I have probably never ever seen a video with so many graphs with childish hand written arrows and adjustments done to them. The whole video is a misrepresentation; a sewer stream of lies, conspiracy theories and cherry picked data out of context.
And I’ll prove it.
For a start, its video. It’s not peer reviewed science. It really is nothing more than the usual idiot fossil fuel front group propaganda -made to pander their tribe of amateur deniers -talking points and conspiracy theories all over again.
The climate change denial movement is just a front. So what is it?
It is simply the american fossil fuel industry protecting their self interests and their monetary crane, their money flow, their holy grail, C02. Every piece of propaganda their web of conservative front groups and think tanks and cranks and fake experts has ever created, has this one purpose: Protect the C02. Portraying it as a “gift from God”.
The goal of the fossil fuel industry is to keep its profits rolling in without interference by government or by new, competing energy sources. The polluters know they dont have any science to back up their arguments. So instead they use the best defence method they can. Which is to polarize and politicize the science.
To keep their money flow going they need the public embroiled in doubt and suspicion; they need to degrade public confidence in science and scientists; they need to harm America’s future—and the world’s future—so that one of the wealthiest industries on Earth can engorge itself in even more wealth.
Smearing scientists and undermining "unwanted" science which comes into conflict with self interests and ideology, is all part of the denial propaganda machine:
"Cynicism about the motives of public servants, including government-backed climate scientists, can be traced to a group of neoliberals and their ‘toxic’ ideas".
For the professional deniers it’s called Denial for Profit,
The biggest misconception is how amateur deniers thinks that the contrarian “science” is actually existing because there is a genuine scientific doubt about the theory of AGW. But there is no doubt about this.
All those denier “arguments”, many of them contradicting each other, are not there to challenge the science. They’re there to create confusion. Doubt.
The only reason why fossil fuels attacks the science of climate change is to create enough doubt about it so it can’t be used as an argument to regulate the polluters; to interfere with the money flow. They are protecting their self interests, and Co2 is their monetary crane. It has NOTHING to do with the science. They KNOW our Co2 causes warming. They knew it as early as the 70s:
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago
Exxon: The Road Not Taken
Information from videos tends to get outdated and stigmatized very quickly. And climate science is finding out new stuff about the natural world almost every day. Thus I’ll use updated peer reviewed science in my debunk. Off course, this wont stop amateur climate deniers in recycling this video.
The opinion of any single individual scientist is irrelevant. Consensus matters in science. You will find individual scientist who dispute Einsteins Theory of General Relativity and that’s fine. That’s how science works, but the consensus holds until the evidence convinces otherwise. Dilley is a crank.
There is too much nonsense in the video to go through it all, so:
So, lets debunk the main 4 talking points in the video :
The screenshoot (over) has been debunked many many times. Its from Steven Goddards silly attack on NASA. Debunked here:
Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming
Even fellow deniers like Judith Curry and Anthony Watts over at WUWT have debunked and ridiculed Goddards silly claims:
https://twitter.com/curryja/status/483006570876243968
Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.
.."while it is true that NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record, the word “fabrication” implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn’t exactly the case. [...] “Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication". [...] "I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better,"
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/#comment-130003
https://climatecrocks.com/2014/06/25/fox-news-flash-nasa-fakes-temp-data-obama-born-in-kenya-batboy-found-in-cave/
https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/noaa-and-temperature-data-it-must-be.html
In fact, researchers who have been skeptical of the government’s climate record have looked at the temperature data and found that it holds up (even if it contains errors). Zeke Hausfather, a data scientist, is a member of the group known as Berkeley Earth.
"Despite using different methods, and using about 8 times more raw station data, we ended up with nearly identical results," Hausfather said.
Hausfather provided PunditFact the following graphic. NCDC refers to the National Climatic Data Center, the agency home for the temperature readings. The blue line is Hausfather’s data, the red line is the NCDC’s.
2. “Temperature fiddlin” #2 claim:
This is the very old “global warming stopped in 1998” claim. But brand new Artic data from december 2018 puts the myth to rest once and for all. And no, they did not “add” ocean data because land data “didn’t show what they wanted to”. ALL data DO show the same trend. First the global warming stopped in 1998 myth:
Lets use the good old escalator:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWdJuNYLTLs
New science just in december 2018:
Michael E. Mann
"The 'pause' in global warming in historical context: (II). Comparing models to observations" | New article in Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) by Stephan Lewandowsky, Stefan Rahmstorf, Naomi Oreskes, myself & others: http://iopscience.iop.org/art…/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf372/meta
That Global Warming Hiatus? It Never Happened. Two New Studies Explain Why.
Missing Arctic data was part of the problem. In the end, the idea of a pause, often cited by climate policy opponents, didn’t hold up to statistical testing.
The 1998 year was an super strong El Nino year and temperatures would always flat out a bit after that. A prolonged La Niña-like cooling of eastern Pacific surface waters has helped to offset the global rise in temperatures from greenhouse gases.
There is a clear cycle in solar activity of around 11 years. This has some effect on short-term climate, though it tends to average out over longer time periods. For example, the unusually low solar output in after 2009 may have contributed to slower warming of the Earth’s surface between 1998 and 2013
The 10 Hottest Global Years on Record
2018 takes the podium as one of the hottest years on record. Let’s look deeper.
2018 takes the podium as one of the hottest years on record. Let’s look deeper.
Earth Had Its Fifth Warmest November; 2018 a Lock for 4th Warmest Year on Record by Dr. Jeff Masters | Category 6
For 400 Months in a Row, the Earth Has Been Warmer Than 20th Century Average
BONUS
AND THIS IS VERY FUNNY:
We all remember the UAH-satellite data from Roy Spencer which climate deniers always referred to “as the most reliable data” thus “confirming” the “global warming stopped in 1998” claim.Well, lets look at this data right now. What trend do the UAH data show ? Lets go to the UAH home page:
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climat...
Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.
In the same period, NOAA data shows a trend of 0.10 C per decade! WOW..so much for “data fiddling”.
Climate at a Glance
ALL AVAILABLE TEMPERATURE DATA, INCLUDING SATELLITES, SHOWS THE SAME WARMING TREND of 1.1 C (2.0 F) since about 1880
GISS measures the change in global surface temperatures relative to average temperatures from 1951 to 1980. GISS data show global average temperatures in 2017 rose 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 1951-1980 mean. According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C). That would put the planet's average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).
What Is Earth's Average Temperature?
From the Berkeley Earth page:
Berkeley Earth has examined 16 million monthly average temperature observations from 43,000 weather stations...The weather station data is combined with sea surface temperature data from the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre (HadSST). This ocean data is based on 355 million measurements collected by ships and buoys, including 12 million observations obtained in 2017.
The GISS data from NASA:
Two long-term ocean-only temp series (with 95% conf. intervals) shows the same trend as weather stations and satellite data:
http://www.realclimate.org/index...
The 5 most known temp data, when compared, fits like hand in glove:
Explainer: how surface and satellite temperature records compare | Carbon Brief
Full debunk:
Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Have climate change deniers finally accepted that the 'pause' never happened? One never hears them mention it these days.
3. “Temperature fiddlin” #3 claim:
I really cant see how this is “data fiddling” as the data is correct, but Dilley is putting it outside the “Antartica zone”? Dilleys red circle seems nonsensical.Here he is creating a strawman and a red herring.
This must be the story:
A weather station on the northern tip of the Antarctic peninsula recorded what may be the highest temperature ever on the continent, while a separate study published in the journal Science found that the losses of ice shelf volume in the western Antarctic had increased by 70% in the last decade.
Antarctica records unprecedented high temperatures in two new readings
Later data confirms the 2015 story:
March 1, 2017
Highest temperatures recorded for Antarctic region
The World Meteorological Organization announced today new verified record high- temperatures in Antarctica, ranging from the high 60s (in Fahrenheit) to the high teens, depending on the location they were recorded in Antarctica. Knowledge and verification of such extremes are important in the study of weather patterns, climate variability and human induced change, report scientists.
Highest temperatures recorded for Antarctic region
And as we now also know, Antartica has now even started to loose ice.
Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Which glaciers are significantly retreating due to global warming?
4. “Temperature fiddlin” #4 claim:
And here comes the long long time debunked Richard Tol smear attack on the 97% consensus:
Easily debunked:
THE RICHARD TOL SMEAR ATTACK ON THE COOK 97% STUDY DEBUNKED:
Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis
https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc...
Here are the smear attack with its 24 errors debunked.
THE GREAT PARADOX HERE IS THAT TOL HIMSELF ENDED UP with a very high consensus, He says:
"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans.” and “It will take decades or longer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero—the only way to stabilize its atmospheric concentration.”.
https://skepticalscience.com/cli...
BUSTED: How Ridiculous Richard Tol makes myriad bloopers and a big fool of himself and proves the 97% consensus
BONUS:
THE DAVID ROSE DAILY MAIL NOAA SMEAR CAMPAIGN DEBUNKED:
THE ISSUE:
"David Rose makes the extraordinary claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”, accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data to show more warming in a 2015 study by Tom Karl and coauthors."
World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data
The NOAA study in question:
https://www.nas.org/images/docum...
This smear attack, which was built on hot air, fell apart like a house of cards. Lets debunk it in 3 simple steps:
1. In the fall of 2017, and try not to laugh now, the Daily Mail, the newspaper which first printed the story, published a rebuttal of their own story. It WAS A hoax:
"World leaders had NOT been "duped", as the headline said, and there was no "irrefutable evidence" that the paper was based on misleading, unverified data, as the article had claimed."
IPSO adjudication upheld against MoS climate science article
Here is the fake graph Daily Mail printed, debunked and explained:
The Graph The Daily Mail Does Not Want You To See - Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal
Mail on Sunday gets two measurement series to appear as different by using different starting points. Taking the same starting point for the temperature deviation, the two measuring series become identical. This is directly fraudulent by Mail on Sunday.
2. The NOAA study has since been independently confirmed, scientists went through both the NOAA work and other new estimates for the warming. They find that all estimates conclude equally and use correct methods.Ironicly there is a small bias towards cooling.
Factcheck: Mail on Sunday's 'astonishing evidence' about global temperature rise | Carbon Brief
Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records
BONUS.
Remember those UAH-satellite data from Roy Spencer which climate deniers always referred to “as the most reliable”?
What trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climat...
Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.
In the same period, NOAA data shows a trend of (only) 0.10 C per decade!
Climate at a Glance
NOAA ARE IN FACT ADJUSTING THE TEMPERATURES TOWARDS COOLING:
"Temperature measurements made with different instruments and methods over time must necessarily be adjusted to ensure high-quality records of temperature that reliably represent changes. The adjustments needed for land stations in the United States often increase the apparent long-term warming, but overall, adjustments actually reduce the global warming trend."
The data are made available on their website as the original data, the quality controlled and the homogenised versions on a station-by-station basis. The methods by which they undertake the analysis are fully documented in several papers in the peer-reviewed literature available from their website
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data...
The code they use to determine the adjustments is made available without restriction via their website.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/...
Breitbart repeats blogger’s unsupported claim that NOAA manipulates data to exaggerate warming
The 5 most known temp data, when compared, fits like hand in glove:
Explainer: how surface and satellite temperature records compare | Carbon Brief
3. IT WAS EVEN ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE DATA, ONLY ABOUT ARCHIVING.
These 6 sentences sums up what is was all about:
"Bates himself later told E&E News that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was." In other words: The issue was never the truth of the global warming pause, which most other scientists agree likely didn't happen. Rather, it was a straightforward debate about data archiving and management.
2 people wrongly claimed that a major government institution faked environmental data — and it has people in an uproar
BONUS - MORE DEBUNKS
NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data
FACT CHECK: Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists
No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org
BONUS 2:
YOUTUBE USER midbrew HAS SOME EXCELLENT POINTS:
2:20 Graph Titled: "The Big Pause: No Warming for 18 years. Land + Ocean"
Question 1)
Why are you showing Christy and Spencers UAH Satellite curve of tropospheric temperatures? They are considered by scientists to be the least accurate of the seven different surveys of global surface temperature, not least because they aren't even measuring the SURFACE. The satellites are measuring the temperature of the air thousands of feet above the SURFACE (using microwave attenuations). And in the last 20 years, the UAH survey has had to be corrected no less than SEVEN times. EACH time, the corrected version has shown more warming than the one before.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates
Question 2)
What is so special about '18 years'? Is that a statistically significant time interval for the climate? Is '18 years' one sunspot cycle? A seasonal cycle? A 'Gaian blossoming' cycle? An 'Age of Aquarius'? Seriously, why did you choose '18 years' for your graph? I mean, OTHER than it makes the point you want made. Choose 15 years, and the warming is significant (statistically). Choose 20 years, likewise. But 18 years ago (1996) was the strongest El Nino in 200 years (as of the end-date on your graph, 2014: in 2016 we had a stronger one). You chose '18 years' for the simple reason that it allows you to make the claim 'The Big Pause', and for no other reason. THAT, my friend, is called 'Lying with Statistics'.
2:48 "But we don't see any 'global warming' here, so there's a red flag"
Question 3)
Why are you looking at a graph of atmospheric temperatures to find 'global warming'? The globe is only 1% atmosphere (by heat capacitance). Its 3% polar ice sheets, 3% surface land layers, and 93% ocean water. Why aren't you looking at a graph of OCEAN HEAT CONTENT to find your evidence of 'global warming'? Here is why: Because such graphs show not only WARMING but an ACCELERATION OF WARMING, over the last 18 years.
Also the last 10, the last 25, and the last 50. So, once again, you are 'lying with statistics'. You are ignoring 99% of Earth to claim 'no warming in 18 years' (I know your graph says 'Land + Ocean', but satellites aren't measuring ocean temperatures, they are measuring tropospheric temperatures, which is the atmosphere at least 5,000 feet above Earths surface). If you want to cherry-pick your start dates to coincide with the strongest El Nino in 200 years, and claim you can't find 'global warming' when you ignore 99% of the 'globe', the kindest thing to think about you is that you're ignorant.
And I’ll prove it.
For a start, its video. It’s not peer reviewed science. It really is nothing more than the usual idiot fossil fuel front group propaganda -made to pander their tribe of amateur deniers -talking points and conspiracy theories all over again.
The climate change denial movement is just a front. So what is it?
It is simply the american fossil fuel industry protecting their self interests and their monetary crane, their money flow, their holy grail, C02. Every piece of propaganda their web of conservative front groups and think tanks and cranks and fake experts has ever created, has this one purpose: Protect the C02. Portraying it as a “gift from God”.
The goal of the fossil fuel industry is to keep its profits rolling in without interference by government or by new, competing energy sources. The polluters know they dont have any science to back up their arguments. So instead they use the best defence method they can. Which is to polarize and politicize the science.
To keep their money flow going they need the public embroiled in doubt and suspicion; they need to degrade public confidence in science and scientists; they need to harm America’s future—and the world’s future—so that one of the wealthiest industries on Earth can engorge itself in even more wealth.
Smearing scientists and undermining "unwanted" science which comes into conflict with self interests and ideology, is all part of the denial propaganda machine:
"Cynicism about the motives of public servants, including government-backed climate scientists, can be traced to a group of neoliberals and their ‘toxic’ ideas".
For the professional deniers it’s called Denial for Profit,
The biggest misconception is how amateur deniers thinks that the contrarian “science” is actually existing because there is a genuine scientific doubt about the theory of AGW. But there is no doubt about this.
All those denier “arguments”, many of them contradicting each other, are not there to challenge the science. They’re there to create confusion. Doubt.
The only reason why fossil fuels attacks the science of climate change is to create enough doubt about it so it can’t be used as an argument to regulate the polluters; to interfere with the money flow. They are protecting their self interests, and Co2 is their monetary crane. It has NOTHING to do with the science. They KNOW our Co2 causes warming. They knew it as early as the 70s:
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago
Exxon: The Road Not Taken
Information from videos tends to get outdated and stigmatized very quickly. And climate science is finding out new stuff about the natural world almost every day. Thus I’ll use updated peer reviewed science in my debunk. Off course, this wont stop amateur climate deniers in recycling this video.
The opinion of any single individual scientist is irrelevant. Consensus matters in science. You will find individual scientist who dispute Einsteins Theory of General Relativity and that’s fine. That’s how science works, but the consensus holds until the evidence convinces otherwise. Dilley is a crank.
There is too much nonsense in the video to go through it all, so:
So, lets debunk the main 4 talking points in the video :
- “Temperature fiddling” #1 claim:
The screenshoot (over) has been debunked many many times. Its from Steven Goddards silly attack on NASA. Debunked here:
Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming
Even fellow deniers like Judith Curry and Anthony Watts over at WUWT have debunked and ridiculed Goddards silly claims:
https://twitter.com/curryja/status/483006570876243968
Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.
.."while it is true that NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record, the word “fabrication” implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn’t exactly the case. [...] “Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication". [...] "I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better,"
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/#comment-130003
https://climatecrocks.com/2014/06/25/fox-news-flash-nasa-fakes-temp-data-obama-born-in-kenya-batboy-found-in-cave/
https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/noaa-and-temperature-data-it-must-be.html
In fact, researchers who have been skeptical of the government’s climate record have looked at the temperature data and found that it holds up (even if it contains errors). Zeke Hausfather, a data scientist, is a member of the group known as Berkeley Earth.
"Despite using different methods, and using about 8 times more raw station data, we ended up with nearly identical results," Hausfather said.
Hausfather provided PunditFact the following graphic. NCDC refers to the National Climatic Data Center, the agency home for the temperature readings. The blue line is Hausfather’s data, the red line is the NCDC’s.
2. “Temperature fiddlin” #2 claim:
This is the very old “global warming stopped in 1998” claim. But brand new Artic data from december 2018 puts the myth to rest once and for all. And no, they did not “add” ocean data because land data “didn’t show what they wanted to”. ALL data DO show the same trend. First the global warming stopped in 1998 myth:
Lets use the good old escalator:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWdJuNYLTLs
New science just in december 2018:
Michael E. Mann
"The 'pause' in global warming in historical context: (II). Comparing models to observations" | New article in Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) by Stephan Lewandowsky, Stefan Rahmstorf, Naomi Oreskes, myself & others: http://iopscience.iop.org/art…/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf372/meta
That Global Warming Hiatus? It Never Happened. Two New Studies Explain Why.
Missing Arctic data was part of the problem. In the end, the idea of a pause, often cited by climate policy opponents, didn’t hold up to statistical testing.
The 1998 year was an super strong El Nino year and temperatures would always flat out a bit after that. A prolonged La Niña-like cooling of eastern Pacific surface waters has helped to offset the global rise in temperatures from greenhouse gases.
There is a clear cycle in solar activity of around 11 years. This has some effect on short-term climate, though it tends to average out over longer time periods. For example, the unusually low solar output in after 2009 may have contributed to slower warming of the Earth’s surface between 1998 and 2013
The 10 Hottest Global Years on Record
2018 takes the podium as one of the hottest years on record. Let’s look deeper.
2018 takes the podium as one of the hottest years on record. Let’s look deeper.
Earth Had Its Fifth Warmest November; 2018 a Lock for 4th Warmest Year on Record by Dr. Jeff Masters | Category 6
For 400 Months in a Row, the Earth Has Been Warmer Than 20th Century Average
BONUS
AND THIS IS VERY FUNNY:
We all remember the UAH-satellite data from Roy Spencer which climate deniers always referred to “as the most reliable data” thus “confirming” the “global warming stopped in 1998” claim.Well, lets look at this data right now. What trend do the UAH data show ? Lets go to the UAH home page:
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climat...
Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.
In the same period, NOAA data shows a trend of 0.10 C per decade! WOW..so much for “data fiddling”.
Climate at a Glance
ALL AVAILABLE TEMPERATURE DATA, INCLUDING SATELLITES, SHOWS THE SAME WARMING TREND of 1.1 C (2.0 F) since about 1880
GISS measures the change in global surface temperatures relative to average temperatures from 1951 to 1980. GISS data show global average temperatures in 2017 rose 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 1951-1980 mean. According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C). That would put the planet's average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).
What Is Earth's Average Temperature?
From the Berkeley Earth page:
Berkeley Earth has examined 16 million monthly average temperature observations from 43,000 weather stations...The weather station data is combined with sea surface temperature data from the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre (HadSST). This ocean data is based on 355 million measurements collected by ships and buoys, including 12 million observations obtained in 2017.
The GISS data from NASA:
Two long-term ocean-only temp series (with 95% conf. intervals) shows the same trend as weather stations and satellite data:
http://www.realclimate.org/index...
The 5 most known temp data, when compared, fits like hand in glove:
Explainer: how surface and satellite temperature records compare | Carbon Brief
Full debunk:
Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Have climate change deniers finally accepted that the 'pause' never happened? One never hears them mention it these days.
3. “Temperature fiddlin” #3 claim:
I really cant see how this is “data fiddling” as the data is correct, but Dilley is putting it outside the “Antartica zone”? Dilleys red circle seems nonsensical.Here he is creating a strawman and a red herring.
This must be the story:
A weather station on the northern tip of the Antarctic peninsula recorded what may be the highest temperature ever on the continent, while a separate study published in the journal Science found that the losses of ice shelf volume in the western Antarctic had increased by 70% in the last decade.
Antarctica records unprecedented high temperatures in two new readings
Later data confirms the 2015 story:
March 1, 2017
Highest temperatures recorded for Antarctic region
The World Meteorological Organization announced today new verified record high- temperatures in Antarctica, ranging from the high 60s (in Fahrenheit) to the high teens, depending on the location they were recorded in Antarctica. Knowledge and verification of such extremes are important in the study of weather patterns, climate variability and human induced change, report scientists.
Highest temperatures recorded for Antarctic region
And as we now also know, Antartica has now even started to loose ice.
Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Which glaciers are significantly retreating due to global warming?
4. “Temperature fiddlin” #4 claim:
And here comes the long long time debunked Richard Tol smear attack on the 97% consensus:
Easily debunked:
THE RICHARD TOL SMEAR ATTACK ON THE COOK 97% STUDY DEBUNKED:
Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis
https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc...
Here are the smear attack with its 24 errors debunked.
THE GREAT PARADOX HERE IS THAT TOL HIMSELF ENDED UP with a very high consensus, He says:
"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans.” and “It will take decades or longer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero—the only way to stabilize its atmospheric concentration.”.
https://skepticalscience.com/cli...
BUSTED: How Ridiculous Richard Tol makes myriad bloopers and a big fool of himself and proves the 97% consensus
BONUS:
THE DAVID ROSE DAILY MAIL NOAA SMEAR CAMPAIGN DEBUNKED:
THE ISSUE:
"David Rose makes the extraordinary claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data”, accusing the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of manipulating the data to show more warming in a 2015 study by Tom Karl and coauthors."
World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data
The NOAA study in question:
https://www.nas.org/images/docum...
This smear attack, which was built on hot air, fell apart like a house of cards. Lets debunk it in 3 simple steps:
1. In the fall of 2017, and try not to laugh now, the Daily Mail, the newspaper which first printed the story, published a rebuttal of their own story. It WAS A hoax:
"World leaders had NOT been "duped", as the headline said, and there was no "irrefutable evidence" that the paper was based on misleading, unverified data, as the article had claimed."
IPSO adjudication upheld against MoS climate science article
Here is the fake graph Daily Mail printed, debunked and explained:
The Graph The Daily Mail Does Not Want You To See - Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal
Mail on Sunday gets two measurement series to appear as different by using different starting points. Taking the same starting point for the temperature deviation, the two measuring series become identical. This is directly fraudulent by Mail on Sunday.
2. The NOAA study has since been independently confirmed, scientists went through both the NOAA work and other new estimates for the warming. They find that all estimates conclude equally and use correct methods.Ironicly there is a small bias towards cooling.
Factcheck: Mail on Sunday's 'astonishing evidence' about global temperature rise | Carbon Brief
Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records
BONUS.
Remember those UAH-satellite data from Roy Spencer which climate deniers always referred to “as the most reliable”?
What trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climat...
Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.
In the same period, NOAA data shows a trend of (only) 0.10 C per decade!
Climate at a Glance
NOAA ARE IN FACT ADJUSTING THE TEMPERATURES TOWARDS COOLING:
"Temperature measurements made with different instruments and methods over time must necessarily be adjusted to ensure high-quality records of temperature that reliably represent changes. The adjustments needed for land stations in the United States often increase the apparent long-term warming, but overall, adjustments actually reduce the global warming trend."
The data are made available on their website as the original data, the quality controlled and the homogenised versions on a station-by-station basis. The methods by which they undertake the analysis are fully documented in several papers in the peer-reviewed literature available from their website
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data...
The code they use to determine the adjustments is made available without restriction via their website.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/...
Breitbart repeats blogger’s unsupported claim that NOAA manipulates data to exaggerate warming
The 5 most known temp data, when compared, fits like hand in glove:
Explainer: how surface and satellite temperature records compare | Carbon Brief
3. IT WAS EVEN ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE DATA, ONLY ABOUT ARCHIVING.
These 6 sentences sums up what is was all about:
"Bates himself later told E&E News that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was." In other words: The issue was never the truth of the global warming pause, which most other scientists agree likely didn't happen. Rather, it was a straightforward debate about data archiving and management.
2 people wrongly claimed that a major government institution faked environmental data — and it has people in an uproar
BONUS - MORE DEBUNKS
NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data
FACT CHECK: Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists
No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org
BONUS 2:
YOUTUBE USER midbrew HAS SOME EXCELLENT POINTS:
2:20 Graph Titled: "The Big Pause: No Warming for 18 years. Land + Ocean"
Question 1)
Why are you showing Christy and Spencers UAH Satellite curve of tropospheric temperatures? They are considered by scientists to be the least accurate of the seven different surveys of global surface temperature, not least because they aren't even measuring the SURFACE. The satellites are measuring the temperature of the air thousands of feet above the SURFACE (using microwave attenuations). And in the last 20 years, the UAH survey has had to be corrected no less than SEVEN times. EACH time, the corrected version has shown more warming than the one before.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates
Question 2)
What is so special about '18 years'? Is that a statistically significant time interval for the climate? Is '18 years' one sunspot cycle? A seasonal cycle? A 'Gaian blossoming' cycle? An 'Age of Aquarius'? Seriously, why did you choose '18 years' for your graph? I mean, OTHER than it makes the point you want made. Choose 15 years, and the warming is significant (statistically). Choose 20 years, likewise. But 18 years ago (1996) was the strongest El Nino in 200 years (as of the end-date on your graph, 2014: in 2016 we had a stronger one). You chose '18 years' for the simple reason that it allows you to make the claim 'The Big Pause', and for no other reason. THAT, my friend, is called 'Lying with Statistics'.
2:48 "But we don't see any 'global warming' here, so there's a red flag"
Question 3)
Why are you looking at a graph of atmospheric temperatures to find 'global warming'? The globe is only 1% atmosphere (by heat capacitance). Its 3% polar ice sheets, 3% surface land layers, and 93% ocean water. Why aren't you looking at a graph of OCEAN HEAT CONTENT to find your evidence of 'global warming'? Here is why: Because such graphs show not only WARMING but an ACCELERATION OF WARMING, over the last 18 years.
Also the last 10, the last 25, and the last 50. So, once again, you are 'lying with statistics'. You are ignoring 99% of Earth to claim 'no warming in 18 years' (I know your graph says 'Land + Ocean', but satellites aren't measuring ocean temperatures, they are measuring tropospheric temperatures, which is the atmosphere at least 5,000 feet above Earths surface). If you want to cherry-pick your start dates to coincide with the strongest El Nino in 200 years, and claim you can't find 'global warming' when you ignore 99% of the 'globe', the kindest thing to think about you is that you're ignorant.
