a powerpoint presentation about “science”.

            [1]: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

          5. AndyG55

            NOAA are at the forefront of the data adjustment scam.

            Are you so ignorant that you didn’t know that??

            Well yes, you obviously are.

            Here is a map of GHCN data for August.

            See that grey.. NO DATA.. they FABRICATE that data

            And they also know basically nothing about the quality of a lot of their stations. It took A Watts to show what a parlous state the USA system was in, with many stations having massive errors due to positioning.

            One can only imagine what the rest of the world is like.

            A task for you, find all the stations contributing to the temperatures in the yellow circles and provide pictures and data about site history etc etc

            Sorry, but NOAA’s surface data is a total MESS, and their propaganda pap that you linked to is just that… propaganda pap.. served up for the likes of the gullible twerp like you.

          6. yonason

            “I do think someone here is uncritically believing something, and I don’t think it is me.” – SebastianH

            Well, you had a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly. Better luck next time.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NinRn5faU4

            Thanks for playing “What’s my lie?” We look forward to debunking your future nonsensical claims, and, while talking to you is like talking to a wall,…
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USZ6vRY_kWI
            …perhaps in doing so we can help others who are not yet aware of the truth. If so, it will have been worth it.

          7. Will Janoschka

            SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 5:30 PM

            “So you are saying there is a large scale conspiracy changing historical measured temperatures and only climate sceptics are telling the truth about it?”

            There is no need for any conspiracy! The gross incompetence and greed of your Climate Clowns is sufficient! That is all the skeptics wish to bring to light! ‘septic tank’ perhaps!

          8. AndyG55

            whoops , missed the map link…

            https://s19.postimg.org/ek13ihsdv/201608_2.gif

      3. sod

        So where is the evidence of the “german origin CO2”?

        In the real world again, the opposite is happening: “sceptics” are making a huge fuss about CO2 output not sinking in Germany and totally ignore rising electricity exports (so Germany actually is IMPORTING CO2 output, not the other way round!).

  5. tom0mason

    For a real view of weather events see “A Chronology of Notable Weather Events by Douglas V. Hoyt”
    available at http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/climatehistory.pdf

    Read it then come back and talk about extreme weather and natural variation.

    My favorite from about 1700 to about 1760 (one lifetime).

  6. sod

    Smackdown, trends by el nino, neutral and la nina years:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXcA9oq04n4

    ouch.

    1. tom0mason

      Ouch back —

      Dr Benjamin Sander has adjusted the satellite data of UAH and RSS to remove ‘natural variability’ in his paper:
      Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature.
      Sander, et al (Nature Geoscience 7, Feb. 2014)

      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/ngeo2098_F1.html

      This reduces any warming trend to being lost in the noise!
      and a word from a scientist —
      https://youtu.be/EvO7bBuTRno

      1. yonason

        Thanks for that Christy video, tom0mason. I didn’t have it.

    2. yonason

      A video posted by warmist activist liar Nuccitelli??? LOLOL

      An idiot sod is, and an idiot he/she/it will remain.

      Here’s some info by someone who knows what he’s talking about (scroll down for the videos).
      https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-natural-warming-of-the-global-oceans-videos-parts-1-2/

      1. David Appell

        Y: I don’t think you’re capable of discussing science without your need to call everyone else names.

        It’s an indicator of your fear.

    3. AndyG55

      ouch all right.. first screen is a temperature data graph that hold absolutely ZERO resemblance to reality.

      And the LIES and MISINFORMATION just keep on coming.

      That video is of such low quality and so empty of anything resembling science, that would almost certainly receive a “P” in John Cook’s or Al Gore’s “Climate Propaganda 101”

    4. David Appell

      Temperatures by ENSO classification:

      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/01/el-nino-years-compared.html

      They keep getting warmer…..

  7. Will Janoschka

    SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 5:15 PM

    “What do you think heats the oceans? Direct sunlight? That can certainly heat up only the surface, correct?”

    Solar UV power is clearly measurable at ocean depths of 1000 meters. Is that a surface?

    “Does the atmosphere transport heat away from the surface through convection?”

    Yes of course! Atmospheric convection is the ‘only’ significant transport of both sensible and latent ‘heat’, to the higher altitudes for more effective dispatch of thermal electromagnetic flux to space.

    “Is the athmospheric green house effect responsible for losing less energy to space (via radiation) as would otherwise be the case?”

    No never! There exists a measurable increasing thermal radiative exitance to space with increasing altitude, in every IR waveband, all the way to 200km. In the 14-15 micron waveband, increasing atmospheric CO2 above 180ppmv has never limited (reduced)surface thermal radiative exitance in that band.
    There is no fake greenhouse effect. Higher Surface temperature is strictly an atmospheric compressive effect do to Earth’s gravitational field.

    “And are these mechanisms contributing to a warmer surface? And finally: is CO2 a green house gas?”

    No and No!

    SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 11:15 AM

    “El Ninos are not causing warming, they are an effect.”

    Are you now claiming that some greenhouse effect are causing El Ninos? What about all others that claim a gravitational Earth luni-solar influence?

    “As a side note on those papers: What is surprising is that none of the first few papers is dissmissing AGW only its magnitude is discussed. Non of those papers postulate that CO2 is no green house gas or that the green house effect doesn’t exist.”
    The early papers by Kenneth Richards and others did indeed concentrate on the obnoxious thermal magnitude claims of early CAGW proponents.
    I have always postulated that CO2 is no green house gas and that the green house effect doesn’t exist, except as a deliberate SCAM. It is still not known if atmospheric CO2 ‘can’ influence surface temperatures. Your CAGW clan has yet to propose any viable scientific mechanism for such, or any evidence thereof!

  8. Will Janoschka

    SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 5:15 PM

    “What do you think heats the oceans? Direct sunlight? That can certainly heat up only the surface, correct?”

    Solar UV power is clearly measurable at ocean depths of 1000 meters. Is that a surface?

    “Does the atmosphere transport heat away from the surface through convection?”

    Yes of course! Atmospheric convection is the ‘only’ significant transport of both sensible and latent ‘heat’, to the higher altitudes for more effective dispatch of thermal electromagnetic flux to space.

    “Is the athmospheric green house effect responsible for losing less energy to space (via radiation) as would otherwise be the case?”

    No never! There exists a measurable increasing thermal radiative exitance to space with increasing altitude, in every IR waveband, all the way to 200km. In the 14-15 micron waveband, increasing atmospheric CO2 above 180ppmv has never limited (reduced)surface thermal radiative exitance in that band.
    There is no fake greenhouse effect. Higher Surface temperature is strictly an atmospheric compressive effect do to Earth’s gravitational field.

    “And are these mechanisms contributing to a warmer surface? And finally: is CO2 a green house gas?”

    No and No!

    SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 11:15 AM

    “El Ninos are not causing warming, they are an effect.”

    Are you now claiming that some greenhouse effect are causing El Ninos? What about all others that claim a gravitational Earth luni-solar influence?

    “As a side note on those papers: What is surprising is that none of the first few papers is dissmissing AGW only its magnitude is discussed. Non of those papers postulate that CO2 is no green house gas or that the green house effect doesn’t exist.”
    The early papers by Kenneth Richards and others did indeed concentrate on the obnoxious thermal magnitude claims of early CAGW proponents.
    I have always postulated that CO2 is no green house gas and that the green house effect doesn’t exist, except as a deliberate SCAM. It is still not known if atmospheric CO2 ‘can’ influence surface temperatures. Your CAGW clan has yet to propose any viable scientific mechanism for such, or any evidence thereof!

  9. Will Janoschka

    Part 1
    SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 5:15 PM

    “What do you think heats the oceans? Direct sunlight? That can certainly heat up only the surface, correct?”

    Solar UV power is clearly measurable at ocean depths of 1000 meters. Is that a surface?

    “Does the atmosphere transport heat away from the surface through convection?”

    Yes of course! Atmospheric convection is the ‘only’ significant transport of both sensible and latent ‘heat’, to the higher altitudes for more effective dispatch of thermal electromagnetic flux to space.

    “Is the athmospheric green house effect responsible for losing less energy to space (via radiation) as would otherwise be the case?”

    No never! There exists a measurable increasing thermal radiative exitance to space with increasing altitude, in every IR waveband, all the way to 200km. In the 14-15 micron waveband, increasing atmospheric CO2 above 180ppmv has never limited (reduced)surface thermal radiative exitance in that band.
    There is no fake greenhouse effect. Higher Surface temperature is strictly an atmospheric compressive effect do to Earth’s gravitational field.

  10. Will Janoschka

    SebastianH 10. January 2017 at 5:15 PM

    “What do you think heats the oceans? Direct sunlight? That can certainly heat up only the surface, correct?”

    Solar UV power is clearly measurable at ocean depths of 1000 meters. Is that a surface?

    “Does the atmosphere transport heat away from the surface through convection?”

  11. Will Janoschka

    (2)Yes of course! Atmospheric convection is the ‘only’ significant transport of both sensible and latent ‘heat’, to the higher altitudes for more effective dispatch of thermal electromagnetic flux to space.

  12. Will Janoschka
  13. Will Janoschka

    Kenneth Richard 11. January 2017 at 5:58 AM |

    “Please do try to answer these questions I posed, Sebastian, just as I had the courtesy to respond to yours. I will not call you names, insinuate that you are unintelligent, or treat you rudely.”

    Quite nice an respectful Kenneth!
    How come you gits’ta post lots; and I gits’ta post almost nothing?
    All the best! -will-

  14. Will Janoschka

    Kenneth Richard 11. January 2017 at 7:02 AM

    “I’m moderating at the moment, Will.”

    I understand (what a bitch)! I are now going on 78. Will I get more patient or elsewise? Thank You!~

Leave a Reply