Climate change science resources

Mind over Math: Throwing Out the Numbers
Kip Hansen
See what one might gain by looking at a data set from a new perspective which allows us to throw out the numbers and by doing so, arrive at a…
". . . Regular readers of this blog or any other source of science news and science discussion, including the leading journals of science, are well aware of the problem. Because some data set exists –> some scientist/s dig in with statistical analysis of some portion of the data set in an attempt to find a publishable result –> they always find such a result. The fact that the result found is not significant in the real world (for instance, not a Minimal Clinically Important Difference), that the result is trivial, that the result is vanishing small with error-bars that all include zero, that the result is ephemeral, that the result adds nothing to our accumulated knowledge base, that the result depends on the pre-existing bias of the researcher or his field of research, that the result has no applicable reality or that the result is true only in a very limited academic-sort of way – all these are ignored and under-emphasized in the resulting journal paper. The journal paper is then churned into click-bait by the Science Mass Media and presented as newly discovered truth.

Again, I know that there is a lot of good science being done, and some of it does result from careful considered analyses of good data sets about a topic of interest. But there is far too much of the other as in the previous paragraph. . . ."

 

A Thought for the Day
Posted on 09 Mar 21 by JOHN RIDGWAY • 7 Comments


As someone schooled in quantum physics, I’d always looked down on climatologists such as Michael Mann. The sort of shenanigans that he and his ilk would engage in, I assumed, could not be found in the hallowed halls of a ‘hard science’ such as physics. But how wrong I was. Today, Microsoft scientists have had … Continue reading →

 

Scientists Vs. Skeptics
Posted on March 12, 2021 by tonyheller
Ten years ago this week, Jay Inslee brought a “three-foot stack of scientific books” to a congressional global warming hearing and Democrats pitted “recognised climate scientists” vs. “three well-known climate sceptics”



Democrats roll out climate change big guns, Republicans remain immune | Climate change | The Guardian

Apparently no cherry-pick is below climate alarmists' dignity. . . .

 

Record Breaking Rain Claims Don’t Stand Up To Scrutiny
Charles Rotter
However, the fact that England & Wales are not seeing the same increases totally discredits the theory that a warmer atmosphere is driving heavier rain. Instead we need to look…
". . . So often in climate science, we come across shoddy studies like this one, where it is evident that the authors have decided on the conclusions at the outset, and then manipulate the data until it agrees."

 

How about the sun:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020-00674-0/figures/1

This graph shows how disingenuous it is to characterize the temperature regime of the early 19th century as "pre-industrial." "Post-grand-solar-minimum" would have the advantage of descriptive accuracy as well as scientific relevance.

 

Its a Bit more Complicated
Guest Blogger
The plant matter stuff reported in PNAS is obviously true. So Greenland did mostly melt about 1 mya; otherwise those plants could not have existed there then, however briefly. But…

 

The nonsense that is the Paris Accord:

A Lot of Hot Air
Posted on 16 Mar 21 by MARK HODGSON • 5 Comments


There are a number of problems with the much-touted Paris Agreement, of totemic value to the climate-concerned. These include a lack of an effective process for monitoring compliance, the number of loopholes, and more. But the most fundamental problem seems to be that there is such an obvious lack of true commitment shown by key … Continue reading →

 

"Stupid is as stupid does."

This was written by a meteorologist?
David Middleton
Guest “I’ve lost track of how many things this guy got wrong” by David Middelton WEATHER Humans are causing climate change: It’s just been proven directly for the first time…

 

Big money to undermine the US economy.
Green Activists With China Ties Are Jeopardizing U.S.

Kevin Mooney, DC Examiner

 

How Science Has Been Corrupted

Matthew Crawford, UnHerd

 

Watts Up With That?

Why Models Can’t Predict Temperature: A History Of Failure

May 9, 2021

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Excerpt:

This is a long and technical posting. If you don’t want to read it, don’t whine.

The first scientist to attempt to predict eventual warming by doubled CO2, known to the crystal-ball gazers as equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS), was the Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius, a chemist, in 1896. He had recently lost his beloved wife. To keep his mind occupied during the long Nordic winter, he carried out some 10,000 spectral-line calculations by hand and concluded that ECS was about 5 C°.

However, he had relied upon what turned out to be defective lunar spectral data. Realizing this, he recalculated ten years later and, in 1906, published a second paper, in which he did what climate “scientists” refuse to do today: he recanted his first paper and published a revised estimate, this time in German, which true-believing Thermageddonites seldom cite:

(Snip)

His corrected calculation, published in the then newly-founded Journal of the Royal Nobel Institute, suggested 1.6 C° ECS, including the water-vapor feedback response.

Guy Stewart Callendar, a British steam engineer, published his own calculation in 1938, and presented his result before the Royal Society (the Society’s subsequent discussion is well worth reading). He, too, predicted 1.6 C° ECS, as the dotted lines I have added to his graph demonstrate:

LINK

 

Climate book shelf
Posted on May 10, 2021 by curryja | 76 comments
by Judith Curry

Reviews of new books by Steve Koonin, Matthew Kahn and Marc Morano.

Continue reading →

 

New Scientific Scandal Shaking The Climate Alarm Industry
May 09, 2021/ Francis Menton

• 
  As readers at this site are well aware, the field of climate “science” and alarmism is subject to an extraordinary degree of orthodoxy enforcement, where all information supporting the official narrative gets enthusiastically promoted, while all information disagreeing with the official narrative gets suppressed or attacked. For just one recent example of the latter, see the Wall Street Journal editorial in the current weekend edition reporting on a bogus Facebook “fact check” of the Journal’s recent review of Steven Koonin’s new book “Unsettled.”
  
  
• In this context, an article just out on May 6 in the journal Science is truly remarkable. The article is titled “Does ocean acidification alter fish behavior? Fraud allegations create a sea of doubt.” It has the byline of Martin Enserink, Science’s international news editor.
  
  
• Science has a long history of publishing every sort of climate alarmism, and of being an unreceptive forum for anything expressing any sort of skepticism, let alone alleging fraud in claims of climate alarm.
  
  
• Something serious must be going on here.
  

READ MORE

 

Climate Reflections
Charles Rotter
Many here at WUWT may have, as I previously did, thought that a ‘scientific’ rebuttal sufficed against warmunists (see footnote 22 to essay Climatastrososphistry in ebook Blowing Smoke for the…

 

These professors think poverty is the solution to climate change.

Degrowth: Universities Push Permanent Poverty as the Solution to Climate Change
Eric Worrall
According to modelling by University of Sydney and ETH Zürich, scaling back total production and placing a cap on maximum wealth would not only save the planet, it would also…

 

Horrifying.

 

What Climate Science Tells Us and What It Doesn't
Richard Schulman, Founders

 

The Union of Concerned Scientists tries to “cancel” Steve Koonin
Andy May
By Andy May I’ve written about the far left-wing Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and their anti-democratic attempts to suppress free-speech and free-thought before (see here). There are more details…

 

Clickbait is a winner: The most cited articles in top science journals turned out to be flops

Skeptics have known for years that Nature was more about fashion than science. A parody from 2019.

When it comes to scientific truths, even in top journals like Science and Nature, the more wrong it is, the more it gets cited. Even after other researchers have failed to repeat it, and been published saying so, the citations don’t slow down. Almost 9 out of 10 of the new citations keep citing it as if it were still correct. Who said science was self-correcting?

It’s so bad that the junkier articles in Nature and Science that couldn’t be replicated were cited 300 times as often as the more boring papers that could be replicated. In other words, the supposedly best two science journals, and the industry that reads them, have become a filter for eye-candy-science-junk.

And it was all so predictable — with the fixation on “counting citations” as an inane substitute for analysis: we got what we didn’t think about. The drive to get citations and media headlines means the modern industry of science has become a filter to amplify sensationalism, not science.

Science is a form of entertainment, not a search for the truth.

A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more
The authors added that journals may feel pressure to publish interesting findings, and so do academics. For example, in promotion decisions, most academic institutions use citations as an important metric in the decision of whether to promote a faculty member.

This may be the source of the “replication crisis,” first discovered the early 2010s.

So much for the theory that peer reviewed journals are supposed to be the rigorous guardians of modern science. . . .

 

The IPCC predicts nothing, that is the first misinformation you provided.

 

EPA Disappears More Inconvenient Climate Data, Including the 1930s U.S. Dust Bowl
ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS MAY 26, 2021

 

Follow the science.
New Study: Burden Of Proof Is On AGW Proponents As Ice Cores ‘Invalidate’ CO2-Driven Climate Change
By Kenneth Richard on 31. May 2021

Share this...
A French physicist recounts the evidence affirming temperature changes are the cause of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations throughout the last 423 thousand years of the ice core record, thus invalidating the claims of more than a negligible role for CO2 in affecting climate changes.
In a new study Dr. Pascal Richet re-emphasizes the “most fundamental tenet of science, the principle of non-contradiction” in reviewing the extensive ice core evidence showing CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes by as much as 7,000 years – the “opposite conclusion” of “a driving role [for] CO2 assigned by climate models”.

This fundamental failure of cause-effect experimental evidence “invalidates” claims CO2 is a key climate forcing agent. Therefore, as Dr. Richet urges, “one should then reject the Arrhenian paradigm” because a “cardinal rule in science is to reject a hypothesis that clearly contradicts the experimental findings it is supposed to account for”. . . .

 

Here's an interesting point that's sometimes overlooked.

Mathematical Proof of the Greenhouse Effect
Guest Blogger
As a physicist, I’m as certain of the reality of the Greenhouse Effect as I am that 1 + 1 = 2.

". . . Note that being certain about the GHE being real is different than being certain about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), the hypothesis that human-caused increases in the concentrations of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere are causing highly problematic changes in the Earth’s climate.

AGW is a far more complex phenomenon than the GHE alone. One can be skeptical about AGW while totally accepting the reality of the GHE. . . ."

 

Blog

 

Translation: I have no counterpoint to offer.

Meanwhile the Physics Professor strongly argues that CO2 has a warm forcing effect, which most climate realists never dispute.....

Carry on.......