Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Roger Peilke Sr.

More junk science BS...

Like father, like son: Roger Pielke Sr. also doesn’t understand the science of global warming — or just chooses to willfully misrepresent it.



RealClimate has just eviscerated Roger Pielke, Sr. in an important post, “More bubkes.” I am going to excerpt it at length because:

1. It thoroughly debunks some now-standard denier talking points on sea level rise, ocean heat content, and Arctic sea ice that the Pielkes, WattsUpWithThat, Inhofe, George Will and others have been pushing.
2. It has some excellent figures, including ones from the recent major peer-reviewed synthesis report of climate science since the 2007 IPCC report (which I wrote about here).
3. Pielke Sr. accused me of “a failure to understand the physics of global warming and cooling” in a post (here) about ocean heat content (which was gleefully reprinted by the anti-scientific website WattsUpWithThat), even though, as RealClimate definitively shows, it is Pielke who either fails to understand the science or chooses to willfully misrepresent it.

In my post “Breaking: NOAA puts out ‘El Ni±o Watch,’ so record temperatures are coming and this will be the hottest decade on record,” I had noted that Pielke Sr. loves to cherry-pick climate data over short time spans to make misleading scientific claims about climate. Climate, of course, is about long-term trends.
The basis for Pielke’s claim I don’t understand the science of climate: “There are peer reviewed analyses that document that upper ocean warming has halted since 2003…. Even the last few years of the Levitus et al 2009 paper shows this lack of warming (see).” And then he links to his discussion of that paper and puts up this figure:

What serious climate scientist would look at that data and have the nerve to tell the public it documents that upper ocean warming has halted since 2003. If you wanted to play this game — and game is a kind word for this willful attempt to mislead the public — you could much more truthfully say “upper ocean warming has soared since 2002.” But both statements are beside the point.

How could any serious climate scientist possibly look at such noisy data, which is full of short-term gyrations and brief, multi-year periods of little obvious warming — but an unmistakable upward trend for decades — and have the audacity to pick the year right after a staggeringly rapid increase in upper ocean warming as the basis of his public pronouncements on this issue? And Pielke Sr. has the chutzpah to say my writing exhibits “a failure to understand the physics of global warming and cooling.” Doctor — heal thyself. It’s sad, really, since, unlike his son, he is actually a “climatologist.”

Pielke Sr. tries the same crap on the climate scientists of RealClimate — and their devastating must-read response should end forever any notion that Roger Pielke, Sr. is a credible source on climate science:

Roger Pielke Sr. has raised very strong allegations against RealClimate in a recent blog post. Since they come from a scientific colleague, we consider it worthwhile responding directly.

The statement Pielke considers “misinformation” is a single sentence from a recent posting:

Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago — such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice.

First of all, we are surprised that Pielke levelled such strong allegations against RealClimate, since the statement above merely summarises some key findings of the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Climate Congress, which we discussed last month. This is a peer-reviewed document authored by 12 leading scientists and “based on the 16 plenary talks given at the Congress as well as input of over 80 chairs and co-chairs of the 58 parallel sessions held at the Congress.” If Pielke disagrees with the findings of these scientists, you’d have thought he’d take it up with them rather than aiming shrill accusations at us. But in any case let us look at the three items of alleged misinformation:

1. Sea level. The Synthesis Report shows the graph below and concludes:

Since 2007, reports comparing the IPCC projections of 1990 with observations show that some climate indicators are changing near the upper end of the range indicated by the projections or, as in the case of sea level rise (Figure 1), at even greater rates than indicated by IPCC projections.

This graph is an update of Rahmstorf et al., Science 2007, with data through to the end of 2008. (Note the comparison is with IPCC TAR projections, but since AR4 projections are within 10% of the TAR models this makes little difference.)

Pielke claims this is “NOT TRUE” (capitals and bold font are his), stating “sea level has actually flattened since 2006” and pointing to this graph. This graph shows a sea level trend over the full satellite period (starting 1993) of 3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/year and is very similar to an independent French analysis of those very same satellite data shown in the Synthesis Report (blue lines above). The best estimate of the IPCC models for the same time period is 1.9 mm/year (coloured dashed lines in the middle of the grey uncertainty range). Hence the conclusion of the Synthesis Report is entirely correct.

The “flattening of sea level since 2006” that Pielke refers to is beside the point and deceptive for several reasons (note too that Anthony Watts has extended this even further to declare that sea level from 2006 to present is actually “flat”!). First of all, trends over such a short sub-interval of a few years vary greatly due to short-term natural variations, and one could get any result one likes by cherry-picking a suitable interval (as Pielke and Lomborg both have). The absurdity of this approach is seen by picking an even more recent trend, say starting in June 2007, which gives 5.3+/-2.2 mm/yr! Secondly, this short-term trend (1.6 +/- 0.9 mm/yr) is not even robust across data sets — the French analysis shown above has a trend since the beginning of 2006 of 2.9 mm/year, very similar to the long-term trend. Third, the image Pielke links to shows the data without the inverted barometer correction — the brief marked peak in late 2005, which makes the visual trend (always a poor choice of statistical methodology) almost flat since then, disappears when this effect is accounted for. This means the 2005 peak was simply due to air pressure fluctuations and has nothing to do with climatic ocean volume changes. The trend from 2006 in the data with the inverse barometer adjustment is 2.1 +/- 0.8 mm/yr.

2. Ocean heat content. The Synthesis Report states:

Current estimates indicate that ocean warming is about 50% greater than had been previously reported by the IPCC.

This is a conclusion of a revised analysis of ocean heat content data by Domingues et al., Nature 2008, and it applies to the period 1961–2003 also analysed in the IPCC report. Pielke claims this is “NOT TRUE” and counters with the claim: “There has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.” But again this is not relevant to the point the Synthesis Report actually makes and again, Pielke is referring to a 5-year period which is too short to obtain statistically robust trends in the presence of short-term variability and data accuracy problems (the interannual variability for instance differs greatly between different ocean heat content data sets):



For good reasons, the Synthesis Report discusses a time span that is sufficiently long to allow meaningful comparisons. But in any case, the trend in from 2003 to 2008 in the Levitus data (the Domingues et al data does not extend past 2003), is still positive but with an uncertainty (both in the trend calculation and systematically) that makes it impossible to state whether there has been a significant change.

3. Arctic Sea Ice. The Synthesis Report states:

One of the most dramatic developments since the last IPCC Report is the rapid reduction in the area of Arctic sea ice in summer. In 2007, the minimum area covered decreased by about 2 million square kilometres as compared to previous years. In 2008, the decrease was almost as dramatic.

This decline is clearly faster than expected by models, as the following graph indicates.

Pielke’s claim that this is “NOT TRUE” is merely based on the statement that “since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.”

Yes, same thing again: Pielke’s argument is beside the point, since the Synthesis Report is explicitly talking about the summer sea ice minimum reached each September in the Arctic, and we don’t even know yet what its value will be for 2009. And Pielke is again referring to a time span (“since 2008”!) that is far too short to have much to do with climatic trends.

We thus have to conclude that there are no grounds whatsoever for Pielke’s wild allegations against us and implicitly the Synthesis Report authors. The final sentence of his post ironically speaks for itself:

Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.

Indeed.

Yes, Pielke actually wrote that the scientific observation that Arctic sea that is “progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” is NOT TRUE because of data “since 2008.” What’s next, Dr. Pielke, we are going to to tell the public that the climate didn’t change since a week ago?
If a graduate student had tried this crap during a thesis defense, he would be denied his degree and thrown out of the Ph.D. program.
It simply boggles the mind to see someone who was once considered a serious climate scientist descend into this kind of desperate misinformation — which is all the sadder for him because it is here permanently in the blogosphere for everyone to seek, including, one hopes, the media.
If you didn’t know beforehand that this guy was Roger Pielke, Jr.’s father, it certainly wouldn’t come as a big surprise:

• Why do deniers like Pielke shout down any talk of a link between climate change and extreme weather?
• Roger Pielke, Jr. baselessly smears the good name of hundreds of top U.S. scientists
• Pielke in Nature: “Clearly, since 1970 climate change “¦ has shaped the disaster loss record.”
• Uber-denier Inhofe misquotes Hadley, gives big wet Valentine’s kiss to Pielke “” go figure!
• Finally, Roger Pielke admits he supports policies that will take us to 5–7°C warming or more

And again, let me end with the warning sign that should flash in every journalist’s mind when they read or hear a statement by anyone named “Roger Pielke”:




https://thinkprogress.org/like-fathe...d68#.gbsknp73r

The 25 billion euro scam proves the whole thing was created to milk people of their money, the greens have been corrupted, everything they do and say is to retain power and credibility while they milk us of more billions.

^ Ah so once again no science.

You need science to tell you we have an ice age then the planet warms up then it cools again, rinse and repeat. But it is nice that people recycle stuff these days so one benefit of the scam.

Pretty well every person the greens attack is probably a nice honest good person doing their job well. The 25 billion euro scam revealed bye der spiegle proves everything ive been saying. All the hard core green supporters here are either like the Nazi leaders, complicit/guilty in everything or like the SS soldiers willing to give their lives for der fuhrer who never lies, who is going to lead them to a better world [for them only]

Tell us BSnoob how much are u making and the rest of you from your pig trough?

Originally Posted by buriramboy

But it is nice that people recycle stuff these days so one benefit of the scam.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Tell us BSnoob how much are u making and the rest of you from your pig trough?

Morons like you lot will cling to any bit of tin foiled nonsense put in front of them. Pathetic.

Notice how the greens here run from the revelation of the 25 billion euro scam bye them and their leftist buddies and guess who their industrial company buds. Yah no right wingers in sight. Its all the left looting the the carbon trade system they set up. Who woulda guessed that its the greens and left who are corrupt. Ya they set up a system they knew they could scam and then they scammed it. And whos paying for it all? Yes the little people. And its sure not the green believers doing it, the bottom rank and file, most of them still are unaware of it. Its the leadership, the propaganda spreaders, the ones who never back down. Just like, just like, umm just like those who post here.

^ Oh shut up.

Every statement BullShitNoob has made about pielke the scientist are pure lies, hes still working at the university, they have not fired him. If anything the greens said was true he would of long ago lost his post at the university. The greens slander any scientist who proves its all a lie. Soon at Harvard is still there, it was all slander and it shows just what kind of people these greens are, they are Nazis, communists, the evil of evil, the low of low.

And I pray that Trump investigates them and holds them accountable.

Princeton Physicist: ‘If global warming were any other branch of science it would have been abandoned a long time ago’




Despite all the hype around the global warming computer models and climate science predictions – reality has not confirmed the often repeated doomsday claims. Stefan Molyneux speak with William Happer about the flaws in the climate science models, obvious errors which have been overlooked, the demonization of CO2 and the implicit bias within climate science.
William Happer is a professor at Princeton University in the field of atomic physics, optics, and spectroscopy. He is a Director with the CO2 Coalition and served as the Department of Energy’s Office of Science Director under the George H. W. Bush administration. Dr. Happer will be speaking at the “Global-Warming: An Inconvenient Lie” conference in Phoenix, Arizona from December 2-4th, 2016.

William Happer has been taken apart on this thread several times. As usual you denialists keep reposting the same the same debunked poppycock. Lack of source material clearly.



In general, belonging to a respected department at a top institution (such as MIT, Princeton, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, etc) gives your word strong authority in the public eye. Richard Lindzen, for example, is known for his work in dynamics and what he has contributed to the referred literature amongst colleagues, but to a general audience he is "Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT." This, of course, is not an intrinsically bad thing-- we accept authority all the time on subjects we know little about. Just last night, I watched a movie called "Double Jeopardy" with Tommy Lee Jones, a film built somewhat around a constitutional law that forbids someone from being tried for the same crime twice. Afterward, I was curious enough to check the internet to see how well the film did at legal interpretation, and I found through wikipedia that a "Harvard law professor" said it was not entirely accurate (though I do recommend the movie, it was quite good). I'm sure he is right, his reasoning made sense to me, and I didn't have a particular interest in researching the matter further.


These respected institutions, in turn, must hire only the best to be the best, and in general to have a position of authority at these places means you have earned it. Nonetheless, they do make mistakes sometimes. Lubos Motl at Harvard comes to mind. Another example is William Happer, a Professor of Physics at Princeton. To me, the credibility of a scientist doesn't just come from what he publishes in the literature, but also what he publishes throughout the internet as well. In the case of many of the more prominent global warming skeptics who have actual publishing experience, much of what they say on the internet is done precisely because it would never get accepted into a journal document. Nonetheless, by placing themselves in a position of authority on the subject, they also position themselves to be criticized for what they say. The same is true of me, or many other climate bloggers who now try to "teach the science."


Just who is William Happer to someone who doesn't really care much? Well, he is "the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University", which probably makes him correct concerning a lot of physical phenomena he chooses to talk about. But then you come across an article such as this (which was then reproduced at Watts Up With That, presumably for the sole reason that it is a disinformation piece).


The outline of the article is to lay to rest the "contemporary moral epidemic" surrounding "the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet." As one would expect from such an opening, there are also the usual references to a climate crusade, money-hungry govermnemts, greedy scientists, etc. For the next 10 paragraphs or so, Happer uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing, except that life needs carbon and it shouldn't be regulated as a "pollutant."

Personally, I have little interest in the legality of making CO2 a "pollutant" or not. I'm quite sure different people here have their own perspective on this, but to me whether we call it a "pollutant" or a "banana" doesn't change its physical properties: CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, and it is important in impeding how efficiently our planet loses radiative heat to space. We don't often think of CO2 as a "pollutant" on Venus, yet it still allows the planet to support temperatures well above the melting point of lead or tin.


Happer then throws in a few classical straw man attacks such as:

"CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 degree Celsius during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2. But correlation is not causation. Roosters crow every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner."

This would, of course, be a perfectly valid counter-argument to would-be fallacious reasoning, yet it isn't the reasoning any real scientist uses, and is therefore a smokescreen. Naturally, the WUWT crowd has eaten it up without thinking twice. The causative mechanism is the underlying radiative physics of how a CO2 molecule interacts with infrared light, and also a wide variety of indirect signatures of climate change induced by agents acting on the longwave part of the spectrum, such as stratospheric cooling or the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.

Happer can't resist throwing in a few outdated one-liners about the Vikings in a "green" Greenland, how CO2 lags temperatures in ice cores, and other boring punchlines that most skeptics don't even bother with anymore. He implies that Earth cooled by about 10 C during the Younger Dryas, but actually the YD was a time of relatively little global temperature change, even though a large area of the planet was actually being affected (see here). There's a whole list of other quick talking points about climategate, the hockey stick, etc that readers here will be well familiar with. What is most surprising to me is that a distinguished physicist apparently has no original thoughts on the matter.


Happer's reasoning is well out of line throughout his entire article, yet that doesn't stop a Princeton physicist from declaring with such confidence that this CO2-induced global warming thing is all a sham. Throughout the article he shows his unambiguous mission to confuse the reader, and his own ignorance concerning the physics of climate. He makes a number of serious accusations against a very large community, something which if unfounded (as it is surely is) should ruin the reputation of any serious scientist. Indeed, for me at least, it has. It is possible his own area of research is so far removed from climate that none of his colleagues will bother to care.


In short, even Princeton can make mistakes in who they decide should represent their department.


https://www.skepticalscience.com/eve...-mistakes.html

Originally Posted by bsnub

William Happer has been taken apart on this thread several times. As usual you denialists keep reposting the same the same debunked poppycock. Lack of source material clearly.



In general, belonging to a respected department at a top institution (such as MIT, Princeton, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, etc) gives your word strong authority in the public eye. Richard Lindzen, for example, is known for his work in dynamics and what he has contributed to the referred literature amongst colleagues, but to a general audience he is "Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT." This, of course, is not an intrinsically bad thing-- we accept authority all the time on subjects we know little about. Just last night, I watched a movie called "Double Jeopardy" with Tommy Lee Jones, a film built somewhat around a constitutional law that forbids someone from being tried for the same crime twice. Afterward, I was curious enough to check the internet to see how well the film did at legal interpretation, and I found through wikipedia that a "Harvard law professor" said it was not entirely accurate (though I do recommend the movie, it was quite good). I'm sure he is right, his reasoning made sense to me, and I didn't have a particular interest in researching the matter further.


These respected institutions, in turn, must hire only the best to be the best, and in general to have a position of authority at these places means you have earned it. Nonetheless, they do make mistakes sometimes. Lubos Motl at Harvard comes to mind. Another example is William Happer, a Professor of Physics at Princeton. To me, the credibility of a scientist doesn't just come from what he publishes in the literature, but also what he publishes throughout the internet as well. In the case of many of the more prominent global warming skeptics who have actual publishing experience, much of what they say on the internet is done precisely because it would never get accepted into a journal document. Nonetheless, by placing themselves in a position of authority on the subject, they also position themselves to be criticized for what they say. The same is true of me, or many other climate bloggers who now try to "teach the science."


Just who is William Happer to someone who doesn't really care much? Well, he is "the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University", which probably makes him correct concerning a lot of physical phenomena he chooses to talk about. But then you come across an article such as this (which was then reproduced at Watts Up With That, presumably for the sole reason that it is a disinformation piece).


The outline of the article is to lay to rest the "contemporary moral epidemic" surrounding "the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet." As one would expect from such an opening, there are also the usual references to a climate crusade, money-hungry govermnemts, greedy scientists, etc. For the next 10 paragraphs or so, Happer uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing, except that life needs carbon and it shouldn't be regulated as a "pollutant."

Personally, I have little interest in the legality of making CO2 a "pollutant" or not. I'm quite sure different people here have their own perspective on this, but to me whether we call it a "pollutant" or a "banana" doesn't change its physical properties: CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, and it is important in impeding how efficiently our planet loses radiative heat to space. We don't often think of CO2 as a "pollutant" on Venus, yet it still allows the planet to support temperatures well above the melting point of lead or tin.


Happer then throws in a few classical straw man attacks such as:

"CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 degree Celsius during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2. But correlation is not causation. Roosters crow every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner."

This would, of course, be a perfectly valid counter-argument to would-be fallacious reasoning, yet it isn't the reasoning any real scientist uses, and is therefore a smokescreen. Naturally, the WUWT crowd has eaten it up without thinking twice. The causative mechanism is the underlying radiative physics of how a CO2 molecule interacts with infrared light, and also a wide variety of indirect signatures of climate change induced by agents acting on the longwave part of the spectrum, such as stratospheric cooling or the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.

Happer can't resist throwing in a few outdated one-liners about the Vikings in a "green" Greenland, how CO2 lags temperatures in ice cores, and other boring punchlines that most skeptics don't even bother with anymore. He implies that Earth cooled by about 10 C during the Younger Dryas, but actually the YD was a time of relatively little global temperature change, even though a large area of the planet was actually being affected (see here). There's a whole list of other quick talking points about climategate, the hockey stick, etc that readers here will be well familiar with. What is most surprising to me is that a distinguished physicist apparently has no original thoughts on the matter.


Happer's reasoning is well out of line throughout his entire article, yet that doesn't stop a Princeton physicist from declaring with such confidence that this CO2-induced global warming thing is all a sham. Throughout the article he shows his unambiguous mission to confuse the reader, and his own ignorance concerning the physics of climate. He makes a number of serious accusations against a very large community, something which if unfounded (as it is surely is) should ruin the reputation of any serious scientist. Indeed, for me at least, it has. It is possible his own area of research is so far removed from climate that none of his colleagues will bother to care.


In short, even Princeton can make mistakes in who they decide should represent their department.


https://www.skepticalscience.com/eve...-mistakes.html

Strange you would quote a research assistant to berate a PhD.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Clearly you know not what you speak. The man is a degreed climate scientist who is doing post graduate work with NASA. He has every right to call out Happer for posting debunked crap. Your comment once again proves your ignorance in how the scientific process works. No one is above scrutiny.

Did you bother to even read the article or the links in it? I didn't think so. Typical brain dead denialist.

If I had not read the article and followed the link how could I have come across the fact he is a research assistan.

You would do well to read your own words.

Everyone who follows this thread knows the hard core extreme greens have been put in charge of nasa's weather dept. Sooooo everything they put out is automatically corrupt and guess what, you use that corrupt info to prove your right. Using corrupt info and being corrupt still doesn't prove you right BullShitNoob.

If the arctic is so warm where the hell did this arctic blast come from? How is it possible after 30 years of none stop global warming for this to be happening? Simple you just change your story when what you have been spouting doesn't happen for long enough. And your trained army of obedient seals just baaaaaaa along with it.

And once again you refuse to answer about Der Spiegles article on the 25 billion euros the greens and left have scammed from global warming in Europe. Its all about the money and power, the more power you have the more money you can scam. Just keep chanting the mantra to the masses global warming, global warming and they will open their pocketbooks to you. They are waking up.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You would do well to read your own words.

I know full well what I wrote you imbecile. Your ignorance of academia once again is glaringly obvious. Almost every professor at one time was a research assistant and many of them commonly correct mistakes that professors make. This man is well on his way to his own doctorate and is supremely qualified to question Happers bogus views on climate change, Furthermore he is not the only scientist to come out against Happers positions there happen to be many others.

Sea ice off the coast of Antarctica and the Arctic hit record lows in November, and scientists are now reporting that, as of December 4, we’ve lost 3.76 million square kilometres of the stuff - more than the total area of India.
As startling as that is, at this point, we shouldn’t really be surprised - last month, temperatures in parts of the Arctic rose 20 degrees Celsius (36°F) above normal, and 2016 is on track to be the hottest year on record.
"There are some really crazy things going on," Mark Serreze, director of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) told Alister Doyle for Reuters.
"It's an extraordinary departure from the norm," added Anders Levermann from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.


that in November 2016, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 9.08 million square kilometres (3.51 million square miles) - the lowest November for Arctic sea ice on record.
That’s 800,000 square kilometres (309,000 square miles) below November 2006, which held the previous record for the lowest levels of sea ice in November.
It’s also 1.95 million square kilometres (753,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average for November.





See more here;

nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

All this melting of ice yet no rise in sea levels and London still isn't a seaside town, I'm sure back in the 80's they were saying London would be submerged by now, but of course it's not a scam.

^ Yep you are so right.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You would do well to read your own words.

I know full well what I wrote you imbecile. Your ignorance of academia once again is glaringly obvious. Almost every professor at one time was a research assistant and many of them commonly correct mistakes that professors make. This man is well on his way to his own doctorate and is supremely qualified to question Happers bogus views on climate change, Furthermore he is not the only scientist to come out against Happers positions there happen to be many others.

I was thinking of the no one is above reproach part

Originally Posted by blue

Just out a common sense

You would not know common sense if it came up and slapped you in the face.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by blue

Just out a common sense

You would not know common sense if it came up and slapped you in the face.

One thing for sure is,you don't have common sense.