2013 : The Year Climate Science Went Full Criminal

Check out this whopper in the Guardian today

Planet likely to warm by 4C by 2100, scientists warn

New climate model taking greater account of cloud changes indicates heating will be at higher end of expectations

Professor Steven Sherwood, at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, who led the new work, said: “This study breaks new ground twice: first by identifying what is controlling the cloud changes and second by strongly discounting the lowest estimates of future global warming in favour of the higher and more damaging estimates.”

“Climate sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect,” said Sherwood. “But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more.”

Planet likely to warm by 4C by 2100, scientists warn | Environment | theguardian.com

Actually, what we are finding is that many climate scientists now lie about everything in order to keep their funding intact. The climate models predicting more warming have been shown to be completely useless.

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs (2)

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg (960×864)

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to 2013 : The Year Climate Science Went Full Criminal

  1. Paul Clark says:

    Night is day; black is white; ignorance is strength; more sea ice is warmth…no you’re not going crazy: it’s Through The Looking Glass with Climate Science! Really, who believes these clowns anymore?!

  2. pinroot says:

    It turns out that Professor Steven Sherwood is a colleague of Professor Chris Turney (currently stuck in the summer ice at Antarctica), both at University of Australia at NSW (http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/staff/academic.html). Thick as thieves…

  3. Joe says:

    Are those adjusted global temps? Why is ’98 such a cool year compared to mid-2000’s?

  4. Colorado Wellington says:

    Damn the facts! Full speed ahead!

  5. tomwys says:

    Professor Sherwood’s “We are finding” remarks break new ground in wishful thinking!!!

    Andrei Illarionov’s Urban Heat Island (UHI) observations (he was Putin’s climate advisor) are not new, nor unique to Russia. Claims that the HadCRUT series mirrored the UHI effect have been around for some time – I believe Professors Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, and William Happer have mentioned them too.

    What irritates me even more, is the change from HadCRUT 3 to 4, when retaining methodological consistency, an additional 125 Russian stations were added to the data set that created HadCRUT4, with only 8 Antarctic additions (where there is certainly no UHI effect).

    The result is striking, and not at all unexpected. It is the upward translation (in a mathematical sense) of the data set as a whole, allowing media parroting of “…the warmest years ever…” even though we have reached what properly should be called a “plateau,” and one in slight decline to boot!!!

    When you numerically weight the UHI affected stations against the few Antarctic ones (where it is getting colder), the HadCRUT4 additions have a 13 to one ratio in favor of temperature increase. As the newly added bias is added to an already large data set, the increase recorded by the HadCRUT4 is evident, but not abnormally large.

    This is what formed the background of my grief with HadCRUT4. It is not that the data is inaccurate for the stations used – it IS accurate. But the fact that the injection of the NH vs SH stations in the “updated” temperature database clearly “raises” worldwide temperatures (as shown in the chart you posted) while in fact they are going sideways and slightly down, is subterfuge at best; perhaps not “Full Criminal,” but certainly on the edge!

  6. gator69 says:

    “This study breaks new ground twice: first by identifying what is controlling the cloud changes…”

    More settled science, based upon models.

    • Streetcred says:

      Let’s be sure of one thing, Gator, ‘Professor’ Steven Sherwood could not identify his ass from his elbow even if it was located in his forehead.

  7. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    For other definitions of “Con Artist” see also “Climate Scientist”, “IPCC Member” “NASA GISS Employee”, UNSW Professor”

    Gotta keep the scam rolling to keep those First Class seats on the R&D Gravy Train.

  8. Gamecock says:

    “Skeptics say our models are crap. They were right. But now, NOW, we’ve got it right and you can trust us with your life and economy.”

  9. geran says:

    Someday, when all this AGW crap is totally finished, no one will ever trust computer models again.

    Oh, wait….

  10. Andy Oz says:

    Pakistan is winding down funding for the criminals and the religion goes full mental!
    Next we will hear of climate drone strikes on Pakistan for daring to go against the new religion.

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/653005/no-escape-from-climate-change/
    “We are committing ourselves to mobilise the largest number of people in every single country in the world to say to every parent, ‘your child and your grandchildren’s future is at stake. You need to stand up now and take action’.”

    Here is one parent saying to Greenpeace et al – “You guys are full of crap!!!”

  11. R. de Haan says:

    On par with the criminal establishment.

    2014, 40.000 new laws………http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/31/40000-new-laws-take-effect-in-2014/#

  12. Bob Greene says:

    I guess he has looked at clouds from both sides now. Sounds like he is stuck on clouds illusions.

    I thought current belief was clouds cool.

    • gator69 says:

      Both Sides Now

      Woes and blows to warmist scares
      Excise schemes now in cross hairs
      And weather claxons now despair
      I’ve looked at clouds that way

      We all know that they block the sun
      And rain and snow on everyone
      So many things frauds would have done
      But clouds got in their way

      We’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
      From cool and warm, and still somehow
      Warmist delusions I recall
      They really don’t know clouds at all

      Loons and goons with feckless deals
      Are busy advancing their ideal
      And so their fairytale reveal
      We’ve heard them yack away

      But now it’s not supposed to snow
      So we’re laughing as they eat crow
      And polar bears, their numbers grow
      Hint: check the Hudson bay

      We’ve looked for signs of high tides now
      From near and far, no rise somehow
      Warmist delusions we recall
      They really don’t know squat at all

      Tears and fears and feeling proud
      To say “It’s bullshit!” right out loud
      Dreams and schemes of circus clowns
      The crooks’ in disarray

      This now transends just acting strange
      We shake our heads, they’re so deranged
      They’re data’s lost, still unexplained
      United Nations way

      We’ve heard their crap, their sacred cow
      From kin and news and still somehow
      It’s Mann’s delusions I recall
      He really don’t crap at all

      I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
      From cool and warm, and still somehow
      Those warmists really are dirt balls
      They really don’t know clouds at all

  13. jeremyp99 says:

    Sherwood’s a buddy of the fuckwit leading the expo to the Antarctic.

  14. Dave G says:

    What we should always ask in these situations…. is HOW MUCH MORE f%&*@#N colder would it be this winter if we didn’t have CO2 at 400 ppm?

  15. matayaya says:

    As a non-scientist trying to follow climate science, I read the warming and skeptic arguments equally. We all bring our own experienced eyes to a debate and sense what is true to us from our own personal experience. All of the recent post on Real Science support the idea that the earth is not warming or not warming as fast as has been claimed. Sometimes the skeptics argue that the earth may be warming but that it is all natural causes. My instincts tell me that is wrong and the other side is right in saying that significant warming is occurring and it is man made. .
    I know plants and insects. I have lived in warmer climates as a young man for many years and colder northern climates as an older man for many years. Personally seeing plants and insects from those warmer climates start to appear in the more northern colder climates lends support to the argument that the earth is warming. Plus, I distinctly remember winters as a younger man in the warmer southern climate and see today that winters here in the more northerly colder climate have have changed in the past 30 years since I moved here to become similar to the southern winter I remember more than 30 years ago. Apart from anecdotal extreme cold weather events, my skeptic friends will admit in moments of candor that, overall, winters are milder.
    I know the science and scientist are far from perfect, but the scientist that say the earth is warming have more credibility with me than someone using tortured, arguments trying to say the earth is not warming. I trust my own eyes and skin.

    • gator69 says:

      Your personal observations of warming are right in line with natural climate variations, and your ‘belief’ that part of the measured warming is man made is spot on, as Steven shows in his graphs here.

    • Bruce of Newcastle says:

      Matayaya – The key number in your post is ’30’.

      Thirty years ago was the bottom of the 60 year cycle. We have just past the peak of this cycle.

      This is the problem with us humans. We can remember thirty years easily, but twice that is too much for personal experience, as we don’t live long enough to really digest the full 60 year cycle, let alone the 207 year de Vries solar cycle which also peaked in about 2005.

      The 0.74 C of warming last century was real. Not much was due to CO2, maybe 0.1 C of it. We are now starting to retrace the other 0.64 C because the natural drivers have reversed.

      Keep in mind also if you live in a city that the Urban Heat Island effect is locally much larger too. There is a lot more asphalt and many more air conditioners now than there were thirty years ago. The air cons remove heat from inside buildings and put it outside – the heat still exists until the wind gets around to blowing it away.

      • gator69 says:

        “The air cons remove heat from inside buildings and put it outside – the heat still exists until the wind gets around to blowing it away.”

        Don’t be silly Bruce, heat sinks to the bottom of the oceans, at least since the late 1990’s.

      • matayaya says:

        In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. Don’t be so quick to disregard CO2. Regarding the “urban heat” factor, superimpose the satellite view of the earth at night showing the urban concentrations over the map showing the most rise in heat. The urban areas show the .7c increase you note as typical for that latitude while the more significant heat acceleration is the Arctic at 1.5c. The urban heat effect is negligible.

        • PDO shift in 1977 caused 1977-1998 warming.

        • matayaya says:

          Empirical measurements of the Earth’s heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

        • Bruce of Newcastle says:

          In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend.

          Matayaya – Where is your evidence? In the last decade the Sun was at its most active for millenia.

          The data I see shows a rise of about 0.9 C due to the Sun at the latitude of the UK from the late 1970’s to the 2000’s.

          I don’t disregard CO2, I measure its effect. Using the linked paper and the 60 year cycle in the temperature data you can measure 2XCO2 by difference. I get 0.7 C/doubling by this method using 250 years of the HadCET dataset.

          An ECS of 0.7 C/doubling is too small to be harmful.

          And yes I am a scientist, with relevant experience in stats, modelling and data analysis. And no funding from anyone – which is the most important point nowadays.

          (BTW I can provide many links to papers and data in support, but above 2 links and comments go into moderation, which is a pain for Steve)

        • matayaya says:

          Bruce, As I said before, I am not a scientist. I waded thru your links best I could. Seeing how our scientists are on both sides of the AGW debate, all scientists have to be taken with a grain of salt. The lay public has been drawn into this debate and has lined up in what appears to be partisan political formation. Therefore it is important that scientists engaging in this debate speak in layman terms as much as possible. Just because one can present science in a highly technical manner does not denote having a monopoly on the truth. Unfortunately, climate science has been cheapened to the level of politics. So, the debate has to proceed in a political manner, engaging the layman. Simply attacking the character and motives of the other side does not win the debate.
          What I get from your sources is that sunspots may have contributed to some warming that we see in the past and today. Fine, point taken. No one is saying natural variability like sunspots, ENSO and volcanos do not affect temperatures up and down. What the AGW crowd is saying is that in addition to whatever natural effects are going on, you can’t account for all of the warming we see only with natural causes. You have to include CO2 released by humans to explain it. Proxy records going way back show a clear leap frogging of temperatures and CO2. They clearly feedback on each other. Nothing else we see today explains it better.
          Either it is my computer skills or my 32 bit computer, but I can’t seem to insert direct links for some of my assumptions. NASA has some highly credible looking graphs showing sunspot activity being down for the past 30 years. They put men on the moon and Hubble in orbit, so I tend to think they are credible. You asked for my sources, I suggest goggle sun activity and climate and a ton of stuff comes up supporting my position. There is lots of skeptical stuff there as well and I try to read much of that as well. If I am not understanding something, at least I am trying.

        • Eric Webb says:

          So in a feeble attempt to try & discredit the solar influence on climate you purposely cherry pick the strongest solar cycle since records began in the 17th century as your starting point. Sad. The real issue here regarding solar influence is its relationship to cosmic ray flux that leads to increased cloud production, thus a negative feedback on global temperatures. This relation is clearly evident when looking at the general trend from the data from Oulu Neutron Monitor. Note the higher activity in the 1960s & 70s, with neutron counts bottoming out in the 80s & into the 90s when global temperatures subsequently rose also thanks in part to the warm PDO/AMO combo. Neutron counts have increased in the 2000s & have remained relatively high in spite of the current dismal solar spike. Put this in combination with the PDO that cooled in 2007 & the Atlantic which based on the faltering Thermohaline Circulation appears to be soon headed for the cold phase, global temperatures should fall in response.

          which actually peaked “Don’t be quick to disregard CO2” Sorry, but the actual science says an 100ppm increase in CO2 won’t do much to spiking global temps, other natural forces like ENSO & its associated MJO, SOI, & CCEW (Convectively Coupled Equatorial Waves), AMO, PDO, cosmic ray flux, sunspot cycles, have a much more significant on global impact on climate in the intraseasonal, interdecadal, & even millennial timescales compared to CO2. http://venturaphotonics.com/GlobalWarming.html

        • matayaya says:

          Eric, all that may be true and it would fit in with natural variability that no one denies. From my perspective, there is an additional impact going on in addition to all that which AGW offers the best explanation. I guess we just have to agree to disagree, respectfully I hope.

    • Scott Scarborough says:

      You actually think you can feel 0.5C average temp. change over your life time? Do you realize that is akin to the people who think they can feel radio waves? Or do you think that the temperature change is larger than the people who have already been caught lying in climategate are saying?

    • tom0mason says:

      As the hacked emails show the CAGW is nothing to do with science but everything to do with socialist politics.
      CAGW be all and end all is the politics of taking money from the successful western nations and ‘donating’ (enslaving) the developing nations. Plenty of the monies are by design consumed by the UN and it’s vast pool of NGOs.

      CO2 is not detrimental to life on this planet, the UN is.

  16. Steve Case says:

    “Going from 300 to 400 PPM CO2 has had very little impact on Earth’s radiative transfer balance.”

    B I N G O !

    Since 1850 according to HADCRUT4 temperatures are up about 0.8°C. If the models and their CO2 climate sensitivity values were correct, temperatures should have gone up double that amount. They haven’t, the models are wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s